Fiscal 2016 Business Performance & Accomplishments

In fiscal 2016, our markets continued to be adversely impacted by the slowdown of economic activity globally. Lower global macroeconomic activity, combined with global steel overproduction, the impact of lower iron ore prices and a strong U.S. dollar, resulted in soft market conditions. In fiscal 2016, our annual average net selling prices for ferrous and nonferrous scrap metal decreased by 28% and 21%, respectively, while sales volumes decreased by 11% and 13%, respectively, compared to the prior year. Demand for our finished steel products was also weaker than in the prior year, resulting in lower average net selling prices and volumes of 18% and 10%, respectively, primarily due to increased competition from lower-priced steel imports.

While markets for recycled metals continued to experience significant challenges, we remained focused on continuously improving our operations, implementing our strategic priorities, maximizing financial performance, and generating positive cash flow. As a result, in fiscal 2016 our Auto and Metals Recycling (“AMR”) business improved its operating performance year-over-year and we invested in process improvements aimed at lowering overall costs and enhancing product quality in our Steel Manufacturing Business (“SMB”). We also continued our trend of positive operating cash flow, ending the year with debt at its lowest level since 2011 while continuing to return capital to our shareholders through our quarterly dividend and share repurchases.

As shown in the charts below, we delivered significant improvements in our business performance in fiscal 2016.

In addition to the significant improvements in operating performance and in earnings per share as shown in the charts above, our fiscal 2016 accomplishments included:

However, due to the challenging macro-economic conditions, our industry has been experiencing a cyclical trough, and our stock price and market capitalization have been deeply impacted in recent years. As a result, our three-year TSR was a negative 6% reflecting the cyclical weakness in fiscal years 2014 and 2015 which was only partially offset by the improving performance trend in fiscal 2016. Our current directors and executive officers, as a group, own approximately 1,000,000, or approximately 4%, of our outstanding shares and have also experienced the impact of these results.

Schnitzer is one of the nation’s largest recyclers of scrap metal, a leading provider of used and recycled auto parts and a manufacturer of finished steel products. We create value through recycling every day, and we are committed to operating our businesses in a safe, efficient and environmentally responsible manner. Because sustainability matters are integrated into, and not separate from, our business, the full Board considers sustainability issues an integral part of its business oversight. We publish our sustainability key performance indicators (KPIs) annually to enhance the

transparency of our environmental footprint and to form a basis for ongoing communication with our various stakeholders. Our sustainability KPIs have been selected to align with internationally recognized standards, and the metrics we report have been assured by independent analysis for materiality and accuracy. Our KPIs are: greenhouse gas emissions (scope 1 and 2), energy use and sources, landfilled waste, and safety metrics (total recordable incident rate, lost time incident rate, days away restrictions and transfers).

In 2015 and 2016, Schnitzer was named a World’s Most Ethical Company by the Ethisphere Institute, a global leader in defining and advancing the standards of ethical business practices. Schnitzer is the first and only metals recycling company to be among the winners. Being designated a World’s Most Ethical Company for the second time underscores Schnitzer’s commitment to leading ethical business standards and practices. Schnitzer also earned the

Ethics Inside^® Certification and the Anti-Corruption Program Verification™ for 2015-2016. These designations are awarded exclusively to companies that can demonstrate the existence of a superior employee and leadership culture that promotes ethical business practices.

To view our latest Sustainability Report, please visit: http://www.schnitzersteel.com/sustainability_ report.aspx

Our fiscal 2016 compensation program links pay to performance and also reflects the impact of the challenging market conditions and impact of our stock price on realizable pay. As a result of this linkage of pay to performance, actual compensation in fiscal 2016 was lower than target levels as represented by the following:

We are providing you with this proxy statement because the Board is soliciting your proxy to vote at the Annual Meeting of Shareholders to be held on January 25, 2017 or any adjournments thereof. You are invited to attend the Annual Meeting, and we request that you vote on the proposals described in this proxy statement. You do not need to attend the meeting to vote your shares. If you have received a printed copy of these materials by mail, you may simply complete, sign, and return your proxy card or follow the instructions

below to vote your shares by proxy over the telephone or through the Internet. If you did not receive a printed copy of these materials by mail and are accessing them on the Internet, you may simply follow the instructions below to vote your shares by proxy through the Internet. For shares held through a broker, bank, or nominee, you may vote by submitting voting instructions to your broker or nominee, or by obtaining a proxy executed in your favor from the shareholder of record (broker, bank, or nominee).

In accordance with rules and regulations adopted by the Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”), instead of mailing a printed copy of our proxy materials to each shareholder of record we may furnish proxy materials to our shareholders over the Internet. We believe this is a more cost-effective and environmentally-sensitive way to provide our shareholders with this information. If you received a Notice by mail, you will not receive a printed copy of the proxy materials.

Instead, the Notice will instruct you as to how you may access and review all of the important information contained in the proxy materials. The Notice will also instruct you as to how you may submit your proxy over the Internet. If you received a Notice by mail and would like to receive a printed copy of our proxy materials, you should follow the instructions for requesting such materials included in the Notice.

The only matters scheduled for a vote are the election of the three nominated directors listed herein, the advisory vote on executive compensation described in this proxy statement,

and the vote to ratify the selection of PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP as our independent registered public accounting firm for fiscal 2017.

The Board recommends that you vote FOR each of the nominees to the Board, FOR the advisory vote on executive compensation, and FOR the ratification of the selection of

PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP as our independent registered public accounting firm for fiscal 2017.

