PROPOSAL 1—ELECTION OF DIRECTORS //   ELECTION OF ELEVEN DIRECTORS TO SERVE UNTIL 2020 ANNUAL MEETING   The term of office of each of our Directors expires at this year’s Annual Meeting. Our shareholders are being asked to elect eleven Directors to serve until the 2020 Annual Meeting and until their successors are duly elected and qualified. Unless otherwise directed, shares represented by proxy will be voted FOR the following nominees:

All of the Director nominees, other than Mr. Goris, who was elected to the Board on July 19, 2018, have been previously elected by our shareholders.

Each of the nominees has agreed to stand for election. The biographies of all of our Director nominees can be found later in this section.

If any of the nominees is unable to stand for election, the Board may provide for a lesser number of nominees or designate a substitute. In the latter event, shares represented by proxies solicited by the Directors may be voted for the substitute. We have no reason to believe that any of the nominees will be unable to stand for election.

MAJORITY VOTING POLICY

The Director nominees receiving the greatest number of votes will be elected (plurality standard). However, our majority voting policy states that any Director who fails to receive a majority of the votes cast in his/her favor is required to submit his/her resignation to the Board. The Nominating and Corporate Governance Committee of the Board would then consider each resignation and determine whether to accept or reject it. Abstentions and broker non-votes will have no effect on the election of a Director and are not counted under our majority voting policy. Holders of common stock do not have cumulative voting rights with respect to the election of a Director.

YOUR BOARD RECOMMENDS A VOTE FOR EACH DIRECTOR NOMINEE LISTED ABOVE

ANNUAL MEETING ATTENDANCE; NO SPECIAL ARRANGEMENTS

Directors are expected to attend each annual meeting. The Director nominees plan to attend this year’s Annual Meeting. At the 2018 Annual Meeting, all of our then-current Directors were in attendance.

None of the Director nominees has any special arrangement or understanding with any other person pursuant to which the Director nominee was or is to be selected as a Director or nominee. There are no family relationships, as defined by SEC rules, among any of our Directors or executive officers. SEC rules define the term “family relationship” to mean any relationship by blood, marriage or adoption, not more remote than first cousin.

DIRECTOR NOMINEES

	Recent Business Experience: Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of Eastman Chemical Company (an advanced materials and specialty additives manufacturer) since January 2014. Prior to his service as Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer, Mr. Espeland was Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer from 2008 to January 2014 and Vice President, Finance and Chief Accounting Officer of Eastman Chemical from 2005 to 2008.   Qualifications: Mr. Espeland has extensive experience in corporate finance and accounting, having served in various finance and accounting roles, and ultimately as the Chief Financial Officer, at a large publicly-traded company (Eastman Chemical) for the past several years. Mr. Espeland also has significant experience in the areas of mergers and acquisitions, taxation and enterprise risk management. Mr. Espeland also served as an independent auditor at Arthur Andersen LLP having worked in both the United States and abroad (Europe and Australia). The Board has determined Mr. Espeland’s extensive accounting and finance experience qualifies him as an “audit committee financial expert.” This expertise makes Mr. Espeland an important member of the Audit Committee and the Finance Committee. In addition, Mr. Espeland’s international business experience is a valued asset for our global operations.
	Recent Business Experience: Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of Rockwell Automation (a global industrial automation and information solutions provider) since February 2017. Previously, Mr. Goris was Vice President, Investor Relations and Vice President, Finance, Architecture and Software from 2015 to 2017 and Vice President, Finance, Architecture and Software and Operations and Engineering Services from 2013 to 2015 at Rockwell Automation.   Qualifications: Mr. Goris’ financial expertise as the Chief Financial Officer of a publicly-traded, multinational organization adds value to the Board and qualifies him as an “audit committee financial expert.” Mr. Goris has extensive experience in accounting, financial planning and analysis and investor relations. In addition, Mr. Goris’ experience with a global industrial automation and information solutions company provides him with broad exposure to digital operations and “smart” manufacturing solutions using data and analytics, which enhances operational intelligence, productivity and risk management in manufacturing processes. These are key initiatives for our business and our customers’ businesses. This makes him an important member of the Board, as well as the Audit and Nominating and Corporate Governance Committees.

DIRECTOR NOMINEES

	Recent Business Experience: Mr. Hanks spent 30 years with global engineering and construction company Morrison Knudsen Corporation and its successor, Washington Group International, Inc., serving the last eight years as President, CEO and a member of its Board of Directors, retiring in January 2008.   Directorships: McDermott International, Inc. (NYSE: MDR) from 2009 to May 2018, Babcock & Wilcox Enterprises, Inc. (NYSE: BW) from 2010 to March 2018, The Washington Companies (privately owned).   Qualifications: Mr. Hanks’ executive leadership of a U.S. publicly-held company with international reach has provided him with extensive experience dealing with the issues that these companies confront. His diverse professional skill set, including finance (having served as CFO of Morrison Knudsen) and legal competencies (such as enterprise risk management, corporate compliance and legal strategy), make him a valuable member of the Board, the Audit Committee (where he is the Chair) and the Finance Committee. Mr. Hanks’ experience as a Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer of a publicly-held company qualifies him as an “audit committee financial expert.”
	Recent Business Experience: President and Chief Executive Officer of Nordson Corporation (a company that engineers, manufactures and markets differentiated products and systems used for the precision dispensing of adhesives, coatings, sealants, biomaterials, polymers, plastics and other materials, fluid management, test and inspection, UV curing and plasma surface treatment), since 2010. Prior to joining Nordson, Mr. Hilton was the Senior Vice President and General Manager for Air Products and Chemicals, Inc. (a company that provides a unique portfolio of atmospheric gases, process and specialty gases, performance materials, and equipment and services) with specific responsibility for leading its $2 billion global Electronics and Performance Materials segment. Air Products serves customers in industrial, energy, technology and healthcare markets globally.   Directorships: Ryder System, Inc. (NYSE: R) since 2012, Nordson Corporation (Nasdaq: NDSN) since 2010.   Qualifications: With over 30 years of global manufacturing experience, Mr. Hilton brings to the Board an intimate understanding of management leadership, strategy development and day-to-day operations of a multi-national company, including product line management, new product technology, talent development, manufacturing, distribution and other sales channels, business processes, international operations and global markets expertise. This experience makes Mr. Hilton a valued member of the Audit Committee and the Nominating and Corporate Governance Committee.

DIRECTOR NOMINEES

	Recent Business Experience: President of N.A.S.T. Inc. (a personal investment firm), since 1996. Prior to joining N.A.S.T. Inc., Mr. Lincoln served as the Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of Algan, Inc.   Qualifications: As an entrepreneurial businessman with experience, including 25 years running a $50 million business, Mr. Lincoln understands business risk and the importance of hands-on management. As the grandson of James F. Lincoln and as a long-term trustee, Mr. Lincoln provides the Board with his historic perspective on the Company’s unique culture and especially its incentive management system. His leadership role and his investment experience serve Lincoln Electric well as a member of the Audit Committee and Finance Committee.
	Recent Business Experience: Chair and Chief Investment Officer of the Lincoln Institute of Land Policy (a leading educational institution teaching land economics and taxation). She has held this position since 1996, and in her role as Chief Investment Officer currently manages and directs all aspects of the Institute’s $550 million endowment. In her role as Chair, she is responsible for all Board development and governance and takes a leadership position in strategic planning. From 1999 through 2006, Ms. Lincoln previously served as President of the Lincoln Foundation, the non-profit foundation that supported the Lincoln Institute until the two entities merged in 2006.   Directorships: Advisory Board Member of the Johnson Bank, Arizona Region since 2006, and Board member of Johnson Bank Arizona, N.A. from 2001 to 2006. Co-Chair of the International Center for Land Policy Studies and Training in Taiwan.   Qualifications: Ms. Lincoln’s leadership experience with the Lincoln Institute, where she plays a crucial role in strategic planning and asset allocation, as well as her extensive experience with the Chautauqua Institution in New York, a major Arizona health care provider, and an international non-profit organization related to land use and policy, make Ms. Lincoln a valuable contributor to a well-rounded Board. Ms. Lincoln serves as a member of the Compensation and Executive Development Committee and as Chair of the Nominating and Corporate Governance Committee. In addition, as a Lincoln family member and long-standing Director of Lincoln Electric, Ms. Lincoln has a keen sense of knowledge about Lincoln Electric, its culture and the founding principles.

