DEF 14A 1 a2223600zdef14a.htm DEF 14A

Table of Contents

UNITED STATES
SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION
WASHINGTON, DC 20549

SCHEDULE 14A INFORMATION

Proxy Statement Pursuant to Section 14(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934

Filed by the Registrant ý
Filed by a Party other than the Registrant o

Check the appropriate box:
o Preliminary Proxy Statement
o
Confidential, for Use of the Commission Only (as permitted by Rule 14a-6(e)(2))
ý Definitive Proxy Statement
o Definitive Additional Materials
o Soliciting Material Pursuant to § 240.14a-12

AVERY DENNISON CORPORATION
(Name of Registrant as Specified In Its Charter)

N/A
(Name of Person(s) Filing Proxy Statement, if Other Than the Registrant)

Payment of Filing Fee (Check the appropriate box):

ý       No fee required.

o

 

 

 

Fee computed on table below per Exchange Act Rules 14a-6(i)(1) and 0-11.

 

 

(1)

 

 

 

Title of each class of securities to which transaction applies:

 

 

(2)

 

 

 

Aggregate number of securities to which transaction applies:

 

 

(3)

 

 

 

Per unit price or other underlying value of transaction computed pursuant to Exchange Act Rule 0-11 (set forth the amount on which the filing fee is calculated and state how it was determined):

 

 

(4)

 

 

 

Proposed maximum aggregate value of transaction:

 

 

(5)

 

 

 

Total fee paid:

o

 

 

 

Fee paid previously with preliminary materials.

o

 

 

 

Check box if any part of the fee is offset as provided by Exchange Act Rule 0-11(a)(2) and identify the filing for which the offsetting fee was paid previously. Identify the previous filing by registration statement number, or the Form or Schedule and the date of its filing.

 

 

(1)

 

 

 

Amount Previously Paid:

 

 

(2)

 

 

 

Form, Schedule or Registration Statement No.:

 

 

(3)

 

 

 

Filing Party:

 

 

(4)

 

 

 

Date Filed:

Table of Contents

LOGO

Notice of 2015 Annual Meeting of Stockholders

To Our Stockholders:

        You are cordially invited to attend our 2015 Annual Meeting of Stockholders to be held at the Hilton Hotel, 100 West Glenoaks Boulevard, Glendale, California 91202 on Thursday, April 23, 2015, at 1:30 p.m. Pacific Time. At the meeting, stockholders will vote on the following items of business:

    1.
    Election of the nine directors nominated by our Board to serve a one-year term;

    2.
    Approval, on an advisory basis, of our executive compensation;

    3.
    Approval of our Amended and Restated Bylaws to, among other things, designate the Delaware Court of Chancery as the exclusive forum for adjudicating certain stockholder disputes;

    4.
    Ratification of the appointment of PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP as our independent registered public accounting firm for the 2015 fiscal year; and

    5.
    Transaction of any other business properly brought before the meeting or any adjournment or postponement thereof.

         Our Board recommends that stockholders vote FOR each of the director nominees nominated by our Board, and FOR Items 2, 3 and 4. After considering these items of business at the meeting, Dean Scarborough, our Chairman and Chief Executive Officer, will review our 2014 performance and answer your questions.

        Stockholders of record as of February 23, 2015 are entitled to notice of, and to vote at, the meeting and any adjournment or postponement thereof.

        We will be mailing our Notice of Internet Availability of Proxy Materials, which includes instructions on how to access these materials on the Internet, on or before March 13, 2015. Stockholders who previously elected to receive a paper copy of our proxy materials will be mailed our 2015 proxy statement, annual report, Chairman's letter to stockholders and a proxy card on approximately March 16, 2015.

         Even if you cannot attend the Annual Meeting, it is important that your shares be represented and voted. You may vote as follows:

GRAPHIC

        On behalf of the Board of Directors, management and employees of Avery Dennison, thank you for your continued support.

    By Order of the Board of Directors

 

 

Susan C. Miller
Corporate Secretary

 

 

March 2, 2015

Table of Contents

Our Values

At Avery Dennison, we have an ethical, values-driven culture where bold ideas turn into action. The following core values guide our decisions and support our vision to make brands more inspiring and the world more intelligent. We strive to live these values each and every day because, as a company, they represent who we are.

Integrity
  Service
  Teamwork
We act honestly, ethically and honorably.   We satisfy our customers every time.   We build relationships based on trust, respect and caring.

 

Innovation
  Excellence
  Community
We foster creativity and the development of new ideas, products and processes.   We strive to be the best in everything we do.   We act responsibly as members of the communities in which we operate.

GRAPHIC


Table of Contents

PROXY STATEMENT FOR
2015 ANNUAL MEETING OF STOCKHOLDERS

Table of Contents

 
   

PROXY SUMMARY

  1

CORPORATE GOVERNANCE AND ETHICS

 
7

Corporate Governance

  7

Ethics

  7

OUR BOARD OF DIRECTORS

 
10

Overview

  10

Corporate Governance Guidelines

  11

Director Independence

  11

Board Leadership Structure

  12

Board Committees

  13

Executive Sessions

  14

Risk Oversight

  15

Succession Planning

  16

Director Education

  17

Board and Committee Evaluations

  17

Stockholder Engagement and Communications

  17

ITEM 1 — ELECTION OF DIRECTORS

 
18

Selection of Director Nominees

  18

Director Qualifications

  19

Board Refreshment and Director Succession Planning

  20

Director Diversity

  21

2015 Director Nominees

  21

Director Compensation

  25

Director Compensation Table

  26

ITEM 2 — ADVISORY VOTE TO APPROVE EXECUTIVE COMPENSATION

 
27

COMPENSATION AND EXECUTIVE PERSONNEL COMMITTEE REPORT

 
27

COMPENSATION DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS

 
28

Executive Summary

  29

Summary of Compensation Decisions for 2014

  36

Discussion of Compensation Components and Decisions Impacting 2014 Compensation

  37

Compensation-Setting Tools

  49

Independent Oversight and Expertise

  49

Other Considerations

  51

EXECUTIVE COMPENSATION TABLES

 
52

2014 Summary Compensation Table

  52

2014 Grants of Plan-Based Awards

  54

2014 Outstanding Equity Awards at Fiscal Year-End

  55

2014 Option Exercises and Stock Vested

  57

2014 Pension Benefits

  58

2014 Nonqualified Deferred Compensation

  61

Payments Upon Termination as of January 3, 2015

  63

Equity Compensation Plan Information as of January 3, 2015

  66

Table of Contents


Table of Contents

PROXY SUMMARY

        This section contains summary information described in greater detail in other parts of this proxy statement and does not contain all the information you should consider before voting. Stockholders are urged to read the entire proxy statement before voting.

ANNUAL MEETING INFORMATION

 

 

 
TIME AND DATE   1:30 p.m. Pacific Time on Thursday, April 23, 2015

PLACE

 

Hilton Hotel, 100 West Glenoaks Boulevard, Glendale, California 91202

RECORD DATE

 

Stockholders as of the close of business on February 23, 2015 are entitled to vote at the meeting

ATTENDING THE MEETING

 

Please follow the instructions described under "Annual Meeting Procedures" in the Meeting and Voting Information section of this proxy statement

ITEMS BEING VOTED ON AT ANNUAL MEETING

        Stockholders are being asked to vote on the following items of business at the Annual Meeting. As shown below, our Board of Directors (our "Board") recommends that stockholders vote for all nine director nominees nominated by our Board and in favor of the three other items being brought for stockholder vote.

ITEM
  BOARD
RECOMMENDATION

  VOTE
REQUIRED

  DISCRETIONARY
BROKER VOTING

1.   Election of directors   FOR each nominee   Majority of votes cast   No
2.   Advisory vote to approve executive compensation   FOR   Majority of shares represented and entitled to vote   No
3.

  


 
Approval of Amended and Restated Bylaws to, among other things, designate the Delaware Court of Chancery as the exclusive forum for adjudicating certain stockholder disputes   FOR   Majority of shares represented and entitled to vote   No
4.
  
  Ratification of appointment of PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP as independent registered public accounting firm for fiscal year 2015   FOR   Majority of shares represented and entitled to vote   Yes

2014 PERFORMANCE HIGHLIGHTS

        Fiscal year 2014 was another year of solid progress for our company. On net sales of approximately $6.3 billion, we delivered 3% organic sales growth and 16% growth in adjusted earnings per share (EPS). While we delivered solid annual free cash flow of over $300 million during 2012 and 2013, 2014 free cash flow came in below our expectations, due primarily to the impact of currency fluctuations and actions we took to reduce the volatility associated with year-end changes to our levels of working capital.

GRAPHIC

Avery Dennison Corporation | 2015 Proxy Statement |  1

Table of Contents

        Organic sales growth, adjusted EPS and free cash flow are defined in the Compensation Discussion and Analysis section of this proxy statement. These financial measures, which are not in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles in the United States of America (GAAP), are reconciled to GAAP in Appendix A to this proxy statement.

        Progress Toward Long-Term Financial Targets.    In May 2012, we communicated to our stockholders the long-term financial targets we planned to realize through the end of 2015. As shown below, we delivered strong financial performance during the first three years of this four-year period, meeting or exceeding our organic sales growth and adjusted EPS growth targets. Although our free cash flow fell short of our annual target in 2014 and negatively impacted our three-year average for this measure, as of February 2, 2015, we expected substantially to deliver on our commitments to investors by the end of 2015.

 
  2012-2015
TARGET

  2012-2014
RESULTS


Organic Sales Growth

 

3% - 5%

 

3.9%

Adjusted EPS Growth

 

15%-20% +

 

24.8%

Annual Free Cash Flow

 

$300 mil.+

 

Avg. ~$279 mil.

DELIVERING AGAINST LONG-TERM FINANCIAL TARGETS

        Capital Discipline.    We are committed to maintaining capital discipline, as demonstrated through our significant return of cash to stockholders. We have paid quarterly dividends for decades and increased our annual dividends nearly 68% since 2010. We also have been disciplined in executing our share repurchase program, more than offsetting the dilutive effect of the stock-based incentive compensation we granted in recent years. In December 2014, we announced an authorization from our Board to repurchase an additional $500 million of our common stock. As shown below, over the last three years, we have delivered on our commitment to increase the amount of cash returned to our stockholders.

GRAPHIC

        Strong Total Stockholder Return.    As shown below, our total stockholder return (TSR) for the 2012-2014 three-year period outperformed the S&P 500® and the median of the S&P 500 Industrials subset of which we are a member. TSR measures the return that we have provided our stockholders, including stock price appreciation and dividends paid (assuming reinvestment thereof).

TOTAL STOCKHOLDER RETURN

  2012   2013   2014   3-Year TSR

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

AVY

  26.2%   47.5%   6.2%   97.7%

S&P 500

  16.0%   32.4%   13.7%   74.6%

S&P Industrials (median)

  17.3%   38.0%   11.3%   80.8%
Avery Dennison Corporation | 2015 Proxy Statement |  2

Table of Contents

CORPORATE GOVERNANCE HIGHLIGHTS

        Our corporate governance policies and practices reflect our values, and allow our Board to effectively oversee our company in the interest of creating long-term value. The key elements of our program and the related benefits to our stockholders are set forth below.

OUR POLICY OR PRACTICE
  DESCRIPTION AND BENEFIT TO OUR STOCKHOLDERS
STOCKHOLDER RIGHTS
Annual Election
of Directors

 
Our directors are elected annually, reinforcing their accountability to our stockholders.
Single Class of
Outstanding Voting Stock
  We have no class of preferred stock outstanding, meaning our common stockholders together control our company, with equal voting rights.
Majority Voting for
Director Elections

 
We have a majority vote standard for uncontested director elections, which increases Board accountability to our stockholders.
Mandatory Director
Resignation Policy
  Incumbent directors who are not elected by the majority of our stockholders must tender their resignation.
No Supermajority
Voting Requirements

 
We eliminated the supermajority provisions in our charter and bylaws. Stockholders may amend these documents or approve mergers and similar transactions by simple majority vote.
No Poison Pill   We do not have a stockholder rights plan (commonly referred to as a "poison pill").
BOARD STRUCTURE
Governance
Guidelines

 
Our Corporate Governance Guidelines provide stockholders with information regarding the best practice principles of our corporate governance program and Board framework.
90%
Independent
  All of our current directors, except our Chairman/CEO, are independent, ensuring that our directors oversee our company without undue influence from management.
Robust
Lead Independent
Director Role


 
Our Lead Independent Director is selected annually by our independent directors to perform clearly delineated duties, such as presiding at executive sessions and approving Board agendas.
Committee
Governance
  Our Board Committees have written charters and are comprised exclusively of independent directors. Committee composition and charters are reviewed annually by our Board.
Mandatory
Retirement Policy

 
We have adopted a mandatory director retirement age of 72, which helps ensure regular refreshment of our Board.
Director Tenure   Our Board's Governance and Social Responsibility Committee annually reviews our Board composition, which helps ensure we have the right balance between continuity and fresh perspectives. We have added three new directors in the past five years who remain on our Board today.
Annual
Performance Evaluations

 
Our Board's Governance and Social Responsibility Committee oversees an annual performance evaluation of our Board and its Committees and leadership to ensure they continue to serve the best interests of stockholders.
Access to
Management and Experts
  Our Board and Committes have complete access to all levels of management and can engage advisors at our expense, giving them access to employees with direct responsibility for managing our company and experts to help them fulfill their oversight responsiblities on behalf of our stockholders.
Succession Planning   Our Board's Compensation and Executive Personnel Committee and/or our full Board reviews potential CEO and other senior executive successors at least annually to develop our future leaders and ensure we can sustain business continuity if any of these key employees were to leave our company.
 
EXECUTIVE COMPENSATION
Stringent Stock
Ownership Guidelines
  All of our directors and executive officers meet our stringent stock ownership guidelines, helping ensure the alignment of their interests with those of our stockholders.
Annual
Say-on-Pay Vote

 
Stockholders have the opportunity annually to cast an advisory vote on our executive compensation.
Best Practices   Our executive compensation program reflects a number of best practices, which are summarized on the last page of this proxy summary and in the executive summary of the Compensation Discussion and Analysis section of our proxy statement.
Avery Dennison Corporation | 2015 Proxy Statement |  3

Table of Contents

2015 DIRECTOR NOMINEES

        Since 2011, our Board has overseen a significant transformation of our company, including the execution of our business strategies to deliver strong three- and five-year TSR of 98% and 68%, respectively; the divestiture of two of our businesses in 2013 to focus primarily on our industry-leading Pressure-sensitive Materials and Retail Branding and Information Solutions segments; a restructuring program that delivered over $100 million in annualized savings by mid-2013 and substantially improved our productivity; and the implementation of our Board's succession planning with the recent appointment of Mitchell Butier as our President and Chief Operating Officer. Our Board members have demonstrated commitment to diligently and effectively executing their fiduciary duties on behalf of our stockholders, and we recommend that each of the following currently serving directors be re-elected at the Annual Meeting.

NAME
  AGE
  DIRECTOR
SINCE

  PRINCIPAL OCCUPATION
  INDEPENDENT
  AC
  CC
  GC
Bradley A. Alford   58   2010   Retired Chairman & CEO, Nestlé USA   Yes     M   M
Anthony K. Anderson     59     2012   Retired Vice Chair & Managing Partner, Ernst & Young LLP   Yes   M        
Peter K. Barker   66   2003   Retired Chairman of California, JPMorgan Chase & Co.   Yes   C    
Ken C. Hicks     62     2007   Executive Chairman, Foot Locker, Inc.   Yes   M       M
David E. I. Pyott (LID)   61   1999   Chairman & CEO, Allergan, Inc.   Yes     C   M
Dean A. Scarborough     59     2000   Chairman & CEO, Avery Dennison Corporation   No            
Patrick T. Siewert   59   2005   Managing Director and Partner, The Carlyle Group   Yes   M    
Julia A. Stewart     59     2003   Chairman & CEO, DineEquity, Inc.   Yes       M   C
Martha N. Sullivan   58   2013   President & CEO, Sensata Technologies Holding N.V.   Yes     M  

AC = Audit & Finance Committee    CC = Compensation & Executive Personnel Committee    GC = Governance & Social Responsibility Committee
M = Member    C = Chairman    LID = Lead Independent Director

        Director Rolf L. Börjesson, Retired Chairman of Rexam PLC and member of our Board since 2005, is not being nominated for re-election since he has reached the age of 72 and will be retiring on the date of the Annual Meeting as required by our mandatory director retirement policy. Mr. Börjesson is an independent director and member of the Governance and Social Responsibility Committee.

EXECUTIVE COMPENSATION HIGHLIGHTS

        Our Board's Compensation and Executive Personnel Committee designs our executive compensation program to motivate our executives to execute our business strategies and deliver long-term stockholder value. The program delivers pay for performance, with compensation dependent on our achieving annual and long-term financial and business performance objectives that advance the interests of our stockholders.

        We value our stockholders' opinions about our governance and compensation practices, and we actively solicit input through our stockholder engagement program. In advance of the 2014 Annual Meeting, we engaged in telephonic discussions with stockholders representing approximately 20% of our then-outstanding shares. We also met in person with four of our largest stockholders and the two leading proxy advisory firms in the fall of 2014.

        Total target direct compensation to our executives is comprised of the following three components:

    Base salary;

    Performance-based cash incentive under our Annual Incentive Plan (AIP award); and

    Long-term performance-based incentives delivered in equity, consisting 50% of performance units (PUs) and 50% of market-leveraged stock units (MSUs).

        We target our Named Executive Officers' (NEOs') total direct compensation at the market median, and for 2014, each of our NEOs' target total direct compensation fell at or around the median of the market data utilized by the Compensation and Executive Personnel Committee. The majority of this compensation is at risk, meaning that if we fail to deliver on our financial objectives and create stockholder value, our executives may ultimately not realize some or all of these performance-based components of compensation. In 2014, 85% and 71% of our Chief Executive Officer's (CEO's) and average of other current NEOs' target direct compensation, respectively, was performance-based.

Avery Dennison Corporation | 2015 Proxy Statement |  4

Table of Contents

GRAPHIC

        Over the past five years, there has been strong alignment between our CEO's pay and our TSR, as shown in the graph below. The substantial year-over-year increase in our CEO's compensation in 2014 was primarily due to a $4.6 million increase in the value of his accumulated pension benefit, which was driven by the one-time impact of using the recently released mortality assumptions and the impact of calculating benefits using the current discount rate. Notably, the value of his AIP award decreased by approximately 53% compared to 2013, with the other components of his compensation substantially similar to the prior year. See the Summary Compensation Table in this proxy statement for more information.

History of Strong CEO Pay and TSR Alignment

GRAPHIC

        As summarized on the following page and described in further detail in the Compensation Discussion and Analysis section of this proxy statement, our executive compensation program is aligned with our goals and strategies and reflects best practices.

Avery Dennison Corporation | 2015 Proxy Statement |  5

Table of Contents

What We Do


    Pay for performance — 85% of our CEO's target total direct compensation is tied to company performance
    Emphasize long-term performance — 66% of our CEO's target total direct compensation is equity-based and tied to creating stockholder value
    Use double-trigger change of control vesting provisions — Vesting of equity following a change of control requires termination of employment within 24 months
    Manage share usage conservatively — We reduced our burn rate by over 75% since the end of fiscal year 2012
    Maintain rigorous stock ownership guidelines — 5x base salary for our CEO and 3-4x base salary for our other NEOs
    Review tally sheets — Compensation and Executive Personnel Committee performs a detailed review of executive compensation components, including potential severance and change of control payments
    Maintain clawback policy
    Use an independent compensation consultant retained directly by the Compensation and Executive Personnel Committee, in its sole discretion
    Regularly assess potential risks relating to our compensation policies and practices

What We Don't Do


    Have employment agreements with our NEOs
    Gross up change of control severance benefits for excise taxes
    Provide above-market interest rates in our only deferred compensation plan currently open for deferrals
    Provide gross-ups to cover tax liabilities associated with executive perquisites
    Permit directors or officers to hedge or pledge company stock
    Grant stock options with an exercise price less than the fair market value on the date of grant
    Re-price or exchange stock options without stockholder approval

APPROVAL OF AMENDED AND RESTATED BYLAWS

        We are proposing Amended and Restated Bylaws to, among other things, add a new section designating the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware as the sole and exclusive forum for certain stockholder disputes. Based on the recommendation of its Governance and Social Responsibility Committee, our Board has determined that the exclusive forum provision would be in the best interest of our company and stockholders because, among other things, it would avoid subjecting our company to lawsuits in multiple jurisdictions on matters relating to the corporate law of Delaware, which is our state of incorporation.

