UNITED STATES

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

Washington, D.C. 20549

SCHEDULE 14A

(RULE 14A-101)

INFORMATION REQUIRED IN PROXY STATEMENT

SCHEDULE 14A INFORMATION

Proxy Statement Pursuant to Section 14(a) of the

Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (Amendment No.     )

Filed by the Registrantþ ☑

Filed by a Party other than the Registrant¨ ☐

Check the appropriate box:

Webster Financial Corporation

(Exact 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):

March 13, 201517, 2017

To the Shareholders of

Webster Financial Corporation:

You are cordially invited to attend the Webster Financial Corporation Annual Meeting of Shareholders to be held on Thursday, April 23, 201527, 2017 at 4:00 p.m., Eastern Time, at the Webster Bank Resource Center, 436 Slater Road, New Britain Connecticut 06053.Museum of American Art, 56 Lexington Street, New Britain, CT 06052.

At the Annual Meeting, you will be asked: (i) to elect eleventen directors to serve for one-year terms; (ii) to approve, on a non-binding, advisory basis, the compensation of the named executive officers of Webster; (iii) to ratify the appointment of KPMG LLP as the independent registered public accounting firm of Webster for the year ending December 31, 2015;2017; (iv) to approvevote, on a non-binding, advisory basis, on the material terms for paymentfrequency of performance basedan advisory vote on the compensation of the named executive officers of Webster; and (v) to transact any other business that properly comes before the Annual Meeting or any adjournments of the meeting.

We encourage you to read the accompanying Proxy Statement, which provides information regarding Webster and the matters to be voted on at the Annual Meeting. Also enclosed is our 20142016 Annual Report.

It is important that your shares be represented at the Annual Meeting. Whether or not you plan to attend the Annual Meeting, you may vote your common shares via a toll-free telephone number or on the Internet or you may complete, date, sign and return the enclosed proxy card in the enclosed postage-paid envelope. If you attend the meeting and prefer to vote in person, you may do so.

WEBSTER FINANCIAL CORPORATION

Webster Plaza

145 Bank Street

Waterbury, Connecticut 06702

800-325-2424

NOTICE OF ANNUAL MEETING OF SHAREHOLDERS

TO BE HELD ON APRIL 23, 201527, 2017

To the Shareholders of

Webster Financial Corporation:

NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVENthat the annual meeting of shareholders (the “Annual Meeting”) of Webster Financial Corporation (“Webster”) will be held on Thursday, April 23, 201527, 2017 at 4:00 p.m., Eastern Time, at the Webster Bank Resource Center, 436 Slater Road, New Britain Connecticut 06053,Museum of American Art, 56 Lexington Street, New Britain, CT 06052, for the following purposes:

    The Board of Directors has fixed the close of business on February 23, 201527, 2017 as the record date for the determination of shareholders entitled to notice of and to vote at the Annual Meeting. Only shareholders of record at the close of business on that date will be entitled to notice of and to vote at the Annual Meeting or any adjournments thereof.

Waterbury, Connecticut

March 13, 201517, 2017

IT IS IMPORTANT THAT YOU VOTE PROMPTLY. THEREFORE, WHETHER OR NOT YOU PLAN TO ATTEND THE ANNUAL MEETING, PLEASE VOTE YOUR COMMON SHARES VIA THE TOLL-FREETOLL- FREE TELEPHONE NUMBER LISTED ON THE PROXY CARD, THE INTERNET OR BY MAIL.

Important Notice Regarding the Availability of Proxy Materials for the Annual Meeting to Be Held on April 23, 2015:27, 2017: This proxy statement,Proxy Statement, along with our Annual Report on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended December 31, 20142016 and our 20142016 Annual Report, are available free of charge on the Investor Relations section of our website (www.wbst.com).

WEBSTER FINANCIAL CORPORATION

Webster Plaza

145 Bank Street

Waterbury, Connecticut 06702

800-325-2424

PROXY STATEMENT FOR ANNUAL MEETING OF SHAREHOLDERS

TO BE HELD ON APRIL 23, 201527, 2017

Solicitation, Voting and Revocability of Proxies

This Proxy Statement (the “Proxy Statement”) is being furnished to the shareholders of Webster Financial Corporation, a Delaware corporation (“Webster” or the “Company” or the “Corporation”), as part of the solicitation of proxies by its Board of Directors from holders of its outstanding shares of Common Stock, par value $.01 per share (the “Common Stock”), for use at the Annual Meeting of Shareholders of Webster to be held on Thursday, April 23, 201527, 2017 at 4:00 p.m., Eastern Time, at the Webster Bank Resource Center, 436 Slater Road, New Britain Connecticut 06053Museum of American Art, 56 Lexington Street, New Britain, CT 06052 (the “Annual Meeting”) and at any adjournments thereof. The Proxy Statement, together with the enclosed proxy card, is being mailed to shareholders of Webster on or about March 13, 2015.17, 2017.

The Annual Meeting has been called for the following purposes:

1. To elect eleventen directors to serve for one-year terms (Proposal 1);

2. To approve, on a non-binding, advisory basis, the compensation of the named executive officers of Webster (Proposal 2);

3. To ratify the appointment by the Board of Directors of the firm of KPMG LLP as the independent registered public accounting firm of Webster for the year ending December 31, 20152017 (Proposal 3);

4. To approvevote, on a non-binding, advisory basis, on the material terms for paymentfrequency of performance-basedan advisory vote on the compensation underof the 1992 Stock Option Plannamed executive officers of Webster (Proposal 4); and

5. To transact any other business that properly comes before the Annual Meeting or any adjournments thereof.

If you vote using the enclosed proxy card, your shares will be voted in accordance with the instructions indicated.Executed but unmarked proxies will be voted:

1.   FOR the election of the Board’s nominees as directors;

2.  FOR the approval, on a non-binding, advisory basis, of the compensation of the named executive officers of Webster;

3. FOR the ratification of the appointment of Webster’s independent registered public accounting firm; and

4.  FOR the approvalholding of an advisory vote on the compensation of the material terms for paymentnamed executive officers of performance-based compensation under the 1992 Stock Option Plan.Webster every year.

Except for procedural matters incident to the conduct of the Annual Meeting, the Board of Directors does not know of any matters other than those described in the Notice of Annual Meeting that are to come before the Annual Meeting. If any other matters are properly brought before the Annual Meeting, the persons

1

named in the proxy will vote the shares represented by such proxy on such matters as determined by a majority of the Board of Directors. The proxies confer discretionary authority to vote on any matter of which Webster did not have notice at least 30 days prior to the date of the Annual Meeting.

The presence of a shareholder at the Annual Meeting will not automatically revoke that shareholder’s proxy. A shareholder may, however, revoke a proxy at any time before it is voted: (i) by delivering either a written notice of revocation of the proxy or a duly executed proxy bearing a later date to Frederik F. Erikson,John H. Beers, Assistant Secretary, Webster Financial Corporation, 145 Bank Street, Waterbury, Connecticut 06702; (ii) by re-voting by telephone or on the Internet; or (iii) by attending the Annual Meeting and voting in person.

The cost of soliciting proxies for the Annual Meeting will be borne by Webster. In addition to use of the mails, proxies may be solicited personally or by telephone or telecopy by directors, officers and employees, who will not be specially compensated for such activities. Webster also will request persons, firms and companies holding shares in their names or in the name of their nominees, which are beneficially owned by others, to send proxy materials to and obtain proxies from those beneficial owners and will reimburse those holders for their reasonable expenses incurred in that connection. Webster also has retained Morrow & Co.,Sodali LLC, a proxy soliciting firm, to assist in the solicitation of proxies at a fee of $7,500 plus reimbursement of certain out-of-pocket expenses.

Who Can Vote - The securities which can be voted at the Annual Meeting consist of shares of Common Stock of Webster with each share entitling its owner to one vote on all matters properly presented at the Annual Meeting. There is no cumulative voting of shares. The Board of Directors has fixed the close of business on February 23, 201527, 2017 as the record date for the determination of shareholders of Webster entitled to notice of and to vote at the Annual Meeting. On the record date, there were 6,9946,017 holders of record of the 90,445,48092,018,876 shares of Common Stock then outstanding and eligible to be voted at the Annual Meeting.

Voting - If your Common Stock is held by a broker, bank or other nominee (i.e., in “street name”), you should receive instructions from that person or entity that you must follow in order to have your shares of Common Stock voted. If you hold your Common Stock in your own name and not through a broker or another nominee, you may vote your shares of Common Stock:

Whichever of these methods you select to transmit your instructions, the proxy holders will vote your Common Stock in accordance with your instructions. If you give a proxy without specific voting instructions, your proxy will be voted by the proxy holders as recommended by the Board of Directors.

Vote by Telephone - If you hold your Common Stock in your own name and not through your broker or another nominee, you can vote your shares of Common Stock by telephone by dialing the toll-free telephone number printed on your proxy card. Telephone voting is available 24 hours a day until 11:59 p.m., Eastern Time, on April 22, 2015.26, 2017. Easy-to-follow voice prompts allow you to vote your shares of Common Stock and confirm that your instructions have been properly recorded.If you vote by telephone, you do not need to return your proxy card.

Vote by Internet - If you hold your Common Stock in your own name and not through your broker or another nominee, you can vote via the Internet. The website for Internet voting is printed on your proxy card. Internet voting is available 24 hours a day until 11:59 p.m., Eastern Time, on April 22, 2015.26, 2017. As with telephone voting, you will be given the opportunity to confirm that your instructions have been properly recorded.If you vote via the Internet, you do not need to return your proxy card.

2

Vote by Mail - You can vote by mail by signing, dating and returning the enclosed proxy card in the enclosed postage-paid envelope.