DIRECTOR NOMINEES

	Recent Business Experience: Former Vice Chairman of National City Corporation (a diversified financial holding company), a position he held from 2001 until his retirement in 2006, where he was responsible for its seven-state regional and national corporate banking businesses, the Risk Management and Credit Administration unit, Capital Markets and the Private Client Group. Mr. MacDonald joined National City in 1968 and, during his tenure, held a number of key management positions, including Senior Executive Vice President of National City Corporation and President and Chief Executive Officer of National City’s Ohio bank.   Qualifications: Mr. MacDonald brings experience in leading a large corporate organization with over 35,000 employees and structuring complex financing solutions for large and middle-market businesses to the Board and its Compensation and Executive Development Committee (where he is Chair) and Finance Committee. In addition to his expertise in economic issues, Mr. MacDonald appreciates the human resources and development challenges facing a global, publicly-traded company.
	Recent Business Experience: Chairman, President and Chief Executive Officer of Lincoln Electric. Mr. Mapes has served as President and Chief Executive Officer since December 31, 2012. On December 21, 2013, Mr. Mapes was appointed as Chairman of the Board in addition to his other responsibilities. From September 2011 to December 31, 2012, Mr. Mapes served as the Chief Operating Officer of Lincoln Electric. From 2004 to August 2011, Mr. Mapes served as an Executive Vice President of A.O. Smith Corporation (a global manufacturer with a water heating and water treatment technologies business, which has residential, commercial, industrial and consumer applications) and the President of its former Electrical Products unit. Prior to joining A.O. Smith, he was the President, Motor Sales and Marketing of Regal Beloit Corporation (a manufacturer of electrical and mechanical motion control products).   Directorships: The Timken Company (NYSE: TKR) since 2014.   Qualifications: As an experienced executive officer of Lincoln Electric as well as other large, global public companies engaged in manufacturing operations for over thirty years, Mr. Mapes understands the manufacturing industry and the challenges of global growth. In addition to his business management experience, Mr. Mapes has an MBA and a law degree.

DIRECTOR NOMINEES

	Recent Business Experience: Former President of the Europe, Middle East & Africa Sector (EMEA Sector) of Ecolab, Inc. (a leading provider of food safety, public health and infection prevention products and services), a position he held from 2010 until his retirement in 2012. Prior to leading Ecolab’s EMEA Sector, Mr. Mason had responsibility for Ecolab’s Asia Pacific and Latin America businesses as President of Ecolab’s International Sector from 2005 to 2010 and as Senior Vice President, Strategic Planning in 2004.   Directorships: GCP Applied Technologies (NYSE: GCP). GCP Applied Technologies was spun off from W.R. Grace & Co. as of February 3, 2016.   Qualifications: Mr. Mason has over 35 years of international business experience with experience in establishing businesses in China, South Korea, Southeast Asia, Brazil, India, Russia, Africa and the Middle East. Mr. Mason’s executive leadership of an international business sector for a U.S. publicly-held company provides him with extensive international business expertise, including starting, developing and growing businesses abroad in both mature and emerging markets, and in a business-to-business environment, including industrial sectors. Additionally, he brings a strong finance and strategic planning background, including merger and acquisition experience, along with significant experience working with and advising boards on diverse issues confronting companies with international operations. Mr. Mason brings experience in international business to the Finance Committee (where he is Chair) and the Compensation and Executive Development Committee.
	Recent Business Experience: Senior Vice President and Chief Technology Officer of Tenneco, Inc. (a manufacturer of automotive emission control and ride control products and systems). Since joining Tenneco in 2011, Mr. Patel has held roles leading regional advanced technology development to establishing a global research and development organization. Prior to joining Tenneco, Mr. Patel held numerous positions with increasing responsibility, including senior scientist, at the General Electric Company during his thirteen-year tenure with the organization.   Qualifications: Mr. Patel has over 20 years of experience serving with publicly-traded, global products and technology companies. Mr. Patel has broad expertise in material science, automation and “smart” systems, as well as extensive research and development experience. Mr. Patel has been a leader in global innovation and research initiatives. This lends tremendous support to our focus on being an innovation leader in our industry and our advanced manufacturing growth strategy, which helps customers identify value and efficiencies in their welding and cutting operations. Mr. Patel in an important member of the Audit and Nominating and Corporate Governance Committees.

DIRECTOR NOMINEES

Recent Business Experience: Former President and Chief Executive Officer of the Berwind Group (a diversified pharmaceutical services, industrial manufacturing and real estate company), a position she held in 2001. From 1997 through 2001, Ms. Runtagh was Executive Vice President of Universal Studios (a media and entertainment company). Prior to joining Universal Studios, Ms. Runtagh spent 27 years at General Electric Company (a diversified industrial company) in a variety of leadership positions.   Directorships: Former member of the Board of Directors of Harman International Industries, Inc. from 2008 to 2017, NeuStar, Inc. from 2006 to 2017, IKON Office Solutions Inc., Avaya Inc. and Covad Communications Groups.   Qualifications: Ms. Runtagh has over 30 years of experience in management positions with global companies. Ms. Runtagh’s responsibilities in management have ranged from marketing and sales to finance, as well as engineering and manufacturing. Ms. Runtagh’s diverse management experience, including growing those businesses while maintaining high corporate governance standards, and her extensive experience as a director of public companies, make her well-positioned for her role as a Director, member of the Compensation and Executive Development Committee and member of the Nominating and Corporate Governance Committee.

PROPOSAL 1—ELECTION OF DIRECTORS

CORPORATE GOVERNANCE

Governance Framework

At Lincoln Electric, we are committed to effective corporate governance and high ethical standards. We adhere to our ethical commitments in every aspect of our business, including our commitments to each other, in the marketplace and in the global, governmental and political arenas. These commitments are spelled out in our Code of Corporate Conduct and Ethics, which applies to all of our employees (including our principal executive and senior financial officers) and Directors.

We encourage you to visit our website where you can find detailed information about our corporate governance programs/policies including:

Our Board of Directors

Our Board oversees management in the long-term interest of Lincoln Electric and our shareholders. The Board’s major responsibilities include:

How We Select Director Nominees

In evaluating Director candidates, including persons nominated by shareholders, the Nominating and Corporate Governance Committee expects that any candidate must have these minimum qualifications:

In evaluating candidates to recommend to the Board, including the Director nominees, the Nominating and Corporate Governance Committee also considers whether the candidate enhances the diversity of the Board. Such diversity includes professional background and capabilities, knowledge of specific industries and geographic experience, as well as race, gender and national origin.

Lincoln Electric is also committed to having Director candidates that can provide perspective on the industry challenges that we face and our long-term commitment to a pay for performance culture.

During 2018, two new directors were elected to the Board in light of two retirements from the Board. In February 2018, Mr. Ben Patel was elected to the Board and, in July 2018, Mr. Patrick Goris was elected to the Board. In recruiting Messrs. Patel and Goris, the Nominating and Corporate Governance Committee retained a recognized search firm to help identify director prospects, perform candidate outreach, assist in reference and background checks and provide other related services. In recruiting Mr. Patel, the Korn Ferry search firm was retained and in recruiting Mr. Goris, the Heidrick & Struggles search firm was retained. The recruiting process typically involves, and for these searches did involve, the search firm, the CEO or a member of the Nominating and Corporate Governance Committee (usually, the Chair) contacting the prospective director to gauge his or her interest and availability. The candidate will then meet with several members of the Board, including our Lead Director. At the same time, 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.

In identifying Mr. Patel, the Board targeted senior executives who had experience in managing global businesses where the ability to drive collaborative technologies to various markets and global customers is a critical portion of the strategy. Experience in leadership and management of technologies, whether through exposure to automation capabilities, “internet of things” (IoT), internet-based marketing or data analytics, was a key focus for the search. Mr. Patel’s technology-based experience at a global, publicly-traded company was determined to be a good fit for the Board and he was elected to the Board on February 21, 2018.

In identifying Mr. Goris, the Board targeted senior executives who had experience in managing the finance function in a large, global business. As the Chief Financial Officer of a publicly-traded company and with his extensive finance and accounting experience, Mr. Goris is considered an “audit committee financial expert.” In addition,

Mr. Goris’ position as a senior executive at a global industrial automation and information solutions company provides him with broad exposure to digital operations and “smart” manufacturing solutions using data and analytics that enhance operational intelligence, productivity and risk management in manufacturing processes. These are key initiatives in our long-term strategic objectives. Accordingly, Mr. Goris was elected to the Board on July 19, 2018.

Shareholders may nominate one or more persons for election as Director of Lincoln Electric. The process for doing so is set forth in the FAQs section of this Proxy Statement.

Director Independence

Each of our non-employee Directors meets the independence standards set forth in the Nasdaq listing standards, which are reflected in our Director Independence Standards. To be considered independent, the Nominating and Corporate Governance Committee must affirmatively determine that the director has no material relationship with Lincoln Electric.

During 2018, the independent Directors met in regularly scheduled Executive Sessions in conjunction with each of the Board meetings. The Lead Director presided over these sessions.