RATIFICATION OF APPOINTMENT OF PWC

        Our Board's Audit and Finance Committee has appointed PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP (PwC) as our independent registered public accounting firm for the 2015 fiscal year, and our Board is seeking stockholder ratification of the appointment. PwC is knowledgeable about our operations and accounting practices, and is well qualified to act as our independent registered public accounting firm. The Audit and Finance Committee considered the qualifications, performance, and independence of PwC, the quality of its discussions with PwC, and the fees charged by PwC for the level and quality of services provided during 2014, and has determined that the reappointment of PwC is in the best interest of our company and its stockholders.

Avery Dennison Corporation | 2015 Proxy Statement |  6

Table of Contents

CORPORATE GOVERNANCE AND ETHICS

CORPORATE GOVERNANCE

        Under the oversight of our Board of Directors (our "Board"), we have designed our corporate governance program to ensure continued compliance with applicable laws and regulations, the rules of the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) and the listing standards of the New York Stock Exchange (NYSE), and to reflect best practices as informed by the policies of other public companies, recommendations of our outside advisors, the voting guidelines of our stockholders and the policies of proxy advisory firms. The key features of our program and the related benefits to our stockholders are described in the Corporate Governance Highlights table of our Proxy Summary.

        We encourage stockholders to visit the Corporate Governance section of our website, which includes the following corporate governance documents:

    Code of Ethics for the Chief Executive Officer and Senior Financial Officers;

    Code of Conduct;

    Audit Committee Complaint Procedures for Accounting and Auditing Matters;

    Corporate Governance Guidelines (our "Governance Guidelines"); and

    Charters for our Board's Audit and Finance Committee (the "Audit Committee"), Compensation and Executive Personnel Committee (the "Compensation Committee"), and Governance and Social Responsibility Committee (the "Governance Committee").

        Our website also includes copies of our Amended and Restated Certificate of Incorporation (our "Certificate of Incorporation") and our Amended and Restated Bylaws ("Bylaws"). You can access these documents by going to our website at www.averydennison.com/content/corporate/na/en/home/our-company/corporate-governance.html, but should note that information on our website is not and should not be considered part of, nor is it incorporated by reference into, this proxy statement. You can also receive copies of these documents, without charge, by written request mailed to our Corporate Secretary at Avery Dennison Corporation, 207 Goode Avenue, Glendale, California 91203.

ETHICS

CODE OF ETHICS FOR CEO AND SENIOR FINANCIAL OFFICERS

        We have adopted a Code of Ethics that requires our Chief Executive Officer (CEO), Chief Financial Officer (CFO) and Controller/Chief Accounting Officer to act professionally and ethically in fulfilling their responsibilities. These individuals are expected to avoid actual or apparent conflicts between their personal and professional relationships and disclose any material transaction or relationship that could reasonably be expected to give rise to a conflict of interest to the Governance Committee. In addition, they are expected to ensure that the reports and documents we file with the SEC contain full, fair, accurate and understandable information; respect the confidentiality of information acquired in the course of the performance of their responsibilities; employ corporate assets and resources in a responsible manner; and report violations of our Code of Ethics to the Chair of either the Audit Committee or the Governance Committee. Supporting the principles of our Code of Ethics, our controllership and internal audit functions ensure a robust internal control environment, and regularly report to the Audit Committee.

        Our Code of Ethics is available on our website at www.averydennison.com/content/dam/averydennison/corporate/global/English/Documents/Our%20Company/CSHT-Corporate-Governance-Code-Of-Ethic-CEO.pdf. Only the Audit Committee or Governance Committee can amend or waive the provisions of the Code of Ethics, and any amendments or waivers must be posted promptly on our website and timely filed with the SEC on a Current Report on Form 8-K. Since we adopted our Code of Ethics in February 2004, no amendments have been made and no waivers have been granted.

Avery Dennison Corporation | 2015 Proxy Statement |  7

Table of Contents

CODE OF CONDUCT

        Our Code of Conduct — which is built on our core values of Integrity, Service, Teamwork, Innovation, Excellence and Community — applies to all of our directors, officers and employees and is available on our website at www.averydennison.com/content/dam/averydennison/corporate/global/English/Documents/Our%20Company/CSHT-Code%20of%20Conduct-052113.pdf. Our Code of Conduct has been translated into 30 languages and our employees are trained on it and affirm their commitment to comply with it when they first join our company and periodically thereafter. The core ethical matters discussed in our Code of Conduct, and the related guidance we provide to our team members throughout the world, are summarized below. Our global supplier standards extend our commitment to many of these principles to our third party service providers, establishing our expectations that they also do business in an ethical manner.

OUR CODE OF CONDUCT
ETHICAL MATTER
  OUR BELIEF
Equal
Employment Opportunity

 
We prohibit unlawful discrimination and make employment decisions based on individual qualifications, skills and other factors relevant to the job.
Harassment-Free Workplace   We do not tolerate verbal or physical harassment, bullying or any behavior that creates an intimidating, offensive, abusive or hostile work environment.
Safe and Drug-Free
Work Environment

 
We place a priority on health and safety; we believe that behavior that threatens safety or damages property is unacceptable.
Accurate Business and
Financial Records
  We reflect business and financial transactions fully, fairly and accurately.
Compliance with
Laws and Internal Controls

 
We know that falsification of business documents, financial accounts, reports and claim forms is not acceptable.
Protection of Company Assets
and Intellectual Property
  We use company resources for business purposes and share confidential and proprietary information only when and to the extent necessary.
Records Retention and
Insider Trading

 
We maintain records as required by law and our retention policies, and we comply with securities laws regarding the disclosure of material, non-public information.
Respecting Privacy and
Protecting Personal Data
  We do not share employee or customer information absent legitimate business reasons and with procedural safeguards.
Avoidance of
Conflicts of Interest

 
We put the company's interest ahead of personal interests when acting or making decisions on behalf of our company.
Appropriate Gifts,
Meals and Entertainment
  We avoid exchanges that may influence or appear to influence business transactions.
Corporate Opportunities   We do not misappropriate corporate opportunities.
Supplier Standards   We do not tolerate the use of child labor or forced labor by our business partners and our global supplier standards require them to provide their employees with a safe and healthy workplace and to comply with environmental, health and safety laws.
Honest Sales and Marketing   We do not engage in misleading or deceptive practices, or make false statements about our competitors or their products.
Fair Dealing and
Antitrust Compliance
  We do not give or take payments or other consideration to influence the awarding of a contract or business transaction and we comply with all applicable antitrust laws to promote fair competition.
Trade Compliance   We abide by trade controls that apply to our businesses in the countries in which we operate.
Anti-Corruption and
Anti-Bribery
  We do not allow bribes, kickbacks or any other form of personal payoff tied to our business engagements or with government officials in order to influence a decision or official act.
Governmental Cooperation   We provide truthful, complete and accurate responses to government inquiries and investigations.
Sustainability and
Environmental Consideration
  We strive to mitigate our environmental impact by improving our energy efficiency, reducing the greenhouse gas emissions and waste we generate, producing more sustainable products and conserving natural resources.
Community and
Social Responsibility

 
We meet or exceed local labor standards and strive to be a positive force in the communities in which we operate by contributing time and financial or business resources to community service.
Avery Dennison Corporation | 2015 Proxy Statement |  8

Table of Contents

        Our Business Conduct GuideLine is a hotline available at all hours for employees or third parties to report potential violations of our Code of Conduct, anonymously if they so choose, by (i) calling 888.567.4387 toll-free in the United States or 704.731.0166 collect from outside the United States, or (ii) visiting www.integrity-helpline.com/AveryDennison.jsp (www.financial-integrity.com/AveryDennison.jsp in Europe). The hotline is operated by an independent third party and accepts reports in any language to accommodate the needs of our global workforce and customer/supplier base. All reports are investigated under the direction of our Chief Compliance Officer, in consultation with the law department and senior management and with oversight from the Governance Committee. Our policies prohibit retaliation for good-faith reporting.

COMPLAINT PROCEDURES FOR ACCOUNTING AND AUDITING MATTERS

        The Audit Committee is responsible for ensuring that complaints related to accounting, accounting standards, internal accounting controls and audit practices are handled appropriately and has adopted procedures for the confidential, anonymous submission of complaints regarding these matters. These procedures relate to complaints for fraud or deliberate error in the preparation, evaluation, review or audit of our financial statements or other financial reports; fraud or deliberate error in the recording or maintenance of our financial records; deficiencies in or noncompliance with our internal accounting controls; misrepresentation or false statement to or by a senior officer or accountant regarding a matter contained in our financial records, statements, or other reports; or deviation from full and fair reporting of our financial condition. Any person, including third parties, may submit a good faith complaint regarding accounting and auditing matters; employees may do so without fear of dismissal or other retaliation. The Audit Committee oversees these procedures, which are available on our website at www.averydennison.com/content/dam/averydennison/corporate/global/English/Documents/Our%20Company/CSHT-Corporate-Governance-Audit-Procedures.pdf. Investigations are conducted under the direction of our internal audit department in consultation with the law department and members of senior management to the extent appropriate under the circumstances.

        Stockholders and other interested parties interested in communicating regarding these matters may make an anonymous, confidential report by (i) calling 888.567.4387 toll-free in the United States or at 704.731.0166 collect from outside the United States, (ii) visiting www.integrity-helpline.com/AveryDennison.jsp (www.financial-integrity.com/AveryDennison.jsp in Europe), or (iii) writing to the Audit and Finance Committee Chair, c/o Corporate Secretary, Avery Dennison Corporation, 207 Goode Avenue, Glendale, California 91203.

Avery Dennison Corporation | 2015 Proxy Statement |  9

Table of Contents

OUR BOARD OF DIRECTORS

OVERVIEW

        Our Board of Directors is responsible for overseeing, counseling and directing management in serving the long-term interests of our company and stockholders, with the goal of building long-term stockholder value and ensuring the vitality of our company for our customers, employees and other stakeholders. In this capacity, the Board's primary responsibilities include establishing an effective corporate governance program, with a Board and Committee structure that ensures independent oversight; overseeing our business, strategies and risks; maintaining the integrity of our financial statements; evaluating the performance of our senior executives and determining their compensation; undertaking succession planning for our CEO and other senior executives; and reviewing our annual operating plan and significant strategic and operational objectives and actions.

BOARD COMPOSITION

        Our Bylaws currently provide that our Board consist of between eight and 13 directors, with the exact number fixed from time to time by Board resolution. If Item 3 is approved by our stockholders, this provision will require that our Board consist of between eight and 12 directors, consistent with our Governance Guidelines. Our Board currently has fixed the number of directors at 10, nine of whom are nominated for election at the Annual Meeting and one of whom is scheduled to retire on the date of the Annual Meeting. Our Board currently intends to reduce the size of the Board from 10 to nine upon Mr. Börjesson's retirement.

NAME
  DIRECTOR
SINCE

  PRINCIPAL OCCUPATION
  INDEPENDENT
  AC
  CC
  GC

Bradley A. Alford

  2010   Retired Chairman & CEO, Nestlé USA   Yes     M   M

Anthony K. Anderson

    2012   Retired Vice Chair & Managing Partner, Ernst & Young LLP   Yes   M        

Peter K. Barker

  2003   Retired Chairman of California, JPMorgan Chase & Co.   Yes   C    

Rolf L. Börjesson

    2005   Retired Chairman of Rexam PLC   Yes           M

Ken C. Hicks

  2007   Executive Chairman, Foot Locker, Inc.   Yes   M     M

David E. I. Pyott (LID)

    1999   Chairman & CEO, Allergan, Inc.   Yes       C   M

Dean A. Scarborough

  2000   Chairman & CEO, Avery Dennison Corporation   No      

Patrick T. Siewert

    2005   Managing Director and Partner, The Carlyle Group   Yes   M        

Julia A. Stewart

  2003   Chairman & CEO, DineEquity, Inc.   Yes     M   C

Martha N. Sullivan

    2013   President & CEO, Sensata Technologies Holding N.V.   Yes       M    

AC = Audit & Finance Committee    CC = Compensation & Executive Personnel Committee    GC = Governance & Social Responsibility Committee
M = Member    C = Chair    LID = Lead Independent Director

        Excluding Mr. Börjesson, the age of our directors ranges from 58 to 66, with an average age of 60. Their length of service ranges from two to 15 years, with an average tenure on our Board of approximately nine years. None of our directors serves on more than two other boards of SEC-reporting companies, except for Mr. Anderson, who is retired and serves on three other such boards.

BOARD MEETINGS AND ATTENDANCE

        Our Board met five times and acted once by unanimous written consent during 2014. There were 17 meetings and one action by written consent of the Committees of our Board during the year. Each of our directors attended at least 92% of the aggregate number of meetings of our Board and Committees of which he or she was a member held during 2014; the average attendance of all directors was 98%. Directors are strongly encouraged to attend our annual stockholder meetings and all of them attended the 2014 Annual Meeting.

Avery Dennison Corporation | 2015 Proxy Statement |  10

Table of Contents

CORPORATE GOVERNANCE GUIDELINES

        Our Governance Guidelines, which were last updated in December 2013, provide the corporate governance framework for our company and reflect the beliefs of our Board with respect to the matters described below.

MATTER
  DESCRIPTION
Board
Composition

 
Reasonable Size. Our Board should consist of between eight and 12 directors.

No Over-Boarded Directors. Our directors should sit on five or fewer other public company boards.

Mandatory Retirement. Directors should retire on the date of our annual stockholder meeting occurring after they reach age 72, with no established term limits on service.

Director
Independence

 

Majority Independent. A majority of our directors should satisfy NYSE independence standards.

Regular Executive Sessions. Our independent directors should regularly meet in executive session.

Board
Leadership
Structure



 

Frequent Review. Our Governance Committee should periodically consider the appropriateness of our Board leadership structure, with the independent directors on our Board retaining the authority to separate or combine the positions of Chairman and CEO.

Robust Lead Independent Director Role. Since our CEO is also Chairman, our independent directors should annually select one of themselves to serve as Lead Independent Director.

Board
Committees

 

Independence. Board Committees should be comprised only of independent directors.

Governance. Board Committees should act under charters setting forth their purposes and responsibilities.

Attendance. Directors should attend all meetings of our Board and its Committees on which they serve, and are strongly encouraged to attend all annual stockholder meetings.

Board Duties

 

Management and Expert Access. Directors should exercise their reasonable business judgment and are entitled to rely on our senior executives, to whom they have full and free access, and any independent legal, financial or other advisors they deem necessary or appropriate, which they may engage at our expense.

Strategic and Risk Oversight. Our Board should regularly review our long-term strategic plans, including the major risks facing our company.

Succession Planning. Our Board should periodically conduct succession planning through the Compensation Committee.

Continuous
Board
Improvement

 

New Director Orientation. All new directors should participate in an orientation program after joining our Board to familiarize themselves with our company.

Continuing Education. Directors should continue their education through meetings with management, visits to our facilities and attendance at accredited director education programs and institutes.

Annual Performance Evaluations. The Governance Committee should oversee an annual evaluation process to ensure our Board, Committees, Chairman and Lead Independent Director are functioning effectively.

Director
Qualifications


 

Diverse and Relevant Experience. The Governance Committee should review the skills and characteristics of Board members, as well as the composition of the Board as a whole, and recommend director nominees.

DIRECTOR INDEPENDENCE

        Our Governance Guidelines require that our Board be comprised of a majority of directors who satisfy the criteria for independence under NYSE listing standards. These standards also require that our audit, compensation and nominating committees be comprised entirely of independent directors. An independent director is one who meets the independence requirements of the NYSE and who our Board affirmatively determines has no material relationship with our company, directly or indirectly as a partner, stockholder or officer of an entity with which we have a relationship.

        Each year, our directors complete a questionnaire designed to solicit disclosures that may have a bearing on the annual independence determination, including all relevant relationships they have with our company, directly or indirectly through our company's sale or purchase of products or services to or from the companies or firms with which they are affiliated. The Governance Committee reviews with our Senior Vice President, General Counsel and Corporate Secretary any relevant disclosures made in the questionnaires, as well as any transactions our company has with director-affiliated entities. In February 2015, the Governance Committee noted the following director relationships:

    Mr. Hicks.  Our Retail Branding and Information Solutions segment sells products to Foot Locker, Inc., for which Mr. Hicks currently serves as executive chairman. The payments we received from Foot Locker were on competitive terms, in the ordinary course of business, and under $1 million in each of the last three fiscal years, which is below the threshold set forth in the NYSE's independence standards. Mr. Hicks is expected to retire from Foot Locker in May 2015.

    Mr. Scarborough.  Mr. Scarborough serves as our Chairman and Chief Executive Officer.
Avery Dennison Corporation | 2015 Proxy Statement |  11

Table of Contents

        After review and discussion of the relevant facts and circumstances, including the amounts involved and the director's interest therein, the Governance Committee concluded that only Mr. Scarborough had a relationship that was disqualifying under NYSE listing standards, otherwise material or impairing of director independence. As a result, upon recommendation of the Governance Committee, our Board affirmatively determined all directors other than Mr. Scarborough, or 90% of our current 10-member Board, to be independent. After Mr. Börjesson retires in April 2015, assuming all of the individuals nominated for election are elected at the Annual Meeting, eight directors of our nine-member Board, or 89%, will be independent.


GRAPHIC
 
GRAPHIC

BOARD LEADERSHIP STRUCTURE

        We currently have a combined Chairman/CEO role and a Lead Independent Director. We believe that the combined Chairman/CEO role is appropriate because it allows for one individual to lead our company with a cohesive vision, the ability to execute that vision, and the understanding of the significant enterprise risks that need to be mitigated or overcome to achieve that vision. Combined leadership at the top provides the necessary flexibility for us to address the rapidly changing needs of our businesses in today's globally interdependent economic environment. Mr. Scarborough currently serves in this capacity and does so at the pleasure of our independent directors because he does not have an employment agreement, is elected as Chairman annually (without the ability to vote on such election), and his chairmanship could be immediately terminated by our Board with the election of a successor.

        Balancing our combined Chairman/CEO is our Lead Independent Director, who has critical duties in the boardroom to ensure effective and independent oversight of Board decision-making. Mr. Pyott currently serves as our Lead Independent Director. Our Governance Guidelines describe these duties, which delineate clear responsibilities to ensure independent stewardship of our Board, as summarized below.

Lead Independent Director  

Presides over executive sessions and meetings of our Board at which the Chairman is not present

Current Selectee:
    David E. I. Pyott

Executive Sessions
Led in 2014:
4/5

Lead Independent Director is selected annually by vote of independent directors only.

 

Serves as liaison between the Chairman and our independent directors

Approves meeting agendas and schedules and other information sent to our Board to ensure that appropriate items are discussed and there is sufficient time for discussion of all items

Calls meetings of our independent directors when necessary or appropriate

If requested by major stockholders, consults and directly communicates with our stockholders

        Supplementing the Lead Independent Director are our Committee Chairs and members, all of whom are independent. With the Compensation Committee conducting a rigorous annual evaluation of the CEO's performance that is discussed by all independent directors during executive sessions and the Governance Committee overseeing an annual performance evaluation of our Chairman and Lead Independent Director, we believe our Board leadership structure provides independent oversight of our company.