Shareholders at the close of business on December 1, 2016 (the “Record Date”) will be entitled to vote at the Annual Meeting. Holders of Class A common stock and Class B common stock will vote together as a single class on all matters at the Annual Meeting. Each share of common stock (whether Class A or Class B) is entitled to one vote with respect to each matter to be voted on at the Annual Meeting. You have one vote for each share of common stock held by you as of the Record Date, including shares:

If, at the close of business on December 1, 2016, your shares were held in an account at a brokerage firm, bank, dealer, or other similar organization, then you are the beneficial owner of shares held in “street name,” and the Notice or other proxy materials, as applicable, are being forwarded to you by that organization. The organization holding your account is considered the shareholder of record for purposes of voting at the Annual Meeting. As a beneficial owner, you have the right to direct that organization on how to vote the shares in your account. If your shares are held by a broker and you do not indicate how you wish to vote, your broker is permitted to exercise its discretion to vote your shares only on certain “routine” matters (“broker discretionary voting”). Proposal No. 3 with respect to the ratification of the selection of the

Company’s independent registered public accounting firm is a “routine” matter, and your broker is permitted to exercise discretionary voting authority to vote your shares on this proposal. Unless you provide your broker with voting instructions, your broker may not exercise discretionary voting authority and may not vote your shares with respect to the election of directors (Proposal No. 1) or the advisory vote related to executive compensation (Proposal No. 2). See the discussion of “broker non-votes” below. We strongly encourage you to submit your voting instructions and exercise your right to vote as a beneficial owner of shares. If you want to vote your shares in person, you will need to obtain a proxy executed in your favor from the shareholder of record.

If you are a shareholder of record, you may vote using any of the following methods:

We provide Internet proxy voting to allow you to vote your shares on-line, with procedures designed to ensure the authenticity and correctness of your proxy vote instructions. While there is no specific charge or cost to you for voting by Internet, please be aware that you must bear any costs associated with your Internet access, such as usage charges from Internet access providers and telephone companies.

Internet and telephone voting facilities will close at 11:59 p.m. (Eastern time) on January 24, 2017 for the voting of shares.

If you are a shareholder of record and return a signed and dated proxy card without marking any voting selections, your shares will be voted “FOR” the election of each of the nominees for director set forth in this proxy statement, “FOR” the advisory resolution on executive compensation, and “FOR” the ratification of the selection of PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP as the Company’s independent registered public accounting firm for fiscal 2017. If any other matter is properly presented at the meeting, your proxy (one of the individuals named on your proxy card) will vote your shares using his or her best judgment.

If you are a beneficial owner of shares held in street name and return signed and dated voting instructions without marking

any voting selections, your shares may be voted at the discretion of your broker with respect to the ratification of the selection of PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP as the Company’s independent registered public accounting firm for fiscal 2017 (Proposal No. 3) but may not be voted with respect to the election of the nominees for director (Proposal No. 1) or the advisory vote related to executive compensation (Proposal No. 2). If any matter which is considered routine is properly presented at the meeting, your proxy (one of the individuals named on the proxy card) will vote your shares using his or her best judgment. Please return your voting instructions with your voting selections marked so that your vote can be counted.

Holders of Class A common stock and Class B common stock will vote together as a single class on all matters voted on at the Annual Meeting, and each share is entitled to one vote. A majority of the total outstanding shares of Class A and Class B common stock must be present or represented by proxy to

constitute a quorum at the Annual Meeting. Shares voted by proxy on any matter (including shares voted pursuant to a broker’s discretionary voting authority) are counted as present at the meeting for purposes of determining a quorum.

The election of directors (Proposal No. 1) will be determined by a plurality of the votes cast by the shares entitled to vote in the election at the meeting, assuming a quorum is present. A plurality vote requirement means that the three director nominees with the greatest number of votes cast, even if less than a majority, will be elected. There is no cumulative voting.

The advisory vote on executive compensation (Proposal No. 2) will be approved if the votes cast favoring the proposal exceed the votes cast opposing the proposal. While the vote

on executive compensation (Proposal No. 2) is advisory in nature and non-binding, the Board will review the voting results and expects to take them into consideration when making future decisions regarding executive compensation.

The ratification of the selection of the independent registered public accounting firm (Proposal No. 3) will be approved if the votes cast favoring the proposal exceed the votes cast opposing the proposal.

With respect to the election of directors, you may vote “FOR” or “WITHHOLD” with respect to each nominee. Votes that are withheld will be excluded entirely from the vote with respect to the nominee from which they are withheld. Votes that are withheld will not have any effect on the outcome of the election of directors.

You may vote “FOR”, “AGAINST”, or “ABSTAIN” with respect to the advisory vote on executive compensation (Proposal No. 2) and the vote on the ratification of the selection of the independent registered public accounting firm (Proposal No. 3). For Proposal No. 2 and Proposal No. 3, abstentions will not have any effect on the outcome of the vote.

A broker who holds shares for a beneficial owner has the discretion to vote on “routine” proposals when the broker has not received voting instructions from the beneficial owner. A

“broker non-vote” occurs when shares held by a broker are not voted with respect to a proposal because (1) the broker has not received voting instructions from the shareholder who

beneficially owns the shares and (2) the broker lacks discretionary authority to vote the shares for that particular matter. Each of Proposal No. 1 (election of directors) and Proposal No. 2 (advisory vote on executive compensation) are considered to be non-routine matters, and brokers therefore

lack discretionary authority to vote shares on such matters at this meeting. Broker non-votes, like other shares that are not voted at the meeting, have no effect on the outcome of the vote on such matters.

Yes. You can revoke your proxy at any time before the final vote at the meeting. You may revoke your proxy in any one of the following five ways:

The record date for determining shareholders entitled to receive notice of and to vote at the Annual Meeting was December 1, 2016. At the close of business on December 1, 2016, a total of 26,999,844 shares of our common stock, par value $1.00 per share, were outstanding and entitled to vote at the Annual Meeting. The outstanding common stock consisted of 26,799,844 shares of Class A common stock (Class A) and 200,000 shares of Class B common stock (Class B). Each share of common stock (whether Class A or Class B) is entitled to one vote with respect to each matter to be voted on at the Annual Meeting.