The presence, in person or by proxy, of at least one-third of the total number of outstanding shares of Common Stock entitled to vote at the Annual Meeting is necessary to constitute a quorum at the Annual

2

Meeting. Assuming the presence of a quorum at the Annual Meeting, directors will be elected by a majority of the votes cast by shares present in person or represented by proxy and entitled to vote. The affirmative vote of the majority of the votes cast is required to approve the non-binding, advisory vote on the compensation of the named executive officers of Webster, to approve the material terms for paymentnon-binding advisory vote on the frequency of performance-basedvoting on the compensation underof the 1992 Stock Option Plan,named executive officers of Webster, and to ratify the appointment of Webster’s independent registered public accounting firm. Shareholders’ votes will be tabulated by the persons appointed by the Board of Directors to act as inspectors of election for the Annual Meeting.

Under New York Stock Exchange Rule 452, which governs NYSE brokerage members, brokerage firms may not vote on non-routine matters in their discretion on behalf of their clients if such clients have not furnished voting instructions. A “broker non-vote” occurs when a broker’s customer does not provide the broker with voting instructions on non-routine matters for shares owned by the customer but held in the name of the broker. For non-routine matters, the broker cannotProposal 3 concerns a routine matter and thus brokerage firms may vote, either FORin person or AGAINST aby proxy, on such proposal and reports the numberon behalf of such shares as “non-votes.”their clients without voting instructions. Because none of the other matters to be voted upon at the Annual Meeting are considered routine matters under Rule 452, except for the ratification of the appointment of the independent registered public accounting firm, there potentially can be broker non-votes at the Annual Meeting. Both abstentions and broker non-votes will be treated as shares present for purposes of determining the presence of a quorum at the Annual Meeting. Abstentions and broker non-votes will not be counted for purposes of determining the number of votes cast on Proposals 1, 2, or 4 and, therefore, will have no effect on the outcome of the votes for those proposals. Abstentions will not be counted for purposes of determining the number of votes cast on Proposal 3 and, therefore, will have no effect on the outcome of the vote for that proposal. Proposal 3 concerns a routine matter and thus brokerage firms may vote, in person or by proxy, on such proposal on behalf of their clients without voting instructions.

Electronic Delivery of Proxy Materials - As a shareholder, you have the option of electing to receive future proxy materials (including annual reports) online over the Internet. This online service provides savings to Webster by eliminating printing, mailing, processing and postage costs associated with hard copy distribution. You may enroll for this service on the Internet after you vote your shares in accordance with the instructions for Internet voting set forth on the enclosed proxy card. You may also enroll for electronic delivery of future Webster proxy materials at any time on the Company’s website atwww.wbst.com. Under “Electronic Enrollment,” select the “Click Here To Enroll” link. Then select the box indicating your appropriate form of share ownership, and follow the instructions for electronic delivery enrollment. In the future, you will receive an email message, at the address you provided while enrolling, informing you that the Webster proxy materials are available to be viewed online on the Internet. Follow the instructions to view the materials and vote your shares. Your enrollment in electronic delivery of Webster proxy materials will remain in effect until revoked by you.

Annual Report on Form 10-K - Webster is required to file an annual report on Form 10-K for its 20142016 fiscal year with the Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”). Shareholders may obtain, free of charge, a copy of the Form 10-K by writing to Frederik F. Erikson,John H. Beers, Assistant Secretary, Webster Financial Corporation, 145 Bank Street, Waterbury, Connecticut 06702. Our annual report on Form 10-K is available on the Company’s website,www.wbst.com.

3

ELECTION OF DIRECTORS

(Proposal 1)

At the Annual Meeting, eleventen directors will be elected to serve for one-year terms. Unless otherwise specified on the proxy, it is the intention of the persons named in the proxy to vote the shares represented by each properly executed proxy for the election as directors of the persons named below as nominees. The Board of Directors believes that the nominees will stand for election and will serve if elected as directors. If, however, any person nominated by the Board fails to stand for election or is unable to accept election, the proxies will be voted for the election of such other person as the Board of Directors may recommend. Assuming the presence of a quorum at the Annual Meeting, directors will be elected by a majority of the votes cast by shares present in person or represented by proxy and entitled to vote at the Annual Meeting. There are no cumulative voting rights in the election of directors.

As required by Webster’s Bylaws, directors must be elected by a majority of the votes cast with respect to such director in uncontested elections (number of shares voted “for” a director must exceed the number of votes cast “against” that director). In a contested election (a situation in which the number of nominees exceeds the number of directors to be elected), the standard for election of directors will be a plurality of the shares represented in person or by proxy at any such meeting and entitled to vote on the election of directors. In addition, under Webster’s Bylaws, incumbent directors nominated for reelection are required, as a condition to such nomination, to submit a conditional letter of resignation. In the event an incumbent nominee for director fails to receive a majority of the votes cast at an annual meeting, the Nominating and Corporate Governance Committee will consider the resignation and make a recommendation to the Board whether to accept or reject the resignation, or whether other action should be taken. The Board will act on the Nominating and Corporate Governance Committee’s recommendation and publicly disclose its decision and the rationale behind it within 90 days from the date the election results are certified. The director who failed to receive a majority of the votes cast will not participate in the Board’s decision.

Information as to Nominees

The following table sets forth the names of the Board of Directors’ nominees for election as directors, all of whom are current directors of Webster. Also set forth in the table is certain other information with respect to each such person’s age at December 31, 2014,2016, the periods during which such person has served as a director of Webster and positions currently held with Webster and its wholly owned subsidiary, Webster Bank, National Association (“Webster Bank”).

In keeping with Webster’s Qualification Guidelines for Board Members, Mr. Jacobi will be retiring from the Board effective with the 2017 Annual Meeting of Shareholders, as he will have reached the retirement age of 75. He has served on the Board since 1993. The Board of Directors greatly appreciates Mr. Jacobi’s deep commitment and extraordinary contributions to Webster’s growth and progress.

4

Following the table are biographies of each of the nominees which contain information regarding each such person’s business experience, director positions held currently or at any time during the last five years, information regarding involvement in certain legal or administrative proceedings, if applicable, and the experiences, qualifications, attributes or skills that caused the Nominating and Corporate Governance Committee and the Board of Directors to determine that such person should serve as a director as of the time of filing of this Proxy Statement. Each director brings a strong and unique background and set of skills to the Board, giving the Board as a whole competence and experience in a wide variety of areas, including corporate governance, board service, executive management, business, finance and marketing. The process undertaken by the Nominating and Corporate Governance Committee in recommending qualified candidates is described beginning on page 13 under “Corporate Governance—Governance - Director Qualifications and Nominations.”

William L. Atwellis managing director of Atwell Partners, LLC, a Darien, Connecticut based company which provides consulting services and market insights to the financial services industry. Mr. Atwell was President of CIGNA International at CIGNA Corporation from 2008 to 2012. Earlier in his career, Mr. Atwell held various senior positions with The Charles Schwab Corporation, including President, Individual Investor Enterprise and Schwab Bank. Mr. Atwell began his career at Citibank where he held various senior executive roles. He is Chairman of the Board of Blucora, Inc. (NASDAQ:BCOR), a provider of technology-enabled financial solutions headquartered in Bellevue, Washington. Mr. Atwell serves as an independent trustee of AQR Mutual Funds (AQR Capital Management LLC) and chairs the Nominatingits nominating and Governance Committeegovernance committee and is a member of the Audit Committee.its audit committee. Mr. Atwell serves as a trustee and is the former Chairman (2012-2015) of the Fairfield University board of trustees. Mr. Atwell is a member of the Compensation Committee and the Risk Committee.

5

Mr. Atwell’s role as a former President of CIGNA International and thirty five35 years of executive experience in the retail financial services industry, including banking, brokerage and insurance, provides insight regarding Webster’s opportunities and challenges.

Joel S. Beckeris Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of Torrco, a Waterbury, Connecticut based wholesale distributor of plumbing, heating and industrial pipe valve and fitting supplies to contractors and industry. Mr. Becker is a member of the Compensation Committee and the Nominating and Corporate GovernanceRisk Committee.

Mr. Becker’s experience as Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of a local business in Webster’s market area combined with more than twenty-five25 years of experience on Webster’s Board gives him unique insight into Webster’s challenges, opportunities and operations. He also has extensive experience in public company executive compensation as a result of his over nine years of service as Chair of the Compensation Committee.

John J. Crawfordis President of Strategem LLC, a New Haven, Connecticut based company which provides consulting services to the business and not-for-profit community on business and financial strategies. Mr. Crawford served as President, Chief Executive Officer and a director of Aristotle Corporation, a New Haven, Connecticut based education training company from October 1992 through December 2002. Mr. Crawford continued to serve on the Board of Directors of Aristotle Corporation until August 31, 2005. From 1994 until December 2000, he served as President and Chief Executive Officer of the South Central Connecticut Regional Water Authority, New Haven, Connecticut. Mr. Crawford is Lead Director, Chair of the Nominating and Corporate Governance Committee and a member of the RiskAudit Committee and a member of the Executive Committee.

Mr. Crawford’s extensive executive and corporate governance experience as a former Chief Executive Officer of three companies, including a financial institution, and his fifteen plus20 years of service on Webster’s Board, including twelvefourteen years as the Lead Director, provides him with a seasoned view of Webster’s operations and challenges.

Robert A. Finkenzelleris President of Eyelet Crafters, Inc., a Waterbury, Connecticut based company that manufactures deep drawn metal parts for the cosmetics, writing instrument and drapery hardware fields. Mr. Finkenzeller has held this position since 1990. Mr. Finkenzeller is a member of the Audit Committee and the Nominating and Corporate Governance Committee.

Mr. Finkenzeller brings meaningful corporate governance experience to the Board having served as a member of the Audit, Compensation, Nominating and Corporate Governance, and Risk Committees. Mr. Finkenzeller is an executive of a business based in Webster’s market area and has over twenty-five years of experience on Webster’s Board.