Avery Dennison Corporation | 2015 Proxy Statement |  12

Table of Contents

        Our Board annually assesses the appropriateness of its leadership structure through the Governance Committee. The Governance Committee performed this evaluation in February 2015, recommending to our Board that Mr. Scarborough continue serving as Chairman, noting that (i) his leadership generated strong financial performance over the past three years, (ii) his service as an independent director on the board and compensation, executive and finance committees of Mattel, Inc. has provided him with valuable insights into board processes and decision-making, and (iii) he received positive feedback on his performance from our independent directors during the 2014 Board evaluation process. The Governance Committee also recommended (with Mr. Pyott abstaining) that Mr. Pyott remain as Lead Independent Director, noting his strong independent leadership of our Board and that his chairmanship of the Compensation Committee and membership on the Governance Committee facilitate independent focus on executive compensation and corporate governance matters.

        Our independent directors determined to continue Mr. Scarborough's service as Chairman in February 2015 based on their belief that the combined leadership structure continues to optimize our ability to execute our strategic priorities, with his election expected to occur in April 2015 in connection with his anticipated re-election as our CEO at that time. In February 2015, Mr. Pyott was again selected by our independent directors as Lead Independent Director to serve, subject to his election by our stockholders, a one-year term beginning immediately after the Annual Meeting.

BOARD COMMITTEES

        Each of our Board committees has a written charter that describes its purposes, membership and meeting structure, and authority and responsibilities. These charters, which may be found in the "Corporate Governance" section of our investor website at www.investors.averydennison.com, are reviewed by the respective committee on an annual basis, with any recommended changes adopted upon approval by our Board. Updated charters are promptly posted on our website. The Charters for the Audit, Compensation and Governance Committees were last amended in July 2014, December 2013 and December 2013, respectively.

        In February 2014, our Board, on the recommendation of the Governance Committee, determined to combine the Board's former standalone finance committee with the audit committee, effective immediately after the 2014 Annual Meeting. The finance committee, which met once during 2014, had been appointed by our Board to oversee matters relating to our financial affairs and capital requirements, including our financial planning policies and practices and our capital structure strategies, including stockholder distributions, financing requirements and pension contributions. The primary responsibilities, membership and meeting information for the three currently standing committees of our Board are summarized below and on the following page.

Audit & Finance Committee  

Oversees financial statement and disclosure matters, including our quarterly and annual financial results, earnings release documentation and SEC reports, internal controls and major financial risk exposures

Members:
    Peter K. Barker (Chair)
    Anthony K. Anderson
    Ken C. Hicks
    Patrick T. Siewert

Meetings in 2014: 8

Average Attendance in 2014: 100%

All members satisfy the audit committee experience and enhanced independence standards required by the NYSE and have been determined by our Board to be financially literate.

Each of Messrs. Anderson and Barker has been determined by our Board to be an "audit committee financial expert" under applicable SEC regulations.

 

Appoints and oversees our independent registered public accounting firm, including its qualifications, performance and independence and the scope, staffing and fees for its annual audit

Oversees our internal audit function, including the senior internal auditor's appointment or dismissal, significant issues reported to management and management's response, and the internal audit plan, budget and staffing

Performs compliance oversight responsibilities, including reviewing complaints regarding accounting, internal accounting controls or auditing matters, significant correspondence with governmental agencies, and legal matters that may have a material impact on our financial statements

Performs finance oversight responsibilities, including reviewing our capital structure and financing plans, capital allocation strategy, the funding status of our pension plans and significant tax matters

Avery Dennison Corporation | 2015 Proxy Statement |  13

Table of Contents

 

Compensation & Executive
Personnel Committee
 

Reviews and approves corporate goals and individual objectives for our CEO's compensation and evaluates our and his performance to determine his annual compensation

Members:
    David E. I. Pyott (Chair)
    Bradley A. Alford
    Julia A. Stewart
    Martha N. Sullivan

Meetings in 2014: 5

Average Attendance in 2014: 95%

All members satisfy the compensation committee enhanced independence standards required by the NYSE.

All members qualify as "non-employee directors" under Rule 16b-3 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and "outside directors" under Section 162(m) of the Internal Revenue Code.

 

Reviews and approves the base salaries and incentive compensation of other senior executives

Makes recommendations on our compensation strategy, incentive plans and benefit programs

Discusses with management our Compensation Discussion and Analysis (the CD&A) and recommends that the CD&A as well as the Compensation and Executive Personnel Committee Report be included in our proxy statement

Oversees our stockholders' approval of executive compensation matters, including advisory votes on executive compensation and the frequency of such votes

Periodically evaluates the extent to which our compensation policies and programs creates incentives that encourage excessive risk-taking

Recommends the compensation of our non-employee directors

Conducts succession planning for our CEO and other senior executives

 

Governance & Social
Responsibility Committee
 

Identifies potential Board members and recommends director nominees

Recommends the structure, chairmanship and membership of our Board committees

Members:
    Julia A. Stewart (Chair)
    Bradley A. Alford
    Rolf L. Börjesson
    Ken C. Hicks
    David E. I. Pyott

Meetings in 2014: 3

Average Attendance in 2014: 100%

 

Recommends the directors who satisfy the independence requirements of the NYSE

Reviews any of our related person transactions

Oversees and conducts an annual performance evaluation of our Board and its Committees

Reviews our Governance Guidelines and recommends any changes to our Board

Discusses our social responsibility initiatives and considers the impact of our business operations and practices on matters of sustainability and corporate citizenship

Oversees the effectiveness of our values and ethics program and Code of Conduct and evaluates significant conflicts of interest or questions related to our legal and ethical conduct policy

EXECUTIVE SESSIONS

        Our Board believes it is important to have executive sessions without our CEO present, which are scheduled during every meeting of the Board. Our independent directors have robust and candid discussions at these executive sessions during which they can critically evaluate the performance of our company, CEO and management. During 2014, Mr. Pyott presided as Lead Independent Director at four executive sessions of independent directors and Ms. Stewart presided at the one such executive session from which Mr. Pyott was absent.

        In addition, during 2014, executive sessions were scheduled for each regular meeting of the Audit, Compensation and Governance Committees. All of these executive sessions excluded Mr. Scarborough and other members of management.

Avery Dennison Corporation | 2015 Proxy Statement |  14

Table of Contents

RISK OVERSIGHT

ENTERPRISE RISK MANAGEMENT & STRATEGIC RISKS

        Management is responsible for managing the day-to-day risks confronting our businesses, but our Board has responsibility for overseeing enterprise risk management (ERM). We have a Chief Compliance Officer who, with assistance from our Vice President of Internal Audit and members of their respective teams, drives ERM accountability into our businesses, ensures that they semiannually complete a risk profile, and semiannually prepares a corporate risk profile based on identified business-specific risks as well as enterprise-wide risks. In addition, we have robust global processes that together support a strong internal control environment to promote the early identification and continued management of risks by our company's leadership. Our legal and compliance functions report into our General Counsel to provide independent evaluation of the challenges facing our businesses.

        Our Board as a whole oversees risks related to our corporate and business strategies and operations, exercising this responsibility by considering the relevant risks related to its decisions. In performing this oversight role, our Board is responsible for ensuring that the risk management processes designed and implemented by management are functioning, and that necessary steps are taken to foster a culture of risk-adjusted decision-making within our company. Each year, our Board receives reports on the strategic plans and risks facing our company as a whole from our CEO and CFO, as well as our business segments from their leaders and management teams. These risks may include financial risks, political and regulatory risks, legal risks, supply chain risks, competitive risks, information technology risks, and other risks related to the ways in which we do business. Employees who supervise various day-to-day risks, such as environmental, tax and sustainability matters, provide reports periodically to Board Committees, as well as occasionally to our full Board.

        Our Board has delegated to its Committees certain elements of its risk oversight function to better coordinate with management and serve the long-term interests of our stockholders. Our Board receives reports from Committee Chairs regarding topics discussed at every Committee meeting, which includes the areas of risk overseen primarily by the Committees.

OVERSIGHT OF RISK
BOARD OR COMMITTEE
  MAJOR AREAS OF RESPONSIBILITY
Board of Directors   Corporate and business strategies and operations
Annual operating plan and significant capital expenditures
Corporate governance
Audit Committee   Financial reporting processes, statements and internal controls
Capital structure
Financing, including borrowing, liquidity, capital allocation and pension plan funding
Stockholder distributions (dividends and stock repurchases)
Information technology and cybersecurity
Legal, compliance, regulatory and tax matters
Compensation Committee   Compensation plans and benefit programs
Executive compensation
Performance objectives for our incentive plans
Director compensation
Succession planning
Governance Committee   Board and committee membership and structure
Values and ethics
Conflicts of interest and related person transactions
Corporate citizenship and sustainability
Legal, compliance and regulatory matters

        Supplementing these processes, the Audit Committee annually discusses our risk assessment and mitigation processes to ensure that our risk management programs are effective. The Audit Committee also periodically meets in executive session with each of our CFO, General Counsel, Vice President of Internal Audit, and representatives of our independent registered public accounting firm. In addition, the Audit Committee oversees our internal control environment and evaluates the effectiveness of our internal controls at least annually.

Avery Dennison Corporation | 2015 Proxy Statement |  15

Table of Contents

RISKS ASSOCIATED WITH COMPENSATION POLICIES AND PRACTICES

        As described in the Compensation Discussion and Analysis section of this proxy statement, we maintain best practices in compensation and corporate governance that collectively encourage ongoing risk assessment and mitigation. The Compensation Committee periodically reviews our executive compensation program to ensure that it does not provide incentives that encourage our employees to take excessive risks in managing their respective businesses or functional areas.

        At the Compensation Committee's request, its independent compensation consultant, Towers Watson, conducted a risk assessment of our executive compensation program in 2013, considering the substantial changes implemented for our annual and long-term incentive programs in that year. Towers Watson evaluated our executive compensation program as a whole, noting the following:

    the program appropriately balances executive retention with rewarding stockholder value creation;

    the substantial majority of executive compensation is variable, with a mix that is consistent with market practices and primarily equity-based to promote long-term performance and sustainable growth;

    the incentive mix is well-balanced, with short- and long-term performance metrics that do not overlap, cover different time periods and are balanced among annual financial objectives and long-term economic and stockholder value creation, as well as between growth and efficient capital deployment;

    our Annual Incentive Plan (AIP) and long-term incentives (LTIs) appropriately balance profitable growth in the near term with sustainable long-term financial success, use multiple performance metrics, measure performance at multiple levels (corporate, business unit and individual), and provide realized compensation based primarily on our performance;

    the Compensation Committee may exercise downward discretion to adjust AIP and LTI awards based on individual performance;

    AIP awards are not guaranteed, with below-threshold performance yielding zero payout, and payments subject to caps;

    our equity award vehicles are performance-based, use multiple performance metrics, are subject to threshold and maximum payout opportunities to encourage appropriate performance focus and limit potential risk-taking, and cliff vest at the end of three years or vest over one-, two-, three- and four-year performance periods;

    our clawback policy is consistent with market practices;

    our change of control and general severance plans are reasonable and appropriate, with change of control benefits provided on a double-trigger basis and not grossed up for excise taxes; and

    our stock ownership guidelines are rigorous and consistent with market practices.

        No changes to our compensation programs and policies were made in 2014 that would alter the conclusions reached in the 2013 risk assessment described above. Based on these and other factors, as well as the advice of Towers Watson, the Compensation Committee has concluded that our compensation policies and practices strike an appropriate compensation-risk balance, do not encourage excessive risk-taking and do not as a whole create risks that are reasonably likely to have a material adverse effect on our company.

SUCCESSION PLANNING

SUPPORTING PROCESSES

        Our Board is actively involved in talent management to identify and cultivate our future leaders. We maintain a robust mid-year and annual performance review process and leadership development program for our employees. Management develops leadership at lower levels of our organization by identifying core talent, cultivating the skills and capabilities that will allow identified individuals to become our future leaders, assessing their development and identifying gaps and developmental needs in skills and experience. Through regular reports from management, our Board has the opportunity to meet with leaders of our company, including business group leaders and functional leaders in law, finance, information technology, risk, and human resources. In addition, Board members have freedom of access to all employees, and are encouraged to make site visits to meet local management and attend company events.

        The Compensation Committee conducts executive succession planning at least annually. In February 2014, the Compensation Committee reviewed individuals identified as possible CEO succession candidates, including progress in current job position and career development in terms of strategy, leadership and execution. In July 2014, the full Board discussed

Avery Dennison Corporation | 2015 Proxy Statement |  16

Table of Contents

leadership below the executive officer level, identifying the talent that is currently ready — or, with continued development on their current trajectory with mentorship and coaching from our current leaders, will be ready — to fill executive officer positions in the event of a vacancy.

2014 APPOINTMENT OF PRESIDENT AND COO

        Based on these meetings and further one-on-one discussions between our Chairman/CEO and each director, the Compensation Committee discussed the potential appointment of Mitchell R. Butier, former Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer, as President and Chief Operating Officer during meetings held in September and October 2014. In October 2014, Mr. Scarborough and Donald A. Nolan resigned from the offices of President and President, Materials Group, respectively, and Mr. Butier was elected by our Board to the additional offices of President and Chief Operating Officer, in each case effective as of November 1, 2014. Mr. Butier continues to serve as Chief Financial Officer until his recently named successor commences employment with our company.

DIRECTOR EDUCATION

NEW DIRECTOR ORIENTATION

        Our new director orientation generally covers our corporate vision, strategy and leadership team; investor messaging; the strategies and risks of our businesses; finance matters, including our financial reporting policies and practices, internal control environment, internal audit deployment, tax planning and compliance and capital structure; legal matters, including corporate governance policies and procedures, values and ethics, compliance, and ERM; human resources matters, including executive compensation, succession planning and non-employee director compensation; and our information technology strategy.

CONTINUING EDUCATION

        Our continuing director education program consists of periodic visits to our facilities and management presentations regarding our business operations, strategies, risks and values and ethics. We provide updates on relevant topics of interest to our Board at meetings throughout the year. We also reimburse directors who attend accredited director education programs and institutes for program fees and related expenses.

BOARD AND COMMITTEE EVALUATIONS

        The Governance Committee oversees and conducts an annual performance evaluation of our Board, Chairman and Lead Independent Director, and Board Committees, including the Committee Chairs. Many of the improvements in our corporate governance practices and Board processes have resulted from the annual evaluation process. Our Board views the annual evaluation process as an integral part of its commitment to cultivating excellence and best practices in its performance.

STOCKHOLDER ENGAGEMENT AND COMMUNICATIONS

GOVERNANCE ENGAGEMENT

        We value our stockholders' opinions about our governance policies and practices, and we actively solicit input through our stockholder engagement program. Our Board and management continued their long-standing practice of open dialogue with stockholders in 2014. In advance of the 2014 Annual Meeting, we proactively contacted our thirty largest institutional stockholders, representing nearly 60% of our then-outstanding shares, to solicit their views on our corporate governance and executive compensation programs and made certain Board members and management available to answer questions or address concerns. As a result of this effort, we engaged in telephonic discussions with stockholders representing approximately 20% of our then-outstanding shares. We also met in person with four of our largest stockholders and the two leading proxy advisory firms in the fall of 2014.

        We continually review correspondence submitted by institutional stockholders, discussing matters raised with our senior management and/or Board to the extent appropriate under the circumstances. We welcome the feedback on our corporate governance program that this active and ongoing engagement with stockholders provides.

CONTACTING OUR BOARD

        Stockholders may contact our Board, Chairman, Lead Independent Director, any Committee or Committee Chair, or any other individual director concerning business-related matters by writing to: Board of Directors (or a particular subgroup or individual director), c/o Corporate Secretary, Avery Dennison Corporation, 207 Goode Avenue, Glendale, California 91203.

Avery Dennison Corporation | 2015 Proxy Statement |  17

Table of Contents

ITEM 1 — ELECTION OF DIRECTORS

        Our Bylaws currently provide for a Board of between eight and 13 directors, with the exact number fixed from time to time by a resolution of our Board. If Item 3 is approved by our stockholders, this provision will require that our Board consist of between eight and 12 directors, consistent with our Governance Guidelines. There are currently 10 directors on our Board, nine of whom are nominated for election at the Annual Meeting due to Mr. Börjesson's retirement. All directors are being nominated for a one-year term. Our Board currently plans to fix the number of directors at nine upon Mr. Börjesson's retirement.

        Each of the nine nominees is presently serving as director on our Board and has consented to being named in this proxy statement and continue serving if elected.

MAJORITY VOTING STANDARD

        Our Bylaws provide for the majority voting of directors in uncontested elections like this one and require that an incumbent director who is not re-elected tender his or her resignation from the Board. Our Board, excluding the tendering director, is required to determine whether to accept the resignation — taking into account the recommendation of the Governance Committee and any other relevant factors it considers appropriate — and publicly disclose its decision regarding the tendered resignation, including its rationale for the decision, within 90 days from the date election results are certified. In a contested election, plurality voting is the standard for election of directors.

        In voting for the election of directors, each share has one vote for each position to be filled and there is no cumulative voting.

RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD OF DIRECTORS

        Your Board of Directors recommends that you vote FOR each of the director nominees. The persons named as proxies will vote for the election of each of the nine nominees, unless you specify otherwise. If any director nominee were to become unavailable prior to the Annual Meeting, your proxy would be voted for a substitute nominee designated by our Board or we would reduce the size of our Board.

SELECTION OF DIRECTOR NOMINEES

        Director nominees are generally recommended by the Governance Committee for nomination by our Board and election by our stockholders. Director nominees may also be recommended by the Governance Committee for appointment to our Board, with election by stockholders to follow at the next Annual Meeting. Our Board believes that the backgrounds and qualifications of our directors, considered as a group, provide a mix of complementary experience, knowledge and abilities that allows our directors effectively to fulfill their oversight responsibilities.

        In considering whether to recommend a candidate as a director nominee, the Governance Committee applies the criteria described in our Governance Guidelines, including the potential nominee's ability to qualify as independent, to ensure that a majority of our Board remains independent; relevant business experience, considering factors such as size, industry, scope, complexity and global operations; time commitments, including other boards on which the nominee serves; potential conflicts of interest; ability to contribute to the oversight and governance of our company; and ability to represent the balanced interests of stockholders as a whole, rather than those of any special interest group. For incumbent directors, these criteria also include contributions to our Board and Committees; attendance record at Board and Committee meetings; compliance with our stock ownership guidelines; and mandatory retirement date to assist with Board succession planning. The Governance Committee does not assign specific weights to the criteria and no particular criterion is necessarily applicable to all nominees.

        The Governance Committee reviews the qualifications of any candidate with those of current directors to determine coverage and gaps in experience in relevant industries and functional areas, such as finance, manufacturing, and technology. Sources for identifying potential nominees include existing Board members, our executive officers, third-party search firms, and our stockholders.

Avery Dennison Corporation | 2015 Proxy Statement |  18

Table of Contents

STOCKHOLDER SUBMISSION OF DIRECTOR NOMINEES

        Stockholders may recommend director candidates by submitting the candidate's name, together with his or her biographical information, professional experience and written consent to nomination, to Governance and Social Responsibility Committee Chair, c/o Corporate Secretary, Avery Dennison Corporation, 207 Goode Avenue, Glendale, California 91203.

        To be considered at the 2016 Annual Meeting, stockholder nominations must comply with the requirements described in the last section of this proxy statement under Submission of Stockholder Items for 2016 Annual Meeting. The Governance Committee considers stockholder nominees on the same basis as it considers all other nominees.