The following table sets forth certain information regarding the beneficial ownership of our common stock as of November 30, 2016 (unless otherwise noted in the footnotes to the table) by (i) persons known to us to be the beneficial owner of more than 5% of our common stock, (ii) each of our current directors, (iii) each nominee for director, (iv) each of

our executive officers listed in the Summary Compensation Table (each, a “named executive officer” and, collectively, the “named executive officers”), and (v) all of our current directors and executive officers as a group. Unless otherwise noted in the footnotes to the table, the persons named in the table have sole voting and investment power with respect to all outstanding shares of common stock shown as beneficially owned by them. Except as noted below, the address of each shareholder in the table is c/o Schnitzer Steel Industries, Inc., 299 SW Clay Street, Suite 350, Portland, Oregon 97201. Each Class B share is convertible into one Class A share, and there are no meaningful distinctions between the rights of holders of Class A shares and Class B shares. Accordingly, the following table reports beneficial ownership of common stock in the aggregate and does not distinguish between Class A shares and Class B shares.

Section 16(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 requires our directors, executive officers, and persons who beneficially own more than 10% of our outstanding common stock to file with the SEC reports of beneficial ownership and changes in beneficial ownership of our common stock held by such persons. Executive officers, directors, and greater than 10%

shareholders are also required to furnish us copies of all forms they file under this regulation. To our knowledge, based solely on a review of the copies of such reports furnished to us and representations that no other reports were required, during fiscal 2016, we believe that all required Section 16(a) reports were timely filed for such fiscal year.

The Audit Committee charter requires the Audit Committee to review any transaction or proposed transaction with a related person, or in which a related person has a direct or indirect interest, and determine whether to ratify or approve the transaction, with ratification or approval to occur only if the Audit Committee determines that the transaction is fair to the

Company or that approval or ratification of the transaction is in the interest of the Company.

There were no reportable related person transactions during fiscal 2016.

We are asking shareholders to elect the three individuals nominated by the Board, each of whom is a current director.

The Board currently consists of eight members divided into three classes pursuant to our 2006 Restated Articles of Incorporation and Restated Bylaws. One class of directors is elected each year for a three-year term. The term of Class II directors expires at the 2017 annual meeting; the term of Class III directors expires at the 2018 annual meeting; and the term of Class I directors expires at the 2019 annual meeting. Generally, the terms of directors continue until their respective successors are duly elected and qualified.

Action will be taken at the 2017 Annual Meeting to elect three Class II directors to serve until the 2020 annual meeting of shareholders.

The nominees for election at the 2017 Annual Meeting are Wayland R. Hicks, Judith A. Johansen and Tamara L. Lundgren as Class II directors. The Board has determined that Mr. Hicks and Ms. Johansen qualify as independent directors under our Corporate Governance Guidelines, SEC rules, and NASDAQ requirements. If any nominee is unable to stand for election, the persons named in the proxy will vote the proxy for a substitute nominee in accordance with the recommendation of the Board. We are not aware of any nominee who is or will be unable to stand for election.

Mr. Hicks served as Director and Vice Chairman of United Rentals, Inc., a construction equipment rental company, from 1998 until March 2009. At United Rentals, Inc., he also served as Chief Executive Officer from December 2003 until June 2007 and Chief Operating Officer from 1997 until December 2003. Mr. Hicks served as Chief Executive Officer and President of Indigo N.V., a manufacturer of commercial

and industrial printers, from 1996 to 1997, and as Vice Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of Nextel Communications Corp. from 1994 to 1995. From 1967 to 1994, he held various executive positions with Xerox Corporation. Mr. Hicks also served as a Director of Perdue Farms Inc. from 1991 to 2014.

Ms. Johansen served as President of Marylhurst University in Lake Oswego, Oregon, a position she held from July 2008 to September 1, 2013. From December 2001 through March 2006, Ms. Johansen was President and Chief Executive Officer of PacifiCorp, an electric utility, and was their Executive Vice President of Regulation and External Affairs from December 2000 to December 2001. She was

Administrator and Chief Executive Officer of the Bonneville Power Administrator, a regional Federal power marketing agency, from 1998 to 2000. Ms. Johansen earned her B.A. in Political Science from Colorado State University and her J.D. from Northwestern School of Law at Lewis & Clark College.

Ms. Lundgren has served as President, Chief Executive Officer and a Director of the Company since December 2008. Ms. Lundgren joined the Company in September 2005 as Vice President and Chief Strategy Officer, and held positions of increasing responsibility including President of Shared Services and Executive Vice President and Chief Operating Officer. Prior to joining the Company, Ms. Lundgren was a managing director in investment banking at JPMorgan

Chase, which she joined in 2001. From 1996 until 2001, Ms. Lundgren was a managing director of Deutsche Bank AG in New York and London. Prior to joining Deutsche Bank, Ms. Lundgren was a partner at the law firm of Hogan & Hartson, LLP in Washington, D.C. Ms. Lundgren is a director of the Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco, Portland Branch. She earned her B.A. from Wellesley College and her J.D. from the Northwestern University School of Law.

Holders of Class A Common Stock and Class B Common Stock will vote together as a single class on this matter, and each share is entitled to one vote for each director nominee. Directors are elected by a plurality of the votes of the shares present in person or represented by proxy at the meeting and

entitled to vote on the election of directors. Proxies received from shareholders of record, unless directed otherwise, will be voted FOR the election of each of the nominees. Abstentions and broker non-votes will have no effect on the results of the vote.

The Board of Directors recommends that shareholders vote “FOR” the election

of each of the nominees named above.

