This proxy statement contains information related to the Annual Meeting of Shareholders of Martin Marietta Materials, Inc., a North Carolina corporation, to be held on Thursday, May 19, 2016, at 11:30 a.m. at Martin Marietta’s principal office, 2710 Wycliff Road, Raleigh, North Carolina. Martin Marietta’s audited financial statements and portions of the Annual Report on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2015 are being mailed to shareholders with this proxy statement.

This proxy statement, the proxy card, and the notice of meeting are being sent commencing on approximately April 20, 2016 to shareholders of record on March 11, 2016.

What is the purpose of the annual meeting?

At our annual meeting, shareholders will act on the matters outlined in the accompanying Notice of Annual Meeting of Shareholders. This statement is furnished in connection with the solicitation by Martin Marietta’s Board of Directors of proxies to be used at the meeting and at any and all adjournments or postponements of the meeting.

Whether or not you plan to attend the meeting, we encourage you to date, sign, and return your proxy in the enclosed envelope.

Who is entitled to vote at the meeting?

Only shareholders of record at the close of business on March 11, 2016 are entitled to notice of and to participate in the Annual Meeting. If you were a shareholder of record on that date, you will be entitled to vote all the shares that you held on that date at the meeting, or any adjournments or postponements of the meeting.

What are the voting rights of the holders of Martin Marietta common stock?

Each share of Martin Marietta common stock is entitled to one vote on each matter considered at the meeting.

Who can attend the meeting?

All shareholders as of the record date, or their duly appointed proxies, beneficial owners presenting satisfactory evidence of ownership as of the record date, and invited guests of Martin Marietta may attend the meeting.

What constitutes a quorum?

The presence at the meeting, in person or by proxy, of the holders of a majority of the common stock outstanding on the record date constitutes a quorum, permitting shareholders to take action at the meeting. On March 11, 2016, there were

63,488,081 shares outstanding of Martin Marietta’s common stock, $.01 par value per share.

Who will oversee the voting results?

Votes cast by proxy or in person at the Annual Meeting will be tabulated by an independent inspector of election appointed by Martin Marietta’s Board of Directors for the Annual Meeting from American Stock Transfer & Trust Company, Martin Marietta’s transfer agent. The inspector of election will determine whether a quorum is present. For purposes of determining the presence of a quorum, abstentions and broker non-votes (which are described below) will be counted as shares that are present and entitled to vote.

How do I vote?

If you complete and properly sign the accompanying proxy card and return it to Martin Marietta, it will be voted as you direct. If you are a registered shareholder and attend the meeting, you may deliver your completed proxy card or vote in person. Shareholders whose shares are held by brokers, banks, or other nominees who wish to vote at the meeting will need to obtain a proxy form from the institution that holds its shares.

Can I change my vote after I return my proxy card?

Yes. Even after you have submitted your vote, you may revoke your proxy at any time prior to its exercise at the Annual Meeting (i) by filing with Martin Marietta’s Corporate Secretary an instrument revoking the proxy prior to the meeting, (ii) by the timely delivery to Martin Marietta’s Corporate Secretary, including at the meeting, of a subsequently dated and executed proxy, or (iii) if you attend the meeting, by voting your shares in person. Attendance at the meeting will not in and of itself constitute a revocation of a proxy.

How do I vote my 401(k) shares?

Each participant in Martin Marietta’s Savings and Investment Plan may direct the trustee as to the manner in which shares of common stock allocated to the plan participant’s account are to be voted. If the plan participant does not return a signed voting instruction card to the trustee in a timely manner or returns a card without indicating any voting instructions, the trustee will vote the shares in the same proportion as shares for which the trustee receives voting instructions for that plan.

Will my broker vote my shares for me if I do not give voting instructions? What are “broker non-votes”?

Brokers holding shares for beneficial owners must vote those shares according to the specific instructions they receive from the beneficial owners. If specific instructions are not received,

brokers may generally vote these shares at their discretion. However, the New York Stock Exchange rules preclude brokers from exercising their voting discretion on certain proposals, such as the election of Directors or executive compensation matters. In such cases, absent specific instructions from the beneficial owner, the broker may not vote on those proposals. This results in what is known as a “broker non-vote.” The approval of the ratification of the appointment of independent auditors is not a proposal subject to this rule. Accordingly, if you want your broker to vote your shares on the election of Directors, the proposed amendment to the Articles of Incorporation to provide for the annual election of the Board of Directors, the proposed amendment to the Amended and Restated Stock Based Award Plan, the proposed approval of the Executive Cash Incentive Plan, and the approval on an advisory basis of the compensation of our named executive officers, you must provide specific voting instructions to your broker. Conversely, any broker holding shares for you may vote your shares at their discretion with respect to the ratification of the appointment of independent auditors unless you give them specific instructions on how you wish for them to vote.

What vote is required to approve each item?

Martin Marietta amended its Articles of Incorporation following the 2013 Annual Meeting of Shareholders to provide for majority voting in the election of Directors. As a result, in an uncontested Director election (i.e., an election where the only nominees are those proposed by our Board of Directors, such as at the 2016 Annual Meeting), Directors are elected by a majority of the votes cast by holders of our common stock present in person or by proxy at the meeting. For purposes of uncontested Director elections, a majority of votes cast means that the number of votes cast “for” a nominee’s election exceeds the number of votes cast “against” that nominee’s election. Abstentions and broker non-votes will not be counted as votes cast in the election of Directors and will have no effect on the outcome of the election of Directors.

Under North Carolina law, if an incumbent director is not re-elected at an Annual Meeting of Shareholders, then, even though his or her term has expired, the incumbent director continues to serve in office as a holdover director until his or her successor is elected or until there is a decrease in the number of directors. North Carolina law further provides that if the shareholders fail to elect the full authorized number of directors, a board of directors may fill the vacancy by electing a successor. Accordingly, Martin Marietta’s Articles of Incorporation provide that if a nominee is not elected by a vote of the majority of the votes cast with respect to that nominee’s election, the Board of Directors may decrease the number of Directors, fill any vacancy or take other appropriate action.

The proposed amendment to the Amended and Restated Stock Based Award Plan and the proposed Executive Cash Incentive Plan will be approved if a majority of the votes cast are in favor of the proposals. For this purpose, “abstentions” are considered to be votes cast and will have the effect of a vote

cast “against” the proposed plans, while broker non-votes will not be considered to be votes cast and will not affect the outcome of the vote on these proposals. The proposed amendment to the Articles of Incorporation, of the ratification of the selection of independent auditors, the approval on an advisory basis of the compensation of our named executive officers, and any other proposal presented at the meeting, will be approved if more votes are cast by proxy or in person in favor of the proposal than are cast against it. Abstentions and broker non-votes, if any, will not be counted “for” or “against” any of these proposals.

Where can I find voting results for the Annual Meeting?

We will announce preliminary voting results at the conclusion of the meeting and publish final results in a Current Report on Form 8-K filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission within four business days after the Annual Meeting.

Where can I find out more information about Martin Marietta?

We maintain a website at www.martinmarietta.com where you can find additional information about Martin Marietta. Visitors to the website can view and print copies of Martin Marietta’s SEC filings, including periodic and current reports on Forms 10-K, 10-Q and 8-K, as soon as reasonably practicable after those filings are made with the SEC. Copies of the charters for each of our Audit Committee, Management Development and Compensation Committee, and Nominating and Corporate Governance Committee, Corporate Governance Guidelines, as well as our Code of Ethical Business Conduct are all available through the website. Alternatively, our shareholders and other interested parties may obtain, without charge, copies of all of these documents by writing to the Corporate Secretary, Martin Marietta, 2710 Wycliff Road, Raleigh, NC 27607. Please note that the information contained on Martin Marietta’s website is not incorporated by reference in, or considered to be a part of, this document.

Who is paying for this proxy statement?

The entire cost of preparing, assembling, printing, and mailing the Notice of Meeting, this proxy statement, and proxies, and the cost of soliciting proxies relating to the meeting, if any, has been or will be paid by Martin Marietta. In addition to use of the mail, proxies may be solicited by Directors, officers, and other regular employees of Martin Marietta by telephone, facsimile, or personal solicitation, and no additional compensation will be paid to such individuals. Martin Marietta will use the services of Morrow & Co., LLC, 470 West Avenue, Stamford, CT 06902, a professional soliciting organization, to assist in obtaining in person or by proxy shareholder votes. Martin Marietta estimates its expenses for solicitation services will not exceed $10,000. Martin Marietta will, if requested, reimburse banks, brokerage houses and other custodians, nominees and certain fiduciaries for their reasonable expenses incurred in mailing proxy materials to their principals.

Will any other matters be presented at the Annual Meeting?

At the time this proxy statement was filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission, the Board of Directors was not aware that any matters not referred to herein would be presented for action at the Annual Meeting. If any other matters properly come before the meeting, it is intended that the persons named in the enclosed proxy will vote the shares represented by proxies on such matters in accordance with the recommendation of the Board of Directors, or, if no recommendation is given, in their own discretion. It is also intended that discretionary authority will be exercised with respect to the vote on any matters incident to the conduct of the meeting.

What are the Board’s recommendations?

Unless you give other instructions on your proxy card, the persons named as proxy holders on the proxy card will vote in accordance with the recommendations of the Board of Directors. The Board’s recommendation, as well as a description of each proposal, is set forth in this proxy statement. The Board recommends a vote:

With respect to any other matter that properly comes before the meeting, the proxy holders will vote as recommended by the Board of Directors or, if no recommendation is given, in their own discretion.

IMPORTANT NOTICE REGARDING THE AVAILABILITY OF PROXY MATERIALS

FOR THE ANNUAL MEETING OF SHAREHOLDERS TO BE HELD ON MAY 19, 2016

THIS PROXY STATEMENT, FORM OF PROXY CARD AND THE ACCOMPANYING ANNUAL REPORT ARE ALSO AVAILABLE AT IR.MARTINMARIETTA.COM/REPORTS.CFM.