DIRECTOR QUALIFICATIONS

        The qualifications that are particularly desirable for our directors to possess to provide oversight and stewardship of our company include the following:

QUALIFICATION
  DESCRIPTION
  VALUE TO OUR BOARD AND STOCKHOLDERS
  # (%) OF
NOMINEES


Senior
Leadership
Experience



 

Service as president, chief executive officer or in similar senior executive positions

 

Provides us valuable external perspectives with which to assess our operations, execute our strategies, mitigate related risks, and improve our policies and procedures

 

8 (89%)
Global
Experience
  Seniority in a global enterprise or significant experience in international markets   Gives us insight into the geographic markets in which we operate, helping us navigate mature markets, as well as seize opportunities in higher-growth emerging markets   9 (100%)
Relevant
Industry
Knowledge


 
Experience in the retail, packaging or consumer goods industries   Allows us to better understand the needs of our customers in developing our business strategies, as well as evaluate acquisition and divestiture opportunities   6 (67%)
Financial
Sophistication
  Understanding of accounting, auditing, tax, banking, insurance, or investments   Helps us manage our capital structure, optimize stockholder distributions, undertake significant transactions, and oversee our accounting, financial reporting and internal control processes   4 (45%)
Board
Experience

 
Prior or concurrent service on other SEC-reporting company boards   Demonstrates understanding of the extensive and complex oversight responsibilities of directors and helps reinforce management accountability for maximizing long-term stockholder value   9 (100%)

GRAPHIC

Avery Dennison Corporation | 2015 Proxy Statement |  19

Table of Contents

BOARD REFRESHMENT AND DIRECTOR SUCCESSION PLANNING

        Our Governance Guidelines reflect our belief that directors should not be subject to term limits. While term limits could help bring fresh ideas and viewpoints to the Board, we believe they are outweighed by the disadvantage of causing the loss of a director who over a period of time has developed insight into our strategies, operations and risks and continues to provide valuable contributions to Board deliberations. We believe that our decision not to establish term limits is consistent with the majority of companies in the S&P 500. We recognize that certain governance stakeholders have suggested that longer-serving directors may have decreased independence and objectivity, and we have adopted the policies shown on the following chart that together facilitate regular refreshment of our Board and ensure that it continues to appropriately challenge our management.

POLICIES SUPPORTING BOARD REFRESHMENT
POLICY
  DESCRIPTION
  EVENTS OCCURRING AT OR SINCE 2014 ANNUAL MEETING

Mandatory
Resignation
Policy



 

Incumbent directors who are not elected by our stockholders must tender their resignation.

 

All incumbent directors were elected at the 2014 Annual Meeting.

Mandatory
Retirement
Policy

 

Directors must retire on the date of the annual meeting of stockholders that follows their reaching the age of 72. Since inception, this policy has never been waived.

 

Mr. Cardis retired on the date of the 2014 Annual Meeting.
Mr. Börjesson is scheduled to retire on the date of the 2015 Annual Meeting.
Resignation
Tendered
Upon
Change in
Principal
Employment





 
Directors who change the principal occupation, position or responsibility they held when they were elected to our Board must volunteer to resign from the Board.   Mr. Hicks ceased being President and Chief Executive Officer of Foot Locker, Inc. on November 30, 2014 and is expected to leave that company in May 2015. Mr. Hicks volunteered to resign from our Board. After excusing him from the meeting, the Governance Committee determined that Mr. Hicks should remain on our Board.
Prior Notice
Requirement
to Prevent
Over-Boarding
  Directors must give prior notice before accepting another public company directorship so that the director's ability to fulfill Board responsibilities may be appropriately evaluated if he or she serves on more than five other public company boards.   Mr. Alford joined the board of Unified Grocers, Inc. in July 2014. Although he does not serve on more than five other public company boards, after excusing him from the meeting, the Governance Committee determined that Mr. Alford should continue to serve on our Board.

        In part as a result of these policies, a new independent director was appointed to our Board during each year in the 2009-2013 period. While two of these directors subsequently resigned from our Board (not due to any disagreement with our company), this recent experience demonstrates our commitment to Board refreshment.

        The average tenure of our Board is approximately nine years, which we believe is consistent with the average tenure for companies in the S&P 500. The graph below shows the tenure of our director nominees.

GRAPHIC

Avery Dennison Corporation | 2015 Proxy Statement |  20

Table of Contents

DIRECTOR DIVERSITY

        Although we do not have a formal policy regarding the consideration of diversity in selecting director nominees, the Governance Committee seeks to recommend individuals with a broad diversity of experience, profession, skill, geographic representation and background, which may include consideration of personal characteristics such as race, color, gender and national origin. While diversity is a consideration, nominees are not chosen or excluded solely or primarily based on such basis; rather, the Governance Committee focuses on skills, expertise and background to complement the existing Board in light of the diverse and global nature of our businesses and operations.

        Our Board recognizes the benefits of racial and gender diversity in the boardroom, including better reflecting our diverse, global customer base and the healthy debate that stems from different viewpoints that may result from diverse backgrounds. Of the five new independent directors appointed to our Board from 2009 to 2013, two were women and one was an African-American man. The racial and gender diversity of our 2015 director nominees is reflected on the following chart.

GRAPHIC

2015 DIRECTOR NOMINEES

        The following pages provide information on each nominee for election at the Annual Meeting, including his or her age, board leadership roles held, and business experience during at least the past five years. We also indicate the name of any other public company for which each nominee currently serves as a director, or has served during the past five years; for these purposes, "public company" means one that is required to file reports with the SEC.

        In addition to the information presented below regarding each nominee's experience and qualifications that led our Board to the conclusion that he or she should serve as a director — which includes senior leadership experience, global experience, relevant industry knowledge, financial sophistication, and public company board experience — we believe that each of these nominees has integrity and adheres to our high ethical standards. In addition, each of them has demonstrated the ability to exercise sound judgment, as well as the commitment to serving the long-term interests of our stockholders.

Avery Dennison Corporation | 2015 Proxy Statement |  21

Table of Contents

GRAPHIC

 

SELECT BUSINESS EXPERIENCE

Nestlé USA, a nutrition, health and wellness company

Chairman & Chief Executive Officer from January 2006 to October 2012

Nestlé Brands Company, an operating unit of Nestlé USA

President & Chief Executive Officer from 2003 to December 2005

    

Bradley A. Alford

Age 58


Director since April 2010


Independent


Other Public Company Boards

Current:

Unified Grocers, Inc.

Past Five Years:

None

 

SKILLS AND QUALIFICATIONS

Substantial leadership experience

Led a company with $12+ billion in annual revenues and 26,000+ employees

Industry knowledge

30+ years in the consumer goods industry

Knowledge of the food and beverage segments into which we sell our pressure-sensitive materials

Global experience

International management assignments

Significant mergers and acquisitions and integration experience

CURRENT BOARD LEADERSHIP ROLES

Compensation Committee Member Governance Committee Member

     

GRAPHIC

 

SELECT BUSINESS EXPERIENCE

Ernst & Young LLP, an assurance, tax, transaction and advisory services firm

Vice Chair, Managing Partner and Member of the Executive Board from 2000 to March 2012

    

Anthony K. Anderson

Age 59


Director since December 2012


Independent


Other Public Company Boards

Current:

AAR Corporation

Exelon Corporation

First American Financial Corporation

Past Five Years:

None

 

SELECT SKILLS AND QUALIFICATIONS

Substantial leadership experience

Served on the executive board of Ernst & Young for 12 years, and as the managing partner of the Midwest and Pacific Southwest regions

Director of The Chicago Council on Global Affairs, World Business Chicago and the Chicago Urban League (Former Chairman)

Financial expertise

35 years of financial and risk management expertise acquired through auditing global public companies

Substantial experience advising several audit committees of large multinational corporations

Certified public accountant (now inactive)

Public board experience

Concurrent service on three other public boards

CURRENT BOARD LEADERSHIP ROLE

Audit Committee Member

     

GRAPHIC

 

SELECT BUSINESS EXPERIENCE

JPMorgan Chase & Co., a global financial services firm

Chairman of California and Executive Committee Member from September 2009 to January 2013

Goldman Sachs & Co., an investment banking, securities and investment management firm

Partner/Managing Director from 1982 to 1998

    

Peter K. Barker

Age 66


Director since January 2003


Independent


Other Public Company Boards

Current:

Fluor Corporation

Franklin Resources, Inc.

Past Five Years:

None

 

SELECT SKILLS AND QUALIFICATIONS

Substantial leadership experience

Led a division with over 21,000 employees

Member of the executive committee overseeing a global enterprise with $100+ billion in annual revenues

Financial expertise

37 years of investment banking experience, advising companies on capital structure, strategic planning, financing, recapitalization, acquisitions and divestitures

Public board experience

Concurrent service on two other public boards; prior service on other public boards

CURRENT BOARD LEADERSHIP ROLE

Audit Committee Chair


   
Avery Dennison Corporation | 2015 Proxy Statement |  22

Table of Contents

GRAPHIC

 

SELECT BUSINESS EXPERIENCE

Foot Locker, Inc., a specialty athletic retailer

Executive Chairman from December 2014 to Present

Chairman, President & Chief Executive Officer from February 2010 to November 2014

President, Chief Executive Officer & Director from August 2009 to February 2010

J.C. Penney Company, Inc., a retail company

President & Chief Merchandising Officer from January 2005 to July 2009

President & Chief Operating Officer from July 2002 to December 2004

    

Ken C. Hicks

Age 62


Director since July 2007


Independent


Other Public Company Boards

Current:

Foot Locker, Inc.

Past Five Years:

None

 

SELECT SKILLS AND QUALIFICATIONS

Substantial leadership experience

Oversees a company with over $6 billion in 2013 revenues and over 43,000 employees

Industry knowledge

29 years of senior marketing and operational experience in the retail industry into which we sell our retail branding and information solutions

Public board experience

Concurrent service on one other public board

CURRENT BOARD LEADERSHIP ROLES

Audit Committee Member Governance Committee Member

     

GRAPHIC

 

SELECT BUSINESS EXPERIENCE

Allergan, Inc., a global health care company

Chairman & Chief Executive Officer from June 2013 to Present and February 2006 to April 2011

Chairman, President & Chief Executive Officer from April 2011 to June 2013 and April 2001 to January 2006

President & Chief Executive Officer from January 1998 to March 2001

    

David E.I. Pyott

Age 61


Director since November 1999


Independent


Other Public Company Boards

Current:

Allergan, Inc.

Past Five Years:

Edwards Lifesciences Corporation

 

SELECT SKILLS AND QUALIFICATIONS

Substantial leadership experience

Leads a company with over $7 billion in 2014 revenues and over 11,000 employees

Global experience

30+ years of strategic, operational, research and development and marketing experience in the health care industry into which we sell our pressure-sensitive materials and medical solutions

Public board experience

Concurrent service on one other public board; prior service on other public boards

CURRENT BOARD LEADERSHIP ROLES

Lead Independent Director Compensation Committee Chair
Governance Committee Member

     

GRAPHIC

 

SELECT BUSINESS EXPERIENCE

Avery Dennison Corporation

Chairman & Chief Executive Officer from November 2014 to Present

Chairman, President & Chief Executive Officer from April 2010 to October 2014

President & Chief Executive Officer from May 2005 to April 2010

President & Chief Operating Officer from May 2000 to April 2005

Group Vice President, Roll Materials from November 1999 to April 2000

    

Dean A. Scarborough

Age 59


Director since May 2000


Other Public Company Boards

Current:

Mattel, Inc.

Past Five Years:

None

 

SELECT SKILLS AND QUALIFICATIONS

Substantial leadership experience

Five years leading our company as Chairman, ten years as Chief Executive Officer and 14 years as President

Global experience

30+ years managing or overseeing our global pressure-sensitive materials operations

Public board experience

Concurrent service on one other board

CURRENT BOARD LEADERSHIP ROLE

Chairman


   
Avery Dennison Corporation | 2015 Proxy Statement |  23

Table of Contents

GRAPHIC

 

SELECT BUSINESS EXPERIENCE

The Carlyle Group, a global alternative investment firm

Managing Director and Partner from April 2007 to Present

The Coca-Cola Company, the world's largest beverage company

Senior Advisor from February 2006 to March 2007

Group President, Asia from August 2001 to February 2006

    

Patrick T. Siewert

Age 59


Director since April 2005


Independent


Other Public Company Boards

Current:

Mondelēz International, Inc.

Past Five Years:

None

 

SELECT SKILLS AND QUALIFICATIONS

Industry knowledge

Advised and led a division of a global company in the beverage segment of consumer goods industry into which we sell our pressure-sensitive materials

Global experience

Work experience in Asia, a region in which we manufacture many of our products and a geographic market that is driving our sales growth in emerging markets

Public board experience

Concurrent service on one other public board

CURRENT BOARD LEADERSHIP ROLE

Audit Committee Member

     

GRAPHIC

 

SELECT BUSINESS EXPERIENCE

DineEquity, Inc., owner, operator and franchisor of IHOP and Applebee's restaurants

Chairman & Chief Executive Officer from June 2008 to Present

IHOP Corporation, DineEquity's predecessor entity

Chairman & Chief Executive Officer from May 2006 to May 2008

President, Chief Executive Officer & Chief Operating Officer from May 2002 to April 2006

President & Chief Operating Officer from December 2001 to May 2002

    

Julia A. Stewart

Age 59


Director since January 2003


Independent


Other Public Company Boards

Current:

DineEquity, Inc.

Past Five Years:

None

 

SELECT SKILLS AND QUALIFICATIONS

Substantial leadership experience

Leads the world's largest full-service restaurant company

Global experience

Substantial operational and marketing experience in the dining industry

Expertise in brand positioning, risk assessment, financial reporting and corporate governance

Public board experience

Concurrent service on one other public board; prior service on one public board

CURRENT BOARD LEADERSHIP ROLES

Governance Committee Chair Compensation Committee Member

     

GRAPHIC

 

SELECT BUSINESS EXPERIENCE

Sensata Technologies Holding N.V., a leading supplier of sensors and controls

President & Chief Executive Officer from January 2013 to Present

President from September 2010 to December 2012

Chief Operating Officer from April 2006 to August 2010

Texas Instruments, Inc., Sensata's predecessor entity

Vice President of Sensor Products from 1997 to 2006

    

Martha N. Sullivan

Age 58


Director since February 2013


Independent


Other Public Company Boards

Current:

Sensata Technologies Holding N.V.

Past Five Years:

None

 

SELECT SKILLS AND QUALIFICATIONS

Substantial leadership experience

Leads a business-to-business enterprise with over $2 billion in 2014 revenues

Global experience

Oversees all business segments, global operations and strategic planning

Strong technology background, including experience overseeing a radio-frequency identification business

Public board experience

Concurrent service on one other public board

CURRENT BOARD LEADERSHIP ROLE

Compensation Committee Member

Avery Dennison Corporation | 2015 Proxy Statement |  24

Table of Contents

DIRECTOR COMPENSATION

        The Compensation Committee targets director compensation at the median of companies similar in size, global scope and complexity with which we compete for director talent to support the recruitment and retention of our non-employee directors. In addition, the Compensation Committee provides the majority of director compensation in equity, to align director interests with those of our stockholders.

        Non-employee director compensation was last changed in February 2013 when — based on advice from its independent compensation consultant that our director compensation was below the median — the Compensation Committee increased the target total compensation from $195,000 to $225,000 to approximate the projected market median in 2015. The table on the following page provides information regarding the compensation earned by or awarded to our non-employee directors during 2014. The primary components of this compensation are shown in the chart below.

ANNUAL NON-EMPLOYEE DIRECTOR COMPENSATION
 

Equity Grant of Restricted Stock Units

  $ 125,000  

Cash Retainer

  $ 90,000  

Match of Charitable/Educational Contributions

  $ 10,000  

Additional Cash Retainer for Lead Independent Director

  $ 20,000  

Additional Cash Retainer for Audit Committee Chair

  $ 20,000  

Additional Cash Retainer for Compensation Committee Chair

  $ 15,000  

Additional Cash Retainer for Governance Committee Chair

  $ 15,000  

TARGETED AT MEDIAN

 

EQUITY COMPENSATION

        The annual equity grant of approximately $125,000 is denominated in restricted stock units (RSUs) that vest ratably over three years, except that all unvested RSUs fully vest upon a director's death, disability, retirement from our Board after reaching age 72 or termination of service within 24 months after a change of control. Unvested RSUs are cancelled in the event a director voluntarily resigns, is not re-elected by our stockholders or is otherwise asked to leave our Board. On May 1, 2014, each of our then-serving directors was granted 2,577 RSUs based on the fair market value of our common stock on that date.

DEFERRABLE CASH COMPENSATION

        Cash retainers are paid semi-annually in arrears and prorated for any director's partial service during the year. The retainers of the former Chair of the Audit Committee and the Chair of the former standalone finance committee of $20,000 and $15,000, respectively, were prorated for their respective term of service through April 2014, when the former Audit Committee Chair retired and the former standalone finance committee was combined to form the Audit Committee. Directors are also reimbursed for travel expenses incurred to attend Board meetings and continuing education events.

        Non-employee directors may choose to receive their compensation in (i) cash, either paid directly or deferred into an account under our Directors Variable Deferred Compensation Plan (DVDCP), which accrues earnings at the rate of return of certain bond and equity investment funds managed by an insurance company; (ii) deferred stock units (DSUs) credited to an individual account under the Directors Deferred Equity Compensation Plan (DDECP); or (iii) a combination of cash and DSUs. None of our directors currently participate in the DVDCP. When a director participating in the DDECP retires or otherwise ceases serving as a director, the dollar value of the DSUs in his or her account is divided by the closing price of our common stock on the last date of the director's service, with the resulting number of shares of our common stock issued to the director. Dividend equivalents, representing the value of dividends per share paid on shares of our common stock calculated with reference to the number of DSUs held as of a dividend record date, are reinvested on the applicable payable date in the form of additional DSUs credited to the accounts of directors who participate in the DDECP.

MATCHING GIFT PROGRAM

        We match up to $10,000 per year of each non-employee director's contributions to charitable organizations or educational institutions.

Avery Dennison Corporation | 2015 Proxy Statement |  25

Table of Contents

DIRECTOR COMPENSATION TABLE

NAME
  FEES
EARNED
OR PAID
IN CASH(1)

  STOCK
AWARDS(2)

  CHANGE IN
PENSION VALUE AND
NONQUALIFIED DEFERRED
COMPENSATION EARNINGS(3)

  ALL OTHER
COMPENSATION(4)

  TOTAL
 

Bradley A. Alford

  $ 90,000   $ 117,802  


$ 10,000   $ 217,802  

Anthony A. Anderson

  $ 90,000   $ 117,802           $ 207,802  

Peter K. Barker

  $ 105,000   $ 117,802  


$ 10,000   $ 232,802  

Rolf L. Börjesson

  $ 90,000   $ 117,802           $ 207,802  

John T. Cardis(5)

  $ 36,667  





$ 10,000   $ 46,667  

Ken C. Hicks

  $ 90,000   $ 117,802       $ 10,000   $ 217,802  

Charles H. Noski(5)

  $ 52,500   $ 117,802  





$ 170,302  

David E.I. Pyott

  $ 125,000   $ 117,802   $ 18,227       $ 261,029  

Patrick T. Siewert

  $ 90,000   $ 117,802  


$ 3,000   $ 210,802  

Julia A. Stewart

  $ 105,000   $ 117,802       $ 10,000   $ 232,802  

Martha N. Sullivan

  $ 90,000   $ 117,802  


$ 10,000   $ 217,802  

(1)
Mr. Scarborough does not appear in the table because he receives compensation as our CEO and does not receive any additional compensation as director. Amounts represent retainers earned as set forth in the following table. At their election, the following directors deferred their cash compensation through the DDECP, with the following balance of DSUs in their accounts as of January 3, 2015, the last day of our 2014 fiscal year: Mr. Alford — 11,395; Mr. Anderson — 3,817; Mr. Barker — 21,076; Mr. Hicks — 9,855; Mr. Pyott — 39,686; Ms. Stewart — 28,914; and Ms. Sullivan — 3,720.