Mr. Anderson served as Executive Director and Co-Vice Chairman of Sauer-Danfoss Inc., a worldwide leader in the design, manufacture, and sale of engineered hydraulic, electric, and electronic systems and components, from January 2009 through July 2009. He was President and Chief Executive Officer of Sauer-Danfoss Inc. from July 2002 until January 2009 and a director of Sauer-Danfoss Inc. from July 2002 until July 2009. Mr. Anderson served as Executive Vice President – Strategic Business Development of Sauer-Danfoss Inc. from May 2000 until July 2002. From 1984 to May 2000, he held various senior management positions with

Sauer-Danfoss Inc. and Sauer-Danfoss (US) Company. From 1970 to 1984, Mr. Anderson held various executive positions in business development, sales, marketing, and applications engineering with manufacturing and distribution businesses in the fluid power industry. He has also served on the boards of the National Fluid Power Association and the National Fluid Power Association’s Technology and Education Foundation, chairing each in 2008 and 2009. Mr. Anderson holds a B.S. degree in Mechanical Engineering from the University of Wisconsin.

Mr. Carter has been Chairman of the Board since December 2008 and was President and Chief Executive Officer of the Company from May 2005 to December 2008. From 2002 to May 2005, Mr. Carter was engaged in a consulting practice focused primarily on strategic planning in transportation and energy for national and international businesses, while also owning other small business ventures. From 1982 to 2002, Mr. Carter served in a variety of senior management

capacities at Bechtel Group, Inc., an engineering and construction company, including as Executive Vice President and Director, as well as President of Bechtel Enterprises, Inc., a wholly-owned subsidiary, and other operating groups. He retired from Bechtel at the end of 2002. Prior to his Bechtel tenure, Mr. Carter was a partner in a San Francisco law firm. He is a graduate of Stanford University and Harvard Law School.

Mr. Sutherlin served as President and Chief Executive Officer of Joy Global, Inc., a manufacturer and servicer of mining equipment for the extraction of coal and other minerals and ores, from 2006 until 2013. He was Executive Vice President, President and Chief Operating Officer of Joy Mining Machinery from 2003 to 2006. Prior to that time,

Mr. Sutherlin held positions of increasing responsibility for Varco International, Inc., including President and Chief Operating Officer and Division President. Mr. Sutherlin holds a Bachelor of Business Administration from the Texas Tech University and an MBA from the University of Texas at Austin.

Mr. Jahnke held various positions at KPMG, the international accounting firm, from 1975 until 2010. From 2005 to 2010, he was the Global Lead Partner for a major KPMG client and was located in KPMG’s Zurich, Switzerland office. Prior to that time, he held positions of increasing responsibility in KPMG, including Office Managing Partner and Audit Partner

in Charge of the Minneapolis office from 1999 to 2004. He is a director of Swiss Re America Holding Corporation where he serves as Chair of its Audit Committee and is a member of its Executive Committee. Mr. Jahnke holds a B.S. in Accounting from the University of Minnesota-Twin Cities.

Mr. Larsson was Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer from 2000 until 2009, of Precision Castparts Corp., a leading manufacturer of complex metal components and products principally for the aerospace and power

generation industries. He earned a B.S. in Economics and a B.S. in Mathematics from the University of Oregon and an MBA from California State University at Long Beach.

The Company is committed to strong corporate governance. The Company is governed by a Board of Directors and Committees of the Board that meet throughout the year. Directors discharge their responsibilities at Board and Committee meetings and also through other communications with management.

Our Board of Directors has an Audit Committee, a Compensation Committee, and a Nominating and Corporate Governance Committee (the “N&CG Committee”), each of which has a written charter adopted by the Board of Directors, copies of which are posted on our website at www.schnitzersteel.com. The Board of Directors has also adopted Corporate Governance Guidelines which are posted on our website. Under our Corporate Governance Guidelines, committee members are appointed annually and the chairs of

and director membership on committees are periodically rotated based on the skills, desires, and experiences of the members of the Board.

Director Independence

The Board of Directors has determined that David J. Anderson, Wayland R. Hicks, David L. Jahnke, Judith A. Johansen, William D. Larsson, and Michael W. Sutherlin are “independent directors” as defined by our Corporate Governance Guidelines and NASDAQ listing requirements. Accordingly, a majority of the directors have been determined to be independent directors. The independent directors regularly meet in executive sessions at which only independent directors are present.

The independent directors serve on the following committees:

During fiscal 2016, the Board of Directors held four meetings, the Audit Committee held nine meetings, the Compensation Committee held ten meetings, and the N&CG Committee held four meetings. Each director attended at least 75% of the aggregate number of meetings of the Board and committees

of the Board on which he or she served that were held during the period for which he or she served. We encourage all directors to attend each annual meeting of shareholders, and all directors then serving attended the 2016 annual meeting.

Board Leadership

The current Board leadership structure separates the role of Chairman and CEO. These roles have been separate since May 2005 and the Board and the N&CG Committee have determined that the current structure continues to be appropriate as it enables the CEO to focus on the complexities and challenges of the role as our chief executive officer while enabling the Chairman to provide leadership at the Board level. This leadership structure also enables the Board to better fulfill its risk oversight responsibilities, as described under “The Board’s Role in Risk Oversight”. The Board periodically assesses its leadership structure in light of the Company’s needs and circumstances.

The Board also has a lead director, who is an independent director. Under our Corporate Governance Guidelines, the lead director role is periodically rotated among the independent directors. As of September 1, 2014, Mr. Hicks replaced Mr. Larsson as lead director. The lead director’s responsibilities include: facilitating effective communication between the Board and management; consulting with the Chairman and the CEO; discussing annually with the Chairman of the Board and the CEO their performance; and presiding at meetings of the Board when the Chairman is not present, including executive sessions of the independent directors. The lead director generally attends all meetings of the Board’s committees.