Board Leadership

Our Chairman, President and CEO is responsible for planning, formulating and coordinating the development and execution of our corporate strategy, policies, goals and objectives. He is accountable for Lincoln Electric’s performance and:

Mr. Mapes, our President and CEO, serves as Chairman in addition to his other responsibilities. Our Board believes having one individual serve as Chairman and CEO is beneficial to us because the dual role enhances Mr. Mapes’ ability to provide direction and insight on strategic initiatives impacting us and our shareholders. The Board also believes the dual role is consistent with good corporate governance practices because it is complemented by a Lead Director.

Lead Director

Our Lead Director is appointed each year by the independent Directors and serves as a liaison between the Chairman of the Board and the independent Directors. The Lead Director collaborates with the Chairman, the Secretary and senior management on the format and adequacy of the information that Directors receive and on the effectiveness of the Board meeting process. The Lead Director acts independently of the Chairman to review and approve Board meeting agendas and schedules. The Lead Director also acts as a sounding board to the Chairman of the Board on key aspects of the business, and assists in promoting sound corporate governance practices. In addition, the Lead Director may call meetings of the independent Directors as he or she sees fit and presides over such meetings. During 2018, the independent Directors met in conjunction with each of the Board meetings. The Lead Director may also speak on behalf of Lincoln Electric, as the Board determines necessary.

Mr. Curtis Espeland currently serves as our Lead Director, a position he has held since the 2018 Annual Meeting.

Board Role in Enterprise Risk Management

In the ordinary course of business, we face various strategic, operating and compliance risks. Our enterprise risk management process seeks to identify and address risks to the organization. Our Board oversees the management of these risks on an enterprise-wide basis, and the Lead Director promotes our Board’s engagement in this process. A fundamental part of the process is to understand the Company’s risks, and to provide oversight as to how management is addressing these risks. The full Board reviews with management its process for enterprise risk management. In addition, the Audit Committee is charged with overseeing the Company’s risk assessment and management process each year, including ensuring that management has instituted processes to identify critical risks and has developed plans to manage such risks.

The Company maintains a risk management review process where risk is assessed throughout our entire organization, and is reported to a corporate risk committee comprised of members of our various business units and control functions. Each year, the committee identifies critical risks to the organization and those that are determined to be “high priority” risks are reported to the executive management committee and the Audit Committee. Thereafter, “high priority” risks are assigned, as appropriate, to various Board Committees, or to the Board as a whole, for further review, analysis and development of appropriate plans for management and mitigation. The Board also has broad oversight with respect to the Company’s strategic planning process, including reviewing the steps taken to develop strategic plans and approving the final plans.

COMPENSATION-RELATED RISK

We regularly assess risks related to our compensation and benefit programs, including our executive compensation programs, and our Compensation and Executive Development Committee is actively involved in those assessments. In addition, Willis Towers Watson, a compensation consultant engaged by management, has provided a risk assessment of our executive compensation programs in the past. Although we have a long history of pay for performance and incentive-based compensation, we believe our compensation programs contain many mitigating factors to ensure that our employees are not encouraged to take unnecessary risks.

As a result of all these efforts, we do not believe the risks arising from our executive compensation policies and practices are reasonably likely to have a material adverse effect on Lincoln Electric.

RELATED PARTY TRANSACTIONS

Any related party transactions concerning Lincoln Electric and any of its Directors, officers or other employees (or any of their immediate family members) are to be disclosed to and approved by the Chief Compliance Officer and the Audit Committee. We define “related party transactions” generally as transactions in which the self-interest of the employee, officer or Director may be at odds or conflict with the interests of Lincoln Electric, such as doing business with entities that are or may be controlled or significantly influenced by such persons or their immediate family members. Our related party transaction policies can be found in our Code of Corporate Conduct and Ethics, as well as the Audit Committee Charter, both of which are available on our website at www.lincolnelectric.com in the Investor Relations section.

In February 2019, the Audit Committee considered and approved a related party transaction involving P&R Specialty, Inc., a supplier to Lincoln Electric. Greg D. Blankenship, the brother of George D. Blankenship, is the sole stockholder and President of P&R Specialty, Inc. During 2018, we purchased approximately $2.5 million worth of products from P&R Specialty in ordinary course of business transactions. George D. Blankenship has no ownership interest in or any involvement with P&R Specialty. We believe that the transactions with P&R Specialty were, and are, on terms no less favorable to us than those that could have been obtained from unaffiliated parties.

OUR BOARD COMMITTEES

We have separately designated standing Audit, Compensation and Executive Development, and Nominating and Corporate Governance Committees established in accordance with applicable provisions of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Exchange Act”) and Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”) and Nasdaq rules. The Board also has designated a standing Finance Committee. The number of meetings held by each committee during 2018 is set forth below.

The following summaries set forth the principal responsibilities of each of the Board’s separately designated standing committees, as well as other information regarding their makeup and operations. A copy of each committee’s charter may be found on our website at www.lincolnelectric.com.

DIRECTOR COMPENSATION //

OUR BOARD COMPENSATION PROGRAM

Based upon the recommendations of the Nominating and Corporate Governance Committee, the Board determines our non-employee Director compensation. The Nominating and Corporate Governance Committee periodically reviews the status of Board compensation in relation to other comparable companies, trends in Board compensation and other factors it deems appropriate. In connection with its review in 2018, with Korn Ferry as an independent advisor, the Nominating and Corporate Governance Committee made certain adjustments to Board compensation to better align with our peer group. As a result of that review, in October 2018, the Board approved granting equity in the form of restricted stock units (RSUs) instead of restricted shares, and approved amending the Non-Employee Directors’ Deferred Compensation Plan to allow for the deferral of RSUs, in addition to cash compensation. The objectives of our non-employee Director compensation programs are to attract highly qualified and diverse individuals to serve on our Board and to align their interests with those of our shareholders. An employee of Lincoln Electric who also serves as a Director does not receive any additional compensation for serving as a Director.

All non-employee Directors receive cash retainers and an annual stock-based award for serving on our Board. Stock-based compensation is provided under our 2015 Stock Plan for Non-Employee Directors. Below is a summary of our Director compensation program:

(1)  We do not have separate meeting fees, except if there are more than eight full Board or Committee meetings in any given year, Directors will receive $1,500 for each full Board meeting in excess of eight meetings and Committee members will receive $1,000 for each Committee meeting in excess of eight meetings in total.

(2)  Directors have the ability to defer restricted stock units under the Non-Employee Directors’ Deferred Compensation Plan. Prior to October 2018, the annual stock-based award was in the form of restricted stock.

(3)  The initial award will be pro-rated based on the Director’s length of service during the twelve-month period preceding the next regularly scheduled annual equity grant, which normally occurs in the fourth quarter of each year. Prior to October 2018, the initial stock-based award was in the form of restricted stock.

(1)  On December 13, 2018, 1,542 restricted stock units were granted to each non-employee Director under our 2015 Stock Plan for Non-Employee Directors. For Mr. Goris, 549 shares of restricted stock were also granted to him in July 2018 upon his initial election to the Board. For Mr. Patel, 1,113 shares of restricted stock were also granted to him in February 2018 upon his initial election to the Board.

The Stock Awards column represents the grant date fair value under Accounting Standards Codification (ASC) Topic No. 718 based on a closing price of $81.03 per share on December 13, 2018, and, with respect to the awards granted to Mr. Goris and Mr. Patel, a closing price of $91.66 per share on July 19, 2018 and $90.70 per share on February 21, 2018, respectively. Assumptions used in the calculation of these amounts are included in footnote 10 to our audited financial statements for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2018 included in our Annual Report on Form 10-K filed with the SEC on February 27, 2019.

As of December 31, 2018, the aggregate number of shares of restricted stock held by each non-employee Director was 1,347 shares, except for Mr. Goris, who held 549 shares of restricted stock and Mr. Patel, who held 1,113 shares of restricted stock. As of December 31, 2018, the aggregate number of restricted stock units held by each non-employee Director was 1,542.

(2)  Mr. Espeland was appointed Lead Director on April 19, 2018, following Mr. Gunning’s retirement from the Board. Due to Committee Chair rotations in July 2018, the Audit Committee Chair retainer amounts are prorated for Messrs. Espeland and Hanks, and the Finance Committee Chair retainer amounts are prorated for Messrs. Hanks and Mason.

(3)  Messrs. Gunning and Walls resigned from the Board on April 19, 2018, the date of our 2018 Annual Meeting in accordance with our Governance Guidelines due to each attaining the age of 75 prior to such meeting. Mr. Patel was elected to the Board on February 21, 2018 and Mr. Goris was elected to the Board on July 19, 2018.

(4)  All of Messrs. Espeland’s and Walls’ and Ms. Lincoln’s Board fees were deferred, as well as $20,000 of Mr. Goris’ Board fees were deferred, under our Non-Employee Directors’ Deferred Compensation Plan.

Other Arrangements

We reimburse Directors for reasonable out-of-pocket expenses incurred in connection with attendance at Board meetings, or when traveling in connection with the performance of their services for Lincoln Electric.

Continuing Education

Directors are reimbursed ($5,000 is used as a guideline) for continuing education expenses (inclusive of travel expenses) for programs each Director may elect to attend.

Stock Ownership Guidelines

In keeping with the philosophy that Directors’ interests should be aligned with the shareholders’ and as part of the Board’s continued focus on corporate governance, all of our non-employee Directors must adhere to our stock ownership guidelines. Restricted stock awards and restricted stock unit awards count toward the stock ownership guidelines; common shares underlying stock options and shares held in another person’s name (including a relative) do not. The stock ownership guidelines can be met by satisfying one of the two thresholds noted in the chart below. As of December 31, 2018, all of our non-employee Directors had satisfied the stock ownership guidelines, with the exception of Mr. Goris and Mr. Patel due to their recent election to the Board in 2018. Directors have five years from the date of election to the Board to satisfy the stock ownership guidelines. The Nominating and Corporate Governance Committee reviews the guidelines at least every two-and-a-half years to ensure that the components and values are appropriate—a review was conducted during 2017, with the assistance of Korn Ferry as an independent advisor, and it was determined that the guidelines should be adjusted to better align with our peer group. The next review is anticipated to occur in 2019.

*   Represents shares equal to $400,000 based on the closing price of Lincoln Electric stock as of December 29, 2017 (the last trading day of the calendar year) of $91.58.

Equity Awards

The 2015 Stock Plan for Non-Employee Directors is the vehicle for the annual and initial grants of stock-based awards.

Under the terms of the awards, shares of restricted stock and restricted stock unit awards vest in full one year after the date of grant, with accelerated vesting in the event of a change in control of Lincoln Electric if the Director’s service is terminated or if the award is not assumed upon the change in control, or upon the death or disability of the Director. Shares of restricted stock also provide for accelerated vesting of a pro-rata portion of the award upon retirement based on the Director’s length of service during the 1-year term. During the period in which the shares of restricted stock remain forfeitable, dividends are paid to the Directors in cash. During the period in which restricted stock units remain unvested, dividend equivalents accrue and will pay out in cash upon vesting of the underlying award.

Deferred Compensation Plan

Adopted in 1995, the Non-Employee Directors’ Deferred Compensation Plan allows the non-employee Directors to defer payment of all or a portion of their annual cash compensation. Amended in 2018, the plan also allows non-employee Directors to defer restricted stock units granted to them. This plan allows each participating non-employee Director to elect to begin payment of the deferred amounts as of the earlier of termination of services as a Director, death or a date not less than one full calendar year after the year the fees are initially deferred.

The investment elections available under the plan for cash compensation deferred are the same as those available to executives under our Top Hat Plan, which is discussed below in the narrative under 2018 Deferred Compensation Benefits. RSU deferrals are invested solely in a Lincoln Electric Stock fund, and no other plan deferrals are eligible for investment into that fund.

Our long-term strategy is focused on key actions and initiatives that generate long-term profitable growth within our targeted markets through value-added solutions and operational excellence. We believe this approach engages our business team in creating a long-term value proposition for shareholders that generates above-market returns through an economic cycle while maintaining a short-term focus on improving profitability and driving operating excellence. More information on our business and strategy can be found in the “Business Overview” section at the beginning of this Proxy Statement.

The Compensation Discussion and Analysis (CD&A) describes our executive compensation programs and how they apply to our NEOs.

The CD&A contains statements regarding future performance targets and goals. These targets and goals are disclosed in the context of our compensation programs and should not be understood to be statements of management’s expectations or estimates of results or other guidance. We caution investors not to apply these statements in other contexts.

EXECUTIVE COMPENSATION //

COMPENSATION DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS

Executive Summary

Our approach to executive compensation is generally the same as our approach to employee-wide compensation, with a strong belief in pay for performance and a long-standing commitment to incentive-based compensation.

While maintaining our performance-driven culture, our executive compensation program is designed to achieve the following objectives:

Key Financial Performance

We have a strong track record of delivering increased value to our shareholders and we have typically delivered above-market performance across various financial metrics over many economic cycles. Our long-term strategy seeks to achieve profitable sales growth both organically and through acquisitions by emphasizing value-added solutions and differentiated technologies to our mix. We anticipate this strategy will yield improved profit margins and returns, and will generate best-in-class financial performance measured against our peer group.

In 2018, sales increased approximately 15% to $3.0 billion from 6.7% organic growth and 9% primarily from our acquisition of Air Liquide Welding, which substantially increased our European business. Our strategic emphasis on improving our mix, mitigating inflation, achieving operational excellence and maintaining diligent cost management resulted in operating income growth, double-digit percent earnings per share growth, strong operating working capital and cash flows and a solid return on invested capital. Highlights include:

2018 Diluted earnings per common share (EPS) was $4.37, including special item after-tax net charges of $0.45 per diluted share. On an adjusted basis, 2018 EPS increased 27.2% to $4.82, as compared with $3.79 in 2017.

We continued to pursue the development of innovative solutions and acquisitions. In 2018, we increased R&D spend by 13%, which represents approximately 1.8% of revenue. Our investments in innovation generated a sales vitality index from new products launched in the last five years of 34%, and we achieved a 52% vitality index in equipment systems. The vitality index represents the percent of sales from new products launched in the last five years, excluding the International Welding Segment.

Financial Measures Used For Compensation Purposes

We consider various types of widely reported financial metrics, each of which is related to our executive compensation programs in some way. Some of these financial metrics directly impact our executive compensation programs, while others are the closest approximation to the metrics that we use in our programs. We believe that all of these financial metrics are critical to the short-term and long-term growth and performance of our organization.

Short-term financial metrics used to evaluate operational performance and used in our annual bonus design are:

The following charts illustrate our performance in these or comparable metrics.

(1)  Excluding special items where applicable. Definitions and a reconciliation of non-GAAP results to our most closely comparable GAAP results are included in Appendix A.

(2)  See Appendix A for definitions of AOWC/Sales for Compensation Purposes.

Financial metrics considered in long-term compensation programs include:

The following tables illustrate Lincoln Electric’s Adjusted Net Income for Compensation Purposes, ROIC for Compensation Purposes and TSR performance. ROIC for Compensation Purposes and TSR results are compared to our peer group, S&P 400 Midcap Index (in which we participate), S&P 400 Midcap Manufacturing Index and the S&P 500 Index. The ROIC for Compensation Purposes and TSR percentile rankings show the position of our financial results compared to the particular group, with a 50th percentile ranking indicating median (or market) performance. Percentiles below 50 indicate below-market performance, while percentiles above 50 indicate above-market performance. Information is based on the most recently available public information (as accumulated by an independent third party), as of January 2019 when the analysis was performed.

(1)  Excludes certain items as approved by the Compensation and Executive Development Committee where applicable. See discussion and definitions on page 45 in the “Long-Term Incentive Plan (LTIP)” section in Performance Measures and in Appendix A.

(2)  As of September 30, 2018.

3-and 5-Year Total Shareholder Return

The following charts compare the change in the cumulative total shareholder return on our common stock against the cumulative total shareholder return of the S&P Composite 500 Stock Index (S&P 500) and the S&P 400 Midcap Index (S&P 400) for the three-year and five-year periods ending December 31, 2018. The charts assume that $100 was invested at the beginning of each period in each of our common stock, the S&P 500 and the S&P 400 and assumes dividends were reinvested.

Pay for Performance, Objectives and Process

In designing our executive compensation programs, a core philosophy is that our executives should be rewarded when they deliver financial results that provide value to our shareholders. Therefore, we have established a program that ties executive compensation to superior financial performance.

To assess pay for performance, we evaluate the relationship between CEO pay and TSR performance considering the ISS methodology. This allows us to understand the relative degree of alignment over a three-year period between the pay opportunity delivered to the CEO and the performance achieved by shareholders relative to the ISS peer group. The ISS peer group for this analysis is comprised of 24 companies of which 11 companies overlap with our peer group. In conjunction with ISS resources, this analysis is performed by management’s compensation consultant, Willis Towers Watson, which is reviewed by the Compensation and Executive Development Committee (the “Committee”) and by its independent consultant, Korn Ferry.

In evaluating pay and performance alignment, the analysis focuses on CEO pay primarily as reflected in the Summary Compensation Table, with the exception of valuing equity-based awards. All stock-based awards (both time-and performance-vesting) are calculated by multiplying the number of underlying shares by the closing stock price on the grant date, and option awards are calculated using the ISS Black-Scholes option pricing model. This means that for us, the CEO is evaluated based on the following compensation elements for the applicable three-year period:

As the chart below demonstrates, our TSR performance was above the median of the ISS peer group for the most recent three-year period. For the same period, CEO pay was also above the median. Comparing TSR performance with CEO pay for the 2016-2018 time frame resulted in a -1% relative degree of alignment. A medium concern level would be triggered using the 2019 ISS methodology with a relative degree of alignment greater than -40%.

While we consider the ISS methodology in assessing pay for performance, we view it as one of the variables for evaluating pay for performance alignment. We have provided the ISS analysis in assessing pay for performance for investors that might be utilizing it in evaluating pay for performance.

2018 Executive Compensation Actions

During 2018, the Committee reviewed the design of our executive compensation programs to ensure consistency with our pay for performance philosophy. The Committee has taken a number of actions over the last few years to better align executive compensation to value drivers in line with our financial performance and shareholder interests. In 2018, the overall design of our executive compensation program was held consistent with the policies developed in prior years.

Good Governance Practices

In addition to our emphasis on above-market financial performance and pay for performance, we design our executive compensation programs to be current with best practices and good corporate governance. We also consider the risks associated with any particular program, design or compensation decision. We believe these assessments result in sustained, long-term shareholder value. Some of those governance practices are described in the Compensation-Related Risk portion of the Corporate Governance section above. Other such practices include:

What We Do		What We Don’t Do
Pay for Performance Focus (Compensation programs weighted heavily toward variable, “at risk,” compensation; perform annual reviews of market competitiveness and the relationship of compensation to financial performance)	ü	No Guaranteed Pay (No multi-year guarantees for compensation increases, including base pay, and no guaranteed bonuses)
Balanced Compensation (Compensation opportunities linked to both short-term and long-term periods of time, while aligning compensation with several financial performance metrics that are critical to achievement of sustained growth and shareholder value creation)	ü	No Repricing or Replacement of Underwater Stock Options without Prior Shareholder Approval
Double Trigger Provisions for Change in Control	ü	No Payment of Dividends on Unvested Equity
Stock Ownership Policy	ü	No Excessive Perquisites
Clawback Policy (Applies to all recent incentive awards for officers)	ü	No Excise Tax Gross-Ups or Tax Reimbursements
Independent Compensation Committee and Consultant	ü	No Hedging or Pledging of Lincoln Electric Stock

Our Compensation Philosophy

Core Principles

Our executive compensation programs consist of four main components: (1) base pay, (2) annual bonus (EMIP), (3) long-term incentives and (4) benefits/perquisites, all of which are discussed in more detail below. Base pay is targeted at the 45th percentile of the competitive market (below market), while target total cash compensation (which includes an annual bonus that incorporates financial targets) is set at the 65th percentile of the market (above market). Long-term incentive compensation is set at the 50th percentile (at market), and is divided equally among three programs: (1) stock options, (2) restricted stock units (RSUs), and (3) a Performance Share LTIP. Although not targeted to a specific competitive level, we believe our benefits and perquisites, taken as a whole, are at the market median.

We use base pay and benefits to deliver a level of fixed compensation since our compensation programs are heavily weighted toward variable compensation. Therefore, fixed components, such as base pay, are generally below the competitive market for each position, while incentive-based compensation, such as annual bonuses, are set above the competitive market and require above market financial performance. However, because annual bonuses (EMIP) reward short-term operating performance and are paid in cash, our long-term incentive compensation programs are weighted more heavily toward rewards for share price appreciation and long-term profitability. To further align our realizable compensation with share price appreciation or depreciation, beginning in 2016, the cash portion of the long-term incentive plan was replaced with performance shares (PSUs). Individual performance also plays a key role in determining the amount of compensation delivered to an individual in many of our programs, with our philosophy being that the best performers should receive the greatest rewards. In addition, for 2018, as the charts below demonstrate, 85% of the CEO’s compensation mix was “at risk” and 78% of the NEOs’ compensation mix was “at risk.”

The following is a summary of our 2018 executive compensation and how each component fits within our core principles:

The Roles of the Committee, External Advisors and Management

The Committee, which consists solely of non-employee Directors, has primary responsibility for reviewing, establishing and monitoring all elements of our executive compensation programs. The Committee is advised by its independent executive compensation consultant, Korn Ferry, and independent legal counsel. Management provides recommendations and analysis to the Committee, and is supported in those efforts by its own executive compensation consultant, Willis Towers Watson.

(1)  The Board takes such action with respect to the CEO.

Role of External Advisors

Role of External Advisors (Korn Ferry)

Role of External Advisors (Willis Towers Watson)

Role of CEO and Management

Our Methodologies

Selection of Compensation Elements

As part of its annual review, the Committee evaluates whether changes in the philosophy or structure are warranted in light of emerging trends, business needs and/or financial performance. The Committee then uses competitive market data, performance assessments and management recommendations to set the pay components along the targets described above (for example, 45th percentile for base pay). Actual pay for executive management will generally fall within a range of these targets (plus or minus 20%). Absent significant increases due to promotion, increases for break-through individual performance or significant changes in the competitive market data, pay increases are generally in line with national trends.

Market Comparison Data

We collect competitive market compensation data from multiple nationally published surveys, from proxy data for a peer group of companies and from proxy data for companies in the S&P 400. Nationally published survey market compensation data is statistically determined (through regression analysis) to approximate our revenue size and aged to approximate more current data.

Peer Group

We use a peer group of publicly traded industrial companies that are headquartered in the U.S. that serve a number of different market segments and that have significant foreign operations. These are companies for which Lincoln Electric competes for talent and shareholder investment. In addition, we only select companies with solid historical financial results (removing companies from the peer group when their financial performance has consistently fallen below an acceptable level) and companies with sales that are within 2.5 times that of Lincoln Electric, with the exception of Illinois Tool Works (ITW), as ITW is a global competitor with its largest presence in the U.S. The Committee conducts an annual review of our peer group. As compared to our 2017 peer group, the Company modified its peer group by eliminating Rockwell Automation as its revenues were almost at the maximum of our guidelines and adding Snap-On, Inc., which is in the ISS peer group.

For 2018, our peer group consisted of the following 18 publicly traded industrial corporations:

Executive Compensation Structure

Business Needs. The Committee’s independent compensation consultant (Korn Ferry) assists in presenting information about emerging trends in executive compensation, along with Committee members’ own reading and study. These trends are considered in light of our compensation philosophies and various business needs. Business needs that are evaluated can include: talent attraction or retention strategies, growth expectations, strategic programs, cost-containment initiatives, management development needs and our company culture. No single factor guides whether changes will be made. Instead, the Committee uses a holistic approach, considering a variety of factors.

Individual Performance. Individual performance is a significant factor in determining annual changes (up or down) to pay components. In addition, the annual bonus includes an individual performance component in determining the percentage of target to be paid (described below and as noted in the annual bonus (EMIP) matrix). Individual performance is measured against how well an executive demonstrates proficiency in key leadership competencies as well as the executive’s achievement against objectives established for him or her at the beginning of the year. For the past three years, individual performance ratings for the annual bonus for officers have ranged from 110 to 130.

Pay for Performance Review. In determining whether changes will be made to the existing philosophy or structure and before setting compensation levels for the upcoming year, the Committee conducts its annual assessment of our financial performance and pay for performance (both of which are described above). These reviews are used to evaluate whether executive compensation is properly aligned with our financial performance.

Timing of Compensation Determination and Payouts

Base pay, annual bonus targets and long-term incentive awards are set at a regularly scheduled Committee meeting held in the first quarter of the year. Payout amounts for the annual EMIP (bonus), the Cash LTIP and Performance Share LTIP are determined after year-end, at the first available Committee meeting of the following year (normally in February) or a subsequent special meeting (normally in March), once final financial results are available. As mentioned above, beginning with the 2016 to 2018 performance cycle, the Performance Share LTIP replaced the Cash LTIP. Compensation associated with the Cash LTIP is disclosed in the Summary Compensation Table when realized (at the end of the cycle) and compensation associated with the Performance Share LTIP is disclosed when granted (at the beginning of the cycle). Therefore, with respect to 2016 and 2017, compensation associated with the Cash LTIP and the Performance Share LTIP are both disclosed in the 2018 Summary Compensation Table.

Elements of Executive Compensation

Each compensation component for our NEOs is described below, with specific actions that were taken during 2018 noted. For 2018 compensation amounts, please refer to the Summary Compensation Table and other accompanying tables below.

Base Pay

Base salary is provided to our executives to compensate them for their time and proficiency in their positions, as well as the value of their job relative to other positions at Lincoln Electric. Base salaries are set based on the executive’s experience, expertise, level of responsibility, leadership qualities, individual accomplishments and other factors. That being said, we aim to set base salaries at approximately the 45th percentile of the market (slightly below market) in keeping with our philosophy that greater emphasis should be placed on variable compensation.

2018 and 2019 Base Pay

During 2018, the Committee reviewed officer pay, including all NEOs, as compared to the market. The Committee approved certain increases in NEO base salaries as detailed below, bringing the base pay within the competitive framework.

The 2018 base salary increase for Ms. Ansberry is reflective of her recent promotion and bringing her base pay within the competitive framework. For 2019, the average base salary increase for the NEOs was 5.9%.

Annual Bonus (EMIP) and Total Cash Compensation

The Executive Management Incentive Plan (EMIP) provides executive officers, including the NEOs, with an opportunity to receive an annual cash bonus. We believe that, given base pay is below market, annual cash bonus opportunities should be above average to balance some of the risk associated with greater variable compensation. However, we also believe that above-market pay should only be available for superior individual and financial performance. Therefore, we target total cash compensation (base pay and target bonus) at the 65th percentile of the market, but use a structure that provides payments of above-average bonuses only where the individual’s performance, that of the consolidated company and that of his or her particular segment or business unit warrant it.

ANNUAL BONUS (EMIP) MATRIX

The percentage of target bonus actually paid is based upon a matrix that takes into account financial performance and an executive’s individual performance, interpolating the results to calculate the actual percentage paid. If either of these factors is not met, the percentage of target bonus paid is reduced, with the potential that no bonus will be paid. If either of these factors exceeds expectations, the percentage paid can be above the target amount. The 2018 EMIP matrix used is consistent with prior years.

The Committee has discretion to approve EMIP payments outside of the strict application of this matrix. There were no such adjustments made for the 2018 EMIP payments for any NEO. EMIP payout determinations for the 2018 performance period were made in the first quarter of 2019.

Annual Bonus (EMIP) Financial Metrics

A portion of the EMIP financial component is based upon achievement of company consolidated financial performance against budget and another portion may be attributable to segment financial performance against budget, depending upon the individual’s span of responsibility. By varying the financial metrics used based upon areas of responsibility, it is possible that certain participants will receive a higher percentage of target bonus while others will receive a lower percentage of target where the segment performance for one participant is better than the segment performance for the other. This is a key component of our pay for performance and incentive-based philosophies. For 2018, consolidated and most segment results were nearly at or above budgets.

2018 EMIP payouts for all officers ranged between 29% to 54% above target, with an average payout of 44% above the targeted amounts.

The following is a summary of the financial components used for 2018 for the NEOs:

EBITB. One of the EMIP financial metrics is the achievement of earnings before interest, taxes and the bonus referred to above (EBITB) as compared to budget. Since 2011, this metric accounts for 75% of the EMIP financial component. EBITB to budget has been used as the financial metric for the annual bonus since its inception in 1997 because it is an important indicator of profitability. Budgets are set aggressively (based on the local and global economic climate), at the beginning of the year, are reviewed by the Finance Committee of the Board and are approved by the full Board. The following is a summary of historical consolidated results:

When performance goals are set, we believe that there is an equal probability of achieving EBITB to budget in any year, although the cyclical nature of our business may increase the probability in some years and decrease it in others. For 2018, the consolidated EBITB budget was set at $516.5 million and actual performance for 2018, as adjusted, measured at budgeted exchange rates, was $548.9 million, or an achievement of 106.3% of budget. The Americas Welding Segment EBITB budget was set at $423.1 million and actual performance for 2018, as adjusted, measured at budgeted exchange rates, was $441.5 million, or an achievement of 104.3% of budget. The International Welding Segment EBITB budget was set at $92.5 million and actual performance for 2018, as adjusted, measured at budgeted exchange rates, was $96.2 million or an achievement of 104.0% of budget.

AOWC/Sales for Compensation Purposes. Since 2007, a second EMIP financial metric, namely the achievement of budget for average operating working capital as compared to sales (AOWC/Sales for Compensation Purposes), has been used as a reflection of our commitment to improving cash flow. Since 2011, AOWC/Sales for Compensation Purposes has accounted for 25% of the EMIP financial component. The following is a summary of historical consolidated results:

Like EBITB, we believe that there is an equal probability of achieving AOWC/Sales for Compensation Purposes to budget in any given year, although the cyclical nature of our business may increase the probability in some years and decrease it in others. For 2018, the consolidated AOWC/Sales for Compensation Purposes budget was set at 22.9% and actual performance for 2018, excluding businesses acquired during the year, was 21.7% or an achievement of 105.1% of budget. The Americas Welding Segment AOWC/Sales for Compensation Purposes budget was set at 16.3% and actual performance for 2018, excluding businesses acquired during the year, was 17.3%, or an achievement of 93.9% of budget. The International Welding Segment AOWC/Sales for Compensation Purposes budget was set at 31.1% and actual performance for 2018, excluding businesses acquired during the year, was 29.2%, or an achievement of 106.0% of budget.

2018 Annual Bonus (EMIP) and Total Cash Compensation

The 2018 EMIP annual bonus targets for the NEOs were established according to the principles discussed above. The 2018 EMIP targets for the NEOs placed their total targeted cash compensation (base pay and target bonus), on average, slightly below the 65th percentile of market.

In approving the 2018 EMIP payouts, the Committee assessed our EBITB performance and AOWC/Sales for Compensation Purposes performance against budget for consolidated and segments, as applicable. On average, 2018 EMIP payments for the NEOs were 11% higher than the 2017 payments and 49% above their 2018 target amounts, as shown below.

2019 Annual Bonus (EMIP) and Total Cash Compensation

The 2019 EMIP targets for the NEOs, approved in the first quarter of 2019, were established by the Committee in consultation with Korn Ferry, based on our compensation philosophies as well as competitive market data as discussed above. The 2019 bonus targets reflect an increase from the 2018 target amounts of, on average 5.4%, for the NEOs. Even with the increases, the NEOs were still, on average, slightly below the 65th percentile on targeted total cash compensation.

Long-Term Incentives

We believe that long-term incentive opportunities should be provided to focus rewards on factors that deliver long-term sustainability and should be established at the median (or 50th percentile) of the market. We have targeted the median of the market, in keeping with our pay for performance philosophy, because we believe that superior long-term financial growth itself should be the main driver of above-market long-term incentive compensation. We also believe that different financial metrics help drive long-term performance. Therefore, we have established a structure for long-term incentives that combines several different long-term metrics, with the greatest emphasis placed on share appreciation and non-cash awards.

For 2018, our long-term incentive program is made up of three components: (1) stock options, (2) RSUs and (3) a Performance Share LTIP. The value of each is weighted equally. This provides an even balance with respect to the different attributes and timing associated with each type of award. Annual awards of all three components are made to EMIP participants, including the NEOs. Starting with the 2016 long-term incentive program, the Cash LTIP was replaced with a Performance Share LTIP.

Long-term incentive awards are set at regularly-scheduled Committee meetings held in the first quarter of the year. Payout amounts for the Performance Share LTIP are determined after year-end at the first available Committee meeting of the following year (normally in February) or a subsequent special meeting (normally in March), once final financial results are available. Compensation associated with the Cash LTIP is disclosed in the Summary Compensation Table when realized (at the end of the cycle) and compensation associated with the Performance Share LTIP is disclosed when granted (at the beginning of the cycle). With respect to 2016 and 2017, compensation associated with the Cash LTIP and the Performance Share LTIP are both disclosed in the 2018 Summary Compensation Table and discussed in more detail below. The last year that the Cash LTIP paid out was 2017.

Stock Options

All EMIP participants (including the NEOs) and other senior leaders receive an annual stock option award. A total of 24 employees received stock options during our annual grant in February 2018. Stock options vest ratably over a three-year period.

Restricted Stock Units

All EMIP participants (including the NEOs) receive an annual RSU award. Recognizing that equity awards are a valuable compensation tool, we also extend RSUs to senior leaders, managers and significant contributors, regardless of their position within Lincoln Electric. A total of 350 employees (including our NEOs) received RSUs during the annual grant in February 2018. Beginning with grants awarded after October 2015, RSUs vest in full after three years of continuous service.

Long-Term Incentive Plan (LTIP)

A cash long-term incentive plan, or Cash LTIP, has been in place for officers (EMIP participants) since 1997. As previously discussed, during 2015, the Committee modified the executive compensation program to replace the cash incentive with performance shares, or the Performance Share LTIP. The terms of the awards mirror the performance objectives tied to the Cash LTIP but payouts will be in shares of Lincoln Electric common stock.

The Performance Share LTIP is designed to offer reward opportunities aligned with the long-term performance of Lincoln Electric. Target share amounts for the plan are set each year at the beginning of a three-year performance cycle based on a 7-day historical average of the stock price, up to and including the grant date, as mentioned above. Because awards are made each year and because each award relates to a three-year performance cycle, three different cycles will be running at any point in time. The percentage of the target shares actually paid at the end of the applicable three-year cycle will be based upon achievement of three-year company performance as interpolated against pre-established performance thresholds. Each plan has six to seven performance thresholds with percentage payouts attributable to those thresholds ranging from 0% to 200% of target. The Committee retains discretion to modify payments to any participant, to modify targets and/or to modify the performance thresholds (up or down). A total of 15 employees (including our NEOs) received performance shares during the annual grant in February 2018.

Performance Measures. Since its inception, the LTIP has used a performance measure of growth in Adjusted Net Income for Compensation Purposes over the three-year cycle. Beginning in 2009, the Committee added a second metric of ROIC for Compensation Purposes and gave these two financial metrics a 50/50 weighting. The Adjusted Net Income for Compensation Purposes metric is an absolute metric. For the 2016 to 2018 performance cycle, the growth in Adjusted Net Income for Compensation Purposes over the three-year cycle is based on growth above $255,644,000 (which was the Adjusted Net Income for Compensation Purposes for 2015 when the 2016 to 2018 performance cycle was set). As the 2016 to 2018 Performance Share LTIP table below demonstrates, to pay 100% of target, Adjusted Net Income for Compensation Purposes over the three-year cycle must be at or above 140% of $255,644,000 (or $357,902,000).

From time to time, the Committee has considered and approved certain limited adjustments to reported net income (both positive and negative) in determining Adjusted Net Income for Compensation Purposes to evaluate achievement of performance against the thresholds. Each adjustment is reviewed in detail before it is made. The types of adjustments the Committee has considered include: rationalization charges, certain asset impairment charges, the gains and losses on certain transactions including the disposal of certain assets and other special items. To the extent an adjustment relates to restructuring or rationalization charges that are intended to improve organizational efficiency, a corresponding charge (equal to the adjustment) is amortized against future years’ adjusted net income until that adjustment is fully offset against the intended savings (generally this amortization occurs over a three-year period).

The ROIC for Compensation Purposes metric for the 2016 to 2018 performance cycle is a relative value that is derived based on our performance as compared to our proxy peer group (as opposed to an absolute value). In this 2016 to 2018 performance cycle, certain adjustments have been approved by the Committee in comparably measuring performance. For the 2014-2016 performance cycle, the ROIC for Compensation Purposes calculation was adjusted in 2016 to exclude the incremental balance in cash and marketable securities as of December 31, 2016 compared with the December 31, 2013 balance, as well as interest expense, associated with the long-term notes drawn as a result of the execution of our capital allocation strategy.

Performance Thresholds. In setting the performance thresholds for a new three-year period, the Committee considers various factors, including historical performance against established thresholds, to try to achieve a 50% probability of the target thresholds for any cycle. For the 2016 to 2018 Plan, the Committee did not make any modifications to the three-year adjusted net income growth performance thresholds or the three-year average ROIC relative to peer thresholds.

Timing for Setting Performance Measure and Performance Thresholds. Performance targets are set at the beginning of the first fiscal year in the cycle. This timing allows the Committee to see our final financial results for the prior year and allows for more current macro-economic projections to be used.

2016 to 2018 Performance Share LTIP. The following is a summary of the performance metric ranges of all nineteen completed LTIP plan cycles, including the most recently completed cycle (2016 to 2018):

For the 2016 to 2018 cycle, because the Adjusted Net Income for Compensation Purposes performance threshold and the ROIC for Compensation Purposes performance target were exceeded, payouts were made at 115.6% of target. Payments under the plan have been made in fourteen out of the nineteen completed three-year cycles. The following is the most recently completed cycle (2016 to 2018): 

2016 to 2018 Performance Share LTIP 

As shown above, the current plan cycle contains two metrics, each with a 50% weighting. The growth of Lincoln Electric’s Adjusted Net Income for Compensation Purposes over the three-year period was 21.7%, which generated a 22.2% of target payout for this metric. Lincoln Electric’s three-year average return on invested capital (ROIC) for Compensation Purposes, as compared to its peer group, was at the 77th percentile, which generated a 93.4% of target payout for this metric. The chart below shows the target and maximum number of shares of common stock that may be issued for the 2016 to 2018 Performance Share LTIP based on actual performance. Combining the payouts for both metrics, the resulting final payout for the 2016 to 2018 Performance Share LTIP was 115.6% of the target award opportunity.

2018 Long-Term Incentives

In evaluating 2018 long-term incentive compensation (at the beginning of 2018), the Committee reviewed 2016 and 2017 compensation versus the competitive benchmarks. The Committee concluded that overall the long-term incentives for the NEOs were below our 50th percentile target when compared to both survey and peer proxy data. At the February meeting, the Committee adjusted 2018 long-term incentives for the NEOs on average 10%, excluding Ms. Ansberry, who received a 42% increase due to her promotion, still placing her award below the 50th percentile. This average also excludes a special RSU award to Mr. Hedlund and Ms. Ansberry of $50,000 in recognition of each executive’s leadership associated with the acquisition and initial integration of Air Liquide Welding. All of these awards are subject to our Recovery of Funds Policy, which is discussed below.

2019 Long-Term Incentives

In evaluating 2019 long-term incentive compensation (at the beginning of 2019), the Committee reviewed 2017 and 2018 compensation versus the competitive benchmarks. The Committee concluded that overall the long-term incentives for the NEOs were below our 50th percentile target when compared to both survey and peer proxy data and adjusted 2018 long-term incentives for the NEOs on average 11%, still placing their LTI targets slightly below the 50th percentile.

Valuation of Equity Awards. Beginning with the 2016 annual grant, for shares under our 2015 Equity and Incentive Compensation Plan, the Committee established set valuation methods in order to convert the approved long-term incentive compensation values to shares upon the grant date. These methods consider a 7-day historical average of the stock price, up to and including the grant date, for RSUs and performance shares and the grant date Black-Scholes valuation for stock options.

Normal Cycle and Out-of-Cycle Equity Awards. The Committee has discretion in awarding grants to EMIP participants and does not delegate its authority to management, nor does management select or influence the award dates. Occasionally, the Committee may approve limited, out-of-cycle special awards for specific business purposes or in connection with executive promotions or the hiring of new executive employees. However, the date used for awards to all EMIP participants, including the NEOs, is the date of a regularly scheduled Committee meeting, which is fixed well in advance and generally occurs at the same time each year.

The Committee has approved delegated authority to the CEO to designate awards through 2019 to certain employees under the 2015 Equity and Incentive Compensation Plan, subject to specific limits established. The CEO can only grant RSU awards and cannot grant awards to any executive officers, Section 16 officers or greater-than-10% beneficial owners of the Company, and must be granted per the agreements and vesting terms already approved by the Committee.

Other Arrangements, Policies and Practices

Overview of Benefits

We intend to provide a competitive group of benefits for all of our employees targeted at the 50th percentile of the market. Some aspects of our benefit programs are considered non-traditional due to their relationship with our pay for performance and incentive-based philosophies. For example, the premiums for Lincoln Electric-provided medical coverage are 100% paid by employees, including the NEOs, on a pre-tax basis. Premiums for dental coverage, which is a voluntary benefit, are also 100% paid by employees. Life insurance coverage paid fully by Lincoln Electric is set at $10,000 per employee, including the NEOs, although employees may purchase additional insurance at their own cost. The NEOs participate in this same cost-sharing approach. We attempt to balance our various non-traditional programs (such as those with a significant portion of the cost borne by the employee) with more traditional programs.

We also provide accidental death and dismemberment benefits to officers, due to the significant amount of travel required in their jobs. Under this program, the premiums of which are paid by us, a participant’s beneficiary would receive a payment of five times annual total cash compensation up to a maximum of $3,000,000 for executive officers and $2,000,000 for other officers upon an officer’s accidental death. The policy also provides dismemberment benefits of up to 100% of the death benefit in the event an officer is permanently and totally disabled as a result of an accident, and it provides for medical evacuation coverage in the event of an accident.

Retirement Programs

Retirement benefits are provided to our NEOs through the following programs:

The Lincoln Electric Company Retirement Annuity Program (RAP)

·  Frozen to new entrants effective January 1, 2006 (no new employees eligible to join the RAP after January 1, 2006; participate in The Lincoln Electric Company Employee Savings Plan described below)

·  Benefit accruals frozen effective as of December 31, 2016 (participants will not earn any additional benefits under the RAP after December 31, 2016)

·  Estimated retirement benefits under the RAP for the NEOs that are shown in the Pension Benefits Table below are based on the NEOs frozen benefit under the RAP as of December 31, 2018

Supplemental Executive Retirement Plan (SERP)

·  Frozen to new entrants since 2005

·  Effective as of December 1, 2016, the value of the frozen accrued vested benefit of each SERP participant was converted to a notional balance, calculated by projecting to December 31, 2016 the participant’s SERP benefit and calculating the present value of that projected benefit

·  Participants’ account balances are credited with earnings, gains and losses in accordance with each participant’s investment elections which will be made in a manner similar to that undertaken by participants in the amended and restated 2005 Deferred Compensation Plan for Executives

The Lincoln Electric Company Employee Savings Plan (401(k) Plan)

·  All of the NEOs deferred amounts under the 401(k) Plan in 2018

·  Each eligible employee of The Lincoln Electric Company and certain affiliated companies is eligible to receive up to 6% of annual compensation in Company contributions through:

(1) matching employer contributions equal to 100% of before-tax (401(k)) contributions made to the 401(k) Plan, but not in excess of 3% of annual compensation; and

(2) automatic employer contributions equal to 3% of annual compensation

·  Matching and automatic contributions are 100% vested when made

·  Certain employees affected by the RAP freeze are also eligible to receive employer contributions equal to 6% of annual compensation for a minimum period of five years, up to the end of the year in which they complete 30 years of service

Restoration Plan

·  Created effective January 1, 2017, primarily for the purpose of providing deferred compensation for eligible employees of The Lincoln Electric Company and certain affiliated companies whose annual compensation is expected to be in excess of the Internal Revenue Code limit on compensation (Code Limit) applicable to the 401(k) Plan

·  Each participant’s account under the Restoration Plan is credited each year with deferred amounts generally as follows:

(1) matching employer contributions equal to 3% of annual compensation that is in excess of the Code Limit; and

(2) non-elective employer contribution equal to 3% of annual compensation that is in excess of the Code Limit

·  All amounts deferred under the Restoration Plan are fully vested at all times

·  Certain employees affected by the RAP freeze are also eligible to receive employer contributions equal to 6% of annual compensation in excess of the Code Limit for a minimum period of five years, up to the end of the year in which they complete 30 years of service

·  Amounts credited to participants’ accounts under the Restoration Plan will be payable in cash in accordance with the distribution provisions of the Restoration Plan

·  All NEOs participated in the Restoration Plan in 2018

Amended and Restated 2005 Deferred Compensation Plan for Executives (Top Hat Plan)

·  The Top Hat Plan allows participants to defer their current income on a pre-tax basis and to receive a tax-deferred return on those deferrals. There are no Company contributions or match.

·  Participation in the Top Hat Plan is limited to individuals approved by the Committee.

·  As of December 31, 2018, there were 18 active employee participants in the Top Hat Plan.

More information on these programs can be found below in the 2018 Pension Benefits section and 2018 Deferred Compensation Benefits section.

Perquisites

We offer limited perquisites. For example, we pay for an annual physical for officers and other senior management. We also make available financial planning services to certain officers. However, the cost of these financial planning services is included in the income of the participants. The physical and financial planning programs are optional programs. We also pay the cost of certain club dues for some officers. All personal expenses are borne entirely by the executive and the club dues are included in the income of the participants. Initiation fees for club memberships are paid by the executive. Different perquisites are provided from time to time to non-U.S. based executives; however, they are customary and reasonable in nature and amount relative to local market practices (for example, a car lease).

Change in Control Arrangements

We have entered into change in control agreements with all of our NEOs. The agreements are designed generally to assure continued management in the event of a change in control of Lincoln Electric.

The change in control agreements are operative only if a change in control occurs and payments are made if the officer’s employment is terminated (or if the officer terminates employment due to certain adverse employment changes). The agreements provide our NEOs with the potential for continued employment following a change in control, which help retain these executives and provide for management continuity in the event of an actual or threatened change in control of Lincoln Electric. They also help ensure that our executives’ interests remain aligned with shareholders’ interests during a time when their continued employment may be in jeopardy. For a more detailed discussion of our change in control agreements, see Termination and Change in Control Arrangements below. Outside of these change in control agreements, we do not maintain written employment or other severance agreements for U.S.-based employees.

Recovery of Funds Policy

We have adopted a Recovery of Funds Policy (clawback policy) consistent with the requirements of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act (Dodd-Frank). Our policy is more extensive than what Dodd-Frank requires and is applicable to all of our officers, including our NEOs. The policy applies in the event that there is an accounting restatement involving our financial statements due to material non-compliance with the financial reporting requirements under the U.S. federal securities laws. The policy applies to both current and former officers and covers incentive compensation received by the officers in the 3-year period prior to the restatement. Awards of incentive compensation would include annual bonus payments, stock option awards, restricted stock awards, RSUs, performance shares and Cash LTIP awards, unless Dodd-Frank regulations provide otherwise. Under the policy, in the event of an accounting restatement of our financial statements, the Committee would review all incentive compensation received during the 3-year covered period and would seek recovery of the amount of incentive compensation paid in excess of what would have been paid if the accounts had been properly stated. We believe that this policy is in the best interests of Lincoln Electric and its shareholders.

Anti-Hedging/Pledging Policy

Consistent with our philosophy to encourage long-term investment in our common stock, our Directors and executive officers are prohibited from engaging in any speculative or hedging transactions involving our common stock, including buying or selling puts or calls, short sales or margin purchases. In addition, our insider trading policy prohibits future pledging of Lincoln Electric securities by our executive officers and Directors. There are no pledges of our common stock in place for any of our Directors or executive officers.

Share Ownership

As with the Directors, in keeping with our philosophy that officers should maintain an equity interest in Lincoln Electric and based on our view that such ownership is a component of good corporate governance, we initially adopted stock ownership guidelines for officers in 2006 and increased the guidelines in 2012. The revised guidelines were proposed based on a review of our peer group and corporate governance best practices. Under the current guidelines, our officers are required to own and hold a certain number of our common shares, currently at the levels set forth in the table below:

The Committee reviewed the stock ownership guidelines in December 2016 at the end of the five years and concluded that they were at appropriate levels when compared to the peer group and market. The guidelines were reset January 1, 2017 and established in the same manner as above. Officers have five years to satisfy the guidelines either by holding (1) shares aggregating the dollar amount specified above (valued at the then current stock price), or (2) that number of shares needed to satisfy the ownership guidelines tied to the base salaries in effect on January 1, 2017 divided by the closing price of a common share on December 30, 2016 ($76.67). RSU awards count towards the stock ownership guidelines; common shares underlying stock options and shares held in another person’s name (including a relative) do not. As of December 31, 2018, all of our NEOs met the stock ownership guidelines, with the exception of Ms. Ansberry due to her promotion in 2017.

Deductibility of Compensation

Our general philosophy has historically been to qualify future compensation for tax deductibility wherever applicable and appropriate. Qualification is sought to the extent practicable and only to the extent that it is consistent with our overall compensation objectives. Although a portion of the amount we recorded as compensation to Mr. Mapes in 2018 was non-deductible, this does not cause substantial impact to our income tax position. All of the compensation paid to the other NEOs during 2018 was tax deductible by Lincoln Electric for federal income tax purposes.

As part of the 2017 Tax Cuts and Jobs Act (the “Tax Reform Act”), the ability to rely on the performance-based compensation exception under Section 162(m) of the U.S. Internal Revenue Code (“Section 162(m)”) was eliminated, and the limitation on deductibility generally was expanded to include all NEOs. As a result of the Tax Reform Act, going forward and subject to certain grandfathered provisions, we will no longer be able to deduct any compensation paid to our NEOs in excess of $1 million. The Committee continues to assess the impact of the amendments to Section 162(m) to determine what adjustments to our executive compensation practices, if any, it considers appropriate.

COMPENSATION COMMITTEE REPORT //

The Compensation and Executive Development Committee has reviewed and discussed the Compensation Discussion and Analysis contained in this Proxy Statement with our management and, based on this review and discussion, recommends that it be included in our Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2018 and this Proxy Statement.

By the Compensation & Executive Development Committee:
William E. MacDonald, III, Chair
Kathryn Jo Lincoln
Phillip J. Mason
Hellene S. Runtagh

EXECUTIVE COMPENSATION TABLES

Summary of 2018 Compensation Elements

(1)  Summary Compensation Table.

(2)  In 2016, the Performance Share LTIP replaced the Cash LTIP. Compensation associated with the Cash LTIP is disclosed in the Summary Compensation Table at the end of the cycle (when realized) and compensation associated with the Performance Share LTIP is disclosed at the beginning of the cycle (upon grant). As such, with respect to 2016 and 2017, compensation associated with the Cash LTIP and the Performance Share LTIP are both disclosed within the 2018 Summary Compensation Table.

(3)  The SERP, effective November 30, 2016, and the RAP, effective December 31, 2016, were amended to cease all future benefit accruals.

(4)  Financial metrics used for compensation purposes are defined in Appendix A.

2018 Summary Compensation Table

This table details total compensation paid to our NEOs for 2018 and, where required, 2017 and 2016. In 2016, beginning with the 2016 to 2018 performance cycle, the Performance Share LTIP replaced the Cash LTIP. Compensation associated with the Cash LTIP is disclosed in the Summary Compensation Table when realized (at the end of the cycle under the “Non-Equity Incentive Plan Compensation” column) and compensation associated with the Performance Share LTIP is disclosed when granted (at the beginning of the cycle under the “Stock Awards” column). With respect to 2016 and 2017, compensation associated with the Cash LTIP and the Performance Share LTIP are both disclosed in the 2018 Summary Compensation Table.