NAME
  BOARD LEADERSHIP ROLES DURING 2014
  BOARD
RETAINER

  COMMITTEE
CHAIR RETAINER

 
Mr. Alford     $ 90,000    
Mr. Anderson       $ 90,000      
Mr. Barker   Current Audit Committee Chair; Former Finance Committee Chair   $ 90,000   $ 15,000  
Mr. Börjesson       $ 90,000      
Mr. Cardis   Former Audit Committee Chair   $ 30,000   $ 6,667  
Mr. Hicks       $ 90,000      
Mr. Noski     $ 52,500    
Mr. Pyott   Lead Independent Director; Compensation Committee Chair   $ 110,000   $ 15,000  
Mr. Siewert     $ 90,000    
Ms. Stewart   Governance Committee Chair   $ 90,000   $ 15,000  
Ms. Sullivan     $ 90,000  

 
(2)
Amounts reflect the grant date fair value, without adjustment for forfeitures, of 2,577 RSUs granted on May 1, 2014. The fair value of RSUs was determined based on the fair market value of our common stock on the grant date, adjusted for foregone dividends. Each non-employee director serving as of January 3, 2015 held a total of 5,131 unvested RSUs, except that Mr. Anderson and Ms. Sullivan had a total of 4,837 and 4,746 unvested RSUs, respectively. Due to their retirement and resignation, respectively, during 2014, Messrs. Cardis and Noski had no unvested RSUs outstanding as of January 3, 2015.

(3)
We do not currently have a retirement benefit program for non-employee directors. Amount for Mr. Pyott reflects the change in present value of his accumulated benefits under a director retirement plan the accrual of benefits under which was frozen in 2002, based on an interest rate of 4.00% as of January 3, 2015. The value of Mr. Pyott's retirement benefit is higher than in 2013 primarily because the discount rate decreased from 4.85% in 2013 to 4.00% in 2014; because the plan is frozen, none of the year-over-year increase was due to the increased accrual of benefits.

(4)
Amounts reflect our matching gifts for contributions made to charitable organizations or educational institutions.

(5)
Mr. Cardis retired from our Board on the date of the 2014 Annual Meeting and received only cash compensation, prorated for his period of service through April 2014. Mr. Noski resigned from our Board on July 31, 2014 and received equity compensation and cash compensation, the former of which was forfeited upon his resignation and the latter of which was prorated for his service during the year through the date of his resignation.
Avery Dennison Corporation | 2015 Proxy Statement |  26

Table of Contents

ITEM 2 — ADVISORY VOTE TO APPROVE EXECUTIVE COMPENSATION

        Our Board has determined to hold annual say-on-pay votes, at least until the next advisory vote on the frequency of our say-on-pay vote (which will occur no later than our 2017 Annual Meeting). Our stockholders are being asked to vote on the following resolution:

    RESOLVED, that our stockholders approve, on an advisory basis, the compensation of our Named Executive Officers, as described in the Compensation Discussion and Analysis and Executive Compensation Tables sections of our 2015 proxy statement.

RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD OF DIRECTORS

        The Compensation Committee considered feedback from stockholders regarding our executive compensation program and made significant changes to our program for 2014 and 2015 both to address stockholder concerns and more closely align our compensation program with our current financial position and business strategies. Your Board of Directors recommends that you vote FOR approval, on an advisory basis, of our executive compensation. Properly dated and signed proxies will be so voted unless stockholders specify otherwise.

MEANING OF ADVISORY VOTE

        The advisory vote is a vote to approve the compensation of our Named Executive Officers (NEOs), as described in Compensation Discussion and Analysis (the CD&A) and Executive Compensation Tables sections of this proxy statement. It is not a vote on our general compensation policies or any specific element thereof, the compensation of our non-employee directors, or our program features designed to prevent excessive risk-taking as described in Risks Associated with Compensation Policies and Practices.

        The results of the advisory vote are not binding on our Board. However, in accordance with SEC regulations, the Compensation Committee will disclose the extent to which it takes into account the results of the vote in the CD&A of our 2016 proxy statement. We remain committed to continued engagement with our stockholders to solicit their viewpoints and discuss why we believe our executive compensation program properly aligns with our strategies and incents our executives to achieve strong long-term operating and financial performance for our stockholders.

COMPENSATION AND EXECUTIVE PERSONNEL COMMITTEE REPORT

        The Compensation and Executive Personnel Committee (referred to in this report as the "Committee") of the Board of Directors has reviewed and discussed the Compensation Discussion and Analysis (CD&A) required by Item 402(b) of Regulation S-K with management and, based on its review and these discussions, has recommended to the Board of Directors that the CD&A be included or incorporated by reference in our 2014 Annual Report on Form 10-K and 2015 proxy statement.

        The Committee welcomes feedback regarding our executive compensation program. Stockholders may communicate with the Committee by writing to the Compensation and Executive Personnel Committee Chair, c/o Corporate Secretary, Avery Dennison Corporation, 207 Goode Avenue, Glendale, California 91203.

David E. I. Pyott, Chair
Bradley A. Alford
Julia A. Stewart
Martha N. Sullivan

This Compensation and Executive Personnel Committee Report does not constitute soliciting material and should not be deemed filed or incorporated by reference into any of our filings under the Securities Act of 1933, as amended (the "Securities Act"), or the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the "Exchange Act"), whether made before or after the date hereof, unless specifically incorporated by reference therein.

Avery Dennison Corporation | 2015 Proxy Statement |  27

Table of Contents

COMPENSATION DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS*

        This CD&A provides an overview and analysis of the principles and practices underlying our executive compensation program and the decisions made by the Compensation Committee (referred to in this CD&A as the "Committee") related to 2014 compensation. This CD&A is organized into the following sections:

    Executive Summary

    2014 Performance Highlights

    2014 Say-on-Pay Vote and Stockholder Engagement

    Recent Compensation Program Changes

    Overview of Pay Philosophy and Executive Compensation Components

    Strong Compensation Governance Practices

    Summary of Compensation Decisions for 2014

    Discussion of Compensation Components and Decisions Impacting 2014 Compensation

    Base Salary

    2014 AIP Awards

    2014 Grants of LTI Awards

    2014 Vesting of Previously Granted LTI Awards

    Perquisites

    Benefits

    Severance Benefits

    Compensation-Setting Tools

    Independent Oversight and Expertise

    Other Considerations

        In this CD&A and the Executive Compensation Tables section of this proxy statement, we provide compensation information for our NEOs for 2014, who are identified below.

2014 NAMED EXECUTIVE OFFICERS
NAME   TITLE   EMPLOYMENT HISTORY AT OUR COMPANY
Dean A. Scarborough   Chairman & Chief Executive Officer   Served in a number of capacities since joining in 1983, including President from May 2000 to October 2014, Chief Executive Officer since May 2005 and Chairman since April 2010.
Mitchell R. Butier   President, Chief Operating Officer & Chief Financial Officer   Appointed as President and Chief Operating Officer in November 2014, after serving as Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer (CFO). He currently retains the CFO position until his recently named successor commences employment with our company. Served in several other capacities since joining our company in August 2000.
Anne Hill   Senior Vice President, Chief Human Resources & Communications Officer   Appointed to her current role in January 2012, after serving as Senior Vice President and Chief Human Resources Officer since starting in March 2007.
Susan C. Miller   Senior Vice President, General Counsel & Secretary   Joined in September 1991. Served in a number of capacities before being appointed as Senior Vice President and General Counsel in March 2008 and the additional office of Secretary in December 2008.
R. Shawn Neville   President, Retail Branding and Information Solutions   Began in June 2009 as Group Vice President of the business group he continues to lead as President.
Donald A. Nolan   Former President, Materials Group   Started in March 2008 as Group Vice President of the business group he led as President through October 2014. He ceased serving in such capacity effective November 1, 2014 and left our company before the end of our 2014 fiscal year.

        The NEOs who served at the end of our 2014 fiscal year (which excludes Mr. Nolan) are collectively referred to in this CD&A as our "Current NEOs."

   


*
This CD&A contains "forward-looking statements" within the meaning of the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995. These forward-looking statements are subject to certain risks and uncertainties, which could cause actual results to differ materially from the results, performance or achievements expressed or implied thereby. For a detailed discussion of these risks, see Part I, Item 1a. "Risk Factors" and Part II, Item 7. "Management's Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations" in our 2014 Annual Report on Form 10-K, filed on February 25, 2015 with the SEC (our "2014 Annual Report"). Stockholders should note that statements contained in this CD&A regarding our company and business group performance targets and goals should not be interpreted as management's expectations, estimates of results or other guidance.
Avery Dennison Corporation | 2015 Proxy Statement |  28

Table of Contents

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

2014 PERFORMANCE HIGHLIGHTS

        We initiated a major transformation of our business in response to our relatively weak performance in 2011, establishing and committing to the achievement of aggressive long-term financial targets that we communicated to our stockholders in May 2012 and aimed to achieve by the end of 2015. In the first three years of this four-year period, we delivered well against these goals by executing our strategies to grow through innovation and differentiated quality and service; expand margins through productivity and leveraging scale; and effectively deploy capital. As shown below, we are meeting or exceeding our organic sales growth and adjusted earnings per share (EPS) growth targets. Although our free cash flow fell short of our annual target in 2014 and negatively impacted our three-year average, we still expect substantially to deliver on our commitments to investors by the end of 2015.

GRAPHIC

(1)
Organic sales change refers to the increase or decrease in sales excluding the estimated impact of currency translation, product line exits, acquisitions and divestitures, and, where applicable, the extra week in the fiscal year. Percentages represent compound annual growth rates.

(2)
Adjusted EPS refers to reported income from continuing operations per common share, assuming dilution, adjusted for tax-effected restructuring costs and other items.

(3)
Free cash flow refers to cash flow from operations, less payments for property, plant and equipment, software and other deferred charges, plus proceeds from sales of property, plant and equipment, plus (minus) net proceeds from sales (purchases) of investments, plus discretionary contributions to pension plans and a charitable contribution to Avery Dennison Foundation utilizing proceeds from divestitures. Free cash flow excludes uses of cash that do not directly or immediately support the underlying business, such as discretionary debt reductions, dividends, share repurchases, and certain effects of acquisitions and divestitures (e.g., cash flow from discontinued operations, taxes, and transaction costs).

        In 2014, we delivered strong consolidated financial results, including net sales of $6.3 billion, reported EPS of $2.60 (includes discontinued operations), adjusted EPS from continuing operations of $3.11 and free cash flow of approximately $204 million. Adjusted EPS for the year was above the midpoint of the guidance range we provided to investors in January 2014.

        We achieved these results while maintaining a healthy balance sheet and delivering on our commitment to return cash to stockholders through dividend payments and share repurchases. In 2014, we returned approximately $481 million to our stockholders by (i) repurchasing 7.4 million, or approximately 8%, of our outstanding shares at an aggregate cost of

   


For complete information regarding our 2014 performance, see "Management's Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations" — in particular the information contained under the heading "Non-GAAP Financial Measures" — and our audited consolidated financial statements and notes thereto contained in our 2014 Annual Report.
Avery Dennison Corporation | 2015 Proxy Statement |  29

Table of Contents

approximately $356 million and (ii) paying an annual dividend of $1.34 per share for an aggregate amount of approximately $125 million. Notably, we raised our quarterly dividend rate by 21% in April 2014.

GRAPHIC

        As shown below, our total stockholder return (TSR) for the 2012-2014 three-year period outperformed the S&P 500 and the median of the S&P 500 Industrials subset of which we are a member.

TOTAL STOCKHOLDER RETURN 
    2012   2013   2014   3-Year TSR
AVY   26.2%   47.5%   6.2%   97.7%
S&P 500   16.0%   32.4%   13.7%   74.6%
S&P Industrials (median)   17.3%   38.0%   11.3%   80.8%

2014 SAY-ON-PAY VOTE AND STOCKHOLDER ENGAGEMENT

        Our Board and management continued their long-standing practice of open dialogue with stockholders in 2014. We made significant changes to our executive compensation program in response to direct feedback from our stockholders and to more closely align our long-term incentives with our current strategic and financial profile. These changes demonstrate the Committee's commitment to paying for performance and following best practices.

Results and Analysis of 2014 Vote

        At the 2014 Annual Meeting, approximately 70% of our stockholders approved our 2013 executive compensation. This level of support was significantly lower than the 91% support we received in 2013 and below what we and the Committee deem acceptable. During dialogue with our stockholders in connection with the 2014 Annual Meeting, we determined that there was a need to highlight the significant impact on our long-term pay-and-performance alignment of our relatively poor performance in 2011, which represented an inflection point in our turnaround and was largely an anomalous year. We also determined that we needed to better explain market-leveraged stock units (MSUs), the new equity award vehicle adopted by the Committee based on the expert advice and recommendation of its independent compensation consultant, Towers Watson.

        To address the feedback we received and provide additional disclosure on certain aspects of our compensation, we filed supplemental proxy materials in April 2014. These materials described the transformation of our businesses since 2011 and the resulting strong TSR outperformance in 2012 and 2013 compared to the S&P 500. We also provided additional disclosure about MSUs and clarified how recent changes to our executive compensation program — including the replacement of stock options and restricted stock units (RSUs) with MSUs to reduce our burn rate and make our long-term incentive program fully performance based — were designed to support our business transformation and address stockholder concerns.

Proxy- and Off-Season Stockholder Engagement

        Consistent with prior years, we embarked on a substantial stockholder outreach effort in connection with the 2014 Annual Meeting. We contacted our thirty largest institutional stockholders, representing over 60% of our then-outstanding shares, to make our Committee Chair and management available to discuss our executive compensation program, answer questions and solicit feedback. As a result of this effort, we engaged in telephonic discussions with stockholders representing approximately 20% of our then-outstanding shares. These teleconferences were attended by a combination of the Committee Chair and members of management below the executive officer level in our law, finance and executive compensation functions.

        In addition, in the fall of 2014, one of the members of the Committee led in-person meetings with four of our largest institutional investors and the two leading proxy advisory firms. We increased our normal outreach with these additional

Avery Dennison Corporation | 2015 Proxy Statement |  30

Table of Contents

meetings in response to the 2014 say-on-pay vote to have a broad discussion about our program and seek feedback on our practices.

RECENT COMPENSATION PROGRAM CHANGES

        The Committee evaluated the 2014 vote results and discussed the feedback received from our stockholders with management and Towers Watson, taking several actions to address stockholder concerns. These changes, which are described in the chart below, demonstrate the Committee's ongoing evaluation of our executive compensation program and willingness to make adjustments to reflect feedback received from stockholders and improvements in our company's financial profile.

Committee's Rationale for MSUs

        The Committee determined that it was appropriate to use an equity vehicle that has one-, two-, three- and four-year performance periods because MSUs replaced stock options and RSUs, both of which vested ratably over four years. The transition from stock options and RSUs to MSUs was made to address burn rate concerns raised by our stockholders and to improve the performance linkage of our LTI program. Although the grant of stock options had been negatively impacting our burn rate, they were easily understandable to executives and viewed as performance based given that they required stock price appreciation to deliver value. RSUs, which were generally granted in smaller amounts than stock options as a result of their respective valuation methodologies, delivered guaranteed value if executives remained employed through the applicable vesting dates. MSUs were designed to achieve the combined objectives of these previously-used equity vehicles, including retention (similar to RSUs) and the provision of meaningful upside opportunity tied to stock price appreciation (similar to options, but more limited due to fewer shares earned for target performance and a cap on the number of shares that can be earned above target), while making the LTI program fully performance based. The Committee believes that retention is an important objective of our executive compensation program.

Avery Dennison Corporation | 2015 Proxy Statement |  31

Table of Contents

ISSUE
  STOCKHOLDER CONCERN
  ACTIONS TAKEN BY COMMITTEE
  EFFECTIVE
CHANGES MADE IN 2013
Share Utilization   Burn rate at end of 2012 was relatively high at 2.8%

Dilution at end of 2012 was relatively high at 13.4%


 

Suspended regular grant of stock options given inefficiency in terms of share usage relative to full-value awards

Began granting cash-based incentives to lower-level management to more conservatively manage share usage and reduce dilutive impact to stockholders

As a result of these changes, our burn rate and dilution at the end of 2014 had significantly decreased to 0.6% and 7.3%, respectively. Our burn rate was less than one-third of the industry benchmark of approximately 2% for companies in the S&P 500 Industrials subset





 


2013



2013
Performance-Based
Nature of LTI Awards
  Program included stock options, which some stockholders and proxy advisory firms did not view as performance based

Program included time-vesting restricted stock units (RSUs), which are not performance based
 
Concern supported decision to reduce burn rate by suspending regular grant of stock options

Suspended regular grant of time-vesting RSUs to executives

Increased allocation of three-year cliff-vesting performance units (PUs) from 40% of long-term incentive (LTI) to 50%

Replaced stock options and RSUs with performance-based market-leveraged stock units (MSUs), which vest over one-, two-, three- and four-year performance periods (with an average vesting period of 2.5 years) based on our absolute TSR

These changes made our long-term incentive program fully performance based
 
N/A


2013



2013




2013
Single Performance
Objective for PUs

 
Single performance objective could unduly focus management on that measure to the exclusion of other measures of performance  
Reintroduced cumulative economic value added (EVA) as a second performance objective for PUs (in addition to relative TSR vs. peers), weighted 50% for our corporate NEOs (based on our company as a whole) and 75% for our business group NEOs (based on their respective business group), to incent our NEOs to achieve profitable growth as well as create stockholder value

 

2013
Avery Dennison Corporation | 2015 Proxy Statement |  32

Table of Contents


ISSUE
  STOCKHOLDER CONCERN
  ACTIONS TAKEN BY COMMITTEE
  EFFECTIVE
CHANGES MADE IN 2014
PU
Performance Criteria

 
Potential for above-target payouts in periods of negative absolute TSR  
Capped the payout for the TSR-tied component of PUs at 100% of target for any three-year performance period in which absolute TSR is negative to prevent management from being unduly enriched when stockholders experience loss, while still incenting relatively strong performance during challenging economic periods

 
2015
MSU
Performance Criteria
  Vesting of MSUs at threshold where TSR declines up to 30% and vesting of MSUs at target where TSR is flat  
Increased threshold performance level for absolute TSR from -30% to -15% and target performance level from flat TSR to requiring an absolute TSR increase of 10%. Previous levels appropriately reflected business transformation underway when MSU program began; more stringent threshold and target payout levels reflect our improved business and financial profile
  2015
MSU
Vesting Schedule

 
Long-term incentives vesting ratably, including one-year performance periods  
Clarified disclosure to reflect that MSUs vest based on one-, two-, three- and four-year performance periods, with an average vesting period of 2.5 years. Emphasized MSUs were designed to advance retention objective because they replaced stock options and RSUs (both of which had annual vesting opportunities) and balance PUs (which cliff-vest after three years)

 
N/A
Maximum Potential
AIP Award
  Combination of maximum financial modifier of 200% and maximum individual modifier of 150% could result in outsize AIP award of 300%  
Capped AIP awards at 200% of target (financial modifier and individual modifier combined) for all NEOs, consistent with our historical practice for our CEO. For 2015, this cap has been extended to all AIP participants.
  2014
AIP
Individual Modifier

 
Committee's evaluation of NEO performance could increase AIP awards in seemingly discretionary manner  
Committed to providing greater transparency of individual modifier components for CEO, consistent with disclosure for 2013 included in supplemental proxy materials filed in 2014

 
2014
Above-Median
Benchmarking
  Base salaries targeted at the lower end of the third quartile and closer to the market median  
Confirmed practice of targeting base salaries at or around the market median. Reconfirmed that total direct compensation is targeted at the median
  N/A

Hedging and
Pledging Policy


 

Despite historical record of no hedging or pledging by officers or directors, had not formally prohibited such activities given pending SEC regulations

 

Amended insider trading policy expressly to prohibit hedging and pledging by directors and officers

 

2014

OVERVIEW OF PAY PHILOSOPHY AND EXECUTIVE COMPENSATION COMPONENTS

        The Committee has designed our executive compensation program to reflect its philosophy that a substantial majority of compensation should be tied to our success in meeting predetermined performance objectives and positively influencing stock price appreciation. The objective of this strategy is to motivate our executives to achieve our annual and long-term financial goals and recognize their contributions in delivering strong corporate and/or business group performance.