The Audit Committee represents and assists the Board in oversight of our accounting and financial reporting processes and the audits of our financial statements; appointing, approving the compensation of, and overseeing the independent auditors; reviewing and approving all audit and non-audit services performed by the independent auditors; reviewing the scope and discussing the results of the audit with the independent auditors; reviewing management’s

assessment of the Company’s internal controls over financial reporting; overseeing the Company’s compliance program; overseeing the Company’s internal audit function; reviewing with management the Company’s major financial risks and legal risks that could have a significant impact on the Company’s financial statements; and reviewing and approving, as appropriate, all transactions of the Company with related persons (see “Certain Transactions”).

The Compensation Committee has overall responsibility for the administration of the Company’s executive and director compensation plans and equity-based plans; overseeing and evaluating the performance of the CEO and determining the CEO’s compensation; administering and interpreting executive compensation plans, the Company’s stock plans, and all other equity-based plans from time to time adopted by the Company, including our 1993 Amended and Restated Stock Incentive Plan (“SIP”); reviewing and assessing the risks related to the design of the Company’s compensation programs and arrangements; determining the compensation

of the other executive officers; in consultation with the N&CG Committee, reviewing and recommending to the Board for approval compensation for members of the Board, including compensation paid to the Chairman, Lead Director, and committee chairs; and overseeing the preparation of executive compensation disclosures included in the Company’s proxy statement in accordance with the SEC rules and regulations. For a description of the Committee’s activities regarding executive compensation, refer to the “Compensation Discussion and Analysis.”

The N&CG Committee has responsibility for identifying, selecting, and recommending to the Board individuals proposed to be (i) nominated for election as directors by the shareholders or (ii) elected as directors by the Board to fill vacancies; working with the Chairman of the Board and the Lead Director, seeking to ensure that the Board’s committee structure, committee assignments, and committee chair assignments are appropriate and effective; developing and recommending to the Board for approval, and reviewing from time to time, a set of corporate governance guidelines for the Company, which includes a process for the evaluation of the Board, its committees, and management; reviewing and evaluating risks related to corporate governance practices and leadership succession; developing and maintaining director education opportunities; and monitoring compliance with the corporate governance guidelines adopted by the Board.

Assessment of Director Qualifications

The N&CG Committee uses a Board composition matrix to inventory, on at least an annual basis, the expertise, skills, and experience of each director to ensure that the overall Board maintains a balance of knowledge and relevant experience. The Committee carefully reviews all director candidates, including current directors, based on the current and anticipated composition of the Board, our current and anticipated strategy and operating requirements, and the long-term interests of shareholders. In assessing current directors and potential candidates, the N&CG Committee considers the Board composition matrix, as well as the character, background, and professional experience of each current director and potential candidate. In its evaluation of

potential candidates, the N&CG Committee applies the criteria set forth in our Corporate Governance Guidelines and considers the following factors:

In considering the re-nomination of incumbent directors, the N&CG Committee also takes into account the performance of such persons as directors, including the number of meetings attended and the level and quality of participation, as well as the value of continuity and knowledge of the Company gained through Board service. The N&CG Committee strives to achieve diversity on the Board by considering skills, experience, education, length of service on the Board, and such other factors as it deems appropriate. The N&CG Committee and the Board define diversity broadly to include the background, professional experience, skills, and viewpoints necessary to achieve a balance and mix of perspectives. In evaluating potential director candidates, N&CG Committee and the Board place particular emphasis

on diversity. Our Board recognizes the value of diversity and considers how a candidate may contribute to the Board in a way that can enhance perspective and judgment through diversity in gender, age, ethnic background, geographic origin, and professional experience.

Board Self-Assessments

The Board conducts annual self-evaluations to determine whether it and its committees are functioning effectively and whether its governing documents continue to remain appropriate. Our Board’s self-evaluation is facilitated by a wide range of questions related to topics including operations, composition of the Board, Board diversity, responsibilities, governing documents and resources. As part of the Board self-evaluation process, each director also conducts an evaluation of the Chairman of the Board and the Lead Director. The process is designed and overseen by the N&CG Committee, and the results of the evaluations are discussed by the full Board. Each committee annually reviews its own performance and assesses the adequacy of its charter, and reports the results and any recommendations to the Board. The N&CG Committee oversees and reports annually to the Board its assessment of each committee’s performance evaluation process. The N&CG Committee coordinates its oversight of the Board self-assessment process with its process for assessment of individual director qualifications.

Director Nominations

The N&CG Committee identifies potential director candidates through a variety of means, including recommendations from members of the Board, suggestions from Company management, and shareholder recommendations. The N&CG Committee also may, in its discretion, engage director search firms to identify candidates. Shareholders may recommend director candidates for consideration by the N&CG Committee by submitting a written recommendation to the N&CG Committee, c/o Corporate Secretary, Schnitzer Steel Industries, Inc., P.O. Box 10047, Portland, Oregon 97296-0047. The recommendation should include the candidate’s name, age, qualifications (including principal occupation and employment history), and written consent to be named as a nominee in our proxy statement and to serve as a director, if elected. All recommendations for nomination received by the Secretary that satisfy our bylaw requirements relating to such director nominations will be presented to the N&CG Committee for its consideration.

The N&CG Committee meets to discuss and consider the qualifications of each potential new director candidate, whether recommended by shareholders or identified by other means, and determines by majority vote whether to recommend such candidate to the Board of Directors. The final decision to either elect a candidate to fill a vacancy between annual meetings or include a candidate on the slate of nominees proposed at an annual meeting is made by the Board of Directors. In considering the current directors, including the director nominees proposed for election at the Annual Meeting, the N&CG Committee and the Board specifically considered the background, experiences, and qualifications described in their biographies appearing under “Election of Directors” in this proxy statement.

Director Tenure

We do not have a fixed retirement age for directors. Under our Corporate Governance Guidelines, a director is required to submit a written resignation to the Board, to be effective at the end of the director’s then current term, when the director begins his or her 15^th year of service on the Board. The Board may accept or reject the tendered resignation after considering the recommendation of the N&CG Committee as to the appropriateness of the director’s continued membership on the Board.