Elizabeth E. Flynnis was Vice Chairman of Marsh, LLC in New York, New York, a global leader in insurance broking and risk management.management until her retirement on December 31, 2015. Ms. Flynn was President of Marsh’s Insurance Services Group from September 2012 to May 2013, and CEO and President of Marsh U.S. Consumer from October 2011 to September 2012. From June 2010 to October 2011, she served as Global Chief Operating Officer at Guy Carpenter & Company, LLC. Earlier in her career, Ms. Flynn was Senior Vice President, Restructuring Office/Divestitures, at American International Group, and worked more than 20 years at JP Morgan Chase & Company in various senior executive roles. Ms. Flynn is a member of the Audit Committee and the Nominating and Corporate Governance Committee.

Ms. Flynn’s former role as Vice Chairman of Marsh, LLC and extensive operational and transformational leadership in numerous financial services organizations, including retail banking units while at JP Morgan Chase, brings meaningful and relevant experience to Webster.

6

C. Michael Jacobiis President of Stable House 1, LLC, a Middlebury, Connecticut based company engaged in real estate development. Mr. Jacobi served from June 2001 to May 2005 as President, Chief Executive Officer and a director of Katy Industries, Inc., a publicly held company headquartered in Middlebury, Connecticut engaged in the design, manufacture and distribution of maintenance and electrical products. Mr. Jacobi is a certified public accountant. He is a director of Corrections Corporation of America (NYSE:CXW), a publicly held company headquartered in Nashville, Tennessee engaged in the ownership and management of prisons for federal, state and local governments, a director and chairman of the board of Sturm Ruger & Co., Inc. (NYSE:RGR), a publicly held company headquartered in Southport, Connecticut engaged in manufacturing and distribution of consumer products, a director of Kohlberg Capital Corporation (NASDAQ:KCAP), a publicly held company headquartered in New York, New York specializing in middle market companies, and a director of Performance Sports Group (NYSE:PSG), a publicly held company headquartered in Exeter, New Hampshire engaged in the design and manufacture of sports equipment. Mr. Jacobi is a member of the Compensation Committee and the Risk Committee.

Mr. Jacobi provides the Board with extensive experience and expertise in corporate finance and accounting as a Certified Public Accountant, having served as Chair of the Audit Committee of Webster for many years. His former service as the Chief Executive Officer of a public company also brings strong executive experience to the Board.

Laurence C. Morse is the Managing Partner of Fairview Capital Partners, Inc., ina West Hartford, Connecticut anbased investment management firm established in 1994 that oversees venture capital funds, some of which invest capital in venture capital partnerships and similar investment vehicles that provide capital primarily to minority-controlled companies. Mr. Morse is a director of the Institute of International Education, a member of the Board of Trustees of PrincetonHarris Associates Investment Trust (which oversees the Oakmark Family of Mutual Funds), a member of the Board of Trustees of Howard University, and is a director of Princeton University Investment Company and a former director and chairman of the National Association of Investment Companies, a private, not-for-profit trade association that represents 52 private equity and specialty finance investment firms. Mr. Morse is a member of the AuditCompensation Committee and the CompensationNominating and Corporate Governance Committee.

6

Mr. Morse’s entire career has been spent in the investment management field, including as the co-founderco- founder and Managing Partner of an investment management firm, which provides the Board with extensive knowledge of the capital markets and accounting issues. His experience has made him adept at performing rigorous risk assessments of managers and management teams, and assessing new technologies, products and services, business strategies, markets and industries.

Karen R. Osar was Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of Chemtura Corporation (NYSE:CHMT), a specialty chemicals company headquartered in Middlebury, Connecticut from 2004 until her retirement in March 2007. From 1999 to April 2003, Ms. Osar served as Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of Westvaco Corporation and Mead Westvaco Corporation. She is a director and audit committee chairmember of Innophos Holdings, Inc. (NASDAQ:IPHS), a publicly held specialty chemicals company headquartered in Cranbury, New Jersey, a director and audit committee member of Sappi Limited (JSE:SAP), a publicly held company and one of the largest global producers of coated paper and chemical cellulose, headquartered in Johannesburg, South Africa, and from 1999 through 2006 she served as a director and audit and finance committee chair of Allergan, Inc., a publicly held multi-specialty health care company focused on developing and commercializing pharmaceuticals. Ms. Osar is Chair of the Audit Committee and a member of the Risk Committee and the Executive Committee.

Ms. Osar’s experience as the former Chief Financial Officer of a public company, her previous corporate finance experience at JPMorgan Chase & Company, and her service as Chair of the Audit Committee for Webster and as the former chair of the audit committee of another public company, provides the Board with strong corporate finance and accounting experience. Her board committee service also provides corporate governance and executive compensation expertise.

7

Mark Pettieis President of Blackthorne Associates, LLC, a Woodcliff Lake, New Jersey based company which provides consulting services to firms investing in a wide range of consumer oriented businesses. Mr. Pettie served as Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of Prestige Brands Holdings, Inc. (NYSE:PBH), a publicly held company headquartered in Irvington, New York which develops, sells, distributes and markets over-the-counter drugs, household cleaning products and personal care items, from January 2007 until September 2009. He was President of the Dairy Foods Group with ConAgra from 2005 to 2006. From 1981 to 2004, Mr. Pettie held various positions of increasing responsibility in general management, marketing and finance at Kraft Foods and was named Executive Vice President and General Manager of Kraft Food’s Coffee Division in 2002. He is Chair of the Risk Committee and a member of the Audit Committee and the Executive Committee.

Mr. Pettie’s former experience as Chief Executive Officer of a public company brings strong executive experience to the Board, along with his expertise in finance and marketing. He also has extensive business and corporate governance experience as a director for both public and private companies.

Charles W. Shiveryis former non-executive Chairman of the Board of Northeast Utilities (NYSE:NU) (now known as Eversource Energy). He joined Northeast Utilities in 2002 and was Chairman, President and Chief Executive Officer from March 2004 until April 2012, upon the completion of the merger with NSTAR, and then served as non-executive Chairman of the Board until October 2013. He previously held posts with the company including interim President, President-Competitive Group of Northeast Utilities, and President and Chief Executive Officer of NU Enterprises, Inc., the unregulated subsidiary of the Northeast Utilities system. Prior to that, he was co-president of the Constellation Energy Group, the parent company of Baltimore Gas & Electric and other energy related businesses. Mr. Shivery is a director and audit committee member of Portland General Electric Company (NYSE:POR), an electrical utility company headquartered in Portland, Oregon. He is Chair of the Compensation Committee, and a member of the Executive Committee and the Nominating and Corporate Governance Committee.

7

Mr. Shivery’s former service as the President and Chief Executive Officer of an energy company provides extensive experience managing a sizable, highly regulated business. Northeast Utilities (now known as Eversource Energy), conducts business in a large part of the region serviced by Webster, so certain variables impact both businesses similarly. Mr. Shivery also provides the Webster Board with corporate governance and executive compensation knowledge.

Lauren C. Statesis an Executive-in-Residence at Northeastern University’s D’Amore-McKim School of Business. Ms. States retired in 2014 from the IBM Corporation (NYSE: IBM), a publicly held company headquartered in Armonk, New York, after a career of more than thirty six years. Prior to her retirement, she served as Vice President, Strategy and Transformation for IBM’s Software Group and was a member of the Growth and Transformation senior leadership team. From 2008 to 2013, she was a leader in the company’s transformation to cloud computing and served as Chief Technology Officer in the corporate strategy function. Over her career, she has served in a broad variety of roles including technology, transformation, and sales and talent development. She is a director of Clean Harbors, Inc. (NYSE:CLH), a publicly held company headquartered in Norwell, Massachusetts, and is a member of the board of ScriptEd. She also serves as a Trustee for International House, New York. Ms. States is a member of the Audit Committee.

Ms. States’ experience as former Chief Technology Officer of a public company, and her broad background in technology, strategy and transformation, provides Webster with strong executive and technology experience.

James C. Smith is Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of Webster and Webster Bank. Mr. Smith joined Webster Bank in 1975 and was appointed CEO of the bank and the holding company in 1987 and Chairman in 1995. He was elected President, Chief Operating Officer and a director of Webster Bank in 1982 and of the holding company at its inception in 1986. He served as President of Webster and Webster Bank until 2000, and again from 2008 through 2011. Mr. Smith is a past memberserves as Vice Chairman of the board of directors of the American Bankers Association and served until recently as co-chairman of the ABA’s American Bankers Council for midsize banks. He is actively involved in the Midsize Banks Coalition of America. He is a past member of the board of directors of the Financial Services Roundtable.American Bankers Association and served as co-chairman of the ABA’s American Bankers Council for midsize banks. He served onis a past member of the board of directors of the Federal Reserve Bank of Boston and on the board of directors of the Federal Home Loan Bank of Boston. He isFinancial Services Roundtable. Mr. Smith served as a past member of the Federal Advisory Council, which advises the deliberations of the Federal Reserve Board of Governors. Mr. SmithGovernors, and served on the board of directors of the Federal Reserve Bank of Boston. He served on the board of directors of the Federal Home Loan Bank of Boston. He served on the executive committee of the Connecticut Bankers Association. HeMr. Smith is actively engaged in community service and servessupports numerous civic organizations including serving as General Chairman of the Hartford Bishops’ Foundation; serving on the Trinity Health-New England Strategic Planning Committee; and serving until very recently as a member of the board of Saint Mary’s Health System in Waterbury, Connecticut. HeMr. Smith is Chair of the Executive Committee.

Mr. Smith’s position and extensive experience as Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of Webster and his day to day leadership of the Company provide him with thorough knowledge of Webster’s opportunities, challenges and operations. He also has extensive experience in banking.

The Board of Directors recommends that shareholders vote FOR the election of all of its director nominees.

8

CORPORATE GOVERNANCE

General

The business and affairs of Webster are managed under the direction of the Board of Directors (the “Board”). Members of the Board are kept informed of Webster’s business through discussions with the Chairman of the Board and Webster’s other executive officers, by reviewing materials provided to them and by participating in meetings and strategic planning sessions of the Board and its committees. The Board is also kept apprised by the Chairman of the Board and management of continuing educational programs on corporate governance and fiduciary duties and responsibilities. In addition, new directors of Webster participate in an orientation program, which is designed to familiarize them with Webster’s business and operations and with their duties as directors under applicable laws and regulations. Each member of the Board also serves as a director of Webster Bank.