Section 16(a) Beneficial Ownership Reporting Compliance

Section 16(a) of the Exchange Act requires directors and officers of Martin Marietta and persons who own more than 10% of the common stock to file with the Securities and Exchange Commission initial reports of ownership and reports in changes in ownership of the common stock. Directors, officers and more than 10% shareholders are required by Securities and Exchange Commission regulations to furnish to Martin Marietta copies of all Section 16(a) reports filed. Based

solely on its review of copies of reports furnished to Martin Marietta and written representations of Directors and officers, the company believes that during fiscal year 2015, such filing requirements were satisfied, except that officers Ms. Bar, Dana F. Guzzo, Ms. Lloyd and Mr. Nye each filed late, due to an administrative error, one Form 4 report, each reporting one transaction on the tax withholding of shares upon the vesting of a previously reported award. Each officer’s subject filing was filed six days late.

The Board of Directors currently consists of ten members, nine of whom are non-employee Directors. The Board is currently divided into three classes with three-year terms.

The Board of Directors has nominated four persons for election as Directors, with three persons nominated for reelection to serve three-year terms expiring in 2019 and one person nominated for election to serve a two-year term expiring in 2018. Unless otherwise directed, proxies will be voted in favor of these nominees. Each nominee has agreed to serve if elected. Each of the nominees is currently serving as a Director, except Mr. Slager. Should any nominee become unable to serve as a Director, the persons named in the enclosed form of proxy will, unless otherwise directed, vote for the election of such other person for such position as the present Board of Directors may recommend in place of such nominee.

Under our Bylaws, nominations of persons for election to the Board of Directors may be made at an Annual Meeting of Shareholders by the Board of Directors and by any shareholder who complies with the notice procedures set forth in the Bylaws. As described in the proxy statement for our 2015 Annual Meeting, for a nomination to be properly made by a shareholder at the 2016 Annual Meeting, the shareholder’s notice must have been sent to, and received by, our Secretary at our principal executive offices between January 17, 2016 and February 16, 2016. No such notice was received during this period. Should any of the following nominees be unavailable for election by reason of death or other unexpected occurrence, the proxy, to the extent permitted by applicable law, may be voted with discretionary authority in connection with the nomination by the Board of Directors and the election of any substitute nominee.

The Bylaws of the Corporation provide that a Director will retire at the Annual Meeting of Shareholders following the Director’s 75^th birthday. Two of our current Directors, Frank H. Menaker, Jr. and Richard A. Vinroot, reached this mandatory retirement age this year and are not eligible for election at the Annual Meeting for a new three-year term. Each of Mr. Menaker and Mr. Vinroot have stated that he intends to serve as a Director

of the Corporation through the commencement of the 2016 Annual Meeting of Shareholders, after which he will retire from the Board. The Board extends its sincere appreciation to Mr. Menaker and Mr. Vinroot for their years of service and thoughtful Board leadership. These Directors have each given generously of their time and have consistently provided the Board with independent insight and advice, which have been invaluable to the Board and to Martin Marietta. In light of the retirement of Mr. Menaker and Mr. Vinroot, the Board of Directors has set the size of the Board of Directors at nine effective upon the commencement of the 2016 Annual Meeting.

The Board has nominated Donald W. Slager to stand for election by shareholders at the 2016 Annual Meeting of Shareholders for the remainder of the term of one of the retiring directors. In recruiting Mr. Slager, the Nominating and Corporate Governance Committee retained a search firm to help identify director prospects, perform candidate outreach, assist in reference checks, and provide other related services. Mr. Slager was recommended to the Nominating and Corporate Governance Committee by the search firm. The recruiting process typically involves either the search firm or a member of the Nominating and Corporate Governance Committee contacting a prospect to gauge his or her interest and availability. A candidate will then meet with several members of the Nominating and Corporate Governance Committee and Board. At the same time, the Nominating and Corporate Governance Committee and the search firm will contact references for the prospect. A background check is completed before a final recommendation is made to the Board to appoint a candidate to the Board.

Proxies cannot be voted for a greater number of persons than the number of nominees named.

The following sets forth the age and certain other biographical information for each of the nominees for election and for each of the other members of the Board of Directors as of the date of this proxy statement.

We are asking shareholders to approve an amendment to our Articles of Incorporation to phase out the classification of the terms of our directors and to provide instead for the annual election of our directors (the “Charter Amendment”). Under the current classified board structure, our Board of Directors is divided into three classes, with each class serving three-year terms. If the Amendment is approved, commencing with the 2017 Annual Meeting of Shareholders, our directors will be elected to one-year terms of office after the current terms of the directors of each class expire at the 2017, 2018 and 2019 Annual Meetings of Shareholders. The proposed amendment to the Articles of Incorporation is attached as Appendix C.

The Charter Amendment is the product of our Board of Directors’ review of our corporate governance matters. The Board of Directors considered the advantages and disadvantages of maintaining a classified board structure. The Board of Directors approved the phase out of the classified board structure earlier this year, subject to the approval of the shareholders.

In determining whether the phase out of the classified board structure is in the best interests of Martin Marietta’s shareholders, the Board of Directors carefully considered arguments for maintaining, as well as for eliminating, the classified board structure. Several arguments support retention of a classified board structure. For instance, the overlapping three-year terms of directors promote continuity and stability of the Board of Directors by ensuring that, at any given time, two-thirds of the directors have at least one year’s experience on the Board of Directors. The Board believes a director’s experience is important to understand Martin Marietta’s business and the long-term business strategy. In addition, the Board of Directors believes that three-year terms strengthen director independence by lessening the threat that a director who refuses to act in conformity with the wishes of management (or other directors) will not be re-nominated for office. The classified board structure also reduces the likelihood of an unsolicited and disadvantageous takeover of control of Martin Marietta, which might cause our shareholders to receive less than an adequate price for their stock, because a potential acquirer cannot replace a majority of the directors at a single annual meeting. Since a potential acquirer cannot easily remove a majority of the directors in a classified board structure, the directors on such board may possess greater bargaining power to obtain the best price from a potential acquirer and are likely to have more time to search for superior alternatives.

The Board of Directors also considered the views of investors who believe that a classified board structure reduces the accountability of directors to shareholders because the directors do not face an annual election. Since director elections are the primary means by which the shareholders can affect corporate management, the classified board structure may diminish shareholder influence over a company’s policy. Furthermore, the classified board structure may negatively affect shareholder value by discouraging proxy contests in which shareholders have an opportunity to vote for an entire slate of competing nominees.

After weighing all of these considerations, the Board of Directors agreed and determined that the phase out of the classified board structure is advisable and in the best interests of Martin Marietta and our shareholders. Accordingly, the Board of Directors has approved the Charter Amendment (which is marked to show the changes from the previous Articles of Incorporation and provided in Appendix C) and recommends that the shareholders approve the Charter Amendment by voting in favor of this proposal.

If this proposal is approved by our shareholders, Article 5 of the Amended and Restated Articles of Incorporation will be amended to phase out the classification of the terms of our directors and to provide for the annual election of our directors commencing with the class of directors standing for election at the 2017 Annual Meeting of Shareholders. To ensure a smooth transition to the new declassified structure of the Board of Directors, and to permit the current directors to serve out the three-year terms to which the shareholders elected the directors, the Charter Amendment will not shorten the term of any director elected before the 2017 Annual Meeting of Shareholders. The new procedures would, however, apply to all directors elected at or after the 2017 Annual Meeting of Shareholders, including any current directors who are re-nominated after their current terms expire. Thus, the current Class III directors, who were elected at the 2014 Annual Meeting of Shareholders for three-year terms, would, if re-nominated, stand for election for only one-year terms at the 2017 Annual Meeting of Shareholders. The Class I directors, whose term currently expires in 2018, would, if re-nominated, stand for election at the 2018 Annual Meeting for only one-year terms with the Class III directors. At the Annual Meeting of Shareholders in 2019, the Class II directors, would, if re-nominated, stand for election at the 2019 Annual Meeting of Shareholders for only one-year terms with the Class I and Class III directors.

If the proposed Charter Amendment is approved at this meeting by the shareholders, the phase out of the classified structure of the Board of Directors will become effective upon the filing of the Charter Amendment with the Secretary of State of the State of North Carolina. We intend to file the

Charter Amendment as soon as practicable once shareholder approval is obtained. If the Charter Amendment is not approved, our structure of the Board of Directors will remain classified, and directors elected at subsequent meetings would have three-year terms.

THE BOARD UNANIMOUSLY RECOMMENDS

A VOTE “FOR” THIS PROPOSAL

Martin Marietta uses a combination of cash and stock-based incentive compensation to attract and retain qualified candidates to serve on the Board of Directors. In setting director compensation, Martin Marietta considers the significant amount of time that Directors expend in fulfilling their duties to Martin Marietta as well as the skill-level required by Martin Marietta of members of the Board. The Board determines reasonable compensation for Directors upon recommendation of the Management Development and Compensation Committee of the Board, which retains independent compensation consultants to assist it.

Cash Compensation Paid to Board Members

For the fiscal year ended December 31, 2015, all the individuals who were then Directors, except Mr. Nye, who was the Chief Executive Officer of Martin Marietta in 2015 and was not and is not compensated separately for his service as a Director, were paid an annual cash retainer, as well as an equity grant of restricted stock units, which is discussed below. From January 1, 2015 through the Annual Meeting in May 2015, the annual retainer, which was paid following the 2014 Annual Meeting of Shareholders, was $32,500, and Directors also received $1,250 for each regular or special meeting of the Board and Board committees attended. In 2015, the Management Development and Compensation Committee of the Board of Directors reviewed with Willis Towers Watson, its independent compensation consultant, the mix of cash and equity in the Company’s Directors’ compensation program, which included a mandatory holding period for the restricted stock units and a mandatory minimum holding period for cash fees to be deferred in common stock units under the Common Stock Purchase Plan for Directors. Willis Towers Watson noted that a more typical compensation package did not have as heavy a weight on equity, and recommended changes to the Directors’ compensation.