The Board’s Role in Risk Oversight

We have a comprehensive enterprise risk management process in which management is responsible for managing the Company’s risks and the Board and its committees provide oversight of these efforts. Our Senior Vice President, Chief Financial Officer & Chief of Corporate Operations reports to our CEO, is responsible for the risk management program, and provides periodic reports to the Board. Risks are identified, assessed, and managed on an ongoing basis and communicated to management during management meetings or otherwise as appropriate. Existing and potential material risks are reviewed during periodic executive management and/or Board meetings, resulting in Board and/or Board committee discussion and public disclosure, as appropriate.

The Board is responsible for overseeing management in the execution of its risk management responsibilities and for assessing the Company’s approach to risk management.

The following are the key risk oversight and management responsibilities of our Board, committees and management:

The Board administers this risk oversight function either through the full Board or through its standing committees.

Assessment of Compensation Risk

Management and the Compensation Committee conducted an assessment of the risks associated with our compensation programs and determined that they do not create risks which are reasonably likely to have a material adverse impact on us. In conducting the evaluation, the Compensation Committee, with the assistance of Pearl Meyer, its independent compensation consultant, reviewed our compensation structure and noted numerous ways in which risk is effectively managed or mitigated, including:

In addition, the Compensation Committee analyzed the overall enterprise risks and how compensation programs could impact individual behavior that could exacerbate these enterprise risks.

In light of these analyses, the Committee believes that the architecture of our compensation programs (executive and broad-based) provide multiple, effective safeguards to protect against undue risk.

Board Oversight of Management Succession Planning

Our Board and management consider succession planning and leadership development to be an integral part of the Company’s long-term strategy. At least annually, our full Board reviews senior management succession and development plans with our CEO. Our CEO presents to the full Board her evaluations and recommendations of future candidates for key leadership roles, including for the CEO position, and potential succession timing for those positions, including under emergency circumstances. Following the CEO’s presentation, the Board meets in executive session without our CEO to consider and discuss CEO succession. The Board also reviews and discusses development plans for individuals identified as high-potential candidates for key leadership positions, and the Board members interact with these candidates in formal and informal settings during the year.

Prohibition on Hedging, Pledging and Derivative Trading

Our stock trading policy, applicable to our directors and employees, prohibits engaging in any short sale of our stock, establishing or using a margin account with a broker-dealer for the purpose of buying or selling our stock or using it as collateral therefor, or buying or selling puts, calls, prepaid variable forward contracts, equity swaps, collars, exchange funds, or other instruments or derivatives designed to hedge the value of our stock.

Our Commitment to Sustainable Business Practices

Sustainability is one of our core values. Our social, environmental and economic performance is essential to our future growth and success. Named a 2015 and 2016 World’s Most Ethical Company by the Ethisphere Institute, our commitment to reclaim, recycle, and remanufacture scrap metal, safely and sustainably, is widely recognized. We annually publish our sustainability key performance indicators (KPIs) to enhance the transparency of our environmental footprint and to form a basis for ongoing communication with our various stakeholders. Our sustainability KPIs have been selected to align with internationally recognized standards, and the metrics we report have been assured by independent analysis for materiality and accuracy.

Schnitzer is one of the nation’s largest recyclers of scrap metal, a leading provider of used and recycled auto parts and a manufacturer of finished steel products. We create value through recycling every day, and we are committed to operating our businesses in a safe, efficient and environmentally responsible manner. Because sustainability matters are integrated into, and not separate from, our business, the full Board considers sustainability issues an integral part of its business oversight. We are pleased to detail our efforts in this critical area by providing key environmental metrics on carbon emissions, energy and water usage, waste handling, and power mix. Please visit: http://www.schnitzersteel.com/sustainability_report.aspx

to view our latest Sustainability Report, which presents our key environmental metrics and profiles best practices we employ to ensure the sustainability of our business and the communities in which we operate.

Communication with Directors

Shareholders and other interested parties may communicate with any of the directors, including our lead independent director, by using the following address:

Board of Directors

Schnitzer Steel Industries, Inc.

299 SW Clay Street, Suite 350

Portland, OR 97201

The annual fee for non-employee directors is $70,000 ($105,000 for the Lead Director). We do not pay fees for attendance at Board and committee meetings. The annual cash retainer for the Chairs of the Audit and Compensation Committees is $10,000 and for the Chair of the N&CG Committee is $5,000.

In 2004, directors began participating in the Company’s SIP, and in 2004 and 2005 non-employee directors received stock option grants. Since August 2006, non-employee directors have been awarded DSUs instead of stock options. One DSU gives the director the right to receive one share of Class A common stock at a future date (as described in footnote 2 above). At each annual meeting of shareholders, each non-employee director receives DSUs for a number of shares equal to $120,000 divided by the closing market price of the Class A common stock on the grant date.

Pursuant to the Corporate Governance Guidelines, directors are expected to make significant progress annually toward accumulating, within five years of becoming a director, common shares of the Company with a value equal to five times the director’s annual cash retainer.

Non-employee directors may elect to defer all or part of their compensation under the Deferred Compensation Plan for Non-Employee Directors, which was adopted by the Board in 2006. Directors’ cash fees are credited to a cash account or a stock account, as selected by the director. Payments from the cash account are paid in cash, and payments from the stock account are paid in Class A common stock. The cash account is credited with quarterly interest equal to the average interest rate paid by us under our senior revolving credit agreement (or if there are no borrowings in a quarter, at the prime rate) plus two percent. The stock account is credited with additional whole or partial shares reflecting dividends that would have been paid on the shares. Deferred amounts are

paid in a single payment or in equal annual installment payments for up to 15 years commencing in January following the date the director ceases to be a director. DSUs are credited to the directors’ stock accounts under the plan when the DSUs become vested, and the awards are administered under the plan. A director may elect to receive stock under a DSU in equal annual installment payments for up to 15 years commencing in January following the date the director ceases to be a director.