        Our incentive compensation for 2014 consisted of an award under our Annual Incentive Plan (AIP) and long-term incentive (LTI) awards, with payouts determined based on our performance against goals established by the Committee in February 2014. The Committee structures incentive compensation to reward NEOs based on corporate and/or business group performance, as well as their individual contributions, to motivate them and align their compensation with stockholder interests. Our incentive compensation awards provide upside opportunity for exceeding performance targets and downside risk, including forfeiture or cancellation, for failing to achieve performance targets, with targets generally established above the midpoint of our annual guidance and consistent with our long-term financial goals. As shown in red in the following charts, the substantial majority of our NEOs' target total direct compensation in 2014 was performance-based and at risk.

Avery Dennison Corporation | 2015 Proxy Statement |  33

Table of Contents

2014 Target Total Direct Compensation (TDC)

GRAPHIC

        As shown in the graph below, our CEO's compensation, as reflected in the Summary Compensation Table of our proxy statements, has been strongly aligned with our TSR performance over the last five years. The substantial year-over-year increase in our CEO's compensation in 2014 was primarily due to a $4.6 million increase in the value of his accumulated pension benefit driven by the one-time impact of using the updated post-retirement mortality rate* and the impact of calculating benefits using the current discount rate. Notably, the value of his AIP award decreased by approximately 53% compared to 2013, with the other components of his compensation substantially similar to the prior year.

History of Strong CEO Pay and TSR Alignment

GRAPHIC

   


*
RP 2014 White Collar Mortality Table with MP-2014 Projection Scale. See "2014 Pension Benefits" in Executive Compensation Tables for more information.
Avery Dennison Corporation | 2015 Proxy Statement |  34

Table of Contents

STRONG COMPENSATION GOVERNANCE PRACTICES

        Our executive compensation program incorporates the following best practices, which we believe ensure that the program serves the long-term interests of our stockholders.

POLICY OR BEST PRACTICE
  DESCRIPTION AND BENEFIT TO OUR STOCKHOLDERS
PAY FOR PERFORMANCE
Median Targeting   Total direct compensation (base salary + annual cash incentive opportunity + long-term equity incentive opportunity) is targeted at the median of companies similar in size, scope and complexity.
Majority of Compensation
Performance-Based
  For 2014, 85% of our CEO's and an average of 71% of our other Current NEOs' target total direct compensation was tied to company performance and subject to forfeiture if our performance is poor.
Capped Annual Incentive
Set Above Midpoint of
Guidance


 
Annual cash incentive compensation is based primarily on our achievement of performance objectives targeted above the midpoint of our annual guidance and consistent with our long-term financial goals, and secondarily on the Committee's assessment of our NEOs' achievement of defined and measurable strategic objectives, with awards capped at 200% of target.
Majority Long-Term Equity
Incentive Compensation
  Our equity-based incentive awards emphasize our long-term performance, with PUs cliff-vesting at the end of three years and MSUs having an average vesting period of 2.5 years. Equity compensation helps ensure alignment of NEO interests with stockholder interests by delivering compensation dependent on our long-term performance and stockholder value creation.
No Stock Options   Given their past adverse impact on our burn rate and related stockholder feedback, we suspended the regular grant of stock options.
BEST PRACTICES
No Employment
Agreements
  Our NEOs are employed at will.
Rigorous Stock
Ownership Guidelines

 
Our CEO is required to obtain and maintain shares equal to the lesser of 5x his annual salary or 95,000 shares; he currently owns shares with a market value greater than 20x his annual salary. All our Current NEOs are in compliance with our stock ownership guidelines.
No Hedging
or Pledging
  Our insider trading policy prohibits our directors and officers from hedging or pledging our common stock and all our Current NEOs are in compliance with the policy.
Low Burn Rate
and Dilution

 
Our burn rate and dilution at the end of fiscal year 2014 were 0.6% and 7.3%, respectively. Our burn rate was less than one-third of the industry benchmark of approximately 2% for companies in the S&P 500 Industrials subset.
Clawback Policy   Cash and equity incentive compensation is subject to clawback in the event of fraud or other intentional misconduct on the part of an NEO that necessitates a restatement of our financial results.
No Excise Tax
Gross Ups

 
We do not gross-up payments received in connection with termination following a change of control for excise taxes.
Double Trigger
Equity Vesting
  Equity awards granted after April 26, 2012 would not be accelerated on change of control, unless the NEO experiences a separation of service within 24 months thereof.
No Repricing/Exchange of
Underwater Stock Options

 
Our stock option and incentive plan prohibits the repricing/exchange of underwater options without stockholder approval.
Limited
Perquisites
  Other than a capped financial planning reimbursement and our payment for an annual physical examination, our NEOs receive a flat taxable executive benefit allowance in lieu of enumerated perquisites that is not subject to any tax gross-up.
Reasonable
Severance Benefits

 
Severance formula:
CEO: 2x (annual salary + highest AIP award in last three years + cash value of 12 months of health insurance premiums)
Other NEOs: annual salary + highest AIP award in last three years + cash value of 12 months of health insurance premiums
Reasonable Change of
Control Benefits
  Change of Control Severance Formula (requires termination within 24 months of a change of control):
CEO: 3x (annual salary + highest AIP award in last three years + cash value of 12 months of health insurance premiums) + prorated AIP award for year of termination
Other NEOs: 2x (annual salary + highest AIP award in last three years + 12 months of health insurance premiums) + prorated AIP award for year of termination
STRONG GOVERNANCE
Independent
Oversight

 
The Committee is comprised solely of independent directors.
Independent
Expert Advice
  Towers Watson, which has been determined by the Committee to be independent and free of conflicts of interest, provides the Committee with expert executive compensation advice.
Avery Dennison Corporation | 2015 Proxy Statement |  35

Table of Contents

SUMMARY OF COMPENSATION DECISIONS FOR 2014

        The Committee targets total direct compensation for NEOs at the median of companies similar in size, scope and complexity with which we compete for executive talent. Total direct compensation includes base salary, target AIP opportunity and target LTI opportunity. The Committee believes this positioning is appropriate given our business portfolio mix, product diversity and the global nature of our operations, which require our executives to have a wide range of business leadership experience and skills. For 2014, each of our NEO's total direct compensation fell around the median of the market data utilized by the Committee.

        The key elements of our 2014 NEO target total direct compensation are shown in the following table. While we provide consistent, market-competitive total direct compensation opportunities for our NEOs, the actual compensation they realize varies year-to-year based on our performance.

        Payout at vesting for MSUs is determined based on the following formula:

(stock price at settlement* + reinvested dividends during the period)
stock price at grant*

*
Stock price at settlement is the average closing price of our common stock during the trading days of the January following the end of the performance period; stock price at grant is the average closing price of our common stock during the trading days of the January of the year of grant.

2014 TOTAL DIRECT COMPENSATION (TDC)
COMPONENT
  DESCRIPTION
  DECISIONS IMPACTING 2014 EXECUTIVE COMPENSATION
            
PERFORMANCE-BASED EQUITY

Target
LTI Award

66% of TDC for CEO
Avg. 51% of TDC for
Other Current NEOs




 
Provides variable, equity-based incentive compensation to enhance alignment of our executive's interests with stockholder interests and drive long-term value creation

LTI opportunity based on market survey data; award vehicles, performance criteria and weightings based on expert advice and recommendation of Towers Watson

  LTI Granted in 2014

There was no change in NEO target LTI opportunities for 2014, other than: (i) an increase in Mr. Scarborough's target LTI opportunity from 420% to 450% to reflect the market median and (ii) for 2014 only, increases of 20% for Ms. Hill and 30% for Messrs. Butier, Neville and Nolan in order to recognize the impact their leadership of their respective function or business group had in contributing to our strong financial performance for the 2013 fiscal year.

50% in PUs that cliff-vest at the end of a three-year period subject to our achieving at least the threshold level of performance for the EVA and TSR objectives established for the award. No change in performance objectives or weightings from 2013.

50% in MSUs that vest based on our absolute TSR over one-, two-, three- and four-year performance periods, with an average vesting period of 2.5 years. No change in performance objectives or weightings from 2013.

Changes to award vehicles to reflect stockholder feedback and improvements in our company's financial profile were not reflected in 2014 awards because awards were made in February 2014. Changes have been reflected in 2015 awards.

LTI Vesting in 2014

With a relative TSR of 52% compared to an objectively determined peer group of 50 companies established at the time of grant, the PUs granted in 2012 vested at 107% of target for the three-year performance period ending in 2014.

2nd Tranche payout for MSUs granted in 2013

($52.72 + $3.05) /$36.23 = 1.54            (see formula above)

Paid out at 154% of target

1st Tranche payout for MSUs granted in 2014

($52.72 + $1.47)/$50.22 = 1.08            (see formula above)

Paid out at 108% of target

Avery Dennison Corporation | 2015 Proxy Statement |  36

Table of Contents

2014 TOTAL DIRECT COMPENSATION (TDC)
COMPONENT
  DESCRIPTION
  DECISIONS IMPACTING 2014 EXECUTIVE COMPENSATION
            
PERFORMANCE-BASED CASH

Target
AIP Award

Capped at 200% of target

19% of TDC for CEO
Avg. 20% of TDC for
Other Current NEOs




 
Provides variable, cash-based incentive to motivate our executives annually to grow sales, increase profitability and deliver strong free cash flow consistent with our long-term financial objectives

AIP opportunity based on market survey data; financial modifier based on corporate and/or business group performance; individual modifier based on defined strategic objectives.

  There were no changes in NEO target AIP opportunities for 2014.

Our company and/or business group performance resulted in financial modifier for CEO and other corporate Current NEOs of 78% and financial modifier for business group Current NEO of 40%.

Individual NEO performance warranted modifiers within the range of 80% to 130%, reflecting their achievement of strategic objectives determined at the beginning of 2014.

The Committee determined AIP awards within the range of 32% to 101% of target.

            
FIXED

Base Salary

15% of TDC for CEO
Avg. 29% of TDC for
Other Current NEOs

  Provides fixed, market competitive monthly income for performing daily responsibilities   The Committee provided limited increases around 3%, consistent with average increase for U.S. employees, with modest (less than 1%) adjustments for certain NEOs to reflect their prior-year performance or position their salary at or around the market median.
2014 TDC TARGETED AT MEDIAN

        In addition to these primary elements of our executive compensation program, we also provide our NEOs with limited perquisites and benefits that we believe are comparable to other multinational public companies.

DISCUSSION OF COMPENSATION COMPONENTS AND
DECISIONS IMPACTING 2014 COMPENSATION

        The Committee aims to have base salaries at or around the market median, with the substantial majority of NEO compensation consisting of incentive compensation to advance the Committee's pay-for-performance philosophy. This methodology drives higher realized compensation when our financial performance is stronger and lower realized compensation when our financial performance is weaker. In addition, it provides the Committee with the flexibility to respond to changing business conditions, manage compensation in accordance with career progression, and adjust compensation to reflect differences in executive experience and performance.

BASE SALARY

        In February 2014, the Committee approved the base salary increases shown in the following table for our NEOs. These amounts do not conform to the amounts contained in the Summary Compensation Table, which reflect the salary actually earned during 2014, because salary increases became effective as of April 1, 2014. Increases are generally driven by the average percentage merit increase provided to our U.S. employees, subject to marginal increase or decrease based on the NEO's performance and the market median for positions with similar scope and responsibility.

2014 NEO BASE SALARY INCREASES
NAME
  PRIOR BASE SALARY
  % INCREASE
  NEW BASE SALARY
  RATIONALE

Mr. Scarborough

  $ 1,071,000   3.00 % $ 1,103,000   Consistent with average increase for U.S. employees

Mr. Butier

  $ 580,027     3.45 % $ 600,038   Modestly higher than average increase for U.S. employees to position salary around market median

Ms. Hill

  $ 477,349   3.00 % $ 491,670   Consistent with average increase for U.S. employees

Ms. Miller

  $ 491,390     3.00 % $ 506,131   Consistent with average increase for U.S. employees

Mr. Neville

  $ 560,036   3.57 % $ 580,030   Modestly higher than average increase for U.S. employees to position salary around market median

Mr. Nolan

  $ 620,026     3.23 % $ 640,052   Slightly higher than average increase for U.S. employees based on 2013 performance

        In connection with his appointment as our President and Chief Operating Officer, effective November 1, 2014, Mr. Butier's base salary was increased to $750,000, around the market median for roles with similar scope and responsibility and between the base salary of our CEO and Mr. Neville, our only current business group President.

Avery Dennison Corporation | 2015 Proxy Statement |  37

Table of Contents

2014 AIP AWARDS

        The 2014 AIP was designed to incent management to create long-term stockholder value. Performance goals were approved by the Committee above the midpoint of the adjusted EPS guidance we announced to investors in January 2014. Because our annual operating plan builds on results for the prior year and takes into account our anticipated business environment — as well as our strategic plans, operational issues and planned capital expenditures — our AIP reflects these factors as well.

        NEO AIP awards are determined using the following formula:

Year-end Base Salary
×
Target AIP Opportunity
(based on market survey data)
×
Financial Modifier
(based on corporate and/or business group performance)
×
Individual Modifier
(based on achieving defined strategic objectives)

2014 Target AIP Opportunities

        As a percentage of 2014 year-end base salary, the target AIP opportunities for 2014, which were unchanged from the prior year, were 125% for Mr. Scarborough; 75% for Messrs. Butier, Neville and Nolan; and 60% for Mses. Hill and Miller. Because the increase in Mr. Butier's target AIP opportunity from 75% to 90% of base salary in connection with his appointment as President and Chief Operating Officer occurred in the fourth quarter of 2014, his target AIP opportunity for the year remained at his former level, in accordance with the terms of our AIP.

2014 AIP Performance Objectives and Weightings

        The following performance objectives and weightings for the 2014 AIP were established and weighted by the Committee, in consultation with Towers Watson. In setting the targets for these goals, the Committee aimed to (i) ensure consistency with our long-term financial goals; (ii) require improvement in the trajectory of our businesses from the prior year; and (iii) establish targets above the midpoint of our announced guidance for 2014. These were the same objectives and weightings used for purposes of the 2013 AIP to continue incenting our NEOs to increase sales, improve profitability and generate strong free cash flow. Our CEO, CFO and Chief Human Resources Officer participated during portions of the meeting during which the Committee reviewed and recommended performance objectives for our AIP and analyzed our performance against these objectives.

Avery Dennison Corporation | 2015 Proxy Statement |  38

Table of Contents

        For our business group NEOs (Messrs. Neville and Nolan), the Committee determined to link 75% of the AIP financial modifier to their respective business group's results and 25% to corporate results. The business group performance objectives were designed to be achievable only if our business groups substantially improved upon their 2013 performance and delivered results consistent with the achievement of the long-term financial objectives we announced in May 2012.

GRAPHIC

2014 Financial Modifiers

        Financial modifiers are capped at 200%. Consistent with prior years, in evaluating our achievement of these performance objectives, the Committee has the discretion to exclude the impact, positive or negative, of extraordinary items such as currency translation; acquisitions and divestitures; restructuring and integration actions not included in our annual net income plan; changes in accounting principles, tax codes or related regulations and rulings; natural disasters, terrorism and war; costs related to the early extinguishment of debt; costs of litigation outside the normal course of business; and non-cash charges associated with the impairment of long-lived assets.

        The following table shows the AIP financial modifiers for our NEOs for 2014. As shown, while we exceeded the target level established for Adjusted EPS, the other performance objectives were either not achieved or achieved at below-target level. Our corporate and business group performance resulted in AIP financial modifiers of 78% for our corporate NEOs and 40% for Mr. Neville. Because he was not employed at the end of our fiscal year 2014, Mr. Nolan was not eligible for a 2014 AIP award.

Avery Dennison Corporation | 2015 Proxy Statement |  39

Table of Contents

2014 NEO AIP FINANCIAL MODIFIERS
 
  NAME
  PERFORMANCE
OBJECTIVE

  WEIGHTING
  THRESHOLD
(50%)

  TARGET
(100%)

  MAXIMUM
(200%)

  ACTUAL
  % OF
TARGET
ACHIEVED

  WEIGHTED %
OF TARGET
ACHIEVED

   
    Mr. Scarborough
Mr. Butier
  Total Company
Adjusted Sales Growth(1)

 
20%   2.9%   4.9%   8.9%   4.2%   83 % 17 %  
    Ms. Hill
Ms. Miller
  Total Company
Adjusted EPS(2)

 
60%   $2.90   $3.10   $3.50   $3.11   102 % 61 %  
        Total Company
Free Cash Flow(3)

 
20%   $248M   $310M   $620M   $204M   0 % 0 %  
    Corporate NEO Financial Modifier     78 %  
    Mr. Neville   Total Company
Adjusted EPS(2)

 
25%   $2.90   $3.10   $3.50   $3.11   102 % 26 %  

      Retail Branding
    and Information
  RBIS Segment
Adjusted Sales Growth(4)

 
20%   2.4%   4.9%   9.9%   (0.6)%   0 % 0 %  

      Solutions (RBIS)   RBIS Segment
Adjusted Net Income(4)(5)

 
35%   $59M   $65M   $77M   $59M   41 % 14 %  
        RBIS Segment
Free Cash Flow(4)

 
20%   $52M   $65M   $130M   $32M   0 % 0 %  
    RBIS NEO Financial Modifier     40 %  
    Mr. Nolan   Total Company
Adjusted EPS(2)

 
25%   $2.90   $3.10   $3.50          

      Pressure-Sensitive
    Materials (PSM)
  PSM Segment
Adjusted Sales Growth(4)

 
20%   2.9%   4.9%   8.9%          

      PSM Segment
Adjusted Net Income(4)(5)

 
35%   $305M   $321M   $353M          
        PSM Segment
Free Cash Flow(4)

 
20%   $200M   $250M   $500M          
(1)
Total Company Adjusted Sales Growth refers to reported sales growth of 3.1%, excluding the unfavorable impact of currency translation of 1.1%.

(2)
Total Company Adjusted EPS refers to reported net income per common share, assuming dilution, of $2.60, adjusted for tax-effected restructuring costs and other items of $0.51.

(3)
Total Company Free Cash Flow refers to cash flow from operations of $374.2 million, minus payments for property, plant and equipment of $147.9 million and software and other deferred charges of $27.1 million, plus proceeds from sale of property, plant and equipment of $4.3 million, net proceeds from sales (purchases) of investments of $0.3 million, and net divestiture-related payments and free cash outflow from discontinued operations of $0.2 million.

(4)
Adjusted sales growth, adjusted net income and free cash flow measures at the segment level are internal metrics. These metrics either exclude or make simplifying assumptions for items that cannot be allocated precisely by segment, such as interest and income tax expenses, and related balance sheet accounts such as deferred tax assets and liabilities, income tax payables and receivables, and short- and long-term debt. Certain balance sheet accounts such as pension and other postretirement benefits and insurance that are generally managed at the corporate level, as well as the impact of foreign currency translation, are also excluded from the calculation of these metrics for the segments. The impact of intercompany sales is included in segment metrics.

(5)
Adjusted net income refers to reported net income adjusted for tax-effected restructuring costs and other items.

2014 NEO Performance Evaluations & Individual Modifiers

        Our NEOs are evaluated on their achievement of strategic objectives reflected in their individual performance plans for the year, with the Committee approving the CEO's goals for the year and the CEO approving the goals of the other NEOs. The NEOs' performance is assessed in February of the following year, with their achievements measured against these goals. For the NEOs other than our CEO, this assessment considers the totality of their performance rather than assigning specific weights to each of the performance goals. Individual modifiers are capped at 150%.

        The Committee reviews and evaluates our CEO's annual performance, taking into account his performance against objectives established at the beginning of the year, his self-assessment of his performance and market reference and other data provided by Towers Watson. Our CEO is not involved in the decisions regarding his own compensation, which are determined by the Committee meeting in executive session with Towers Watson. The Committee determines the individual modifier for our CEO based on its assessment of his performance.

        Our CEO recommends to the Committee the individual modifiers for our other NEOs based on his assessment of their performance. The Committee challenges the CEO's assessments, considers our CEO's recommendations and retains the discretion to approve individual modifiers for our other NEOs lower than what the CEO has recommended.

Avery Dennison Corporation | 2015 Proxy Statement |  40

Table of Contents

        For 2014, the Committee evaluated the performance of our CEO and determined that, with the exception of the objective associated with our RBIS segment, he met or exceeded each of the strategic objectives established for him by the Committee at the beginning of the year, as shown below:

2014 CEO PERFORMANCE EVALUATION
STRATEGIC OBJECTIVE   WEIGHTING   EVALUATION
Execute Materials Group European restructuring, delivering projected savings   20%   Materials Group European restructuring on track to deliver $15M in annualized savings
Deliver RBIS strategic goals, including achieving milestones on footprint restructuring and executing product line divestiture   20%   RBIS achieved radio-frequency identification (RFID) and plant consolidation objectives, but significantly missed our internal target for earnings before interest and taxes (EBIT)
Identify potential markets for next growth platforms   20%   Solid performance in new growth areas in Performance Tapes product group and Graphics component of Materials product group; developed robust M&A pipeline
Complete implementation of new financial system and outsourcing model on time and on budget   10%   New financial system and outsourcing model implemented on time and under budget
Deliver milestones for our Vancive Medical Technologies segment, including achieving a break-even run rate by Q4   20%   Delivered 15 of 16 milestones for the year and achieved a break-even run rate by Q4 on strong sales growth
Deliver a succession plan that meets our Board's goals   10%   Mr. Butier named President and COO effective November 2014
Individual Modifier Based on Committee Evaluation   96%    

        BASED ON PERFORMANCE AGAINST DEFINED AND MEASURABLE STRATEGIC OBJECTIVES

        In determining the individual modifiers for our other Current NEOs, the Committee noted the following highlights of their respective 2014 performance:

    Mr. Butier — Completed the implementation of a new financial system and outsourcing of certain transaction processing activities to a new third-party service provider on time and under budget; implemented a tax restructuring program that delivered significant tax savings; transitioned to Chief Operating Officer while still retaining Chief Financial Officer position; and maintained capital discipline, including an increase in cash returned to our stockholders.

    Ms. Hill — Managed the successful move and transition to our new corporate headquarters; created, promoted and advanced our global gender diversity program; and oversaw our leadership development program, leading to several promotions that strengthened our management team.

    Ms. Miller — Continued to lead and improve our values and ethics program; provided leadership of our mergers and acquisitions function, overseeing an increase in our pipeline of potential opportunities; and provided oversight and advice for corporate governance matters and our stockholder engagement efforts.

    Mr. Neville — Delivered mixed results as below-target financial performance for the year overshadowed excellent progress in operations and supply chain, as well as significant achievements in the radio frequency identification (RFID) and performance segments.

        Based on the above assessments and after giving consideration to the recommendations of our CEO, the Committee approved the following individual modifiers for our other Current NEOs: 130% for Mr. Butier; 120% for Ms. Hill; 120% for Ms. Miller; and 80% for Mr. Neville.

Avery Dennison Corporation | 2015 Proxy Statement |  41

Table of Contents

2014 AIP Awards

        Our Current NEOs received the AIP awards shown in the following table for 2014, based on their respective base salary at year-end 2014, AIP opportunity, financial modifier and individual modifier:

2014 NEO AIP AWARDS

 


NAME

    2014 YE
BASE SALARY
    AIP
OPPORTUNITY
    TARGET
AIP AWARD
    FINANCIAL
MODIFIER
    INDIVIDUAL
MODIFIER
    AIP
AWARD
 

Mr. Scarborough

  $ 1,103,000   125%   $ 1,378,750   78%   96%   $ 1,032,408  

Mr. Butier

  $ 750,000     75%   $ 562,500     78%     130%   $ 570,375  

Ms. Hill

  $ 491,670   60%   $ 295,002   78%   120%   $ 276,122  

Ms. Miller

  $ 506,131     60%   $ 303,679     78%     120%   $ 284,243  

Mr. Neville

  $ 580,030   75%   $ 435,023   40%   80%   $ 139,207  

2014 GRANTS OF LTI AWARDS

        Our LTI program provides variable incentive compensation to enhance alignment of executive interests with stockholder interests and drive long-term value creation. The LTI awards granted in 2014 were fully performance-based and delivered in equity comprised of:

    50% in PUs that cliff-vest at the end of a three-year period subject to our achievement of the performance objectives established for the award; and

    50% in MSUs that vest at the end of the one-, two-, three- and four-year performance periods, with an average vesting period of 2.5 years, based on our absolute TSR.

        LTI awards are generally granted on the fourth Thursday of February, the day our Board has a regularly-scheduled meeting. Special awards may also be granted for promotion or retention purposes, with the awards granted on the first day of the calendar quarter following the decision to make such a grant. The Committee does not offset the loss or gain of prior year grants in determining current year grants as doing so would compromise the intended risk/reward nature of these incentives.

        The LTI awards discussed in this section were 50% PUs and 50% MSUs, in each case granted in February 2014. In October 2014, the Committee also approved (i) a special promotion grant on December 1, 2014 of RSUs with a target grant date fair value of $2,000,000 for Mr. Butier, 50% of which was intended to vest on the grant date and 50% of which was intended to vest on the two-year anniversary of the grant date and (ii) a special retention grant on December 1, 2014 of RSUs with a target grant date fair value of $1,500,000 for Mr. Neville, 100% of which was intended to vest on the two-year anniversary of the grant date. On March 2, 2015, we voided both of these awards following the Committee's determination in February 2015 that they did not meet the three-year minimum vesting requirement for time-vesting full-value awards set forth in our Amended and Restated Stock Option and Incentive Plan (the "Equity Plan"). To provide these executives the intended incentive and similar value and timing for these awards, in February 2015, the Committee approved (i) a special promotion grant to Mr. Butier on March 2, 2015 of RSUs with a target grant date fair value of $2,000,000, 50% of which vested on the grant date, 40% of which will vest on December 1, 2016 and 10% of which will vest on the three-year anniversary of the grant date; and (ii) a special retention grant to Mr. Neville on March 2, 2015 of RSUs with a target grant date fair value of $1,500,000, 90% of which will vest on December 1, 2016 and 10% of which will vest on the three-year anniversary of the grant date. Payouts are contingent on the executives being employed on the respective vesting dates.

        The LTI awards granted to Mr. Nolan in February 2014 were cancelled upon the termination of his employment before the end of the year.

Target LTI Opportunity

        As a percentage of 2013 year-end base salary, the target LTI opportunities for 2014 were 450% for Mr. Scarborough, 200% for Messrs. Butier, Neville and Nolan and 180% for Mses. Hill and Miller. The target 2014 LTI award opportunity represented approximately 78% and 72%, respectively, of our CEO's, and other Current NEOs' average, total incentive compensation. Mr. Scarborough's target LTI opportunity increased from 420% in the prior year to reflect the market median. For 2014 only, the Committee increased the LTI opportunities for Ms. Hill by 20% and Messrs. Butier, Neville and Nolan by 30% to recognize the impact their leadership of their respective function or business group had in contributing to our strong financial performance for the 2013 fiscal year.

Avery Dennison Corporation | 2015 Proxy Statement |  42

Table of Contents

        Because the increase in Mr. Butier's target LTI opportunity from 200% to 300% in connection with his appointment as President and Chief Operating Officer occurred after the February grant date, his target LTI opportunity for 2014 remained at his former level.

Performance Units (PUs)

        Awarded under our 2014-2016 Mid-Term Incentive Plan (MTIP), PUs cliff-vest in shares of our common stock after the end of a three-year period at threshold (50% payout), target (100% payout) and maximum (200% payout) levels based on our achievement of the performance objectives established for the award. PUs do not accrue dividend equivalents.

        Consistent with the 2013-2015 MTIP, the Committee selected the following performance objectives for the 2014-2016 MTIP. The Committee believes that these objectives appropriately align executive compensation with the long-term interests of our stockholders because appreciation of our stock price and delivery of strong cumulative EVA directly impacts the number of shares executives may receive at vesting.

    Cumulative EVA, weighted 50% for our corporate NEOs (based on our total company's EVA) and 75% for our business group NEOs (based on the cumulative EVA for their respective business group). EVA is a measure of financial performance calculated by deducting the cost of capital from our after-tax operating profit. The Committee established cumulative EVA goals consistent with the long-term targets we announced in May 2012, with the target payout at the low end of the respective long-term growth target and the maximum payout at the high end of the respective long-term growth target. Whether linked to corporate or business group results, target payouts require significant improvement in our business performance.

    Relative TSR compared to an objectively determined peer group of companies, weighted 50% for our corporate NEOs and 25% for our business group NEOs. TSR measures the return that we have provided our stockholders, including stock price appreciation and dividends paid (assuming reinvestment thereof), expressed as a percentage. TSR is a common metric used by the investment community to measure performance because it allows for easy comparisons of our performance relative to other companies. Consistent with its pay-for-performance philosophy, the Committee designed the TSR objective to provide realized compensation only if our stockholder value creation compares favorably with that of our designated peers. The Committee established the threshold payout level at TSR at or above the 40th percentile, the target payout level at TSR at or above the 50th percentile and maximum payout level at TSR at or above the 80th percentile, which were the same levels used for the 2013-2015 MTIP. In assessing the rigor of these objectives, the Committee noted that two of the four MTIP cycles eligible for vesting since inception of the program were cancelled due to our failure to meet the threshold level required for vesting.

2014-2016 MTIP

NEO

  PERFORMANCE OBJECTIVES   WEIGHTING

Mr. Scarborough

       

Mr. Butier

  Total Company Cumulative EVA   50%

Ms. Hill

  Relative TSR   50%

Ms. Miller

       

Mr. Neville

  RBIS Segment Cumulative EVA
Relative TSR
  75%
25%

Mr. Nolan

  PSM Segment Cumulative EVA
Relative TSR

 
75%
25%

        Consistent with the 2013-2015 MTIP and on the recommendation of Towers Watson, to benchmark TSR, the Committee utilized a peer group(‡) comprised of U.S. companies (i) in similar industries based on their being classified in one of five GICS

   


The following 50 companies comprised the peer group for purposes of the 2014-2016 MTIP: A. Schulman, Inc.; AEP Industries Inc.; Albermarle Corporation; AptarGroup, Inc.; Ashland Inc.; Ball Corporation; Bemis Company, Inc.; Berry Plastics Group, Inc.; Celanese Corporation; Chemtura Corporation; Clearwater Paper Corporation; Crown Holdings Inc.; Cytec Industries Inc.; Eastman Chemical Co; Ecolab Inc.; Ferro Corp.; FMC Corp; Graphic Packaging Holding Company; Greif Inc.; HB Fuller Co.; Huntsman Corporation; International Flavors & Fragrances Inc.; KapStone Paper and Packaging Corporation; Kraton Performance Polymers Inc.; MeadWestvaco Corporation; Minerals Technologies Inc.; NewMarket Corporation; Olin Corp.; OM Group Inc.; OMNOVA Solutions Inc.; Owens-Illinois Inc.; Packaging Corp. of America; PH Glatfelter Co.; PolyOne Corporation; PPG Industries Inc.; Rock-Tenn Co.; Rockwood Holdings Inc.; RPM International Inc.; Sealed Air Corporation; Sensient Technologies Corporation; Sigma-Aldrich Corporation; Silgan Holdings Inc.; Sonoco Products Co.; Stepan Company; Taminco Corporation; The Sherwin-Williams Company; The Valspar Corporation; Valhi Inc.; Verso Paper Corp.; and W.R. Grace & Co.
Avery Dennison Corporation | 2015 Proxy Statement |  43

Table of Contents

codes (diversified chemicals (15101020), specialty chemicals (15101050), metal and glass containers (15103010), paper packaging (15103020), and paper products (15105020)) and (ii) with revenues during the last twelve months of $1 billion to $20 billion. The Committee selected these objective criteria to benchmark TSR against companies that are in similar industries and of similar size. Based on the formulaic application of the same objective criteria, the peer group changed from the prior year as follows: (i) Taminco Corporation was added because it completed its initial public offering in April 2013; (ii) Boise Inc. was deleted because it was acquired by Packaging Corp of America; and (iii) Wausau Paper Corp. was deleted because its revenues fell below $1 billion.

Market-leveraged Stock Units (MSUs)

        In 2013, based on the expert advice and recommendation of Towers Watson, the Committee began granting our NEOs MSUs, which are linked directly to our absolute TSR performance, meaning the percentage change in our stock price (plus dividend equivalents accrued during the vesting period). Additional information regarding the Committee's rationale for adopting MSUs can be found in the Executive Summary of this CD&A. MSUs:

    Are fully performance-based because they are tied to our absolute TSR performance; and

    Have one-, two-, three- and four-year performance periods, with an average vesting period of 2.5 years.

        MSUs vest as shown on the following graph, with the number of shares earned determined as of the vesting date based on our absolute TSR. Although dividend equivalents accrue on MSUs during the period, they are earned and paid only at vesting.

GRAPHIC

        The MSUs granted in 2013 and 2014 had the payout characteristics shown on the left below. The Committee did not make any changes to the MSUs granted in 2014 given that the program was only in its second year; with only one grant having vested for a one-year performance period, the Committee determined that there had not been sufficient experience with this component of the LTI program to make any changes.

        In late 2014, the Committee significantly changed the MSU program for 2015, making the threshold and target performance criteria more rigorous to reflect stockholder feedback and our current business profile, as shown on the right below. To help mitigate the effect on participants of more challenging threshold and target hurdles, the Committee determined in February 2015 also to proportionally adjust the maximum TSR level.

2013-2014 MSUs

 

2015 MSUs

 

  ABSOLUTE TSR     PAYOUT       ABSOLUTE TSR     PAYOUT  

Cancelled

  > 30% decrease   0%  

Cancelled

  >15% decrease   0%  

Threshold

  30% decrease     70%  

Threshold

  15% decrease     85%  

Target

  0% increase   100%  

Target

  10% increase   100%  

Above Target

  >1% increase     >100%  

Above Target

  >10% increase     >100%  

Maximum

  100% increase   200%  

Maximum

  75% increase   200%  
Avery Dennison Corporation | 2015 Proxy Statement |  44

Table of Contents

2014 NEO LTI AWARDS

        Our NEOs were granted the 2014 LTI awards shown in the following table in February 2014. The number of awards granted was approved by the Committee based on the NEO's respective base salary at year-end 2013 and target LTI opportunity, with the number of PUs based on a grant date fair value equal to the average closing price for shares of our common stock during the first ten trading days of February 2014 and the number of MSUs based on a grant date fair value determined by a preliminary Monte-Carlo simulation using the trading days of January 2014. As a result of the methodology for determining grant date fair value and timing, total LTI values awarded slightly exceeded target LTI values. The PUs and MSUs granted to Mr. Nolan were cancelled upon the termination of his employment.

2014 NEO LTI AWARDS

 


NAME

    2013 YE
BASE SALARY
    TARGET LTI
OPPORTUNITY
    2014
ADJUSTMENT(1)
    TARGET
LTI VALUE
    PUs
(#)
    PUs
($)
    MSUs
(#)
    MSUs
($)
 

Mr. Scarborough

  $ 1,071,000   450%     $ 4,820,000   49,763   $ 2,411,898   47,621   $ 2,512,489  

Mr. Butier

  $ 580,027     200%     30%   $ 1,508,069     15,570   $ 754,643     14,900   $ 786,124  

Ms. Hill

  $ 477,349   180%   20%   $ 1,031,075   10,645   $ 515,936   10,187   $ 537,470  

Ms. Miller

  $ 491,390     180%       $ 884,501     9,132   $ 442,608     8,739   $ 461,073  

Mr. Neville

  $ 560,036   200%   30%   $ 1,456,095   15,033   $ 708,453   14,386   $ 759,007  

Mr. Nolan

  $ 620,026     200%     30%   $ 1,612,067     16,643   $ 784,330     15,927   $ 840,312  
(1)
The Committee adjusted the target LTI opportunities for Ms. Hill and Messrs. Butier, Neville and Nolan to recognize the impact their leadership of their respective function or business group had in contributing to our strong financial performance for the 2013 fiscal year.

2014 VESTING OF PREVIOUSLY GRANTED LTI AWARDS

2012-2014 MTIP PUs Eligible For Vesting

        The PUs granted to our NEOs in February 2012 under our 2012-2014 MTIP were eligible for vesting at the end of 2014 based on our relative TSR compared to a peer group§ of companies determined using the same objective criteria used for the 2014-2016 MTIP.

2012-2014 MTIP
    Relative TSR   Payout
Threshold   40th percentile     50%
Target   50th percentile   100%
Actual Performance   52nd percentile   107%
Maximum   80th percentile   200%

MSUs Eligible For Vesting

        Two tranches of MSUs were eligible for vesting based on our absolute TSR at the end of 2014, with payouts determined as follows:

    2nd Tranche payout for MSUs granted in 2013:

    2-Year performance period: 2013-2014
    (stock price at settlement (avg. closing price for trading days of January 2015)  + reinvested dividends during the period)
                                         stock price at grant (avg. closing price for trading days of January 2013)
    ($52.72 + $3.05)/$36.23 = 1.54
    Paid out at 154% of target

   


§
The following 50 companies comprised the peer group for purposes of the 2012-2014 MTIP: A. Schulman, Inc.; Albermarle Corp.; AptarGroup, Inc.; Ashland Inc.; Ball Corporation; Bemis Company, Inc.; Boise Inc.; Cabot Corp; Celanese Corporation; Clearwater Paper Corporation; Crown Holdings Inc.; Cytec Industries Inc.; Eastman Chemical Co; Ecolab Inc.; Ferro Corp.; FMC Corp; Graphic Packaging Holding Company; Greif Inc.; HB Fuller Co.; Huntsman Corporation; International Flavors & Fragrances Inc.; Kraton Performance Polymers Inc.; MeadWestvaco Corporation; Minerals Technologies Inc.; New Market Corp.; Olin Corp.; OM Group Inc.; OMNOVA Solutions Inc.; Owens-Illinois Inc.; Packaging Corp. of America; PH Glatfelter Co.; PolyOne Corporation; PPG Industries Inc.; Rock-Tenn Co.; Rockwood Holdings Inc.; RPM International Inc.; Sealed Air Corporation; Sensient Technologies Corporation; Sigma-Aldrich Corporation; Silgan Holdings Inc.; Solutia Inc.; Sonoco Products Co.; Stepan Company; Temple-Inland Inc.; The Sherwin Williams Company; The Valspar Corporation; Valhi Inc.; Verso Paper Corp.; W.R. Grace & Co.; and Wausau Paper Corp.
Avery Dennison Corporation | 2015 Proxy Statement |  45

Table of Contents

    1st Tranche payout for MSUs granted in 2014:

    1-Year performance period: 2014
    (stock price at settlement (avg. closing price for trading days of January 2015)  + reinvested dividends during the period)
                                         stock price at grant (avg. closing price for trading days of January 2014)
    ($52.72 + $1.47)/$50.22 = 1.08
    Paid out at 108% of target

PERQUISITES

        Consistent with market practices, our NEOs receive the perquisites described below. We do not reimburse our NEOs for the tax consequences of their receipt of these perquisites.