Webster believes in the importance of sound and effective corporate governance. Over the years, Webster has forged an explicit link between its corporate culture and corporate governance by identifying its core values, communicating them and living them every day. With uncompromising commitment to its core principles, Webster continues to add value for its customers, shareholders, employees and the communities it serves. The Board has adopted corporate governance practices and policies which the Board and senior management believe promote this philosophy. Certain of such practices and policies are listed in the chart below and certain of those listed are discussed in greater detail elsewhere in this Proxy Statement.

Board Leadership

At Webster, the roles of Chairman of the Board and principal executive officer are combined, both held by Mr. Smith. In addition, there is a lead independent director who is appointed in accordance with Webster’s Corporate Governance Policy, which provides that the Board shall appoint an independent director to serve as the Lead Director of the Board for a one-year term, or until a successor is appointed. The lead independent director presides over the executive sessions of independent directors and assists and advises the Chairman of the Board. During fiscal year 2014,2016, Mr. Crawford served as the lead independent director. The Board believes that having a combined Chairman and principal executive officer, coupled with a lead independent director, is the most appropriate leadership structure for Webster, especially given Mr. Smith’s

9

long service as Chief Executive Officer and his extensive knowledge of the Company and its governance. This

9

structure allows Board discussions regarding performance and strategic matters to be led by the person who oversees Webster’s strategy and operations and establishes a single voice to speak on behalf of Webster, while the lead independent director component of the structure provides independent leadership that mitigates any real or perceived conflicts of interest.

Director Independence

Pursuant to the New York Stock Exchange (“NYSE”) listing standards, Webster is required to have a majority of “independent directors” on its Board. In addition, the Audit Committee, Compensation Committee and the Nominating and Corporate Governance Committee must be composed solely of independent directors. The NYSE listing standards define specific relationships that would disqualify a director from being independent and further require that for a director to qualify as “independent,” the board of directors must affirmatively determine that the director has no material relationship with the Company.

The Board, with the assistance of the Nominating and Corporate Governance Committee, conducted an evaluation of director independence, based primarily on a review of the responses of the directors and executive officers to questions regarding employment and compensation history, affiliations and family and other commercial, industrial, banking consulting, legal, accounting, charitable and legal relationships with Webster, including those relationships described under “Compensation Committee Interlocks and Insider Participation” and “Certain Relationships” on page 47 of this Proxy Statement, and on discussions with the Board.

As a result of this evaluation, the Board affirmatively determined that each of Messrs. Atwell, Becker, Crawford, Finkenzeller, Jacobi, Morse, Pettie, Shivery and Mses. Flynn, Osar and OsarStates is an “independent director” for purposes of Section 303A of the Listed Company Manual of the NYSE and applicable SEC rules and regulations. In connection with this evaluation, the Board considered that in addition to Webster providingprovides lending and other financial services to directors, their immediate family members, and their affiliated organizations in the ordinary course of business and without preferential terms or rates, some directors and their affiliated entities provide services to Webster in the ordinary course of business. In particular, the Board considered the following relationships:

Mr. Smith is not considered independent because he is an executive officer of Webster and Webster Bank.

Executive Sessions of Independent Directors

In keeping with Webster’s Corporate Governance Policy, in 20142016 the Board held 24 meetings that were limited to independent directors. The lead independent director presides over the executive sessions of independent directors.

10

Risk Oversight

The Board administers its risk oversight function primarily through the Risk Committee, which is described in more detail below. The Risk Committee meets frequently throughout the year and reports its findings to the full Board on an ongoing basis. In addition, the Compensation Committee and the Risk Committee review and assess risks as related to Webster’s compensation programs. Webster also has a Chief Risk Officer, Daniel H. Bley, who reports in that capacity to the Risk Committee, as well as two senior risk officers who report to the Chief Risk Officer.

10

Board and Committee Meetings

During 2014,2016, Webster held 9 meetings of its Board. Each incumbent director attended at least 75 percent of the aggregate of (i) the total number of meetings held by the Board during the period that the individual served and (ii) the total number of meetings held by all committees of the Board on which the individual served during the period that the individual served.

Committees of the Board; Code of Business Conduct and Ethics and Corporate Governance Guidelines

The Board has established five standing committees. The standing committees are the Audit Committee, the Compensation Committee, the Nominating and Corporate Governance Committee, the Executive Committee and the Risk Committee. The Board has adopted a charter for each of these committees, as well as corporate governance guidelines that address the make-up and functioning of the Board and qualification guidelines for board members. The Board has also adopted a code of business conduct and ethics (the “Code of Conduct”) that applies to all employees, officers and directors. Each employee, officer and director participates in an annual training session that focuses on topics covered by ourWebster’s Code of Conduct. The training reinforces ourWebster’s core values and ourWebster’s commitment to full compliance with applicable laws and regulations.You can find links to these materials on the Company’s website at:www.wbst.com.

You can also obtain a printed copy of any of the materials referred to above, without charge, by contacting us at the following address:

Webster Financial Corporation

145 Bank Street

Waterbury, Connecticut 06702

Attn: Harriet Munrett Wolfe, Esq.

Executive Vice President, General Counsel and Secretary

The Board has determined that all of the Directors who serve on the Audit, Compensation, and Nominating and Corporate Governance committees are “independent” for purposes of Section 303A of the Listed Company Manual of the NYSE. In addition, all of the Directors who serve on the Risk Committee are “independent.”

Audit Committee

The Board has appointed an Audit Committee that oversees the Company’s financial reporting process, the system of internal financial and accounting controls, the audit process, and compliance with applicable laws and regulations. The Audit Committee reviews the Company’s annual financial statements, including management’s discussion and analysis, and regulatory examination findings. The Audit Committee recommends the appointment of an independent registered public accounting firm and is responsible for the oversight of such firm.A copy of the Audit Committee’s charter is available on the Company’s website at:www.wbst.com. During 2014,2016, the Audit Committee held 5 meetings. The members of the Audit Committee currently are Ms. Osar (Chair) and Messrs. Finkenzeller, Morse,Crawford, Pettie, and Ms. Flynn.Mses. Flynn, and States. Each of the members of the Audit Committee meets the independence requirements of the rules of the NYSE and applicable rules and

11

regulations of the SEC. The Board has determined that each of the members of the Audit Committee is financially literate and that Ms. Osar qualifiesand Mr. Crawford qualify as an “audit committee financial expert,experts,” as that term is defined in Item 407(d)(5) of Regulation S-K.

Compensation Committee

The Board has appointed a Compensation Committee. During 2014,2016, the Compensation Committee held 64 meetings. Compensation Committee meetings are attended by Webster’s Chief Executive Officer (“CEO”) and President, other than while their compensation and benefits are discussed. For a description of the

11

role of Webster’s CEO in determining or recommending the amount of compensation paid to our named executive officers during 2014,2016, see “Compensation Discussion and Analysis.” The members of the Compensation Committee currently are Messrs. Shivery (Chair), Atwell, Becker Jacobi and Morse. Each of the members of the Compensation Committee meets the independence requirements of the rules of the NYSE, and also serves as the Compensation Committee of the Company’s subsidiary, Webster Bank.A copy of the Compensation Committee’s charter is available on the Company’s website at:www.wbst.com. The Compensation Committee may delegate to its chairperson or any other Compensation Committee member such power and authority as the Compensation Committee deems appropriate, except such powers and authorities required by law to be exercised by the whole Compensation Committee or subcommittee thereof.

Pursuant to the Compensation Committee’s charter, among other responsibilities, the Committee is charged with annually reviewing and approving annual bonus arrangements and long term incentive compensation paid to the CEO. The Committee reviews and makes recommendations to the Board with respect to the annual base salary, and severance and/or change in control or similar agreements/provisions, if any, for the CEO; annually determining such compensation and benefits for the members of the Company’s Executive Management Committee other than the CEO; annually recommending to the Board the content of the annual performance evaluation for the CEO and reviewing performance evaluations for all members of the Executive Management Committee; administering and implementing the Company’s performance based incentive plans; reviewing the talent management and succession planning processes to ensure that there is a pool of qualified candidates to fill future Executive Management Committee positions; and reviewing and approving on a periodic basis the Company’s employee stock ownership guidelines. The Committee also reviews and makes recommendations to the Board with respect to director compensation.

For information on the role of compensation consultants determining or recommending the amount or form of executive or director compensation, see “Compensation Discussion and Analysis – Compensation Consultant.”

Executive Committee

The Board has appointed an Executive Committee that has responsibility for serving as an exploratory committee for mergers and acquisitions and to serve as anad hoccommittee as needed. The Executive Committee did not meet during 2014.2016. The members of the Executive Committee are Messrs. Smith (Chair), Crawford, Pettie, Shivery and Ms. Osar.

Nominating and Corporate Governance Committee

The Board has appointed a Nominating and Corporate Governance Committee that has overall responsibility for recommending corporate governance process and board operations for the Company. The Nominating and Corporate Governance Committee identifies director candidates, reviews the qualifications and experience of each person considered as a nominee for election or reelection as a director, and recommends director nominees to fill vacancies on the Board and for approval by the Board and the shareholders.A copy of the Nominating and Corporate Governance Committee’s charter is available on the Company’s website at:www.wbst.com. During 2014,2016, the Nominating and Corporate Governance Committee held 23 meetings. The

12

members of the Nominating and Corporate Governance Committee are Messrs. Crawford (Chair), Becker, FinkenzellerMorse, Shivery and Shivery.Ms. Flynn. Each member of the Nominating and Corporate Governance Committee meets the independence requirements of the rules of the NYSE.