Mr. Carter served as the Company’s CEO until December 2008, when he was succeeded in that position by our current CEO, Ms. Lundgren. At that time, Mr. Carter entered into an amended and restated employment agreement with the Company to serve as our Chairman of the Board, which agreement has been further amended. Pursuant to an amendment in November 2012, (a) commencing December 29, 2012, Mr. Carter received an annual fee of $500,000, payable quarterly in arrears, for service as non-employee Chairman and became ineligible for other compensation paid to non-employee directors, (b) receives continuation of health insurance benefits for 60 months following his retirement, and (c) his outstanding stock options were amended to postpone termination by treating continued board service through December 31, 2014 as if it were continued employment. On October 29, 2014, Mr. Carter and the Committee agreed to further amend Mr. Carter’s employment agreement to (1) continue the term of his service as Chairman through December 31, 2017 and (2) reduce his annual fee to $300,000 effective January 1, 2015.

We have entered into indemnity agreements with each director pursuant to which we agree to indemnify such director in connection with any claims or proceedings involving the director by reason of serving as a director of the Company, as provided in the agreement.

This Compensation Discussion and Analysis provides a detailed description of our executive compensation philosophy and programs, the decisions that the Compensation Committee (the “Committee”) of the Board of Directors (the “Board”) have made under those programs, and the factors

considered in those decisions. This Compensation Discussion and Analysis focuses on the compensation of our NEOs for fiscal 2016 disclosed in the tables below. The NEOs are listed below.

In response to the Say-on-Pay vote at the 2015 annual meeting, we initiated significant shareholder outreach in order to obtain input from our shareholders regarding the Company’s executive compensation program.

During 2015, the Company reached out to investors holding approximately 70% of our outstanding shares, and had discussions, either by phone or in person, with investors holding nearly 50% of outstanding shares. All of these discussions involved both the Chair of the Compensation Committee and the Chairman of the Board of Directors, and the input received was very helpful as the Committee considered potential changes to the executive compensation plans for fiscal 2016. Directly as a result of the valuable feedback received from shareholders and in response to the negative Say-on-Pay vote at the 2015 annual meeting, the Committee made several significant changes to our executive compensation program for fiscal 2016. We were pleased to see that our response to the concerns we heard were well received by shareholders, and support for our Say-on-Pay vote increased by over 50 percentage points to 76% in favor at the

2016 annual meeting. However, we recognize the importance of robust engagement with our investors and are continuing our shareholder outreach. In 2016, we reached out to investors holding approximately 65% of our outstanding shares, and had discussions, either by phone or in person, with investors holding approximately 30% of our outstanding shares. There was a decrease in the number of investors requesting a meeting with us this year which we attribute primarily to satisfaction with the changes made in response to the input received during last year’s shareholder outreach, including the changes made to the fiscal 2016 compensation plans and the improved readability and transparency of the fiscal 2015 proxy statement.

A primary purpose of the outreach is to listen to shareholder views on executive compensation. Although investors expressed a variety of views, we value the insights gained from these discussions and found them to be helpful as we considered compensation policies affecting our executive officers.

Our executive compensation program is aligned with our business strategy and with creating long-term shareholder value by paying for performance consistent with an acceptable risk profile. The foundation of our compensation philosophy is to:

Our executive compensation program emphasizes delivering compensation at a competitive market level which will allow

executive officers who demonstrate consistent on-target performance over a multi-year period to earn compensation that is competitive and consistent with targeted performance levels of total compensation. For executives where performance is above target over the long term, we believe the program will reward above the competitive median. Conversely, the program will provide less than the annual target compensation when performance does not meet expectations. Individual executive compensation may be above or below the annual target level, based on the Company’s performance; economic and market conditions; the individual’s performance, contribution to the organization, experience, expertise, and skills; and other relevant factors.

Set forth below is a summary of our executive compensation practices.

In fiscal 2016, our markets continued to be impacted by the slowdown of economic activity globally. Lower global macroeconomic activity, combined with global steel overproduction, the impact of lower iron ore prices and a strong U.S. dollar, resulted in soft market conditions. In fiscal 2016, our annual average net selling prices for ferrous and nonferrous scrap metal decreased by 28% and 21%, respectively, while sales volumes decreased by 11% and 13%, respectively, compared to the prior year. Demand for our finished steel products was also weaker than in the prior year, resulting in lower average net selling prices and volumes of 18% and 10%, respectively, primarily due to increased competition from lower-priced steel imports.

While markets for recycled metals continued to experience significant challenges, we remained focused on continuously improving our operations, implementing our strategic priorities, maximizing financial performance, and generating positive cash flow. As a result, in fiscal 2016 our AMR business improved its operating performance year-over-year and we invested in process improvements aimed at lowering overall costs and enhancing product quality in our SMB. We also continued our trend of positive operating cash flow, ending the year with debt at its lowest level since 2011 while continuing to return capital to our shareholders through our quarterly dividend and share repurchases.

Our executive compensation program is designed to pay for performance, therefore actual compensation in fiscal 2016 was lower than target levels, which reflected alignment with the Company’s financial performance during the period as represented by the following:

Role of the Compensation Committee. The Committee is responsible for:

The Committee cannot delegate this authority. The Committee regularly reports its activities to the Board.

The Committee is comprised of four directors, each of whom has been determined by the Board to be independent under our Corporate Governance Guidelines, applicable SEC and NASDAQ rules, and IRS regulations. Currently, the members of the Committee are Judith A. Johansen, Chair, David J. Anderson, David L. Jahnke, and Michael W. Sutherlin.