Based on a review of compensation practices, the advice of Willis Towers Watson, and other factors, starting as of the Annual Meeting of Shareholders in May 2015, the Board eliminated meeting fees and approved an annual retainer for Board members of $100,000. This determination was made, in part, in recognition of the expectation that Directors are engaged in on-going communications in between meetings. Members of the Audit Committee received an additional $5,000 in view of their increased responsibilities. Each committee chair received an additional annual fee of $8,000, except the Chair of the Audit Committee, who received an additional annual fee of $15,000 in light of his increased responsibilities. In his role as Lead Independent Director, Mr. Quillen received an additional annual fee of $25,000. The annual cash retainer and supplemental fees are paid in quarterly installments, measured from the end of the month during which the Annual Meeting of Shareholders is held. Directors were also reimbursed for travel and other expenses related to attendance at Board and committee meetings.

Martin Marietta’s plane was used to transport some Directors to and from Board and committee meetings, but no Directors received personal use of Martin Marietta’s plane or other perquisites and personal benefits in 2015.

Equity Compensation Paid to Board Members

In conjunction with the Management Development and Compensation Committee review of Directors’ compensation in 2015, the Board also changed the equity compensation paid to Directors. Starting as of the annual meeting in May 2015, each non-employee Director received an award of restricted stock units (“RSUs”) with a value of $100,000 (rounded up) based on the closing price as of the date of grant. In 2015, this award was 647 RSUs, which were fully vested upon award. This amount was a reduction from the previous annual grant of RSUs to non-employee Directors, which had a value of $110,000. Directors are required to defer at least 50% of the RSUs for a minimum deferral period of three years.

The Directors do not have voting or investment power for their respective restricted stock units.

Deferred Compensation Program for Board Members

The Common Stock Purchase Plan for Directors provides that non-employee Directors may elect to receive all or a portion of their fees earned in 2015 in the form of Martin Marietta’s common stock units, with a mandatory deferral minimum of 20% and a mandatory deferral time of three years with redeferrals at each Director’s election up to the date the person ceases to be a Director or the date that is one year and one month following the date that the person ceases to be a Director. Directors may elect to receive payment of the deferred amount in a single lump sum or in equal annual installments for a period up to ten years. Directors may also elect to defer their fees paid in cash on the same basis. Amounts deferred under the plan in cash are credited with interest at the prime rate. Amounts deferred under the plan in common stock are credited toward units of common stock at a 20% discount from the fair market value of the common stock (the closing price of the common stock as reported in the Wall Street Journal) on the date the Director fees would otherwise be paid. There are no matching contributions made by Martin Marietta. The units are converted into common stock of Martin Marietta pursuant to the terms of the plan. Dividend equivalents are paid on the units at the same rate as dividends are paid to all shareholders. The Directors do not have voting or investment power for their respective common stock units. In connection with its 2015 review of Directors’ compensation, based on Willis Towers Watson’s advice, and the high equity ownership level of the Company’s stock by Directors, the Board revised the mandatory equity ownership aspects of the Directors’ compensation to eliminate the mandatory deferral minimum under this plan beginning in 2016.

Corporate Governance Philosophy

Martin Marietta has a culture dedicated to ethical business behavior and responsible corporate activity, which we believe promotes the long-term interests of shareholders. This commitment is reflected in our Corporate Governance Guidelines, posted and available for public viewing on Martin Marietta’s website at www.martinmarietta.com, which set forth a flexible framework within which the Board, assisted by its Committees, directs the affairs of the Company. The Guidelines address, among other things, the composition and functions of the Board of Directors, director qualifications and independence, Chief Executive Officer performance evaluation and management succession, Board Committees and the selection of new Directors.

Martin Marietta’s Code of Ethical Business Conduct has been in place since the 1980s, and applies to all Board members, officers, and employees, providing our policies and

expectations on a number of topics, including our commitment to good citizenship, promoting a positive and safe work environment, avoiding conflicts of interest, honoring the confidentiality of sensitive information, preservation and use of Company assets, compliance with all laws, and operating with integrity in all that we do. To implement the Code of Ethical Business Conduct, Board members, officers, and employees participate regularly in ethics training. There have been no waivers from any provisions of our Code of Ethical Business Conduct to any Board member or executive officer.

In addition, the Board believes that accountability to shareholders is a mark of good governance and critical to Martin Marietta’s success. To that end, management regularly engages with shareholders on a variety of topics throughout the year to ensure we are addressing their questions and concerns, to seek input and to provide perspective on Company policies and practices.

Who are Martin Marietta’s Independent Directors?

All of Martin Marietta’s Directors are non-employee Directors except Mr. Nye. Mr. Nye does not sit in the executive sessions of the independent Directors unless invited to attend for a specific discussion nor does he participate in any action of the Board relating to any executive compensation plan in which he may participate.

In assessing the independence of its members, the Board has adopted for Martin Marietta a set of Guidelines for Director’s Independence. The Guidelines are posted and available for public viewing on Martin Marietta’s website at www.martinmarietta.com. These Guidelines reflect the rules of the New York Stock Exchange, applicable requirements of the SEC, and other standards determined by the Board to be important in assessing the independence of Board members. The Board has determined that all members of the Board, except Mr. Nye and Mr. Zelnak, are “independent” under these Guidelines, resulting in more than two-thirds of the Board being independent. The Board has further determined that Mr. Slager is “independent” under these Guidelines. The

Board of Directors has determined that no Director (except Mr. Nye and Mr. Zelnak) and Mr. Slager, or any person or organization with which the Director or Mr. Slager has any affiliation, has a relationship with Martin Marietta that may interfere with his or her independence from Martin Marietta and its management.

In making this “independence” determination, the Board considered other entities with which the Directors and nominees were affiliated and any business Martin Marietta had done with such entities. In that regard, Mr. Vinroot is a member of the law firm of Robinson, Bradshaw & Hinson, P.A. located in Charlotte, North Carolina, which provided certain legal services to Martin Marietta in 2015. Mr. Vinroot did not work on any of the legal matters for Martin Marietta. The amount of fees paid to Robinson, Bradshaw & Hinson, P.A. for such services in 2015 was approximately $97,000, representing less than 0.02% of the firm’s total revenues for the last fiscal year. Accordingly, the Board determined that Mr. Vinroot’s relationship with Martin Marietta, directly and as a partner of Robinson, Bradshaw & Hinson, P.A., was not material for purposes of the independence determination.

Do the independent Directors ever meet without management?

Martin Marietta’s Corporate Governance Guidelines adopted by the Board provide that at least two Board meetings each year will include an executive session of the non-employee Directors to discuss such topics as they may choose, including a discussion of the performance of Martin Marietta’s Chairman and its Chief Executive Officer. In 2015, Martin Marietta’s non-employee Directors met four times in executive session without management, in addition to executive sessions held by committees of the Board. In addition, at least once a year the independent Directors meet in executive session.

What is the Board’s leadership structure?

The Board of Directors elected Mr. Nye as Chairman of the Board effective June 2014. This change to add the responsibility of Chairman to Mr. Nye’s position completes the orderly succession process overseen by the Board of Directors. Our Corporate Governance Guidelines provide that the Board’s policy as to whether the Chairman and Chief Executive Officer positions should be separate is to adopt the practice that best serves the Company’s needs at any particular time.

The Nominating and Governance Committee and the Board discussed board leadership alternatives on a number of occasions during 2013 and 2014 before deciding to recombine the Chairman and Chief Executive Officer roles. As a result of Mr. Nye’s long tenure at Martin Marietta, including four years as President and Chief Operating Officer and five years as President and Chief Executive Officer, the Board believes he is uniquely qualified through his experience, education and expertise to be the person who promotes strong and visionary leadership for our Board as well as important recognition as the leader of Martin Marietta by our customers, employees and other constituencies. The Board also believes that Mr. Nye’s serving as both Chairman and Chief Executive Officer is appropriate taking into consideration the size and nature of our business, Mr. Nye’s effective and careful formulation and execution of our strategic plan, Mr. Nye’s established working relationship and open communication with our other directors, both during meetings and in the intervals between meetings, the significant board-level experience of our independent directors as a whole, the strong independent leadership and accountability to shareholders provided by 80% of our directors being independent, the independent leadership provided by our Committee chairs, and our Board culture in which Mr. Nye and the other directors are able to thoughtfully debate different points of view and reach consensus in an efficient manner.

Does the Board have a Lead Independent Director?

In deciding that a combined Chairman and Chief Executive Officer position is the appropriate leadership structure for the Company at this time, the Nominating and Corporate Governance Committee and Board also recognized the benefit of independent leadership to enhance the effectiveness of the Board’s oversight role and communications between the Board and Mr. Nye. Accordingly, in November 2014, our Corporate Governance Guidelines were revised to provide that in the event the Chairman and Chief Executive Officer positions are held by one person, our independent directors may designate a Lead Independent Director from among the independent directors. The designation of the Lead Independent Director is to be made annually, although with the expectation of the Board that the Lead Independent Director will be re-appointed for multiple, consecutive one-year terms. Michael J. Quillen was designated as the Lead Independent Director.

The responsibilities of the Lead Independent Director include:

In addition, the Lead Independent Director attended and met with shareholders at the Company-sponsored Investor Day in 2015.

What is the Board’s role in risk oversight?

Our Board currently has eight independent members and only two non-independent members, Mr. Nye and Mr. Zelnak. A number of our independent Board members are serving or have served as members of senior management of other public companies, have served as directors of other public companies, and otherwise have experience and/or educational backgrounds that we believe qualify them to effectively assess risk. Each of our Board Committees, including our key committees of Audit, Management Development and Compensation, and Nominating and Corporate Governance Committees, are comprised solely of independent Directors, each with a different independent Director serving as Chair of the Committee (other than the Executive Committee, which does not meet on a regular basis).

The Board has overall responsibility for oversight of risk management. The Board believes that an effective risk management system will (1) timely identify the material risks that Martin Marietta faces, (2) communicate necessary information with respect to material risks to senior executives and, as appropriate, to the Board or relevant Board Committee, (3) determine whether the risk is excessive or appropriate under the circumstances and designed to achieve a legitimate corporate goal, (4) implement risk management responses consistent with Martin Marietta’s risk profile, and (5) integrate risk management into Martin Marietta’s decision-making.

The Board delegates certain responsibilities to Board Committees to assist in fulfilling its risk oversight responsibilities. Each of the Committees reports regularly to the full Board of Directors as to actions taken and topics discussed. In addition, the Board regularly reviews with management the most significant risks facing Martin Marietta, the probabilities of those risks occurring, the steps taken to mitigate any impact of risks, and management’s general risk management strategy. In addition, the Board encourages management to promote a corporate culture that incorporates risk management into Martin Marietta’s day-to-day operations.

The Board has designated the Audit Committee to take the lead in overseeing risks related to financial reporting, financial statements, internal control environment, internal audit, independent audit, and accounting processes. The Finance Committee evaluates risks associated with Martin Marietta’s capital structure, including credit and liquidity risks. The

Management Development and Compensation Committee oversees aspects of risk related to the annual performance evaluation of our Chief Executive Officer, succession planning and ensuring that executive compensation is appropriate to meet Martin Marietta’s objectives. That Committee’s assessment of the design features of our executive compensation program that reduce the risk of excessive risk-taking are discussed in the Compensation Discussion and Analysis on page 33. The Nominating and Corporate Governance Committee oversees aspects of risk related to the composition of the Board and its Committees, Board performance and best practices in corporate governance. The Ethics, Environment, Safety and Health Committee monitors risks in the areas of Martin Marietta’s ethics program, health, safety, and the environment.

While the Board oversees Martin Marietta’s risk management, the executive officers are responsible for the day-to-day risk management processes. We believe this division of responsibilities is the most effective approach for addressing the risks facing our Company and is appropriate whether the positions of Chairman and Chief Executive Officer are separate or held by the same individual.

How would interested parties make their concerns known to the independent Directors?

The Board of Directors provides a process for shareholders and other interested parties to send communications to the Board. Shareholders and other interested parties may communicate anonymously and confidentially with the Board through Martin Marietta’s Ethics Hotline at 1-800-209-4508. The Board has also designated the Corporate Secretary to facilitate communications to the Board. Shareholders and other interested parties may communicate directly with the Board of Directors, or directly with non-management Directors, or an individual Director, including the Lead Independent Director, by writing to Martin Marietta, Attn: Corporate Secretary, 2710 Wycliff Road, Raleigh, North Carolina 27607-3033.

All communications by shareholders or other interested parties addressed to the Board will be sent directly to Board members. While Martin Marietta’s Ethics Office and the Corporate Secretary may review, sort, and summarize these communications, all direct communications will be presented to the non-management Directors unless there is instruction from them to filter such communications (and in such event, any communication that has been filtered out will be made available to any non-management Director who wishes to review it).

Martin Marietta and its Board of Directors will continue to review and evaluate the process by which shareholders or other interested persons communicate with Martin Marietta and the Board and may adopt other or further processes and procedures in this regard. If so, Martin Marietta will identify those policies and procedures on our website at www.martinmarietta.com.

How often did the Board meet during 2015?

Martin Marietta’s Board of Directors held five meetings during 2015, all of which were regularly scheduled meetings. There were also a total of 26 committee meetings in 2015. In addition, management confers frequently with its Directors on an informal basis to discuss Company affairs.

How many times did Directors attend meetings of the Board and its Committees?

In 2015, all Directors attended at least 75% of the meetings of the Board of Directors. All directors attended at least 75% of the meetings of the committees of the Board on which they served (during the periods that they served).

Will the Directors attend the Annual Meeting?

Martin Marietta’s Directors are expected to attend Martin Marietta’s Annual Meeting of Shareholders. In 2015, all Directors attended the Annual Meeting.

What Committees has the Board established?

Martin Marietta’s Board of Directors has six standing committees: the Audit Committee, the Ethics, Environment, Safety and Health Committee, the Executive Committee, the Finance Committee, the Management Development and Compensation Committee, and the Nominating and Corporate Governance Committee.

Below is a summary of our current committee structure and membership information.

The Audit Committee, which is composed entirely of non-employee, independent Directors, held eight meetings during 2015. The Audit Committee meets periodically and separately in executive sessions with management, the independent auditors, and Martin Marietta’s internal auditors to review the activities of each. The Audit Committee possesses and may exercise the powers of the Board of Directors relating to accounting, auditing, and financial reporting matters of Martin Marietta, except when such powers are by statute or the Articles of Incorporation or Bylaws reserved to the full Board or delegated to another committee of the Board. The Audit Committee reports regularly to the full Board on these matters. The Audit Committee is directly responsible for the appointment, compensation, and oversight of Martin Marietta’s independent auditors. These are the primary responsibilities of the Audit Committee:

The Committee’s current members are Directors Maffucci (Chair), Menaker, Perez, and Rediker. The Board of Directors has determined that the Chair of the Audit Committee, Mr. Maffucci, qualifies as an “audit committee financial expert” as defined in rules adopted by the SEC. The Board has also determined that Mr. Maffucci, and the other members of the Audit Committee, are independent of management, as required by the rules of the NYSE, SEC, and the Board’s Guidelines for Director’s Independence.

The Ethics, Environment, Safety and Health Committee held two meetings during 2015. It monitors compliance with Martin Marietta’s Code of Ethical Business Conduct and reviews all matters presented to it by the Corporate Ethics Officer concerning the ethical practices of Martin Marietta and its Directors, officers, and employees, including conflicts or potential conflicts of interest between Martin Marietta and any of its Directors, officers, and employees. The Committee also reviews and monitors the adequacy of Martin Marietta’s policies and procedures and organizational structure for ensuring compliance with environmental laws and regulations, and matters relating to health and safety. The Committee’s current members are Directors Vinroot (Chair), Menaker, Perez, Quillen, Rediker, and Zelnak.

The Executive Committee held no meetings during 2015. It has the authority to act during the intervals between the meetings of the Board of Directors and may exercise the powers of the Board in the management of the business and affairs of Martin Marietta as may be authorized by the Board of Directors, except to the extent such powers are by statute, the Articles of Incorporation or Bylaws reserved to the full Board. The Committee’s current members are Directors Nye (Chair), McDonald, and Menaker.

The Finance Committee held five meetings during 2015. It has been delegated general oversight powers related to the management of the financial affairs of Martin Marietta, including but not limited to, establishing lines of credit or other

short-term borrowing arrangements and investing excess working capital funds on a short-term basis. The Committee reviews and makes recommendations to the Board of Directors concerning changes to capital structure, including the incurrence of long-term debt, issuance of equity securities, share repurchases, and the payment of dividends, as well as capital expenditures and the contributions budget. The Committee’s current members are Directors Perez (Chair), Maffucci, Quillen, Rediker, and Zelnak.

The Management Development and Compensation Committee held seven meetings during 2015. It is composed entirely of non-employee, independent Directors, as required by the rules of the NYSE, who are also “non-employee” and “outside” Directors as those terms are defined by Rule 16b-3 promulgated under the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934 and Section 162(m) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986. The Committee possesses and may exercise the powers of the Board of Directors relating to management development and compensation matters of Martin Marietta, except when such powers are by statute, the Articles of Incorporation or Bylaws reserved to the full Board or delegated to another committee of the Board. The Committee reports regularly to the full Board on these matters. The purposes of the Committee are to:

The Committee has the power, in its sole discretion, to determine the compensation and benefits to be paid for all elected officers and employees. The Committee also approves and administers the grants of stock options and any other equity-based awards that may be granted by Martin Marietta.

The Committee reviews and approves Martin Marietta’s goals and objectives for the Chief Executive Officer’s compensation, evaluates the Chief Executive Officer’s performance in light of those goals and objectives, and determines and approves the Chief Executive Officer’s compensation level based on the Committee’s evaluation, which includes executive sessions with the independent directors of the Board of Directors. The Committee also reviews management’s assessment of the

performance of other elected officers, and reviews and approves the salary, bonus, and other compensation of such elected officers. The Committee has the authority, in its sole discretion, to retain, pay, and terminate any consulting firm, if any, used to assist in evaluating director, chief executive officer, or senior executive compensation. The Committee has authority to delegate any of its duties under its charter, including to the Chair of the Committee, as it deems appropriate. The Committee also reviews with management at least annually plans for the orderly development and succession of executive management of Martin Marietta. The Committee’s current members are Directors Cole (Chair), McDonald, Menaker and Quillen.

The Nominating and Corporate Governance Committee held four meetings in 2015. The Committee is composed entirely of non-employee, independent Directors, as required by the rules of the NYSE. The Committee possesses and may exercise the powers of the Board of Directors relating to the process of governance of Martin Marietta, except when such powers are by statute, the Articles of Incorporation or Bylaws reserved to the full Board or delegated to another committee of the Board. The Committee reports regularly to the full Board on these matters. The purposes of the Committee are to:

The Committee also oversees the evaluation of the Board and its committees. The Committee has the sole authority to retain, pay, and terminate search firms, if any, used to identify Director candidates. The Committee’s current members are Directors McDonald (Chair), Cole, and Vinroot.

Upon the recommendation of this Committee, the Board of Directors has adopted a set of Corporate Governance Guidelines for Martin Marietta. The Guidelines are posted and available for public viewing on Martin Marietta’s website at www.martinmarietta.com. A copy may also be obtained upon request from Martin Marietta’s Corporate Secretary. Additional information concerning the corporate governance process of Martin Marietta is contained in the section entitled “CORPORATE GOVERNANCE MATTERS” above.

Will the Nominating and Corporate Governance Committee consider any Director candidates recommended by shareholders?

The Nominating and Corporate Governance Committee will consider nominees recommended by shareholders for election as a Director at an Annual Meeting of Shareholders of Martin Marietta, if the shareholder making such recommendation complies with the advance notice provisions of the Bylaws of Martin Marietta. The Bylaws of Martin Marietta require

advance notice for any proposal for the nomination for election as a Director at an Annual Meeting of Shareholders that is not included in Martin Marietta’s notice of meeting or made by or at the direction of the Board of Directors. In general, nominations must be delivered to the Secretary of Martin Marietta at its principal executive offices, 2710 Wycliff Road, Raleigh, North Carolina 27607, not less than 60 days nor more than 90 days prior to the first anniversary of the mailing of the proxy statement in connection with the preceding year’s Annual Meeting of Shareholders and must contain specified information concerning the nominee and the shareholder proposing the nomination. Any shareholder desiring a copy of the Bylaws of Martin Marietta will be furnished a copy without charge upon written request to the Secretary of Martin Marietta. Since the 2015 Annual Meeting, Martin Marietta has not made any material changes to the procedures by which shareholders may recommend nominees to Martin Marietta’s Board of Directors. Additional information is contained in the section entitled “SHAREHOLDERS’ PROPOSALS FOR 2017 ANNUAL MEETING” below.

How does the Board select nominees for the Board?

The Nominating and Corporate Governance Committee will consider candidates for Board membership suggested by its members and other Board members, as well as management and shareholders. The Committee has also retained a third-party executive search firm to identify potential candidates for its consideration from time to time. The Committee makes an initial determination as to whether to conduct a full evaluation of the candidate, and reviews all information provided to the Committee, including the recommendations for the prospective candidate and the Committee’s own knowledge of the prospective candidate. If the Committee determines that additional consideration is warranted, interviews are conducted by the members of the Committee, as well as the Chief Executive Officer of Martin Marietta; appropriate inquiries are conducted into the background and qualifications of potential candidates; the Committee meets to discuss its evaluation and feedback from the Chief Executive Officer; and, if the Committee determines to do so, it makes a recommendation to the full Board as to the persons who should be nominated by the Board. The Board of Directors determines the nominees after considering the recommendation and report of the Committee.

In evaluating any potential candidate, the Nominating and Corporate Governance Committee considers the extent to which the candidate has the personal characteristics and core competencies outlined in the Guidelines for Potential New Board Members adopted by the Committee, and takes into account all other factors it considers appropriate. A copy of these Guidelines is attached to this proxy statement as Appendix A.

Do the Board Committees have charters? How can shareholders obtain them?

Martin Marietta’s Board of Directors has adopted written charters meeting the requirements of the NYSE for the Audit

Committee, Management Development and Compensation Committee, and Nominating and Corporate Governance Committee. These charters address the purposes and responsibilities of each committee, as described above, and provide for an annual performance evaluation of each committee. Copies of these charters are posted on Martin Marietta’s website at www.martinmarietta.com, along with copies of Martin Marietta’s Corporate Governance Guidelines, Code of Ethical Business Conduct, and Guidelines for Director’s Independence.

How are transactions with persons related to Martin Marietta reviewed?

The SEC requires Martin Marietta to disclose in this proxy statement certain transactions in which Martin Marietta participates and in which certain persons considered “related persons” of Martin Marietta have a direct or indirect material interest. These “related persons” would include the Directors and executive officers of Martin Marietta, nominees for Director, certain control persons, and their immediate family members.

Each Director, executive officer, and nominee for Director of Martin Marietta receives and agrees to abide by Martin Marietta’s Code of Ethical Business Conduct. Martin Marietta considers that any transaction in which Martin Marietta

participates and in which any related person of Martin Marietta has a direct or indirect material interest will be subject to Martin Marietta’s Code of Ethical Business Conduct and subject to review, approval or ratification, as appropriate under the circumstances, by Martin Marietta under the standards enumerated in Martin Marietta’s Code of Ethical Business Conduct. If a proposed transaction is one in which a Director of Martin Marietta has an actual or potential conflict of interest, it will be subject to review by the Chairman of the Board of Directors and the Chairman of the Nominating and Corporate Governance Committee.

Any waivers of the Code of Ethical Business Conduct for Directors and executive officers may be made only by Martin Marietta’s Board of Directors or any committee to which it delegates that authority. Any waivers for Directors and executive officers and any amendments to the Code of Ethical Business Conduct will be promptly disclosed to Martin Marietta’s shareholders by posting on our website, www.martinmarietta.com.

In assessing the independence of its members, the Board considers any interests a director may have in any transactions in which Martin Marietta participates. The Board also considers other entities with which the Directors are affiliated and any business Martin Marietta has done with such entities.

The Board of Directors recommends that the shareholders ratify the appointment of PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP, an independent registered public accounting firm, to audit the consolidated financial statements of Martin Marietta and the effectiveness of Martin Marietta’s internal control over financial reporting for the 2016 fiscal year. The ratification of the appointment of PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP is being submitted to the shareholders because management believes this to be good corporate practice. Should the shareholders fail to ratify this appointment, the Board of Directors and its Audit Committee will review the matter.

Ernst & Young LLP served as Martin Marietta’s independent auditors for 2015 and audited the consolidated financial statements of Martin Marietta for the year ended December 31, 2015 and the effectiveness of Martin Marietta’s internal control over financial reporting as of December 31, 2015. In connection with the audit of Martin Marietta’s 2015 consolidated financial statements, Martin Marietta entered into an engagement letter with Ernst & Young LLP that sets forth the terms by which Ernst & Young LLP would perform audit services for Martin Marietta in 2015. Ernst & Young LLP required that the audit engagement agreement be subject to alternative dispute resolution procedures.

The Audit Committee conducted a competitive process with multiple firms to determine the Company’s independent registered public accounting firm for the fiscal year ending December 31, 2016. The Audit Committee invited several firms to participate in this process, including Ernst & Young LLP. As a result of this process, on March 14, 2016, the Audit Committee dismissed EY as its independent registered public accounting firm for the fiscal year ending December 31, 2016. During the fiscal years ended December 31, 2015 and 2014 and in the subsequent interim period through March 14, 2016, there were no “disagreements” (as that term is described in Item 304(a)(1)(iv) of Regulation S-K and the related instructions) with Ernst & Young LLP on any matters of accounting principles or practices, financial statement disclosure, or auditing scope or procedure which, if not resolved to the satisfaction of Ernst & Young LLP, would have

caused Ernst & Young LLP to make reference to the subject matter of such disagreements in their reports on the consolidated financial statements.

The audit reports of Ernst & Young LLP on the Company’s consolidated financial statements as of and for the fiscal years ended December 31, 2015 and 2014 did not contain an adverse opinion or a disclaimer of opinion, and were not qualified or modified as to uncertainty, audit scope or accounting principles. During the fiscal years ended December 31, 2015 and 2014 and in the subsequent interim period through March 14, 2016 there were no “reportable events” as that term is described in Item 304(a)(1)(v) of Regulation S-K of the rules and regulations of the SEC.

On March 14, 2016, the Audit Committee approved the appointment of PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP (“PwC”) as the Company’s new independent registered public accounting firm for the year ending December 31, 2016. During the fiscal years ended December 31, 2015 and 2014 and in the subsequent interim period through March 14, 2016, neither the Company nor anyone acting on its behalf consulted with PwC regarding (i) the application of accounting principles to a specific transaction, either completed or proposed, or the type of audit opinion that might be rendered on the Company’s consolidated financial statements, and neither a written report nor oral advice was provided to the Company that PwC concluded was an important factor considered by the Company in reaching a decision as to any accounting, auditing, or financial reporting issue, (ii) any matter that was the subject of a disagreement as defined in Item 304(a)(1)(iv) of Regulation S-K, or (iii) any reportable event as defined in Item 304(a)(1)(v) of Regulation S-K of the rules and regulations of the SEC.

The Audit Committee is solely responsible for retaining or terminating Martin Marietta’s independent auditors. Representatives of Ernst & Young LLP and of PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP are expected to attend the Annual Meeting, will have the opportunity to make a statement if they so desire, and will be available to respond to questions from shareholders.

THE BOARD UNANIMOUSLY RECOMMENDS

A VOTE “FOR” RATIFCATION OF THE SELECTION

OF PRICEWATERHOUSECOOPERS LLP AS INDEPENDENT AUDITORS

Summary of Fees

The following table summarizes the aggregate fees billed for professional services rendered to Martin Marietta by Ernst & Young LLP in 2015 and 2014. A description of these various fees and services follows the table.

Audit Fees

The aggregate fees billed for professional services rendered by Ernst & Young LLP to Martin Marietta for each of 2015 and 2014 in connection with the annual consolidated financial statement audit, the annual internal controls audit, and reviews of Martin Marietta’s consolidated financial consolidated statements included in the quarterly reports on Form 10-Q were $2,825,000 and $2,605,000, respectively. During 2014, Ernst & Young LLP also billed the Company $498,000 for work relating to registration statements and other SEC filings in connection with the acquisition of Texas Industries, Inc.

Audit-Related Fees

The aggregate fees billed for professional services rendered by Ernst & Young LLP to Martin Marietta for each of 2015 and 2014 and in connection with audit-related services, including agreed-upon procedures reports, subsidiary audits and continuing education, was $90,000 and $100,000, respectively.

Tax Fees

The aggregate fees billed for professional services rendered by Ernst & Young LLP to Martin Marietta for each of 2015 and 2014 in connection with tax advice, including consultation on tax audits, transaction issues, transfer pricing issues and other tax-related activities and tax compliance were $853,000 and $653,000, respectively. The 2014 fees include $597,000 for services related to TXI, which the Company acquired in July 2014.

All Other Fees

There were no other fees billed for other professional services rendered or products provided by Ernst & Young LLP to Martin Marietta for 2015 and 2014.

Pre-Approval Policies and Procedures

The Audit Committee has adopted a policy that requires advance approval of all audit, audit-related, tax services, and other services performed by Ernst & Young LLP. The policy provides for pre-approval by the Audit Committee of specifically defined audit and non- audit services. Unless the specific service has been previously pre-approved with respect to that year, the Audit Committee must approve the permitted service before Ernst & Young LLP is engaged to perform it. The Audit Committee has delegated to the Chair of the Audit Committee authority to approve permitted services, provided that the Chair reports any decision to the Committee at its next scheduled meeting.

Audit Committee Review

In connection with the Audit Committee’s review of services rendered and fees billed by Ernst & Young LLP, the Audit Committee has considered whether the provision of the non-audit related services described above is compatible with maintaining the independent auditors’ independence and has concluded that the provision of these services did not compromise such independence.

Introduction

This Compensation Discussion and Analysis, or CD&A, describes our 2015 executive compensation program and the attendant oversight provided by the Management Development and Compensation Committee of the Board of Directors (the “Committee”). It also summarizes our executive compensation structure and discusses the compensation

earned by Martin Marietta’s named executive officers (the CEO, the CFO, and the three other most highly compensated executive officers in 2015) as presented below in the tables under “Executive Compensation” following this CD&A, which contain detailed compensation information quantifying and further explaining our named executive officers’ (NEO) compensation.

Executive Summary

The year 2015 allowed Martin Marietta to execute on our strategic plan, following the $2.8 billion acquisition of Texas Industries, Inc. (TXI) in 2014. Despite significant precipitation in many of our key markets, modest economic recovery along with volume and pricing growth in 2015 led to increased profits versus prior year, and effective management provided us the ability to prudently reinvest in our business, pursue strategic opportunities, and return cash to our shareholders. In summary, Martin Marietta continued to execute its strategic plan while delivering strong performance in 2015:

This financial performance allowed us to achieve our additional strategic objectives, including:

A number of key 2015 compensation-related decisions resulted from these significant events and accomplishments, which are discussed more fully below. The Committee believes that our executive compensation program continues to reflect a strong pay-for-performance philosophy and is well-aligned with the interests of shareholders.

2015 Say-On-Pay Vote and Shareholder Outreach

Our shareholders expressed their continued support of our executive compensation programs by approving our non-binding advisory vote on executive compensation at our 2015 Annual Meeting of Shareholders. More than 93% of votes cast supported our executive compensation policies and practices. Management and the Committee considered this strong support of the current pay structure by our shareholders and that the Company’s compensation programs do not require material changes, other than those changes warranted by good corporate governance oversight.

The Committee feels strongly that our executive compensation programs should evolve and be adjusted over time to support the achievement of our business goals, to reflect our challenges, and to promote both the near- and long-term profitable growth of Martin Marietta. During 2015, the Committee reviewed and evaluated market trends and best practices in designing and implementing elements to our compensation program. The Committee continues to believe that our executive compensation programs are designed to incentivize and reward achievement that creates value for our shareholders.

We view a continuing, constructive dialogue with our long-term shareholders as critically important to ensuring that we remain aligned with their interests. With that in mind:

Our Compensation Strategy

Our executive compensation program is specifically designed to:

Ongoing Corporate Governance Policies

We endeavor to maintain good corporate governance standards, including those which impact the oversight of our executive compensation policies and practices. The following policies and practices were in effect during 2015:

Compensation Decision Process

Role of Management and the Committee

The Committee is responsible for carrying out the philosophy and objectives of the Board of Directors related to executive compensation in addition to its responsibilities of overseeing the development and succession of executive management of Martin Marietta. The Committee has the authority to determine compensation and benefits for Martin Marietta’s executive officers. The Committee members are each non-employee, independent Board members pursuant to the New

York Stock Exchange rules, and the Committee operates pursuant to a written charter, a copy of which can be viewed on Martin Marietta’s website at www.martinmarietta.com.

The performance of the CEO and each other executive officer is reviewed regularly by the Committee. Based on this review, the Committee sets compensation for all executive officers. Compensation decisions with respect to the executive officers other than the CEO are based in part on recommendations by the CEO, with input from the Senior Vice President—Human Resources, with respect to salary adjustments and annual cash and equity awards. The Committee can accept, reject or modify any recommended adjustments or awards to executive officers. For the CEO, the Committee sets the levels of annual adjustments and awards based on the criteria it deems to be appropriate under the circumstances. There are no employment agreements between Martin Marietta and any executive officer of Martin Marietta, including the CEO.

Role of the Independent Compensation Consultant

The Committee retained an independent compensation consultant in accordance with the Committee’s charter. The consultant reports directly to the Committee. The Committee retains sole authority to hire or terminate the consultant, approve its compensation, determine the nature and scope of services, and evaluate performance. A representative of the compensation consultant attends Committee meetings, either in person or by telephone, as requested, and communicates with the Committee Chair between meetings. The Committee makes all final decisions.

The compensation consultant’s specific compensation consultation roles include, but are not limited to, the following:

Based on these activities, the compensation consultant makes recommendations regarding, and proposes adjustments to, our executive officer compensation program as it deems appropriate. While the consultant works closely with the appropriate members of our executive management team in performing these activities, the consultant reports directly to

and is retained by the Committee on all executive compensation matters, and speaks to the Committee and the Chair of the Committee on a regular basis without management present.

During 2015, the Committee reviewed its engagement with its independent compensation consultant. Based on this review and a variety of factors, the Committee decided to change consultants from Aon Hewitt to Willis Towers Watson. Thereafter, subsequently in 2015, the consultant working with the Committee moved to Mercer, and the Committee decided to engage Mercer instead of Willis Towers Watson in order to retain the continuity and familiarity with the Corporation’s compensation plans and the work being conducted to redesign the plans. The fees for executive compensation consulting services provided to the Committee for fiscal 2015 from Aon Hewitt, Willis Towers Watson and Mercer, respectively, were $50,197, $139,677 and $4,964.

The Committee’s independent consultant reviews and evaluates our executive compensation strategy and program to provide guidance to help us accomplish our compensation objectives, consider industry best practices, and remain competitive with the market. More specifically, at the request of the Committee, the consultant (1) assesses the pay competitiveness of our executive officer positions, (2) conducts a business performance analysis to gauge the relative alignment between our performance and executive officer compensation relative to our peer group, (3) reviews our bonus program design, incentive award opportunities, and long-term incentive grant practices, and (4) summarizes and reports to the Committee on trends, regulatory developments and other factors affecting executive officer compensation. Based on these activities, the consultant makes recommendations regarding, and proposes adjustments to, the design of our executive officer compensation program as it deems appropriate. While the consultant works closely with the appropriate members of our executive management team in performing these activities, he reports directly to and is retained by the Committee on all executive compensation matters. The Committee’s independent compensation consultant periodically attends committee meetings.

During fiscal 2015, Mercer and its Marsh & McLennan affiliates were also retained by management to provide services unrelated to executive compensation, including property/casualty insurance brokerage services and administration of a risk management information system. The aggregate fees paid for those other services for fiscal 2015 were $374,378. The Committee and the Board did not review or approve the other services provided to us by Mercer and its Marsh & McLennan affiliates, as those services were approved by management in the normal course of business prior to the Committee’s engagement of Mercer to work on its behalf.

We have been advised by Mercer that the reporting relationship and compensation of the Mercer consultants who perform executive compensation consulting services for our Committee is separate from, and is not determined by

reference to, Mercer’s or Marsh & McLennan’s other lines of business or their other work for us. The Committee considered these separate reporting relationships and compensation structures, the provision of other services to the company by Mercer and Marsh & McLennan, the absence of any business or personal relationship between our officers and directors and the specific Mercer consultants advising the company (other than the consulting relationship with the Committee), Mercer’s Global Business Standards intended to address potential conflict of interests with respect to their executive compensation consulting services, and the other factors required to be considered by applicable SEC and stock exchange rules, in approving the committee’s engagement of Mercer for fiscal 2015. Based on this review, the Committee did not identify that Mercer had any conflicts of interest that would prevent Mercer from independently advising the Committee.

During fiscal 2015, Willis Towers Watson was also retained by management to provide services unrelated to executive compensation, including services related to annual pension, health and welfare and retiree medical consulting work. The aggregate fees paid for those other services for fiscal 2015 were $765,539. The Committee and the Board did not review or approve the other services provided to us by Willis Towers Watson, as those services were approved by management in the normal course of business prior to the Compensation Committee’s engagement of Willis Towers Watson to work on its behalf. We were advised by Willis Towers Watson that the reporting relationship and compensation of the consultants who perform executive compensation consulting services for our Committee is separate from, and is not determined by reference to, Willis Tower Watson’s other lines of business or their other work for us. The Committee considered these separate reporting relationships and compensation structures, the provision of other services to the company by Willis Towers Watson the absence of any business or personal relationship between our officers and directors and the specific consultants advising the company (other than the consulting relationship with the Committee), Willis Towers Watson’s policies and standards intended to address potential conflict of interests with respect to their executive compensation consulting services, and the other factors required to be considered by applicable SEC and stock exchange rules, in approving the committee’s engagement of Willis Towers Watson in 2015. The Committee discussed the independence of Willis Towers Watson and believed that Willis Tower Watson’s ability to provide competent and independent advice relating to executive or director compensation matters was not affected by the fact that Willis Towers Watson also provide certain non-executive compensation consulting services to the company.

Aon Hewitt provided no services to the company other than independent compensation consulting in connection with executive and director compensation.

The Committee has considered and assessed all relevant factors, including but not limited to those set forth in Rule 10C-1(b)(4)(i) through (vi) under the Exchange Act, that could give rise to a potential conflict of interest with respect to the independent compensation consultants that provided services in 2015. Based on this review, there are no conflicts of interest raised by the work performed by any of Aon Hewitt, Willis Towers Watson or Mercer.

Role of Peer Companies and Competitive Market Data

The Committee considered peer groups for three elements of the executive compensation program in 2015: (1) the Compensation Peer Group, consisting of 16 companies that compete with us for talent; (2) the Performance Peer Group, consisting of seven companies that compete with us in producing and selling construction materials and is used to assess the comparative financial performance of the Company; and (3) the TSR Peer Group, consisting of 23 companies that the Committee believes compete with us for investors and is used to assess the achievement of total shareholder return measured for the PSU Awards.

This section only describes the Compensation Peer Group. The other two peer groups are discussed below in the descriptions of the other elements of our compensation program.

Annually, the Committee studies competitive total compensation market data provided by its independent compensation consultant. To assess competitive pay levels, the Committee reviews and approves the composition of our Compensation Peer Group. The following peer group criteria are considered:

The Committee studies competitive total compensation data from various sources, including proxy statements of the peer group. Since proxy statements do not provide precise comparisons by position to our executive officers, the Committee also in 2015 took into consideration published independent compensation surveys of companies with revenue in the range of $2.0 billion to $3.0 billion as to median levels for each executive officer as well as private compensation survey data. Where available, size-adjusted market values were developed using regression analysis. This statistical technique accounts for revenue size differences within the peer group and develops an estimated market value for a similar-size company as Martin Marietta. The size-adjusted 50^th percentile for total compensation is a key reference point for the Committee. On average, the target for our NEO total compensation opportunities is competitively positioned within a reasonable range of the size-adjusted 50^th percentile.

Although the Committee uses the benchmark standards as its starting point in setting compensation levels, the compensation packages for executive officers may vary materially from the peer group benchmarks based on several factors. Market data, position, tenure, individual and organization performance, retention needs and internal pay equity have been the primary factors considered in decisions to increase or decrease compensation opportunities. Specifically, the Committee sets compensation levels below the benchmark levels for executive officers with relatively less relevant experience, less responsibility, less tenure with Martin Marietta and/or lower performance ratings. Conversely, if an officer consistently receives favorable performance ratings, accumulates years of service and expertise in relevant areas, has more responsibility and/or has significant other achievements, his or her compensation will typically be above the peer group median. Long-term compensation to executive officers is based on specific performance measurements as discussed below for each component of compensation.

Determination of CEO Compensation

At the January Committee meeting, without the CEO present, the Committee reviews and evaluates CEO performance, and determines achievement level for the prior year. The Committee also reviews competitive compensation data. At this meeting, the Committee discusses salary and annual incentive pay recommendations for the CEO, as well as an evaluation of the CEO’s performance, with the independent

members of the Board. In 2015, the Committee reviewed and discussed the target PSU grant size for the CEO at its January meeting, which was also discussed with the full Board. At the May Committee meeting, the Committee approves LTIP stock options and RSUs, based on a thorough review of financial performance versus the Performance Peer Group consisting of seven global competitors and discussed below.

Compensation Program Risk Assessment

We perform a thorough annual review of our compensation program structure, which is reviewed in detail with the Committee. We believe our executive pay is reasonable and provides appropriate incentives to our executives to achieve our financial and strategic goals without encouraging them to take excessive risks in their business decisions. Our compensation structure does not include features that are reasonably likely to have a material adverse effect on the Company. Compensation program features that mitigate against risks include the following:

Annual Cash Incentive: Executive Incentive Plan

NEOs and other executives are eligible to earn annual bonuses under our Executive Incentive Plan based on the achievement of various performance metrics. Individual NEO targets (as a percent of base salary) are approved by the Committee at the beginning of the year based on a review of competitive market data.

Actual cash bonuses may range from 0% to 150% of each individual’s target, which is determined based on compensation peer data and internal pay equity. The Committee awards annual cash bonuses based on corporate performance objectives and the achievement of individualized targeted goals. This furthers Martin Marietta’s compensation philosophy in that it encourages superior performance and rewards the achievement of Martin Marietta’s annual goals. In 2015, all of the executive officers participated in the plan, except for Mr. Nye, for whom bonus compensation was awarded outside of the plan. The annual bonus level for 2015 for the NEOs was 95% of target.

In determining the incentive payments, the Committee first reviews the achievements of Martin Marietta for the past year as compared to its targeted goals set at the end of the previous year. The factors that the Committee took into account in determining Martin Marietta’s performance in 2015 include those listed above under Executive Summary on pages 27 to 28. The Committee also considered:

The Committee then conducts a comparative review of the individual contributions of each of the executive officers towards achieving these goals. The Committee also considers qualitative measures of performance for the executive officers, such as adherence to and implementation of Martin Marietta’s Code of Ethical Business Conduct, safety, customer satisfaction, and product quality.

Key individual performance criteria are established for each NEO, which are intended to drive strategic and support operational results in the Company and the functional groups. These performance metrics are established at the beginning of each plan year and are based upon Martin Marietta’s Long-Range Operating Plan, which is set at the end of the previous year. For executives in corporate staff positions, 50% of the determination is made with respect to Martin Marietta’s performance and 50% is based on the individual’s performance against established objectives. Similar to the Committee’s assessment of financial goals, the Committee’s assessment of individual performance goals generally excludes certain non-recurring or extraordinary items. We do not disclose specific individual performance goals due to the potential for competitive harm. Our targeted individual goals are “stretch but reasonable.”

The individualized target goals are tailored for each executive, his or her specific areas of responsibility and the then-current and longer-term goals of Martin Marietta. In addition, achievement of the goals typically is in part dependent on conditions outside the control of each of the named executive officer. For example, we have a strong focus on safety in Martin Marietta. Regardless of the achievement of other targets, incentive awards are reduced for all employees in the event of any serious workplace safety incident at Martin Marietta. Similarly, our business may be adversely affected by hurricanes or other weather-related conditions, which could have the result of impeding the achievement of certain performance-based goals.

Although there is substantial uncertainty with respect to achieving the target levels at the time the goals are set and communicated, our named executive officers have a reasonable expectation of receiving a cash incentive award at a level that is near their target level. However, the “stretch” levels remain extremely difficult to obtain and the maximum cash award level has not been achieved in prior periods.

2015 CEO Annual Incentive Award Earned

The CEO does not participate in Martin Marietta’s Executive Incentive Plan and his bonus, if any, is determined at the discretion of the Committee, based on the performance factors discussed above for 2015, including:

Generally, Mr. Nye’s bonus level is approximately 100% of his base salary although there is no specific target for the CEO’s bonus. The Committee did not attempt to set Mr. Nye’s 2015 bonus in any particular relationship to peer compensation survey data but did consider those factors. The Committee awarded him an annual incentive bonus of $928,625 for 2015, which was 95% of his base pay, after considering many diverse factors, including the advice of the Committee’s independent compensation consultant. Consistent with its compensation philosophy that focuses on long-term performance, the Committee considers whether there are factors in addition to quantitative ones that should be taken into account in establishing the overall level of Mr. Nye’s compensation. In this

regard, the Committee considered accomplishments that benefit shareholders in the longer term. In subjectively determining the amount of Mr. Nye’s bonus for 2015, the Committee took into account the same type of objective

performance measures and qualitative measures, such as the effectiveness and quality of Mr. Nye’s leadership of Martin Marietta, as it considered for executive officers who receive awards under the plan.

Annual Incentive Feature: Performance-Based Stock Purchase Plan

The Incentive Stock Plan provides the opportunity to invest a portion of annual bonus in Martin Marietta stock. There are both voluntary and mandatory deferrals under the plan.

The voluntary election allows executives to invest up to 50% of their annual cash bonus to purchase units that are subsequently converted into shares of common stock pursuant to the terms of the plan at a 20% discount from the market price of Martin Marietta’s common stock on the date the amount of the bonus is determined. The discount is used to account for the risk of trading current cash compensation for “at-risk” shares which may decline in value.

The mandatory portion requires executives to invest a minimum of 20% of their cash bonus towards the crediting of units under the plan. The CEO is required to invest a minimum of 35% of his cash bonus towards the crediting of such units.

The mandatory contribution requirement directly links a portion of executive officer compensation to shareholder returns. The vesting aspect, combined with the yearly stock purchase requirement, creates continuous overlapping three-year cycles, which encourage executive officer retention and provide a continuous link of a significant portion of executive officer

compensation with shareholder return over the long term to reward these executive officers in line with our shareholders when our stock price increases.

The units generally vest in three years from the date of the award and are distributed in shares of common stock. If an executive officer voluntarily terminates employment before the units vest, the stock units are forfeited and the executive officer receives a cash payment equal to the lesser of the cash that was invested or the fair value of the share units on the day of termination.

Long-Term Incentive Compensation

Our long-term incentive (LTI) compensation structure in 2015 consists of the following:

LTIP Grants

Our LTIP awards consist of (1) granting a mix of options and restricted stock units and (2) basing the amount of the award on our performance. The Committee believes that the mix provides better incentives to executive officers than either options or restricted stock units alone. Stock options link the compensation provided to the named executive officers with gains realized by the shareholders, thus serving to confer on recipients an ownership interest in Martin Marietta. These awards also assist Martin Marietta in maintaining competitive levels of total compensation. The vesting periods associated with stock options encourage the continued retention of these individuals. The RSU awards granted to executive officers strengthen our retention value for executives because restricted stock units have an intrinsic value when granted, which increases or decreases with our stock price providing alignment with our shareholders. In addition, restricted stock units permit us to issue fewer shares to deliver the same value, thereby reducing potential dilution.

For each named executive officer, other than the CEO, the Committee derived a target dollar value for this component of

compensation based on a review of equity award data in the compensation studies described above and input from the Committee’s independent compensation consultant. The target dollar value is increased each year by an amount equal to the average percentage increase in base pay for salaried employees and relevant subjective considerations, such as a promotion or expanded responsibilities.

The amount of the awards that are granted is based on Martin Marietta’s performance. If minimum performance levels are not achieved, then no grants are made.

To determine the grant size, first the Committee compares Martin Marietta’s return on invested capital (ROIC) to its weighted average cost of capital (WACC) for the preceding fiscal year. The amount of the award is then set depending on the range set forth in the table below. The maximum award (200%) is a stretch goal would be achieved if the Company’s return on invested capital is at least 4% higher than the weighted average cost of capital and with the Committee’s subjective determination that such level of shareholder value created by the Company is outstanding.

The four performance measures that the Committee took into account under this alternative formula are: (1) Return, measured by operating profit expressed as a percentage margin to net sales, (2) Growth, measured by the increase in 2014 revenue/net sales expressed as a percentage change compared to 2013, (3) Cash Flow, measured by operating cash flow calculated as a percentage change over prior year, and (4) Earnings Before Interest, Taxes and Depletion, Depreciation and Amortization (EBITDA), measured as a percentage of EBITDA margin to net sales. These metrics were determined by the Committee to be appropriate measures of performance based on its knowledge of the performance factors that the

Company’s shareholders consider, the advice of the Committee’s independent compensation consultant that these factors are appropriate, the differences in size, diversity and markets of the businesses conducted by the international companies in the Performance Peer Group, and the limited availability of full performance metrics from the international companies in the Performance Peer Group that do not make financial statement filings in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles with the SEC. Grants sizes are determined based on our average score versus the Performance Peer Group for these metrics.

In accordance with this formula, awards were granted in 2015 at 75% of each executive officer’s target. One-third of the dollar value was then converted to stock options and two-thirds of the dollar value was converted to restricted stock units using the closing price on the date of grant. The one-third stock options and two-thirds restricted stock units valuation bases were determined on a variety of factors, including lattice modeling values for options, median levels of compensation, and a subjective view regarding the appropriate mix of restricted stock units and stock options in light of compensation, incentive and accounting considerations.

The stock options granted in 2015 vest ratably over four years and the restricted stock units cliff vest on the third anniversary of the grant date, in each case in general if the executive is continuously employed from the date of grant through the vesting date. Prior to the exercise of a stock option, the holder has no rights as a shareholder with respect to the shares subject to such option, including voting rights and the right to receive dividends or dividend equivalents. Executives who receive awards of restricted stock units (including restricted stock units discussed below) receive dividend equivalents paid on the shares awarded at the same rate and at the same time as the other shareholders of Martin Marietta. The value of the receipt of these dividend equivalents is included in the value of the restricted stock unit awards shown in the Summary Compensation Table. We pay these dividend equivalents to remain competitive on compensation because the majority of other comparable companies in compensation surveys pay dividends or equivalents.

Performance Share Unit Awards

Eligibility for 2015 Performance Share Unit (“PSU”) grants is limited to the executive officers, the division presidents and the vice president of operations services. The PSUs have a three-year performance period. The 2015 grant measures performance for 2015 through the end of 2017. The performance measures in 2015 are:

This award sets a target that is 40% of each executive officer’s base salary converted to performance shares based on the closing price on the date of grant. The performance for the 2015 awards will be measured in January 2018 for the three-year period beginning January 2015 through December 2017. The Committee in its discretion may adjust the final award values, either collectively or on an individual basis, in recognition of factors that are unusual or nonrecurring. The PSUs will be paid in shares of common stock in January 2018 to the extent that the performance goals have been met.

The performance targets for ROS and EBITDA were set consistent with our internal long range operating plan and reflect a stretch effort at the target and maximum levels. The performance target for the TSR portion of the PSU Plan is 50^th percentile against a group of 23 U.S. companies in similar industries. The threshold and maximum performance requirements are 30^th and 75^th percentile, respectively.

The total payout opportunity is 50% of target if the threshold level is satisfied, 100% of target if the target level is satisfied, and 200% of target if the maximum level is satisfied. If the threshold is not met, none of the PSUs will vest.

For the measurement period 2015-2017, the Committee utilized a peer group consisting of the following companies with which to compare the element of the PSU Awards requiring achievement of TSR at the end of the three-year period, ending December 31, 2017. These companies were

chosen with a focus on companies in similar industries as Martin Marietta and that potentially compete for shareholder investment. A governance feature of the PSU Award is that this portion of the payments is capped at target if the Company’s three-year TSR return is negative, regardless of the TSR ranking.

The 2015-2017 TSR Peer Group of 23 companies were identified according to the following criteria and consisted of the following:

Stock-Based Awards Generally

The stock purchase awards under our Incentive Stock Plan described above are granted at the Committee’s regularly scheduled meetings in January following the availability of financial results for the prior year, and all LTIP awards are granted in May to enable us to consider current proxy information and compensation surveys for comparable companies. The Committee granted the PSU awards at its regularly scheduled first quarter meeting, which was held in January 2015. Newly hired executive officers may, subject to the discretion of the Committee, receive an award of restricted

stock units as of the date of their hire. The per-share exercise price for all stock options is equal to, and the number of restricted stock units is based on, the New York Stock Exchange closing price of Martin Marietta’s common stock on the date of the grant. The Committee’s schedule is determined several months in advance and the proximity of any awards to earnings announcements or other market events is coincidental.

All of Martin Marietta’s equity-based award plans have been approved by shareholders.

Stock Ownership Guidelines

Rather than stock ownership guidelines expressed as a multiple of salary, we employ stock ownership guidelines in the form of a required holding period of annual cash bonuses converted to Martin Marietta shares, with vesting generally in three years. There is no additional holding period beyond the vesting date, however a significant portion of the executive compensation program is in the form of equity awards that vest over three, four or five-year periods.

Our CEO must invest a minimum of 35% of each year’s cash bonus award in common stock units of Martin Marietta. Executive officers must invest a minimum of 20% of their annual bonus. Stock is purchased at a 20% discount to the price on the grant date to account for the additional risk of taking a restricted stock payment in lieu of risk-free cash payment. In 2015, Mr. Nye deferred the maximum of 50% of his cash bonus in common stock units.

The stock ownership levels of our NEOs are consistent with typical tiered stock ownership guidelines employed by major U.S. companies.

Perquisites

Martin Marietta provides named executive officers with perquisites that the Committee believes are appropriate, reasonable and consistent with its overall compensation program to better enable Martin Marietta to attract and retain superior employees for key positions. The Committee periodically reviews the types and levels of perquisites provided to the named executive officers. The value of each of the named executive officer’s perquisites is included in the annual compensation set forth in the Summary Compensation Table.

In 2015, we provided personal use of leased automobiles to NEOs. We pay for the insurance, maintenance and fuel for such vehicles, and the value of personal mileage and use is charged to the NEO as imputed income. Martin Marietta also provides to executive officers and other employees certain other fringe benefits such as tuition reimbursement, airline club dues, professional society dues, and food and recreational fees incidental to official company functions. We do not provide other perquisites, such as country club memberships or financial planning services, to the NEOs.

Retirement and Other Benefits

In order to maintain market competitive levels of compensation, we provide retirement and other benefits to the NEOs and other employees, including:

The benefits under the defined benefit pension plan are more valuable for employees who remain with Martin Marietta for longer periods, thereby furthering our objectives of retaining

individuals with more expertise in relevant areas and who can participate in management development for purposes of executive succession planning. All of Martin Marietta’s salaried employees in the United States are eligible to participate in our retirement and other plans, and the NEOs participate in the plans on the same terms as Martin Marietta’s other salaried employees.

Additional information regarding these benefits is under the heading Pension Benefits Table on page 47 and the accompanying narrative.

Potential Payments Upon Termination or

Change of Control

We do not have written employment agreements with executives. Instead, each of our NEOs has a change-in-control (CIC) severance agreement (an Employment Protection Agreement) that provides for retention and continuity in order to minimize disruptions during a pending or anticipated CIC. The agreements are triggered only by a qualifying termination of employment following a CIC. Martin Marietta’s equity-based award plans and retirement plans also provide for certain post-termination payments and benefits, as well as the acceleration of time periods for purposes of vesting in, or realizing gain from, any outstanding equity award in the event of a CIC. The Committee believes these payments and benefits are also important to align the interests of the executive officers with the interests of the shareholders because the agreements will reduce or eliminate the reluctance to pursue potential change of control transactions that may ultimately lead to termination of their employment but otherwise be in the best interests of our shareholders. The Employment Protection Agreement is described on page 49 of this Proxy Statement.

Tax and Accounting Implications

In administering the compensation program for NEOs, the Committee considers the applicability of Section 162(m) of the Code, the consequences under financial accounting standards, the tax consequences in our analysis of total compensation and the mix of compensation elements, base, bonus and long-term incentives. For example, we do not issue incentive stock options (ISOs), which would provide potential tax savings to the recipient, because of the negative tax and accounting consequences to the Company. Section 162(m) prohibits public companies from taking a tax deduction for compensation that is paid to any one of certain employees in excess of one million dollars, unless the compensation qualifies as performance-based compensation within the meaning of the Code.

To preserve the deductibility of compensation, grants of long-term incentives are intended to qualify as “qualified performance-based compensation.” The Committee has the discretion to design and implement compensation elements that may not be deductible under Section 162(m) if the Committee determines that, despite the tax consequences, those elements are in our Company’s best interest to adopt. The Committee believes that the achievement of Martin Marietta’s general compensation policies and objectives that are currently in place best serves shareholder interests.

Stock-based incentive awards have been a significant component of Martin Marietta’s management compensation. In 1998, the Board of Directors adopted and Martin Marietta’s shareholders approved the Stock-Based Award Plan. In 2006, the shareholders approved amendments to the plan increasing the number of shares of Martin Marietta’s common stock available for restricted stock awards. They also approved amendments to the plan designed to more directly tie long-term compensation incentives to Martin Marietta’s performance and enhance flexibility in structuring long-term incentive compensation packages by providing a mix of different types of long-term stock-based incentives.

As amended, the plan authorizes the Management Development and Compensation Committee to award stock options, restricted stock and other stock-based incentive awards to employees of Martin Marietta for the purpose of attracting, motivating, retaining and rewarding talented and experienced employees. The plan also provides for the automatic grant of non-qualified stock options to non-employee Directors of Martin Marietta on an annual basis, or as otherwise determined by the Board of Directors. Since 2005, Martin Marietta’s long-term compensation program consists of a mix of options and restricted stock units for senior level employees and restricted stock for other select employees.

The awards granted in 2015 were based on the achievement by Martin Marietta of performance measures described under “LTIP Grants” on pages 38 to 39.

A maximum of 5,000,000 shares of Martin Marietta’s common stock are authorized under the plan for grants to key employees. Of that amount, 1,500,000 shares are available under the Plan for restricted stock awards. Each award under the plan is evidenced by an award agreement setting forth the

number and type of stock-based incentives subject to the award and such other terms and conditions applicable to the award as determined by the Committee. No individual may receive annual grants for more than 10% of the shares available under the plan.

Stock option awards to the named executive officers are made by the Committee, upon the recommendation of management of Martin Marietta, except for Mr. Nye, for whom the Committee formulates its own decision, and may be awarded based on past performance or as incentive for future efforts. Under the applicable award agreements, the 2015 options will vest and become exercisable in four equal increments on May 22, 2016, 2017, 2018, and 2019, and expire 10 years from the date of grant. Options awarded in 2015 expire 90 days following termination of employment, except in instances following death, disability or retirement. In the event of death, all outstanding options vest immediately and will expire one year following the date of death. For options awarded in 2015, the award agreement states that the terms of all outstanding options will be unaffected by normal retirement or disability and in the event of early retirement, options that are not vested will terminate on the second business day after such retirement and options that are vested will terminate 90 days thereafter unless the Chief Executive Officer or, in the case of Martin Marietta’s executive officers, the Committee, determines that all outstanding options will be unaffected by such retirement. In the event of a change of control (as defined in the plan), the vesting date of all outstanding options is accelerated so as to cause all outstanding options to become exercisable. The exercise price of the shares of common stock subject to options is set by the Committee and must be at least 100% of the fair market value of the shares on the date the option is granted.