Risk Committee

The Board has appointed a Risk Committee whose primary function is to assist the Board in fulfilling its oversight responsibilities regarding the Company’s enterprise risk management, receiving information regarding the Company’s policies, procedures and practices relating to risk, and discussing material regulatory

12

issues, compliance matters, and emerging risks to the Company. The Risk Committee also has responsibility for overseeing management’s monitoring of security issues. During 2014,2016, the Risk Committee held 5 meetings. The members of the Risk Committee are Messrs. Pettie (Chair), Atwell, Becker, Jacobi, and Ms. Osar.

Director Qualifications and Nominations

Each year, the Board undergoes a self-assessment process to evaluate performance of the Board and Committees. As part of the self-assessment process, the Board considers which attributes and skill sets are important to ensure optimal performance of the Board. The information learned through this process is utilized when considering outside director candidates.

The Board believes that it should be composed of directors with diverse experience in business and in areas that are relevant to the Company, and that directors should at a minimum, possess the highest personal and professional ethics, integrity and values, and be committed to representing the long term interests of the shareholders. Directors should also have an objective perspective and practical wisdom, and should be willing and able to devote the required amount of time to Webster’s business. In addition to depth and breadth of business and civic experience in leadership positons, a potential director’s ties to Webster’s markets are considered in order to ensure diversity and broad geographic and demographic representation reflective of the markets served. These attributes are embodied in Webster’s Qualification Guidelines for Board Members, which specifies that diversity is oneMembers. The Nominating and Corporate Governance Committee reviews and assesses the effectiveness of the factorsGuidelines periodically.

The Board is committed to be consideredsustaining a board that achieves balance between depth of experience in deciding on nominations for directors.the oversight of Webster and fresh approaches to oversight and strategic deliberations, particularly as Webster’s business and best practices of corporate governance evolve. Consistent with this commitment to constructive refreshment, Webster has added three new directors since 2014 and has had one director retire, with a second director retiring effective with the 2017 Annual Meeting. One result of the refreshment is a reduction in the median tenure of independent directors following the 2017 Annual Meeting to eight years.

When considering candidates for the Board, the Nominating and Corporate Governance Committee takes into account a number of factors in addition to the foregoing competencies, including the following:

When seeking candidates for director, the Nominating and Corporate Governance Committee may solicit suggestions from incumbent directors, management or others, including third party search firms. The Committee will review the qualifications and experience of each candidate. If the Committee believes a candidate would be a valuable addition to the Board, it will recommend to the full Board that candidate’s election. The Nominating and Corporate Governance Committee reviews and assesses the effectiveness of the Qualification Guidelines for Board Members periodically.

Webster’s Bylaws also permit shareholders eligible to vote at the Annual Meeting to make nominations for directors, but only ifprovided such nominations are made pursuant to timely notice in writing to the Secretary of Webster. To be timely, notice must be delivered to, or mailed to and received at, the principal executive offices of Webster not less than 30 days nor more than 90 days prior to the date of the meeting, provided that at least 45 days’ notice or prior public disclosure of the date of the Annual Meeting is given or made to shareholders. If less than 45 days’ notice or prior public disclosure of the date of the Annual Meeting is given or made to shareholders, notice by the shareholder to be timely must be received by Webster not later than the close of business on the 15th day following the day on

13

which such notice of the date of the Annual Meeting was mailed or such public disclosure was made. Public disclosure of the date of the Annual Meeting was made by the issuance of a press release on February 13, 201514, 2017 and by filing a Current Report on Form 8-K under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 13, 2015.14, 2017. The Nominating and Corporate Governance Committee will consider candidates for director

13

suggested by shareholders applying the criteria for candidates described above and considering the additional information required by Article III, Section 13 of Webster’s Bylaws, which must be set forth in a shareholder’s notice of nomination. Section 13 of Webster’s Bylaws requires that the notice include: (a) as to each person whom the shareholder proposes to nominate for election or reelection as a director, (i) the name, age, business address and residence address of such person, (ii) the principal occupation or employment of such person, (iii) the class and number of shares of Webster which are beneficially owned by such person, and (iv) any other information relating to such person that is required to be disclosed in solicitations or proxies for election of directors, or is otherwise required, in each case pursuant to Regulation 14A under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (including without limitation such person’s written consent to being named in the proxy statementProxy Statement as a nominee and to serving as a director if elected); and (b) as to the shareholder giving notice, (i) the name and address, as they appear on Webster’s books, of such shareholder, and (ii) the class and number of shares of Webster which are beneficially owned by such shareholder. In considering any nominees for directors recommended by a shareholder, the Nominating and Corporate Governance Committee considers, among other things, the same factors set forth above.

Compensation of Directors

The following table summarizes the compensation paid to Webster’s non-employee directors during 2014.2016. Employee directors of Webster receive no additional compensation for serving as directors or committee members of Webster or its subsidiaries. Beyond these and other standard arrangements described below, no other compensation was paid to any such director.

14

14

Webster uses a combination of cash and restricted stock to attract and retain qualified candidates to serve on the Board. Webster targets director compensation to be at the median for its peer group (as described in “Compensation Discussion and Analysis” below), with the opportunity to earn significantly more based on Webster’s total shareholder return. Stock Ownership Guidelines have also been established for directors to closely align directors’ interests with those of Webster’s shareholders.

During 2014, each2016, the methodology for non-employee director of Webster receivedcompensation was changed from paying an annual retainer of $32,000.and fees for each board and committee meeting attended, to paying an annual board retainer and annual committee retainers. In addition, non-employee directors of Webster received 1,9561,710 shares of restricted stock, which vest incrementally over three years.with the exception of Ms. States, who became a director on September 19, 2016, and received 1,110 shares. The retainerLead Director received 2,100 shares of restricted stock. All restricted stock vests after one year and granthas a two year holding period following the vesting period. Webster continued to Mr. Atwell and Ms. Flynn were prorated because they joined thereimburse directors for reasonable travel expenses incurred in connection with attending Board during 2014.meetings.

In addition, except as set forth below,From January to April 2016, each non-employee director received $1,200 for each Webster or Webster Bank Board meeting attended, $1,200 for each committee meeting attended, and $600 for each telephonic Webster or Webster Bank Board and committee meeting called by either Webster or Webster Bank. Each non-employee director of both Webster and Webster Bank received a total of $2,000 for separate board meetings of Webster and Webster Bank that were held on the same day. Non-employee directors receivereceived $1,000 for attending a committee meeting if it iswas held on the same day as a Board meeting and $1,000 for attending a second committee meeting if more than one committee meeting iswas held on the same day. Webster also reimburses directors for reasonable travel expenses incurred

From May to December 2016, the following schedule was in connection with attending Board meetings.effect:

In 2014, the Lead Director received an additional annual retainer of $22,500. The Chair of the Audit Committee received an annual additional retainer of $15,000, the Chair of the Compensation Committee and the Chair of the Risk Committee received additional annual retainers of $10,000 and the Chair of the Nominating and Corporate Governance Committee received an additional annual retainer of $7,500.

15

Webster stock ownership guidelines require non-employee directors to own Webster Common Stock with a market value equal to at least $200,000.$300,000. Non-employee directors who do not meet the guidelines agree to hold all long term incentives, which include vested restricted stock and exercised stock options (net of exercise price and taxes), until they achieve the required ownership threshold of Webster Common Stock.

Communications with Directors

The Company’s shareholders and other interested persons who want to communicate with the Board of Directors, any individual Director, the Lead Director, the non-management directors as a group or any other group of directors, can write to:

[Name of Director or Directors]

c/o Lead Director of the Board of Directors

Webster Financial Corporation

P.O. Box 1074

754 Chapel Street

New Haven, Connecticut 06510

All communications received (except for communications that are primarily commercial in nature or relate to an improper or irrelevant topic) will be forwarded to the intended recipient(s) or the full Board, as appropriate.

15

Director Attendance at Annual Meetings

Webster typically schedules a meeting of the Board of Directors in conjunction with the annual meeting and expects that the Board of Directors will attend the annual meeting, absent a valid reason, such as a previously scheduled conflict. Last year all of the individuals then serving as directors attended the annual meeting.

16

EXECUTIVE COMPENSATION AND OTHER INFORMATION

Named Executive Officers of Webster Financial Corporation

The following table sets forth information regarding the Chief Executive Officer, the Chief Financial Officer, and the three other most highly compensated executive officers who were serving on December 31, 20142016 (the “named executive officers” or “NEOs”).

Provided below is biographical information for each of Webster’s NEOs, other than Mr. Smith. For information regarding Mr. Smith, see “Election of Directors-Information as to Nominees.”

John R. Ciulla is President of Webster and Webster Bank. Mr. Ciulla joined Webster in 2004 and has served in a variety of management positions at the Company, including Chief Credit Risk Officer and Senior Vice President, Commercial Banking, where he was responsible for several business units. He was promoted from Executive Vice President and Head of Middle Market Banking to lead Commercial Banking in January 2014 and President in October 2015. Prior to joining Webster, Mr. Ciulla was managing director of The Bank of New York, where he worked from 1997 to 2004. He is the Chairman of the board of the Connecticut Business & Industry Association and serves on the board of the Business Council of Fairfield County.

Glenn I. MacInnes is Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of Webster and Webster Bank. He joined Webster in 2011. Prior to that, Mr. MacInnes was Chief Financial Officer at New Alliance Bancshares for two years and was employed for 11 years at Citigroup in a series of positions, including deputy CFO for Citibank North America and CFO of Citibank (West) FSB. Mr. MacInnes serves on the Boardboard of Wellmore Behavioral Health, Inc.

JosephNitin J. Savage is President of Webster and Webster Bank. He joined Webster in April 2002 as Executive Vice President, Commercial Banking and was promoted to President of Webster Bank and elected to the board of directors of Webster Bank in January of 2014. Prior to this, Mr. Savage was Executive Vice President of the Communications and Energy Banking Group for CoBank in Denver, Colorado from 1996 to April 2002. Mr. Savage serves as a director of the MetroHartford Alliance and the Travelers Championship Committee. He serves on the boards of The Bushnell and The Connecticut Bankers Association . He was also the chair of the 2013-14 United Way Campaign for United Way of Central and Northeastern Connecticut.

John R.CiullaMhatre is Executive Vice President, Commercial Banking of Webster and Webster Bank. Mr. Ciulla joined Webster in 2004 and has served in a variety of management positions at the Company, including Chief Credit Risk Officer and Senior Vice President, Commercial Banking, where he was responsible for several business units. He was promoted from Executive Vice President and Head of Middle Market Banking to lead Commercial Banking in January 2014. Prior to joining Webster, Mr. Ciulla was Managing Director of the Bank of New York, where he worked from 1997 to 2004. He practiced law in New York as an associate with McDermott Will & Emery from 1996 to 1997 and with Hughes Hubbard & Reed from 1994 to 1996. He serves on the boards of the Connecticut Business & Industry Association and the Stamford Partnership.

16

Nitin J. Mhatreis Executive Vice President, Community Banking of Webster and Webster Bank. He joined Webster in October 2008 as Executive Vice President, Consumer Lending of Webster Bank and was appointed Executive Vice President, Consumer Finance in January 2009. He was promoted to his current position in August of 2013. Prior to this,joining Webster, Mr. Mhatre worked at Citigroup inacross multiple geographies including St. Louis, Missouri, and Stamford, Connecticut, Guam, USA and India, in various capacities. In his most recent position, he was the Managing Director for the Home Equity Retail business for CitiMortgage based in Stamford, Connecticut. Prior to that, he was Director, Cards Cross-Sell and Portfolio Management for CitiMortgage based in St. Louis, Missouri, Marketing Director for Citibank Guam, product management head for Mass Affluent & Diners Club Cards for Citibank, India based in Chennai, India and Cards Sales Manager for Citibank India based in Mumbai, India. Mr. Mhatre is a board member of Consumer Bankers Association headquartered in Washington, D.C., and also serves on the board of Junior Achievement of Southwest New England.

Daniel H. Bley is Executive Vice President and Chief Risk Officer of Webster and Webster Bank since August of 2010. Prior to joining Webster, Mr. Bley worked at ABN AMRO and Royal Bank of Scotland from 1990 to 2010, having served as Managing Director of Financial Institutions Credit Risk and Group Senior Vice President, Head of Financial Institutions and Trading Credit Risk Management. Mr. Bley currently serves on the board of Junior Achievement of Western Connecticut.

Compensation Committee Report

The Compensation Committee met with management to review and discuss the Compensation Discussion and Analysis disclosures that follow. Based on such review and discussion, the Committee

17

recommended to the Board of Directors that the Compensation Discussion and Analysis be included in this Proxy Statement and incorporated by reference in the Company’s Form 10-K for its 20142016 fiscal year, and the Board has approved the recommendation.

Compensation Committee

Charles W. Shivery (Chair)

William L. Atwell

Joel S. Becker

C. Michael Jacobi

Laurence C. Morse

Compensation Discussion and Analysis

The Compensation Discussion and Analysis (“CD&A”) discusses in detail the 20142016 executive compensation program for the Company’s named executive officers (“NEOs”).NEOs. The Compensation Committee (“Committee”) recommends the base salary for the Chief Executive Officer (“CEO”)CEO to the Board of Directors, approves the annual cash incentive and long termlong-term equity-based incentives (“LTI”) for the CEO, and setsapproves the compensation for Webster’s other NEOs. Non-NEO members of the Executive Management Committee are also compensated under the same compensation program.

At the annual meeting of shareholders held on April 24, 2014,28, 2016, Webster held an advisory vote on executive compensation. Although the vote was non-binding, the Committee has considered and will continue to consider the outcome of the vote when determining compensation policies and setting NEO compensation. Approximately 98% of the shares of Webster Common Stock that were voted on the proposal were voted for the approval of the compensation of the NEOs as discussed in Webster’s 20142016 Proxy Statement. The Committee considers the outcome of the vote when determining compensation policies and setting NEO compensation and believes that the results of this advisory vote show strong support for Webster’s compensation policies and procedures. No changes in the overall structure of the programs were made in 2014.2016.

Executive Summary

Highlights of 20142016 Operating Performance

Webster reported record net income driven by higher revenue, disciplined expense management and further improvement in asset quality. Strong loan demand boosted core revenue, which grew for the fifth consecutive year.revenue. Webster continued to investpurposefully invested in strategies that are expected to increase Economic Profit¹ over time.

Highlights Summary (results versus prior year)

1718

Highlights Summary (results versus prior year)

Objectives of Compensation Program

Webster’s executive compensation program is designed to attract, engage and retain qualified executives and to reward actions and results that the Committee and Board of Directors believe will increase Economic ProfitProfits and maximize shareholder return. Special attention is given to ensuring that compensation plans do not encourage NEOs andor other executive officersexecutives to take unnecessary or excessive risks.

Webster’s executive compensation program is highly performance based and closely aligns total compensation with achievement of Webster’s financial and strategic goals. A meaningful portion of total compensation is variable and tied to future shareholder return, thereby rewarding NEOs and other executive officersexecutives for pursuing strategies that are expected to increase Economic ProfitProfits over time.

The compensation program has four primary objectives:

1819

Compensation Best Practices

The Committee annually reviews best practices in executive compensation and governance and continues to enhance our policies and practices, which include the following:

20142016 Compensation and Governance Best Practices

Setting 20142016 Compensation

In February 20142016, the Committee reviewed all elements of compensation for NEOs and approved the compensation structure consistentstructure. The program is intended to provide NEOs with a compensation opportunity commensurate with persons with similar duties and responsibilities at other financial institutions. In determining levels of NEOs’ overall compensation, the objectives outlined above. The design comprises base salary, annual incentiveCommittee also considers the qualifications and LTI. The annual incentive rewards current year performance, whileexperience of the long term equity based incentive alignsrespective officer, Webster’s size and complexity of operations and, to a certain extent, the NEOs’ interests with the long term goals and performance ofcompensation paid to other persons employed by the Company. The LTI grants made in February 2014, comprisesCommittee uses external data as input for the Committee’s analysis and to obtain a 75/25 mixgeneral understanding of performance based shares and time based restricted stock. The grantcurrent market compensation practices, rather than as strict rules for establishing compensation. A meaningful portion of pay is based in part on NEOs’ prior year performance. Performance shares have a three-year performance period and time based restricted stock has a three-year vesting of one-third on each anniversary date of grant.

For 2014, the Committee approved total compensation for NEOs which is somewhat higher than compensation for 2013, given the continuing improvement intied to financial and credit-related results, considerable progress toward achieving strategic goals, and financial performance that exceeded the Peer Group’s performance. The Committee intended that totalConsequently, actual compensation should be commensurate with that of like institutions with similar performance. Given 2014 financial performance that was above the peer median, the Committee intended that total direct compensation (the total of base salary, the annual incentive and LTI granted in February 2015, based in part on 2014 performance that is disclosed in the non-required 2015 Long Term Annual Incentive Compensation table herein) be somewhat higher than median Peer Groupreceived will vary from targeted compensation.

19

Compensation Consultant

In carrying out its responsibilities, the Committee engages McLagan, an independent compensation consultant, to offer market perspectives on annual pay, current executive compensation trends and compensation programs currently in place at Webster. The consultant also provides insight into regulatory issues affecting compensation. The Committee has the authority to hire and terminate the consultant and determine the nature and scope of the consultant’s assignments. The Committee has engaged McLagan since June 2010. The Committee reviewed the work performed by McLagan and, under SEC and NYSE regulations, determined that the work did not create a conflict of interest.

20

McLagan provided the Committee ongoing insights relating to trends in executive compensation in the banking sector. At the direction of the Committee, McLagan reviewed all elements of compensation for the NEOs and other executive officers and made recommendations with regard to plan design. McLagan also reviewed an analysis of Webster’s 2016 performance relative to peers and opined on management’s proposals to the Committee regarding 20142016 executive compensation and also presented an analysis of Webster’s 2014 performance relative to the Peer Group as an additional point of reference.compensation. McLagan attended all Committee meetings and in each one of those meetings had the opportunity to meet with the Committee in executive session. The Committee weighs the consultant’s perspective as part of its decision-making process. The Committee communicates compensation decisions directly to management. The Committee utilized market context and recommendations from McLagan did not determinewhen determining the amount orand form of compensation paid to Webster’s executive officers orand directors during 2014.2016.

Compensation Peer Group

The Committee regularly uses proxy information for the Peer Group to review annually the compensation of Webster’s NEOs relative to comparable positions. This review is supplemented by available market survey data. The Committee may also use comparisons to the Peer Group to consider other market practices relevant to the scope of the NEOs’ responsibilities. This may include, for example, change in control provisions and stock ownership guidelines.

In 2014,2016, the Committee considered actual and, where available, target compensation data from the Peer Group. This data was presented by McLagan and contributed to an assessment of the competitiveness of actual and target pay for WebsterWebster’s NEOs.

2021

The Committee reviews the composition of the Peer Group annually with the assistance of McLagan with the objective of maintaining a group of peer banks that individually and collectively represent suitable comparators for compensation-related analyses. Suitability is defined using a number of factors, including size, scope, business mix and geographic focus. Scope measures include total assets, net revenue, market capitalization and number of employees. Business mix is reflected by an analysis of loan composition (consumer, real estate, commercial and construction) and revenue composition (sources and proportion of net interest income and non-interest income). Banks with a geographic focus outside the continental United States are excluded regardless of the appropriateness of their scope and business mix. In 2014, McLagan,late 2015, at the request of the Committee, McLagan prepared an evaluation of our Peer Group and determined that our currentfor use in 2016. As a result of the evaluation, a recommendation was made to add two companies to the Peer Group meetsfor 2016 - FNB Corporation and Synovus Financial Corporation. Three companies were removed from the criteria stated abovePeer Group due to those companies being acquired - Susquehanna Bancshares (acquired by BB&T), City National Corporation (acquired by Royal Bank of Canada) and no action is needed.First Niagara Financial Group (acquired by KeyCorp). The Committee approved the recommendation and identified the 1312 companies listed below as the Peer Group for 2014:2016:

Elements of 20142016 Compensation

Webster’s compensation program has three basic elements: base salary, annual cash incentive and LTI. The annual cash incentive rewards current year performance, while the LTI incentive. Allaligns the NEOs’ interests with the long-term goals and performance of the Company. LTI grants consist of a 75%/25% mix of performance based shares and time-based restricted stock. Performance shares have a three-year performance period with cliff vesting, and time-based restricted stock has a three-year vesting schedule of one-third on each anniversary date of the grant.

22

The Committee reviews all elements of compensation are reviewed annually, both separately and in aggregate, by the Committee to ensure that the total amount of compensation is within appropriate competitive parameters based on data from independent sources and based on the performance of the Company and NEOs. The program is intended to provide NEOs with a compensation opportunity commensurate with persons with similar duties and responsibilities at other financial institutions with comparable performance. In determining levels of NEOs’

21

overall compensation, the Committee also considers the qualifications and experience of the respective officer, Webster’s size and complexity of operations and, to a certain extent, the compensation paid to other persons employed by the Company. The Committee uses external data as input for the Committee’s analysis and to obtain a general understanding of current compensation practices rather than strict rules for establishing compensation. A meaningful portion of pay is tied to financial and strategic performance. Consequently, actual compensation received will vary from targeted compensation.

In early 2014,2016, the Committee engaged McLagan to provide an analysis of Webster’s total compensation as well as the individual components compared to the Peer Group and McLagan’s 20132015 Top Management Survey. This data contributed to an assessment of the competitiveness of actual and target pay for Webster’s NEOs. Based on the findings, the Committee set the components of pay and the weight of each component creating a structure that reflects Webster’s objectives for compensation outlined above while allowing individual variations based on job scope, tenure, retention risk and other factors relevant to the Committee. See earlier section titled Objectives of Compensation Program for details.

The chart below breaks down target total direct compensation by element,component, including target and pay mix of each component by NEO for the program approved in February 2014.2016. For purposes of this table, “pay mix” represents the percentage of total direct compensation represented byfor each component.

Salary

Annual salary is the only fixed component of Webster’s executive compensation program. In setting salary, the Committee looks at current pay practices, Peer Group comparisons and general market analysis in consultation with its compensation consultant, McLagan. The Committee then establishes salaries that are competitive to the Peer Group for similar positions. The Committee reviews the salaries are reviewed on an annual basis by the Committee.basis.

In the case of a change in role, an officer’s new responsibilities, external pay practices, internal equity, past performance and experience are all considered in determining whether a change in salary is warranted.

22

As part of the Committee’s annual salary review, salaries were determined to be reasonably competitive when compared with the actual proxy data of the Peer Group and benchmark survey information. In 2014, four2016, all of the NEOs received an adjustment to base salary as a result of this review. Mr. MacInnes’ salary was increased from $400,000 to $450,000, Mr. Savage’s salary was increased from $380,000 to $450,000, Mr. Ciulla’s salary was increased from $312,120 to $360,000 and Mr. Mhatre’s salary was increased from $300,000 to $355,000 to reflect increased responsibilities and better alignment to market. Also, as a result of eliminating the car allowance perquisite the Committee approved a modest one-time salary adjustment for all NEOs. Additional details are provided in the Summary Compensation Table.

Annual Cash Incentive Compensation—Compensation - Plan Overview

Annual cash incentive compensation is variable based on performance and ties a significant portion of the NEOs’ compensation to achievement of the Company’s annual financial goalsplan and toalso considers financial performance relative to the Peer Group. MeasurementsThe Committee approves measurements for the plan are approved annually by the Committee.annually. For 2014,

23

2016, target incentives were set for each of the NEOs atbetween 26% orand 27% of total compensation. The plan is designed so that the weighted average performance for the financial measures must exceed a predetermined threshold before a payout can be made.

The plan is structured to calculate incentives based on two primary components:Primary Components:

The Corporate Component rating generates a potential funding of 0% to 150% of target. A score of 100% would pay out at target. There is an aggregate threshold score of approximately 70%, which generates a payout of 50% of target, below which no payout is earned. Scores below 50% on an individual measure are reduced to zero and a total weighted score below 50% on the four goals in the aggregate earns no payout.

23

The two Primary Components are weighted based on each NEO’s responsibilities. The weighting of the Primary Components is shown in the chart below:

24

Annual Cash Incentive Scoring - Results

Corporate Financial Performance - Webster’s 2016 results compared to plan are set forth in the table below. The Committee has discretion to make adjustments for extraordinary, unusual or non-recurring items. For 2016, adjustments were made for three non-recurring items resulting in an adjustment of 2.5%.

Performance Relative to Peer Group – As previously described, the Committee has discretion to adjust the Corporate Component Score by plus or minus 20 percentage points based on Webster’s performance against pre-established financial measures or performance relative to its Peer Group. The table below shows Webster’s performance relative to the twelve companies in the Peer Group.

25

The Committee recognized Webster’s continued strong and improving performance relative to the Peer Group, as Webster’s weighted score reached the 67^th percentile up from 62^nd the prior year, and determined that a positive adjustment of 3.0% was appropriate.

Final Corporate Component -The final Corporate Component was determined by taking the Financial Performance score of 94.5% and adding the Committee’s adjustments for non-recurring items of 2.5% and Performance Relative to Peer Group of 3.0% which resulted in a final score equal to 100.0% of target.

Line of Business Component - Given Mr. Mhatre’s responsibilities as Head of the Community Banking line of business, 60% of his target annual incentive is payable based on the results of that line of business.

Mr. Mhatre continued to lead Community Banking along its Transformational Strategic Roadmap to deliver pre-tax, pre-provision net revenue of over $110 million in 2016 – resulting in a line of business financial score of 112%. Community Banking continued to optimize its business model focused on delivering automated, electronic, mobile services that meet rapidly changing preferences of consumers and businesses while maximizing high value customer share and customer satisfaction. Balances grew in each category with loans, deposits and investment assets under administration growing year over year, with particular strong growth in business loans and business deposits. 2016 was a record year for business loan originations. Banking Centers’

26

sales productivity grew year over year by 19 percent. Investments in electronic infrastructure continued to drive self-service as reflected in 16 percent growth in mobile banking customers. Nearly 70 percent of all balance changing transactions were conducted through self-service channels. Efficiency improvement initiatives such as ‘Fast-Track’ business loans significantly reduced loan turn times, while improving corresponding customer demand. The most significant franchise-building initiative in 2016 was expansion in Boston where Community Banking opened 17 new Banking Centers to deliver all of Webster’s products and services to this high-growth, high-potential market. The Boston expansion delivered approximately $200 million and $113 million in new deposits and loans in 2016, falling short of goal, though long-term prospects remain intact. Community Banking continued to maintain its ‘best-in-class’ customer satisfaction and net promoter scores.

27

2016 Annual Cash Incentive Compensation Awarded in February 2017

Individual NEO Performance - Individual performance is determined through the annual review process as part of the Company-wide performance management process. Each NEO is evaluated based on achievement of individual performance objectives which include strategic goals, personal behavior, risk management, regulatory compliance and people leadership. The Committee evaluates the CEO, and the CEO evaluates the other NEOs in consultation with the Committee.

28

2016 Annual Cash Incentive Compensation - Upon completing the scoring of the two Primary Components (Corporate and Line of Business), the scores are applied to the CEO��s and each NEO’s annual cash incentive target based on the weightings in the Weight of Primary Component Table to calculate the cash incentive awards. The Committee retains discretion to adjust the CEO’s calculated annual cash incentive award. The CEO Discretionretains discretion, in consultation with the Committee, to adjust the NEOs’ calculated annual cash incentive awards.

Discretionary Adjustment for Individual Performance and Risk Management-

Based on the CEO’s assessment of each NEO’s individual performance measured against specific performance objectives and overall, the CEO may use discretion to determine a positive or negative adjustment to the short termcalculated annual cash incentive award. Additionally, the CEO in consultation with the Chief Risk Officer may considerand the Chief Human Resources Officer considers potential adjustments (referred to as meaningful consequences) based on each NEOs record of identifying, managing and mitigating risk, including an assessment of outcomes in the areas of compliance, operating risk, credit, audit findings or regulatory citings, or other contributions that should be taken into account. There

The Committee considers potential adjustments for the CEO based on his performance against performance objectives and his leadership of the Company. In addition, the Committee considers meaningful consequences adjustments to the CEO based on his record of managing and mitigating risk.

A thorough review of risk management in the areas of regulatory, internal audit, operating and credit compliance and Sarbanes-Oxley (SOX) took place. As a result of the review, downward adjustments were no such adjustments made in 2014.

Annual Incentive Scoring

Corporate Component - The Corporate Component is determined by calculating a weighted performance score against four pre-established financial measures (Financial Performance). The resulting score may then be modified up or downto the annual cash incentive payments of Messrs. MacInnes and Bley at the Committee’s discretion by up to 20% based on performance against those four pre-established financial measures relative to Webster’s Peer Group. The Committee has discretion to make adjustments for extraordinary, unusual or non-recurring items. There were no such adjustments made in 2014. Scores below 50% on an individual measure are reduced to zero and a total weighted score below 50% on the four goals in the aggregate earns no payout.

The Corporate Component rating generates a potential fundingrecommendation of 0% to 150% of target. A score of 100% would pay out at target. There is a threshold score of approximately 70%, which generates a payout of 50% of target, below which no incentive is earned. Beginning with 2014 awards, the maximum funding was reduced to 150% of target from 200%, consistent with the Committee’s goal to ensure our compensation programs do not encourage excessive risk taking.

Financial Performance - Webster’s 2014 results compared to plan and to 2013 (as set forth in the table below) include the following: Pre-Tax Pre-Provision Income in 2014 was $325.7 million, below plan of $333.8 million and up 10% from $295.59 million in 2013; Return on Average Equity improved to 8.66% versus goal of 8.63% and versus 8.13% in 2013; the Efficiency Ratio improved to 59.50% versus goal of 58.85% and

24

versus 60.53% in 2013; and Non-performing Loans (“NPL’s”) improved to .95% versus goal of 1.10% and versus 1.28% in 2013. While generally improved, final results were below plan on two of four financial goals: Pre-Tax Pre-Provision Income and the Efficiency Ratio, in both cases due to lower than plan net interest margin and competitive pressure on fee based revenue. Results were better than plan on Return on Average Equity due primarily to lower than plan provisions for loan losses, and on NPL’s/loans due to better than plan improvement in credit quality. Since the NPL score continues to trail peers, a negative adjustment was made. The chart below reflects the negative adjustment and non-recurring items that are excluded for Corporate Financial Performance.

25

Performance Relative to Peer Group - The Committee has discretion to adjust the weighted score within the Corporate Component by 20% plus or minus of target based on Webster’s performance relative to its Peer Group against the same four measures. Webster outperformed relative to the Peer Group against the Pre-Tax Pre-Provision Income, improving to 77^th percentile rank from 62^nd in 2013, Return on Equity remained above median and flat year over year at 62^nd percentile rank, the Efficiency Ratio significantly improved to 92^nd percentile rank from 69^th in 2013, and Webster performed below median in NPL’s to Loans metric but improved to 23^rd percentile rank from 15^th in 2013. Applying the same weightings to these metrics as the Committee applies to the similar metrics in the Financial Performance component, Webster’s weighted average financial performance improved relative to the Peer Group by approximately 9 percentage points to 67.3% in 2014 from 58.1% in 2013. The Committee commended this improvement and the favorable performance relative to the Peer Group. Therefore, the Committee determined that an upward Peer Group adjustment of 2.2% was appropriate. The table below shows Webster’s performance relative to the Peer Group:

Final Corporate Component - The Corporate Component is then calculated by taking the Financial Performance score of 95.3% and applying the upward adjustment of 2.2% for Performance Relative to Peer Group for a final score of 97.5% of target. There were no other adjustments made.

Line of Business Component - Given Mr. Ciulla’s responsibilities as head of the Commercial Banking business segment and Mr. Mhatre’s as head of the Community Banking business segment, 60% of each NEO’s target bonus is payable based on the financial results of his line of business and on results relative to strategic initiatives. The results of Commercial Banking and Community Banking are noted below:

Mr. Ciulla led the Commercial Banking segment to a record year in which it achieved double digit revenue growth and strong year over year performance in several key categories resulting in a Line of Business score of 105%. The Commercial Banking segment delivered $110.1 million in Net Income and a 17.6% Return on Allocated Capital. All five Commercial lines of business once again delivered Economic Profit and, in aggregate, Commercial Banking’s Economic Profit was up 31% over 2013. Fueled by strong loan originations of $2.9 billion, the commercial loan portfolio grew $931 million (+17%) to $6.6 billion. Loan growth was

26

evident across all Business Units and across all geographies, with particular strength in Middle Market banking ($519 million (+21%)) and Commercial Real Estate ($279 million (+14%)), two areas of strategic focus. Growth in core operating relationships drove Demand Deposit Account (“DDA”) balances of $1.6 billion (32%). Commercial Banking’s Treasury and Payment Solutions Group invested meaningfully to enhance its capabilities to help clients manage cash flow, while driving higher Non-Interest Income. Credit quality remained strong with commercial classified, non-performing loans and net charge offs at low levels. Webster was awarded three additional Greenwich Excellence awards for client satisfaction, evidencing its continuing focus on service quality.

Mr. Mhatre led the Community Banking segment to positive operating leverage of 2.4% and pre-tax, pre-provision net revenue growth of over 6% resulting in a Line of Business score of 82%. Community Banking continued its transformation to a lower cost business model focused on delivering automated, electronic, mobile services that meet rapidly changing preferences of consumers and businesses, including mass affluent. The Universal Banker program coupled with new Economic Profit aligned incentive program helped improve sales productivity by 12% while headcount declined 5% year over year. Balances grew in all categories with approximately 3.5% growth in loans, 1% growth in deposits and over 8% growth in investment assets under administration. Net Income including economic losses grew by over 15%, with Business Banking delivering over 30 percent growth in Net Income driven by higher balances. Transaction deposits grew by approximately 4 percent with consumer transaction deposits growing by approximately 4 percent and business transaction deposits growing by 5.2 percent. Investments in electronic infrastructure continued to drive self-service transactions that grew to over 35 percent of total transactions in the fourth quarter, up 10% year over year. Online Banking was voted #1 in New England by a premier survey company, coupled with improved #3 ranking in overall customer satisfaction in New England. Mortgage Banking portfolio growth was driven by growth in Jumbo originations through the retail origination channel and fast growing correspondent channel. Consumer lending originations grew modestly year over year, helping increase the overall consumer loan portfolio by 2.5 percent. Webster Investment Services’ fee revenue set a record for the full year.

27

The chart below lists the individual performance adjustment for each NEO and summarizes each NEO’s performance:

28

CEO Discretion Based on Individual Performance

The Individual performance is determined through the annual review process as part of the Company-wide performance management process. Each NEO is evaluated based on achievement of individual performance objectives. The Committee evaluates the CEO and approval by the Committee and to Mr. Smith by the Committee, totaling $81,700. In addition, due to a correction of prior period performance related to the Company’s HSA Bank segment for 2015 and the first quarter of 2016, downward adjustments to all NEOs’ incentives were made to fully reflect the negative impact this correction had on 2015 Corporate STI results. This total adjustment was $32,125 for the NEOs and was deducted from their 2016 incentive payments. Finally, a positive adjustment of $40,000 was made to Mr. Ciulla’s incentive payment in recognition of his important strategic and leadership contributions in his expanded role as President.

2016 Final Payment Determination -The Committee determines and approves the short-term incentive award for the CEO evaluatesand reviews and approves the short-term incentive awards that are recommended by the CEO for the other NEOs in consultation with the Committee. For Mr. Ciulla the calculated award of $242,100 was adjusted upward by $47,900 for a final award of $290,000. For Mr. Mhatre the calculated award of $206,531 was adjusted upward by $4,069 for a final award of $210,600. The CEO and the Committee believe that Messrs. Ciulla and Mhatre performed exceptionally well in pursuit of their business segment financial and strategic goals. The corporate portion for all NEOs (100% of annual incentive compensation for Messrs. Smith, Savage, and MacInnes, and 40% for Messrs. Ciulla and Mhatre) was set at 97.5% of target as described in the Final Corporate Component section.

Total 2014 Short Term Incentive Compensation - Upon completing scoring of the two Primary Components (Corporate, and Line of Business), the scores are applied to the CEO’s and each NEO’s annual incentive target based on the percentages in the Weight of Primary Component Table on page 24 to calculate the award. The Committee retains discretion to adjust the CEO’s calculated annual incentive award. The CEO retains discretion, in consultation with the Committee to adjust the NEOs’ calculated annual incentive awards. There were no other adjustments made to the NEOs’ awards.NEOs. The final tabulations for annual cash incentive compensation are set forth below.below:

2015 wereabove, based in part on each NEO’s 20142016 performance and granted based on the NEOs’ 2015 compensation components.2016 base pay and LTI target percent. The Committee approved grants at 100% of that target for Mr. Smith and, based on Mr. Smith’s recommendation at 100% of target for Messrs. MacInnes, Savage, Ciulla, Mhatre and Mhatre. Based on 2014 compensation components, Messrs. Smith, MacInnes, Savage, Ciulla and Mhatre grants were 105%, 107%, 107%, 119% and 113% of target, respectively, consistent with the Committee’s intention that total direct compensation for 2014 be somewhat higher than median Peer Group compensation.Bley. The individual performance of each NEO on which the February 20152017 grants were based is described in detail beginning on page 28.the NEO’s Performance Summary for 2016 table.

The 2015

Two-year Supplemental Summary Compensation Table

This table is not required but we included it because our 2017 grants are shown in two non-required tables below for the purpose of setting forth clearly the compensation earned for 2014 performance. The first non-required table is the 2015 Long Term Annual Incentive Compensation and the second is the non-required two-year earned Summary Compensation Table. Note that grants made in 2015, even though made in part based on 2014 performance, are not reflected in the required Summary Compensation Table.

The first non-required chart below reflects the 2015 LTI grants awarded based in part for 2014 performance:

2014 Long Term Incentive Grant - Similarly, LTI grants made in February 2014 were based in part on each NEO’s 2013 performance and granted based on the NEOs’ 2014 compensation components. The Committee approved grants at 100% of that target for Mr. Smith and, based on Mr. Smith’s recommendation, at 100% of target for Messrs. MacInnes, Savage, Ciulla, and Mhatre. Based on 2013 compensation components, Messrs. Smith, MacInnes, Savage, Ciulla, and Mhatre grants amounted to 100%, 114%, 124%, 150%, and 118% of target, respectively. The individual performance of each NEO on which the February 2014 grants were based is described in detail beginning on page 28 and is included as 2014 compensation in the required 2014 Summary Compensation Table on page 36.2016 performance.

31

The second non-required charttable below shows total direct compensation approved by the Committee for 20142015 and 20132016 performance. LTI grants made in February 20152016 are based in part on 20142015 performance and are reflected in the 20142015 Total Direct Compensation. LTI grants made in February 20142017 are based in part on 20132016 performance and are reflected in 20132016 Total Direct Compensation. Although the 20152017 grants will be discussed in next year’s CD&A, we have determined to voluntarily disclosedisclosed the grants in the table set forth below under year 2014 Total Direct Compensation.below. The 20152016 and 20142017 grants were in performance sharesPerformance Shares and time-vested restricted stock as described above.

Non-required two-year earned Summary Compensation Table (2015 Long-Term Incentive Grants for 2014 Performance and 2014 Long-Term Incentive Grants for 2013 Performance)