The Committee operates pursuant to a written charter (available on the Company’s website at http://www.schnitzersteel.com/documents/compensation-committee-charter-jul-2016.pdf) which is reviewed by the Committee on an annual basis and approved by the Board. The Committee meets at least quarterly and more frequently as circumstances require, including in executive session with the Committee’s independent compensation consultant. In fiscal 2016, the Committee held ten meetings. Many of those meetings were focused on making changes to the executive compensation program for fiscal 2016 in response to the feedback received from shareholders through the investor outreach following the Say-on-Pay vote at the 2015 annual meeting. As part of that process, the Committee frequently requested additional information and follow-up from both management and the Committee’s independent compensation consultant.

Use of Compensation Consultants. The Committee has authority to retain compensation consultants to assist it in the evaluation of executive officer and employee compensation and benefit programs. The Committee directly retained Pearl Meyer as its compensation consultant for fiscal 2016. In fiscal 2016, Pearl Meyer performed, among others, the following services for the Committee:

The Committee’s independent compensation consultant provides information and data to the Committee from its surveys, proprietary databases and other sources, which the

Committee utilizes along with information provided by management and obtained from other sources. In making its decisions, the Committee reviews such information and data provided to it by its independent compensation consultant and management and also draws on the knowledge and experience of its members as well as the expertise and information from within the Company, including from the human resources, legal, and finance groups. The Committee considers executive and director compensation matters at its quarterly meetings and at special meetings as needed based on our annual compensation schedule.

Pearl Meyer and its affiliates did not perform any additional services for the Company or any of its affiliates in fiscal 2016.

Separately, the Company retained Willis Towers Watson to provide management with performance data for the relative TSR calculation under the Company’s Long-Term Incentive Plan (“LTIP”).

CEO’s Role in the Compensation-Setting Process. The CEO, with input from Pearl Meyer, makes recommendations to the Committee regarding compensation for the other NEOs. The CEO participates in Committee meetings at the Committee’s request to provide background information regarding our strategic objectives and to evaluate the performance of and make compensation recommendations for the other NEOs. The Committee utilizes the information provided by the CEO along with other information from within the Company, input from its independent compensation consultant, and the knowledge and experience of the Committee members in making compensation decisions. The Chair of the Committee recommends the CEO’s compensation to the Committee in executive session, not attended by the CEO.

Annual Evaluation. The Committee annually evaluates the performance of the NEOs with the input from the CEO and, in executive session, evaluates the performance of the CEO and determines the annual incentive bonuses for all of the NEOs for the prior fiscal year. The Committee also approves the NEOs’ performance objectives for the current fiscal year, reviews and, if appropriate, adjusts their base salaries and annual incentive plan targets, and considers and approves LTIP grants.

Performance Objectives. The Committee approved performance objectives for fiscal 2016 based, in part, on an active dialogue with the CEO regarding strategic objectives and performance targets. Metrics are tied to our strategic and business plans and to annual budgets reviewed by the full Board. Short-term management objectives, such as cost savings and productivity improvements, are designed to achieve specific goals that are expected to drive long-term shareholder value. Metrics and targets are analyzed and tested for reasonableness prior to Committee approval at the beginning of the performance period. The Committee actively

evaluates the appropriateness and rigor of the financial measures used in incentive plans and the degree of difficulty in achieving specific performance targets. As part of this evaluation, the Committee compares prior-year metrics and results and also considers market and business conditions when the targets are established. The Committee believes that consideration of these factors are needed to ensure that targets are aligned with the desired degree of difficulty. The following flowchart provides an overview of the Committee’s process in setting performance goals.

Competitive Market Overview. While the Committee does not believe that it is appropriate to establish compensation levels based solely on benchmarking, it believes that information regarding pay practices at peer companies is useful in two respects. First, the Committee recognizes that our compensation practices must be competitive in the marketplace, and reviewing market pay practices provides a framework for assessing competitiveness. Second, marketplace information is one of the many factors that the Committee considers in assessing the reasonableness of compensation. Although the Committee considers compensation levels for executive officers of other companies, it does not mechanically apply the data but rather engages in a rigorous quantitative and qualitative review and weighing of the competitive information with other Company and individual performance factors, such as our specific business strategy, financial situation, specific duties and

responsibilities, and performance, in making its compensation determinations.

There are few, if any, direct public market peers of an equivalent size. Accordingly, determining market comparisons requires a review of companies in auto and metals recycling and in steel manufacturing, as well as companies in the closely-related mining and raw materials businesses, and in broader industrial and financial markets from which we attract executive talent. In addition, as we interface with customers around the world, we seek specialized and top caliber executive officers from the broad national and international business executive pools. Proxy data from relevant companies, as well as input from both the Company’s and the Committee’s compensation consultants, are utilized. Total compensation is periodically compared to the competitive market in setting compensation for executive officers.

Based on the feedback we received from our shareholder outreach following the 2015 annual meeting, the Committee elected to adjust its peer group for fiscal 2016 to reflect current market capitalization and revenue parameters and to expand the qualitative assessment of potential compensation peers to focus on position in the value chain and exposure to international markets. For example, a company that manufactures or whose products are used to make high-value end-products would be less comparable to our business which buys, processes, and sells raw materials and produces intermediate-level products. As a result of our analysis, the Committee made significant changes to our compensation peer group for fiscal 2016 to include a broader array of companies from similar industries, including steel manufacturing, metals recycling, coal and consumable fuels, diversified metals and mining, and aluminum, while still

maintaining similar size market cap and revenue demographics. We believe the peer group utilized for fiscal 2016 provides a more useful comparison for compensation purposes.

The Committee has established a separate performance peer group for purposes of the TSR metric in our fiscal 2016 three-year performance share awards. In developing the performance peer group, we used a quantitative and qualitative approach similar to that used for selecting the compensation peer group while adding companies viewed as traditional peers, who for reasons of size may not be appropriate for purposes of comparing compensation. The following table shows the companies in the compensation and performance peer groups used in fiscal 2016: