SHERWIN WILLIAMS (SHW)

Sector: Materials

    Home/Companies/SHW/Annual Meeting

2026 Annual Meeting Analysis

SHERWIN WILLIAMS · Meeting: April 22, 2026

Policy v0.7high confidenceView Filing ↗
For informational purposes only. This AI-generated analysis applies a published voting policy to publicly available proxy filings. It does not constitute investment advice, proxy voting advice, or a solicitation of any kind. AI analysis may be incomplete or inaccurate — always review the actual filing and make your own independent decision.

Directors FOR

9

Directors AGAINST

0

Say on Pay

FOR

Auditor

FOR

Director Elections

Election of 9 Directors

9 FOR
✓ FOR
Kerrii B. Anderson

Anderson has served since 2019, attends meetings, holds 3 outside board seats (within the 4-seat limit), and SHW's 3-year TSR of +51.2% outperforms the peer median by +13.6 percentage points, well below the 50pp trigger threshold required for a strong-positive-TSR company.

✓ FOR
Jeff M. Fettig

Fettig has served since 2019, serves as Lead Director, holds 1 outside board seat, meets attendance requirements, and no TSR trigger applies given SHW's strong outperformance of peer median over 3 years.

✓ FOR
Robert J. Gamgort

Gamgort joined the board in 2025, making him exempt from the TSR trigger under the 24-month new-director exemption, and his Keurig Dr Pepper board seat is being vacated effective March 31, 2026, resolving any overboarding concern.

✓ FOR
Heidi G. Petz

Petz joined the board in 2023 (under 24 months is exempt; she joined more than 24 months ago but less than 3 years, and SHW outperforms the peer median over 3 years so no trigger fires), holds 1 outside board seat, and no other disqualifying flags are present.

✓ FOR
Aaron M. Powell

Powell has served since 2021, is a sitting CEO but holds zero outside public board seats (well within the 2-seat limit for sitting CEOs), meets attendance requirements, and no TSR trigger applies.

✓ FOR
Marta R. Stewart

Stewart has served since 2021, holds 1 outside board seat, is an audit committee financial expert, meets attendance requirements, and no TSR trigger applies given SHW's peer outperformance.

✓ FOR
Michael H. Thaman

Thaman has served since 2017, holds 2 outside board seats (within the limit), is an audit committee financial expert, meets attendance requirements, and no TSR trigger applies.

✓ FOR
Matthew Thornton III

Thornton has served since 2014, holds 1 outside board seat, meets attendance requirements, and no TSR trigger applies given SHW's strong 3-year peer outperformance of +13.6 percentage points.

✓ FOR
Thomas L. Williams

Williams has served since 2023, holds 1 outside board seat, meets attendance requirements, and while he previously served on Parker-Hannifin's board (a strong peer performer), no TSR trigger fires for SHW itself given its strong positive 3-year return and peer outperformance.

All 9 director nominees receive a FOR recommendation. SHW's 3-year TSR of +51.2% outperforms the compensation peer group median by +13.6 percentage points, which is well below the 50-percentage-point underperformance threshold required to trigger a No vote for a company with strong positive absolute returns. No director is overboarded, no attendance failures are disclosed, no familial relationships with management are present, the board discloses a skills matrix, and all committee members are independent with appropriate financial expertise on the Audit Committee.

Say on Pay

✓ FOR

CEO

Heidi G. Petz

Total Comp

$14,914,317

Prior Support

91.12%%

CEO total compensation of approximately $14.9 million is reasonable for a large-cap industrial/consumer company of SHW's scale ($79B market cap, $23.6B in sales) and is positioned within a general range of market median per the company's own disclosure. The pay structure is heavily performance-oriented — 90% of the CEO's total direct pay is variable and at-risk, well above the 50-60% policy minimum — with long-term equity split between performance stock awards (tied to 3-year adjusted EPS and return on net assets goals) and stock options that only pay off if the stock price rises. SHW's 3-year TSR of +51.2% outperforms the peer median by +13.6 percentage points, so above-benchmark incentive pay is justified by shareholder outcomes, and the prior year's say-on-pay vote received 91.12% support indicating broad shareholder endorsement of the program.

Auditor Ratification

✓ FOR

Auditor

Ernst & Young LLP

Tenure

N/A

Audit Fees

$8,662,750

Non-Audit Fees

$1,071,000

Non-audit fees (audit-related fees of $170,000 + tax fees of $603,000 + all other fees of $298,000 = $1,071,000) represent approximately 12.4% of audit fees ($8,662,750), well below the 50% threshold that would raise independence concerns. EY is a Big 4 firm appropriate for a company of SHW's size and complexity. Auditor tenure is not disclosed in the proxy, so the tenure trigger cannot fire per policy — this is noted as a minor negative factor but does not change the recommendation. No material financial restatements are disclosed.

Stockholder Proposals

1 proposal submitted by shareholders

Proposal 5

Shareholder Proposal Regarding Shareholder Ability to Call a Special Meeting

✗ AGAINST
Filed by:John CheveddenIndividual ActivistGovernance
Board recommends: AGAINST
management counter proposal addresses core issuecompany moving from 50pct to 25pct threshold is meaningful improvement10pct threshold not necessary given 25pct concession

John Chevedden is a well-regarded individual governance activist whose proposals generally deserve serious consideration, but in this case the board has simultaneously put forward its own Proposal 4 to reduce the special meeting threshold from 50% to 25% — a substantial and meaningful improvement for shareholders that addresses the core concern. The incremental governance benefit of going further to 10% is outweighed by the legitimate risk that as few as two shareholders (given SHW's ownership concentration) could call disruptive special meetings at low cost, and the 25% threshold is the market standard among S&P 500 companies. Voting FOR the management proposal (Proposal 4) and AGAINST this shareholder proposal is the appropriate outcome: shareholders get a real, actionable governance improvement while avoiding a threshold that is below market norms and could be exploited by narrow special interests.

Overall Assessment

The 2026 Sherwin-Williams annual meeting ballot is straightforward with no significant governance concerns: the full director slate earns FOR votes given SHW's strong 3-year peer outperformance, the compensation program is well-structured with 90% at-risk pay for the CEO and strong shareholder support, and EY's non-audit fees are modest at about 12% of audit fees. The most noteworthy item is the competing special meeting proposals — shareholders should vote FOR the management proposal (Proposal 4) to lower the threshold from 50% to 25%, and AGAINST the shareholder proposal (Proposal 5) requesting a 10% threshold, as the management concession adequately addresses the governance concern.

Filing date: March 11, 2026·Policy v0.7·high confidence

Compensation Peer Group

22 companies disclosed in 2026 proxy filing

MMM3M Company
AKZAAkzo Nobel N.V.
CATCaterpillar Inc.
CLColgate-Palmolive Company
CMICummins Inc.
DEDeere & Company
DOWDow Inc.
DDDuPont de Nemours, Inc.
ETNEaton Corporation plc
ECLEcolab Inc.
HONHoneywell International Inc.
IPInternational Paper Company
JCIJohnson Controls International plc
KMBKimberly-Clark Corporation
LINLinde plc
LYBLyondellBasell Industries N.V.
MASMasco Corporation
PHParker Hannifin Corporation
PPGPPG Industries, Inc.
SWSmurfit Westrock plc
GTThe Goodyear Tire & Rubber Company
WHRWhirlpool Corporation