LIMITED PERQUISITES
PERQUISITE   DESCRIPTION AND LIMITATIONS   BENEFIT TO STOCKHOLDERS
Executive Benefit Allowance   $70,000 for CEO and $65,000 for other NEOs (not increased since program inception in 2011); taxable to NEO with no gross-up   Flat allowance reduces expense of administering a variety of separate perquisites

Financial Planning

 

Annual reimbursement of up to $25,000 for CEO and $15,000 for other NEOs; taxable to NEO with no gross-up

 

Allows executives to focus on job duties

Annual Physical Examination

 

Paid directly to the service provider only to the extent actually used and not taxable to the NEO

 

Facilitates maintenance of good overall health by key company leaders

BENEFITS

Defined Retirement Benefits

        Except for Mr. Neville, our NEOs are eligible for retirement benefits under our U.S. pension plan and benefit restoration plan subject to the same terms and conditions as our other eligible U.S. employees. These plans are administered by our Retirement Planning Committee, which consists solely of members of management.

        Because we froze the accrual of benefits under these plans as of December 31, 2010, none of our NEOs accrued additional retirement benefits during 2014. For additional information regarding these plans and accrued NEO benefits thereunder, see 2014 Pension Benefits in Executive Compensation Tables.

Executive Retirement Benefits

        We have a supplemental executive retirement plan that provides designated executives with supplemental benefits upon retirement to induce them to remain with our company and further our long-term growth. Our CEO is the only current NEO who is a participant under the plan, and the Committee does not currently intend to designate any of our other current NEOs as a participant in the plan.

        Because we froze the accrual of benefits under the supplemental executive retirement plan as of December 31, 2010, our CEO accrued no additional retirement benefits under the plan during 2014. His plan benefits generally would commence upon the earlier of his turning 60 and his separation from service at a benefit level of 62.5% of his average compensation as of December 31, 2010, reduced by the benefits to which he would be entitled from our other retirement plans, our company match to his contributions to our employee savings plan, fixed amounts representative of his contributions plus interest to our deferred compensation plans, and estimated Social Security payments. If our CEO elects to retire and begins receiving benefits after his vesting age but before reaching age 62, his benefits under this plan would be subject to reduction.

        For additional information on the supplemental executive retirement plan and our CEO's accrued benefits thereunder, see 2014 Pension Benefits in Executive Compensation Tables.

Defined Contribution Benefits

        Our NEOs are eligible to participate in our employee savings plan, a qualified 401(k) plan that permits U.S. employees to defer the lesser of 25% of their eligible earnings and the limit prescribed by the Internal Revenue Service to the plan on a before-tax basis. Employee deferrals are immediately vested upon contribution and we make a contribution up to 6% of an employee's eligible compensation, 3% of which is an automatic contribution and up to 3% of which is a match of 50% of the

Avery Dennison Corporation | 2015 Proxy Statement |  46

Table of Contents

employee's contributions up to 6%, subject to certain other Internal Revenue Code (the "Code") limits. Participants vest in company contributions to their savings plan account after two years of service.

        Employees are immediately eligible to participate in the savings plan, and all our current NEOs participated in the plan during fiscal year 2014. Our NEOs participate in these plans subject to the same eligibility and benefit terms and conditions as our other U.S. employees. The plan is administered by our Retirement Planning Committee, which consists solely of members of management.

Nonqualified Deferred Compensation Benefits

        Our NEOs are eligible to participate in our nonqualified deferred compensation plan, which allows eligible employees to defer up to 75% of their base salary, up to 90% of their AIP award, and 100% of their LTI awards. The plan provides NEOs and other eligible employees with a long-term capital accumulation opportunity because savings accumulate on a pre-tax basis. Participating executives may select from among a number of investment options. Our only deferred compensation plan currently open for deferrals does not offer above-market interest rates. Deferrals are 100% vested.

        We made an annual contribution in early 2014 to the deferred compensation account of our NEOs equal to 6% of 401(k) eligible earnings in excess of the Code compensation limit. This benefit was designed to supplement 401(k) contributions that are limited under the Code.

        Our CEO also participated in deferred compensation plans that are no longer available for new deferrals.

        For additional information regarding our deferred compensation plans and accrued NEO benefits thereunder, see 2014 Nonqualified Deferred Compensation in Executive Compensation Tables.

Retiree Medical Benefits

        Under our retiree medical plan, our NEOs may be eligible for medical coverage until they are eligible for Medicare if they (i) elect to retire immediately following separation of service; (ii) receive a benefit from the defined benefit retirement plan; and (iii) are age 55 or older with 15 or more years of service. Eligible retirees retiring after December 31, 2013 are solely responsible for the costs of this coverage.

Life Insurance Benefits

        In addition to the $50,000 in life insurance benefits we provide to all U.S. employees, our NEOs are provided with supplemental life insurance benefits equal to three times the NEO's base salary less $50,000, up to a maximum coverage amount of $1 million.

Personal Excess Liability Insurance Benefits

        We provide $3 million of personal excess liability insurance coverage to our NEOs. Personal excess liability coverage provides an additional layer of liability coverage that supplements the coverage provided by the individual's personal liability insurance. In order to receive any benefit from this coverage, the NEO must maintain certain minimum coverage requirements under his or her personal liability policy.

Relocation/International Assignment Benefits

        We provide relocation assistance to some of our senior level employees, which may include our NEOs. In addition, in certain circumstances, we provide certain reimbursements and benefits to employees who accept an international assignment at our request. In 2014, only Mr. Nolan received benefits of this nature, which were on terms and conditions substantially similar to our other employees on international assignment, and included gross-up for taxes on certain of the benefits. For detailed information on these benefits, see footnote (5) of the Summary Compensation Table.

Avery Dennison Corporation | 2015 Proxy Statement |  47

Table of Contents

SEVERANCE BENEFITS

        None of our NEOs has an employment agreement. The absence of employment agreements reflects our pay-for-performance philosophy; if an NEO is no longer performing at the expected level, he or she can be terminated immediately without receiving a contractually-guaranteed payment.

        The rights of our NEOs in the event of termination not for cause are governed by our Executive Severance Plan (the "Severance Plan") and our Key Employee Change of Control Severance Plan (the "COC Severance Plan"). We use these plans rather than individually negotiated agreements to provide us with the flexibility to change the severance benefits for which our NEOs are eligible to reflect market practices without the need to obtain their individual consent. In addition, this plan-based approach eliminates the time and expense it would require to individually negotiate separation payments and ensures that our NEOs are eligible for benefits that are comparable to employees with similar levels of responsibility.

        For additional information regarding potential NEO benefits under these plans, see Payments Upon Termination as of January 3, 2015 in Executive Compensation Tables.

Severance Following Involuntary Termination Not For Cause

        Our NEOs are eligible to receive severance benefits upon involuntary termination not for "cause," in accordance with the terms and conditions of the Severance Plan.

        In the event of a qualifying termination, our CEO would be eligible to receive two times the sum of his annual pay, his highest AIP award received in the preceding three years and the cash value of 12 months of his qualified medical and dental insurance premiums, and our other NEOs would be eligible to receive one times his or her respective sum of these amounts. All NEOs would also be eligible to receive up to $25,000 in outplacement services for up to one year following termination of employment. Any payments made under the Severance Plan would be offset by any payments received by the NEO under any statutory, legislative and regulatory requirement or, if applicable, the COC Severance Plan.

        In connection with his separation from our company in 2014, Mr. Nolan received severance benefits of $1,406,543 in accordance with the terms and conditions of the Severance Plan, which reflected (i) his annual base salary as of his termination date of $640,052, (ii) $750,000, the highest of his last three AIP awards and (iii) $16,491, which was the cash value of 12 months of insurance premiums for the qualified medical and dental plans in which he participated as of his termination date. In consideration of his receipt of these benefits, Mr. Nolan agreed to a waiver and release of any claims against our company.

Severance Following Change Of Control

        Our NEOs are eligible for severance payments upon termination not for "cause" or by the executive for "good reason" within 24 months of a "change of control" of our company, in accordance with the terms and conditions of the COC Severance Plan.

        In the event of a qualifying termination following a change of control, our CEO would be eligible to receive three times the sum of his annual pay, highest AIP award received in the preceding three years and the cash value of 12 months of his qualified medical and dental insurance premiums. Our other NEOs would be eligible to receive two times the sum of his or her annual pay, highest annual AIP award received in the preceding three years and the cash value of 12 months of his or her qualified medical and dental insurance premiums. All our NEOs would also be eligible to receive a pro-rata AIP award for the year of termination and up to $25,000 in outplacement services for up to one year following termination of employment. Any payments under the COC Severance Plan would be offset by any payments received by the NEO under the Severance Plan and any other statutory, legislative and regulatory requirement.

        Under the Equity Plan, unvested equity awards granted to our NEOs after April 26, 2012 would vest only in the event of termination within 24 months after the change of control; however, unvested equity awards granted prior to April 26, 2012 would vest on a change of control in accordance with the terms of the Equity Plan in effect on the dates of grant.

        Our NEOs are not eligible to receive any excise tax gross-up on amounts payable under the COC Severance Plan. However, if an NEO would otherwise incur excise taxes under Section 4999 of the Code, the NEO's payments under the COC Severance Plan may be reduced at the NEO's election so that no excise taxes would be due.

Avery Dennison Corporation | 2015 Proxy Statement |  48

Table of Contents

COMPENSATION-SETTING TOOLS

USE OF MARKET SURVEY DATA

        The Committee annually considers market survey data to target total direct compensation, looking at a cross section of U.S. companies to reflect the broad talent market across which we seek our executives. Each year, the Committee reviews results from surveys prepared by third parties to understand market compensation practices and assess our competitiveness, narrowing the scope of the results to account for variations caused by company size.

        In February 2014, the Committee reviewed industry-wide data from the following published compensation surveys, with executive matches based on job and functional responsibility: (i) the most recent Towers Watson U.S. Compensation General Industry Database, which was narrowed in scope to focus on the data of the 82 participants with $6 billion to $10 billion in annual revenues, and (ii) the most recent Hewitt Total Compensation Measurement Survey, which was narrowed in scope to focus on the data of the 59 participants with $5 billion to $10 billion in annual revenues. The Committee reviewed the data from each survey on an aggregated basis, with no consideration of either survey's respective component companies, which were not determined or known by the Committee.

        The Committee does not benchmark to a particular percentile, rather it uses the market survey data as a reference point to target total direct compensation at or around the median, also giving consideration to such factors as tenure, individual performance, the individual's responsibilities, market factors, and succession and retention considerations. In 2014, the target total direct compensation of our NEOs fell around the median of the Hewitt and Towers Watson data.

USE OF PEER GROUPS

        For determining our relative TSR for purposes of vesting PUs granted under the 2012-2014 MTIP and 2014-2016 MTIP, the Committee used a peer group comprised of 50 U.S. companies satisfying objective criteria for industry classification and revenue size, the names of which are disclosed in this CD&A. The Committee does not utilize a peer group for any other purpose.

USE OF TALLY SHEETS

        The Committee annually reviews tally sheets that reflect the components of each NEO's compensation. The tally sheets include the following information for each of the last three years:

    compensation history, including annual cash compensation (base salary and AIP awards), LTI awards, value of vested LTI awards, and annualized cost of benefits and perquisites;

    the expected value of annual compensation for the year, including cash compensation and the grant date fair value of LTI awards;

    accumulated value of compensation, including total accumulated value of LTI awards and accumulated benefit values under our retirement and deferred compensation plans;

    a summary of potential payments under various termination scenarios; and

    whether the executive has achieved his or her applicable level under our stock ownership guidelines.

        The Committee believes that tally sheets are useful in determining compensation because they provide a historical perspective on NEO compensation and reflect information that will be included in our proxy statement.

INDEPENDENT OVERSIGHT AND EXPERTISE

        Our Board believes that hiring and retaining effective executives and providing them with market-competitive compensation are essential to the success of our company and advance the interests of our stockholders. The Committee, which is comprised solely of independent directors, has responsibility for overseeing our executive compensation program. The Committee may delegate certain limited authority to subcommittees or our CEO when appropriate.

        Under its charter, the Committee has the authority, in its sole discretion and at our expense, to obtain advice and assistance from external advisors. The Committee may retain and terminate any compensation consultant or other external advisor and has sole authority to approve any such advisor's fees and other terms and conditions of the retention. In retaining its advisors, the Committee must consider each advisor's independence from management, as required by NYSE listing standards.

Avery Dennison Corporation | 2015 Proxy Statement |  49

Table of Contents

        During 2014, the Committee retained Towers Watson as its compensation consultant. Towers Watson assists the Committee by providing competitive market compensation data for senior executives; conducting periodic reviews of elements of our non-employee director, executive and employee compensation programs; assisting with annual and long-term incentive compensation design, including performance objectives and weightings thereof; and sharing executive and non-employee director compensation trends, issues and regulatory developments.

        Representatives of Towers Watson were present at every Committee meeting held in 2014, and may be consulted in between meetings at the Committee's discretion.

        During 2014, Towers Watson performed the following services for the Committee:

TOWERS WATSON 2014 SERVICES
Conducted analyses of our CEO's compensation through the lenses of pay opportunity, realizable pay and realized pay
Performed simulations to test our CEO's compensation against the pay-for-performance methodologies used by two proxy advisory firms
Assisted with the design of our 2014 incentive program, including the performance objectives and weightings for our AIP and our LTI award mix, performance objectives, weightings and form of settlement
Reviewed the peer group for the 2014-2016 MTIP
Commented on the CD&A contained in our 2014 proxy statement, as well as on our 2014 supplemental proxy materials
Evaluated the results of our 2014 say-on-pay vote, including the vote recommendations of proxy advisory firms and the feedback received from our stockholders during our engagement with them
Presented considerations and made recommendations regarding the design of our PU and MSU programs for 2015
Advised on executive compensation trends, regulations, stockholder voting guidelines and proxy advisory firm policies
Prepared for, attended and reviewed documentation for Committee meetings

        Except for assistance with calculating the amounts contained in the table included in the "Potential Payments Upon Termination or Change of Control" section of our 2014 proxy statement, Towers Watson performed no services for our company in 2014 other than its work undertaken for or at the request of the Committee. In 2014, Towers Watson received $211,931 in compensation, excluding reimbursement for reasonable expenses, from our company, over 90% of which was for professional services directly performed for or at the request of the Committee.

        The Committee conducted its annual assessment of Towers Watson's performance in December 2014, which included a review of various performance measures and evaluation criteria, as well as the fees paid for the firm's services. Based on this assessment, the Committee determined that it remained satisfied with the performance of Towers Watson and the individual members of the firm serving the Committee.

ADVISOR INDEPENDENCE

        Towers Watson and the Committee have had the following protocols in place since the commencement of the engagement to ensure Towers Watson's independence from management:

    the Committee has the sole authority to select, retain and terminate Towers Watson, as well as authorize the firm's fees and determine the other terms and conditions that govern the engagement;

    the Committee directs Towers Watson on the process for delivery and communication of its work product, including its analyses, findings, conclusions and recommendations;

    in the performance and evaluation of its duties, Towers Watson is accountable, and reports directly, to the Committee; and

    the Committee may consult with Towers Watson at any time, with or without members of management present, at the Committee's sole discretion.

        As required by NYSE listing standards, the Committee considered the independence of its advisors in December 2014 and February 2015. The Committee affirmatively determined Towers Watson to be independent in February 2015. In addition, the Committee conducted a review of potential conflicts of interest of Towers Watson and the members of the engagement team advising the Committee, including the firm's policies and procedures designed to prevent conflicts of interest, and determined that there were no such conflicts.

Avery Dennison Corporation | 2015 Proxy Statement |  50

Table of Contents

OTHER CONSIDERATIONS

CLAWBACK POLICY

        In the event of fraud or other intentional misconduct on the part of an NEO that necessitates a restatement of our financial results, the NEO would be required to reimburse our company for any AIP or LTI awards paid or granted in excess of the amount that would have been paid or granted based on the restated financial results. These remedies would be in addition to, not instead of, any actions imposed by law enforcement agencies, regulators or other authorities. This clawback policy has been contractually acknowledged by our NEOs upon the execution of their LTI award agreements since 2010.

        The Committee approved our clawback policy in December 2009 to subject incentive compensation to forfeiture if our financial results are not achieved consistent with our high ethical standards. This policy is one of the terms and conditions in both our AIP and Equity Plan.

TAX IMPLICATIONS OF EXECUTIVE COMPENSATION

        The Committee aims to compensate our NEOs in a manner that is tax effective for our company.

Section 162(m) of the Code

        Under the 1993 Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act and Section 162(m) of the Code ("Section 162(m)"), our federal income tax deductions for executive compensation are limited to the extent total compensation for certain executive officers exceeds $1 million in any one year, unless it qualifies as "performance-based." To qualify as performance-based, compensation must, among other things, be based solely upon the achievement of objective performance goals and made under a plan that is administered by a compensation committee comprised solely of "outside directors." In addition, the material terms of the plan must be disclosed to and approved by our stockholders and the Committee must certify that the performance goals were achieved before payments can be made.

        Our Senior Executive Annual Incentive Plan was designed to comply with the provisions of Section 162(m) and was last approved by our stockholders in 2014, which constituted approval of the performance-based criteria reflected therein. Under the plan, our NEOs are eligible to receive a maximum annual cash incentive compensation award based on a specified percentage of our gross profit less marketing, general and administrative expenses, in each case as reported on our consolidated statement of operations for the applicable fiscal year. The Committee annually reviews the maximum plan awards and may exercise its discretion to decrease, but not increase, such awards. The AIP awards granted to our NEOs are generally substantially below these maximums.

        In addition to the Senior Executive Annual Incentive Plan, we have designed certain of our other compensation programs to comply with Section 162(m) of the Code and related regulations so that total compensation paid to any employee covered by Section 162(m) generally should not, unless otherwise determined appropriate, exceed $1 million in any one year, except for compensation payments that qualify as "performance-based." Due to uncertainties in the applications of Section 162(m) and the regulations thereunder, there is no guarantee that deductions claimed under Section 162(m) will not be challenged or disallowed by the IRS. Furthermore, although we believe that deductibility of executive compensation is an important consideration, we reserve the right to pay compensation and/or approve executive compensation arrangements that are not fully tax deductible if we believe that doing so is in the best interests of our company and our stockholders.

Section 409A of the Code

        Nonqualified deferred compensation must be deferred and paid under plans or arrangements that satisfy the requirements of Section 409A of the Code with respect to the timing of deferral elections and payments and certain other matters. Failure to satisfy these requirements could expose individuals to accelerated income tax liabilities, penalty taxes and interest on their compensation deferred under these plans. As a general matter, we design and administer our compensation and benefit plans and arrangements so that they are either exempt from, or satisfy the requirements of, Section 409A.

Avery Dennison Corporation | 2015 Proxy Statement |  51

Table of Contents

EXECUTIVE COMPENSATION TABLES

2014 SUMMARY COMPENSATION TABLE

        The following table shows the compensation earned by or awarded to our NEOs during fiscal years 2014, 2013 and 2012 in accordance with SEC regulations. Compensation as shown in the table does not necessarily reflect the compensation actually realized by our NEOs for these years. For example, the amounts set forth under "Stock Awards" in 2014 do not represent the actual amounts realized by our NEOs; rather, they represent the aggregate grant date fair value for financial reporting purposes of PUs (which are subject to our achievement of certain performance objectives measured at the end of a three-year period and ultimately may result in no such compensation being realized by the NEO) and MSUs (which are subject to cancellation in the event our absolute TSR declines more than 30% over one-, two-, three- and four-year performance periods). In addition, the amounts under "Change in Pension Value and Nonqualified Deferred Compensation Earnings" primarily reflect the change in the actuarial present value of accumulated pension benefits based on the assumptions we use for financial reporting purposes and do not reflect amounts realized by our NEOs.

NAME AND
PRINCIPAL POSITION

  YEAR
  SALARY(1)
  STOCK
AWARDS(2)

  OPTION
AWARDS

  NON-EQUITY INCENTIVE
PLAN COMPENSATION(3)

  CHANGE IN
PENSION
VALUE AND
NQDC
EARNINGS(4)

  ALL OTHER
COMPENSATION(5)

  TOTAL
 

Dean A. Scarborough

  2014   $ 1,095,000   $ 4,924,387  


$ 1,032,408   $