TABLE OF CONTENTS

VOTING RIGHTS

The record date for determination of stockholders entitled to vote at the Annual Meeting was the close of business on August 12, 2011. On that date, the Company had 131,138,287 shares of Common Stock, par value $0.01 per share (the “Common Stock”), outstanding and entitled to vote at the Annual Meeting. Each share of Common Stock is entitled to one vote.

At the Annual Meeting, in accordance with the General Corporation Law of the State of Delaware and the Company’s Amended and Restated By-Laws (the “By-Laws”), the inspectors of election appointed by the Board of Directors for the Annual Meeting will determine the presence of a quorum and will tabulate the results of stockholder voting. As provided by the General Corporation Law of the State of Delaware and the By-Laws, holders of shares entitling them to exercise a majority of the voting power of the Company, present in person or by proxy at the Annual Meeting, will constitute a quorum for such meeting. Under applicable Delaware law, if a broker returns a Proxy and has not voted on a certain proposal (generally referred to as a “broker non-vote”), such broker non-votes will count for purposes of determining a quorum. The shares represented at the Annual Meeting by Proxies which are marked “withheld” with respect to the election of Directors will be counted as shares present for the purpose of determining whether a quorum is present.

Under the rules of the New York Stock Exchange, if you are the beneficial owner of shares held in street name and do not provide the bank, broker or other intermediary that holds your shares with specific voting instructions, that bank, broker or other intermediary may generally vote on routine matters but cannot vote on non-routine matters. Proposals One, Two and Three are considered non-routine matters. Unless you instruct the bank, broker or other intermediary that holds your shares to vote on Proposals One, Two and Three, no votes will be cast on your behalf for any of Proposals One, Two and Three for which you do not provide such voting instructions. Therefore, it is important that you instruct the bank, broker or other intermediary to cast your vote if you want it to count on Proposals One, Two and Three. Proposal Four is considered a routine matter and, therefore, broker non-votes are not expected to exist on Proposal Four.

Nominees for election as Directors who receive the greatest number of votes will be elected Directors. The General Corporation Law of the State of Delaware provides that stockholders cannot elect Directors by cumulative voting unless a company’s certificate of incorporation so provides. The Company’s Amended and Restated Certificate of Incorporation does not provide for cumulative voting.

Our Corporate Governance Guidelines include a majority voting policy, which sets forth our procedures if a Director-nominee is elected, but receives a majority of “withheld” votes. In an uncontested election, the Board of Directors expects any nominee for Director who receives a greater number of votes “withheld” from his or her election than votes “for” such election to tender his or her resignation following certification of the stockholder vote. The Board of Directors shall fill Board vacancies and new Directorships and shall nominate for election or re-election as Director only candidates who agree to tender their resignations in such circumstances. The Governance and Nominating Committee will act on an expedited basis to determine whether to accept a Director’s resignation tendered in accordance with the policy and will make recommendations to the Board of Directors for its prompt consideration with respect to any such letter of resignation. For the full details of our majority voting policy, which is part of our Corporate Governance Guidelines, please see our Corporate Governance Guidelines on our website at www.rpminc.com.

Pursuant to the By-Laws, proposals other than the election of Directors and matters brought before the Annual Meeting will be decided, unless otherwise provided by law or by the Company’s Amended and Restated Certificate of Incorporation, by the vote of the holders of a majority of the shares entitled to vote thereon present in person or by proxy at the Annual Meeting. In voting for other proposals, votes may be cast in favor, against or abstained. Abstentions will count as present for purposes of the items on which the abstention is noted and will have the effect of a vote against the proposal. Broker non-votes, however, are not counted as present for purposes of determining whether a proposal has been approved and will have no effect on the outcome of any such proposal.

If you have any questions or need any assistance in voting your shares of Common Stock, please contact the Company’s proxy solicitor:

Georgeson Inc.

199 Water Street, 26th Floor

New York, NY 10038

(866) 785-7395 (Toll Free)

Banks and Brokerages please call:

(212) 440-9800

STOCK OWNERSHIP OF PRINCIPAL HOLDERS AND MANAGEMENT

STOCK OWNERSHIP OF PRINCIPAL HOLDERS AND MANAGEMENT (CONTINUED)

PROPOSAL ONE

ELECTION OF DIRECTORS

The authorized number of Directors of the Company presently is fixed at thirteen, with the Board of Directors divided into three Classes. Each of Class I and Class III has four Directors and Class II has five Directors. The term of office of one Class of Directors expires each year, and at each Annual Meeting of Stockholders the successors to the Directors of the Class whose term is expiring at that time are elected to hold office for a term of three years.

We believe our classified board structure enhances continuity and stability in the Board’s business strategies and policies, since generally at all times two-thirds of the Directors will have had prior experience as Directors of the Company and are familiar with the Company’s business. Directors who have experience with the Company and are knowledgeable about its business are a valuable resource and are better positioned to make the fundamental decisions that are best for the Company, our stockholders and the generation of long-term

stockholder value. A classified Board also assists the Company in attracting and retaining highly qualified Directors who are willing to commit the time and resources necessary to understand the Company, our operations and our competitive environment. We believe that agreeing to serve a three-year term demonstrates a nominee’s commitment to the Company over the long-term.

The term of office of Class III of the Board of Directors expires at this year’s Annual Meeting. The term of office of the persons elected Directors in Class III at this year’s Annual Meeting will expire at the time of the Annual Meeting held in 2014. Each Director in Class III will serve until the expiration of that term or until his or her successor shall have been duly elected. The Board of Directors’ nominees for election as Directors in Class III are Frederick R. Nance, Charles A. Ratner, William B. Summers, Jr. and Dr. Jerry Sue Thornton. Each of Messrs. Nance, Ratner and Summers and Dr. Thornton currently serves as a Director in Class III.

PROPOSAL ONE (CONTINUED)

PROPOSAL ONE (CONTINUED)

PROPOSAL ONE (CONTINUED)

PROPOSAL ONE (CONTINUED)

PROPOSAL ONE (CONTINUED)

PROPOSAL ONE (CONTINUED)

INFORMATION REGARDING MEETINGS AND COMMITTEES OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS

The Board of Directors has an Executive Committee, an Audit Committee, a Compensation Committee and a Governance and Nominating Committee. The Executive Committee exercises the power and authority of the Board of Directors in the interim period between Board meetings. The functions of each of the Audit Committee, the Compensation Committee and the Governance and Nominating Committee are governed by charters that have been adopted by the Board of Directors. The Board of Directors also has adopted Corporate Governance Guidelines to assist the Board of Directors in the exercise of its responsibilities, and a Code of Business Conduct and Ethics that applies to the Company’s Directors, officers, and employees.

The charters of the Audit Committee, Compensation Committee and Governance and Nominating Committee and the Corporate Governance Guidelines and Code of Business Conduct and Ethics are available on the Company’s website at www.rpminc.com and in print to any stockholder who requests a copy. Requests for copies should be directed to Manager of Investor Relations, RPM International Inc., P.O. Box 777, Medina, Ohio 44258. The Company intends to disclose any amendments to the Code of Business Conduct and Ethics, and any waiver of the Code of Business Conduct and Ethics granted to any Director or executive officer of the Company, on the Company’s website. As of the date of this Proxy Statement, there have been no such waivers.

Board Independence

The Company’s Corporate Governance Guidelines and the New York Stock Exchange (the “NYSE”) listing standards provide that at least a majority of the members of the Board of Directors must be independent, i.e., free of any material relationship with the Company, other than his or her relationship as a Director or Board Committee member. A Director is not independent if he or she fails to satisfy the standards for independence under the NYSE listing standards, the rules of the Commission, and any other applicable laws, rules and regulations. The Board of Directors adopted categorical standards (the “Categorical Standards”) to assist it in making independence determinations. The Categorical Standards specify the criteria by which the independence of the Directors will be determined and meet or exceed the independence requirements set forth in the NYSE listing standards and the rules of the Commission. The Categorical Standards are available on the Company’s website at www.rpminc.com.

During the Board of Directors’ annual review of director independence, the Board of Directors considers transactions, relationships and arrangements between each Director or an immediate family member of the Director and RPM. The

Board of Directors also considers transactions, relationships and arrangements between each Director or an immediate family member of the Director and RPM’s senior management.

In July 2011, the Board of Directors performed its annual director independence review for fiscal 2012. As part of this review, the Board of Directors considered common public, private and charitable board memberships among our executive officers and Directors, including Dr. Thornton and Messrs. Carbonari, Daberko, Nance, Ratner and Summers. The Board of Directors does not believe that any of these common board memberships impairs the independence of the Directors. In addition, the Board of Directors considered that Mr. Nance is the Regional Managing Partner of Squire, Sanders & Dempsey (US) LLP, a law firm that provides legal services to the Company. The Board of Directors also considered that Mr. Papenbrock is a retired partner of Calfee, Halter & Griswold LLP, a law firm that provides legal services to the Company. The Board of Directors does not believe that either of these law firm relationships impairs the independence of the Directors.

In determining the independence of Mr. Daberko, the Board of Directors further considered the stock transfer agent and banking services previously provided by National City Bank, now a part of PNC Financial Services Group, Inc. The Board of Directors determined that Mr. Daberko had no material interest in any such transactions.

As a result of this review, the Board of Directors determined that 11 out of 13 current Directors are independent, and that all members of the Audit Committee, the Compensation Committee and the Governance and Nominating Committee are independent. The Board of Directors determined that Dr. Thornton and Messrs. Abizaid, Carbonari, Daberko, Karman, Miller, Nance, Papenbrock, Ratner, Summers and Viviano meet the Categorical Standards and are independent and, in addition, satisfy the independence requirements of the NYSE.

Frank C. Sullivan is not considered to be independent because of his position as Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of RPM. Thomas C. Sullivan is not considered to be independent because he is the father of Frank C. Sullivan.

Audit Committee

The Audit Committee assists the Board of Directors in fulfilling its oversight of the integrity of the Company’s financial statements, the Company’s compliance with legal and regulatory requirements, the independent auditor’s qualifications and independence, and the performance of the Company’s internal audit function and independent auditor, and prepares the report of the Audit Committee. The specific

INFORMATION REGARDING MEETINGS AND COMMITTEES OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS (CONTINUED)

functions and responsibilities of the Audit Committee are set forth in the Audit Committee Charter which is available on the Company’s website.

The Board of Directors has determined that each member of the Audit Committee is financially literate and satisfies the current independence standards of the NYSE listing standards and Section 10A(m)(3) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the “Exchange Act”). The Board of Directors has also determined that each member of the Audit Committee, other than Mr. Papenbrock, qualifies as an “audit committee financial expert” as that term is defined in Item 407(d) of Regulation S-K. Each audit committee financial expert also satisfies the NYSE accounting and financial management expertise requirements.

Compensation Committee

The Compensation Committee assists the Board of Directors in discharging its oversight responsibilities relating to, among other things, executive compensation, equity and incentive compensation plans, management succession planning and producing the Compensation Committee Report. The Compensation Committee administers the Company’s Stock Option Plans, Incentive Compensation Plan, Restricted Stock Plan, Restricted Stock Plan for Directors, and Omnibus Equity and Incentive Plan. The Compensation Committee reviews and determines the salary and bonus compensation of the Chief Executive Officer, as well as reviews and recommends to the Board of Directors for its approval the compensation of the other executive officers of the Company. The Compensation Committee may delegate its authority to a subcommittee or subcommittees. Each member of the Compensation Committee is independent within the meaning of the NYSE listing standards and the Company’s Corporate Governance Guidelines.

Our Chief Executive Officer and our President and Chief Operating Officer, together with the Compensation Committee, review assessments of executive compensation practices at least annually against our defined comparative framework. Our Chief Executive Officer makes recommendations to the Compensation Committee with the intent of keeping our executive officer pay practices aligned with our intended pay philosophy. The Compensation Committee must approve any recommended changes before they can be made.

The Compensation Committee has the authority to retain and terminate any compensation and benefits consultant and the authority to approve the related fees and other retention terms of such consultants.

Governance and Nominating Committee

The Governance and Nominating Committee reports to the Board of Directors on all matters relating to corporate governance of the Company, including the development and recommendation to the Board of Directors of a set of corporate governance principles applicable to the Company, selection, qualification and nomination of the members of the Board of Directors and nominees to the Board of Directors, and administration of the Board’s evaluation process. Each of the members of the Governance and Nominating Committee is independent within the meaning of the NYSE listing standards and the Company’s Corporate Governance Guidelines.

In identifying and considering possible candidates for election as a Director, the Governance and Nominating Committee, after consultation with the Board and the Chief Executive Officer, will consider all relevant factors and will be guided by the following principles: (1) each Director should be an individual of the highest character and integrity; (2) each Director shall have demonstrated exceptional ability and judgment and should have substantial experience which is of particular relevance to the Company; (3) each Director should have sufficient time available to devote to the affairs of the Company; and (4) each Director should represent the best interests of the stockholders as a whole rather than special interest groups. This evaluation is performed in light of the Governance and Nominating Committee’s views as to the needs of the Board of Directors and the Company as well as what skill set and other characteristics would most complement those of the current Directors.

The Governance and Nominating Committee and the Board of Directors consider a diverse group of experiences, characteristics, attributes, and skills, including diversity in gender, ethnicity, race, cultural background, and age, in determining whether an individual is qualified to serve as a Director of the Company. While the Board of Directors does not maintain a formal policy regarding diversity, pursuant to its Charter the Governance and Nominating Committee does consider the diversity of the Board of Directors when considering Director nominees for recommendation to the Board of Directors. The Governance and Nominating Committee and the Board of Directors also consider the composition of the Board of Directors as a whole in evaluating whether a particular individual should serve on the Board of Directors, as the Board of Directors seeks to comprise itself of members which, collectively, possess a range of relevant skills, experience, and expertise.

INFORMATION REGARDING MEETINGS AND COMMITTEES OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS (CONTINUED)

The Governance and Nominating Committee will consider potential candidates recommended by stockholders, current Directors, Company officers, employees and others. The Governance and Nominating Committee will use the above enumerated factors to consider potential candidates regardless of the source of the recommendation. Stockholder recommendations for director nominations may be submitted to the Secretary of the Company at P.O. Box 777, Medina, Ohio 44258, and they will be forwarded to the Governance and Nominating Committee for consideration, provided such recommendations are accompanied by sufficient information to permit the Governance and Nominating Committee to evaluate the qualifications and experience of the potential candidates. Recommendations should include, at a minimum, the following:

Stockholders who desire to nominate a proposed nominee for Director at an Annual Meeting must also comply with the requirements set forth in the By-Laws concerning such nominations.

INFORMATION REGARDING MEETINGS AND COMMITTEES OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS (CONTINUED)

Board Meetings

The Board of Directors held four meetings during the fiscal year ended May 31, 2011. All of the Directors, during the fiscal year ended May 31, 2011, attended at least 75% of the aggregate of (i) the total number of meetings of the Board of Directors held during the period he or she served as a Director and (ii) the total number of meetings held by Committees of the Board of Directors on which the Director served, during the periods that the Director served.

Independent Directors Meetings

Each of the Directors, other than Frank C. Sullivan, is a non-management Director. Each of the non-management Directors, other than Thomas C. Sullivan, was independent within the meaning of the NYSE listing standards and the Company’s Corporate Governance Guidelines during fiscal 2011. The Company’s independent Directors generally meet in executive sessions each year in January, April and July. William B. Summers, Jr. served as the presiding Director for the January, April and July meetings of the Company’s independent Directors in 2011. Charles A. Ratner will serve as the presiding Director for the January, April and July meetings of the Company’s independent Directors in 2012.

Structure of the Board of Directors

The By-Laws provide that one person may hold the position of Chairman of the Board of Directors and Chief Executive Officer. Although a majority of the Company’s Directors are independent, the Board of Directors does not have a lead independent Director. However, as discussed above under “Independent Directors Meetings,” the independent Directors generally meet each year in January, April and July, and an independent Director serves as the presiding Director for each of those meetings. The Chief Executive Officer of the Company currently serves as the Chairman of the Board of Directors. The Board of Directors believes that the Chief Executive Officer is best situated to serve as Chairman because he is one of the Directors most familiar with the Company’s business and industry. The Board of Directors believes that combining the roles of Chief Executive Officer and Chairman of the Board of Directors provides an efficient and effective leadership model for the Company by fostering clear accountability, effective decision-making, and alignment of corporate strategy. The independent Directors bring experience, oversight, and expertise from outside the Company and its industry, while the Chief Executive Officer brings Company and industry-specific experience and expertise. One of the key responsibilities of the Board of Directors is to develop strategic direction and hold management accountable for the execution of management’s strategy once it is developed. The Board of Directors believes the combined role of Chief Executive Officer and Chairman of

the Board of Directors, together with independent Directors having the duties described above, is in the best interests of stockholders because it strikes an appropriate balance for the Company. With the Chief Executive Officer also serving as Chairman of the Board of Directors, there is unified leadership and a focus on strategic development and execution, while the independent Directors help assure independent oversight of management.

Role in Risk Oversight

Risk is inherent in any business and the Company’s management is responsible for the day-to-day management of risks that the Company faces. The Board of Directors, on the other hand, has responsibility for the oversight of risk management. In its risk oversight role, the Board of Directors has the responsibility to evaluate the risk management process to ensure its adequacy and that it is implemented properly by management.

The Board of Directors believes that full and open communication between management and the Board of Directors is essential for effective risk management and oversight. Senior management, which includes the Chief Compliance Officer, attends quarterly meetings of the Board of Directors, as well as certain committee meetings, in order to address any questions or concerns raised by the Board of Directors on risk management and any other matters. Each quarter, the Board of Directors receives presentations from senior management on business operations, financial results, and strategic issues. In addition, senior management holds an annual strategic planning retreat attended by members of the Board of Directors, as well as periodic strategic planning sessions, to discuss strategies, key challenges, and risks and opportunities for the Company. Senior management then reviews the results of each strategic planning session with the Board of Directors.

The Board Committees assist the Board of Directors in fulfilling its oversight responsibilities in certain areas of risk. The Audit Committee assists the Board of Directors in fulfilling its oversight responsibilities with respect to risk management in the areas of financial reporting, internal controls, and compliance with legal and regulatory requirements. Risk assessment reports are regularly provided by management and the Company’s internal auditors to the Audit Committee. The Compensation Committee assists the Board of Directors in fulfilling its oversight responsibilities with respect to the management of risks arising from the Company’s compensation policies and programs, including overseeing the Company’s compensation-related risk assessment described further below in this Proxy Statement. The Governance and Nominating Committee assists the Board of

INFORMATION REGARDING MEETINGS AND COMMITTEES OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS (CONTINUED)

Directors in fulfilling its oversight responsibilities with respect to the management of risks associated with the organization of the Board of Directors and its membership and structure, succession planning for Directors and executive officers, and corporate governance, including the annual monitoring of corporate governance issues, administering Director self-evaluations, and reviewing potential conflicts of interest. All of these Board Committees report back to the full Board of Directors at meetings of the Board of Directors as to the Board Committees’ activities and matters discussed and reviewed at the Board Committees’ meetings. In addition, the Board of Directors is encouraged to participate in external Director education courses to keep apprised of current issues, including areas of risk.

Succession Planning

The Company actively engages in succession planning in order to determine appropriate candidates and leadership talent. While effective succession planning is a fluid process, there are certain annual processes in which the Company engages. Information is gathered and analyzed to assess the staffing of the Company’s key positions to identify and develop employees for such positions. To further this process, an offsite leadership development program is conducted each year for purposes of recognizing the Company’s emerging leaders and uniting them in a three-day formal program with peers and representatives from the Board of Directors. In addition, after completing this leadership development program, certain employees are selected to work with a top-ranked global provider of executive education to enhance senior level personal leadership development and leadership team strategy development.

Communications with the Board of Directors

Stockholders and other persons may communicate with the non-management Directors as a group or any chair of a Board Committee. Such communications may be confidential or anonymous, if so designated, and may be submitted in writing to Board of Directors Communications c/o General Counsel, RPM International Inc., P.O. Box 777, Medina, Ohio 44258 or by email to directors@rpminc.com. Unless specifically directed to one of the Committee chairs, communications will be forwarded to the presiding Director for the next scheduled meeting of independent Directors.

All communications received in accordance with these procedures will be reviewed initially by the Company’s General Counsel, who will relay all such communications (or a summary thereof) to the appropriate Director or Directors unless he determines that such communication:

In the alternative to the procedures outlined above, any stockholder or interested party may report any suspected accounting or financial misconduct confidentially through our compliance hotline. Information regarding our compliance hotline is available on our website, www.rpminc.com.

Attendance at Annual Meetings of Stockholders

It is a policy of the Board of Directors that all its members attend the Annual Meeting absent exceptional cause. All of the Directors who were at that time members of the Board of Directors were present at the October 2010 Annual Meeting.

PROPOSAL TWO

ADVISORY VOTE ON EXECUTIVE COMPENSATION

The recently enacted Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act of 2010, or the Dodd-Frank Act, contains a provision that is commonly known as “Say-on-Pay.” Say-on-Pay gives our stockholders an opportunity to vote on an advisory, non-binding basis to approve the compensation of our named executive officers as disclosed in this Proxy Statement pursuant to Commission rules.

This vote is not intended to address any specific item of compensation, but rather the overall compensation of our named executive officers and the executive compensation program and practices described in this Proxy Statement. Please read the Compensation Discussion and Analysis and the executive compensation tables and narrative disclosure for a detailed explanation of our executive compensation program and practices. Accordingly, we are asking our stockholders to vote “FOR” the following resolution:

“RESOLVED, that RPM International Inc.’s stockholders hereby approve, on an advisory basis, the compensation of the named executive officers as disclosed pursuant to the compensation disclosure rules of the Commission, including the Compensation Discussion and Analysis, the compensation tables and any related material disclosed in this Proxy Statement.”

We are focused on delivering operating results with the ultimate goal of creating and maximizing value for our stockholders on a long-term basis. Our compensation programs and practices have been designed to drive those results, and they have served our Company well. For fiscal 2011, 66.5% of the amounts of the principal compensation components for our named executive officers in the aggregate was variable and tied to our performance. Our compensation programs and practices have been integral to our success in attracting and retaining an experienced and effective management team.

PROPOSAL TWO (CONTINUED)

Consistent with our focus on delivering sustained long-term operating results, our diluted net income per share of common stock increased from $0.62 per share in 2001 to $1.45 per share in 2011, for a compound annual growth rate of 8.9%. In addition, over the past 10 years, our sales grew at a compound annual growth rate of 5.5%. Our stockholders have been rewarded for this performance over this 10-year period, enjoying a compound annual growth rate in cumulative total return, including the reinvestment of

dividends, of 15.3%, compared to the compound annual growth rate in cumulative total return for the S&P 500 of 2.6%. In addition, 2011 marked our 37th consecutive year of increased dividends. The following table shows the cumulative total stockholder return, including the reinvestment of dividends, of shares of our common stock compared to the S&P 500 and a peer group as described in the accompanying Annual Report over the past 10 years.

PROPOSAL TWO (CONTINUED)

This advisory vote on executive compensation is not binding on us. However, the Board and the Compensation Committee highly value the opinions of our stockholders. To the extent there is a significant vote against this proposal, we will seek to determine the reasons for our stockholders’ concerns, and the Compensation Committee will evaluate whether any actions are necessary to address those concerns when making future executive compensation decisions.

Proposal Two will be decided by the vote of the holders of a majority of the shares entitled to vote thereon present in

person or by proxy at the Annual Meeting. In voting for Proposal Two, votes may be cast in favor, against or abstained. Abstentions will count as present and will have the effect of a vote against Proposal Two. Broker non-votes, however, are not counted as present for purposes of determining whether Proposal Two has been approved, and will have no effect on the outcome of Proposal Two.

Our Board of Directors unanimously recommends a vote FOR Proposal Two relating to the advisory vote on executive compensation.

PROPOSAL THREE

ADVISORY VOTE ON THE FREQUENCY OF

FUTURE EXECUTIVE COMPENSATION VOTES

The Dodd-Frank Act also contains a provision enabling our stockholders to indicate how frequently we should have a “Say on Pay” vote. You may cast your vote on your preferred voting frequency by choosing the option of every three years, every two years, every year, or abstain from voting.

Although this vote is advisory and not binding, the Board of Directors and the Company highly value the opinions of our stockholders, and will consider the outcome of this vote when determining the frequency of future stockholder votes on

executive compensation. We are not making a recommendation on the frequency of holding future Say on Pay votes because we would like to consider the views of our stockholders before making a determination.

The option of every three, two, or one years that receives the most votes cast by stockholders will be considered the advisory vote of the stockholders.

Our Board of Directors is not making a recommendation on whether future Say on Pay votes should occur every three, two, or one years.

EXECUTIVE COMPENSATION

Compensation Discussion and Analysis

Overview

RPM’s compensation programs are designed to support our founder’s philosophy:

Our general compensation philosophy is performance-based in that our executive officers should be well compensated for achieving strong operating results. We seek to compensate our executive officers at a fair level of compensation which reflects RPM’s positive operating financial results, the relative skills and experience of the individuals involved, peer group compensation levels and other similar benchmarks.

The Compensation Committee has designed compensation policies and programs for our executive officers which are intended to compensate the executive officers at about the market median for a relevant group of similarly-sized companies and competitors within RPM’s industry, with the potential for higher than average compensation when our

performance levels exceed our annual business plan. Our primary compensation goals are to retain key leaders, reward past performance, incentivize strong future performance and align executives’ long-term interests with those of our stockholders.

Role of the Compensation Committee

The Compensation Committee Charter provides for the Compensation Committee to oversee RPM’s compensation programs and, in consultation with the Chief Executive Officer, develop and recommend to the Board of Directors an appropriate compensation and benefits philosophy and strategy for RPM. The Compensation Committee consists of four independent Directors (and one alternate member) who are appointed to the Compensation Committee by, and report to, the entire Board of Directors. Each member of the Compensation Committee, as well as the alternate member, qualifies as a “non-employee director” within the definition of Rule 16b-3 under the Exchange Act, as an “outside director” within the meaning of Section 162(m) of the Internal Revenue Code, and as an “independent” director under the rules of the NYSE. The Compensation Committee Charter is available on our website at www.rpminc.com.

Pearl Meyer reviewed both published survey and peer group proxy data to determine competitive pay levels for each officer position for the following elements of compensation: base salary, target annual incentive opportunity, target total cash compensation (base salary plus target annual incentives), and target total direct compensation (target total cash compensation plus long-term incentive compensation). Two

primary surveys were used by Pearl Meyer in its analysis: the Mercer 2008 Executive Compensation Survey and the Watson Wyatt 2008/2009 Survey on Top Management Compensation. Based on its analysis and findings, Pearl Meyer concluded that the Company’s target total direct compensation levels were competitive with the market median.

EXECUTIVE COMPENSATION (CONTINUED)

Towers Watson gave its preliminary report to the Compensation Committee at its July 2010 meeting recommending PCRS awards yielding 55th to 65th percentile annualized long-term incentive values for achieving strategic plan results that are in the peers’ historical second quartile performance. In October 2010, the Compensation Committee approved contingent awards of PCRS for our named executive officers. See “Equity Compensation – Performance Contingent Restricted Stock (PCRS)” for more information about these PCRS awards.

For services performed by Towers Watson relating solely to work performed for, and at the direction of, the Compensation Committee, Towers Watson was paid $20,000 by the Company. Towers Watson also provided other services to the Company in fiscal 2010, including other non-executive compensation consulting services and advice relating to employee compensation and programs, for which Towers Watson was paid $249,263 by the Company. In fiscal 2011, Towers Watson provided services to the Company, including non-executive compensation consulting services and advice relating to employee compensation and programs, for which Towers Watson was paid $141,222 by the Company. The decision to engage Towers Watson for such other services was made by management and not approved by the

Compensation Committee or the Board of Directors.

Elements of Compensation

Our named executive officer compensation program for fiscal 2011 included three main elements:

Pay Mix

We use these particular elements of compensation because we believe that they provide a balanced mix of fixed compensation and at-risk compensation that produces short-term and long-term performance incentives and rewards. With this balanced portfolio, we provide the executive with a competitive base salary while motivating the executive to focus on the business metrics that will produce a high level of performance for the Company and provide the executive with additional compensation through short- and long-term incentives.

The mix of compensation for our named executive officers is weighted toward at-risk pay (consisting of cash and equity compensation). In October 2010, our Compensation Committee granted long-term incentive awards in order to continue to weight the mix of compensation for our named executive officers toward at-risk pay. Maintaining this pay mix will result in a pay-for-performance orientation, which aligns to our compensation philosophy of paying total direct compensation that is competitive with peer group levels based on relative company performance.

Role of Executives in Determining Compensation

Our Chief Executive Officer and our President and Chief Operating Officer, together with the Compensation Committee, review assessments of executive compensation practices at least annually against our defined comparative framework. These assessments involve the gathering of compensation data, such as base salary, cash incentive and equity awards for similarly situated officers at companies in the diversified chemicals and specialty chemicals segments of the Company’s industry which fall within a reasonable size range (in terms of sales) and operate businesses similar to that of the Company. See “Comparative Framework” for more information about this review. With this information in hand, and as stated on the previous page under the heading

EXECUTIVE COMPENSATION (CONTINUED)

“Overview,” the executive officers identified above recommend to the Compensation Committee levels of compensation that are “at about the market median for a relevant group of similarly-sized companies and competitors within RPM’s industry” and aligned with our intended pay philosophy. After receiving the recommendations of the executive officers identified above, the Compensation Committee meets without the executive officers present to consider their recommendations. The Compensation Committee must approve any recommended changes before they can be made.

Base Salary

Base salary represents amounts paid during the fiscal year to named executive officers as direct compensation for their services to us. Base salary and increases to base salary recognize the overall experience, position and responsibilities within RPM and expected contributions to RPM of each named executive officer. Adjustments to salaries are used to reward superior individual performance of our named executive officers on a day-to-day basis during the year and to encourage them to perform at their highest levels. We also use our base salary to retain top quality executives and attract management employees from other companies.

In July 2011, our Chief Executive Officer recommended to the Compensation Committee an increase in the base salary for each of the named executive officers for fiscal 2012. As in the past, this recommendation was based upon an analysis of:

The base salary amounts for fiscal 2012, which were effective as of June 1, 2011, are: Mr. Frank C. Sullivan, $875,000; Mr. Rice, $650,000; Mr. Hoogenboom, $370,000; Mr. Matejka, $350,000; and Mr. Moore, $260,000.

The base salary amounts for fiscal 2011 were: Mr. Frank C. Sullivan, $850,000; Mr. Rice, $620,000; Mr. Hoogenboom, $357,000; Mr. Matejka, $340,000; and Mr. Moore, $250,000.

In response to the deteriorating economic conditions during fiscal 2009, the Company initiated several major initiatives to control costs, including implementing a hiring and salary freeze. As a result, upon the recommendation of our Chief Executive Officer, our named executive officers received no increase in base salary for fiscal 2010, other than Mr. Rice who received an increase in connection with his promotion to President.

With respect to the setting of base salaries, the items listed above: (i) operating results; (ii) a comparison of Five-Year Cumulative Total Returns among RPM, the S&P 500 Index and proxy statement peer group of companies; and (iii) base salary and bonus compensation information for 2010 and 2011 and proposed amounts for 2012, are analyzed to arrive at a target percentage increase for base salaries. Operating results and Five-Year Cumulative Total Returns are important to gauge whether the Company is keeping pace with its peer group, and if not, whether an increase in base salary would be defensible given RPM’s relative performance versus its peers. Finally, historical and proposed compensation information is important to the analysis to ensure that the individual officer’s compensation, given the individual officer’s experience, position and responsibilities, exhibits a logical progression supported by the Company’s operating results and the comparison of the Company’s performance to its peer group of companies.

Annual Cash Incentive Compensation

For fiscal 2011, we provided annual cash incentive compensation under the Amended and Restated 1995 Incentive Compensation Plan, which was designed to motivate participants to achieve our financial objectives and reward executives for their achievements when those objectives are met. All named executive officers who are Covered Employees under Section 162(m) of the Internal Revenue Code, namely the Chief Executive Officer and the next three highest paid executive officers, excluding the Chief Financial Officer, participated in the fiscal 2011 incentives. In addition, although Mr. Matejka, our Chief Financial Officer, is not a Covered Employee by definition and Mr. Moore did not become a Covered Employee until this Proxy Statement, the Compensation Committee evaluated Messrs. Matejka and Moore under similar performance criteria in awarding incentive compensation as used to determine the cash incentive compensation of the other named executive officers. The amount of cash incentive compensation earned by our named executive officers in fiscal 2011 is set forth in the “Non-Equity Incentive Plan Compensation” column of the Summary Compensation Table. We paid these amounts in July 2011.

In July 2010, the Compensation Committee determined, on a percentage basis, the portion of the aggregate cash incentive compensation award pool under the Incentive Compensation Plan, or the Incentive Plan, to be awarded to each of the Covered Employees in respect of the Company’s performance for the fiscal year ending May 31, 2011 as follows: Mr. Frank C. Sullivan, 40%; Mr. Rice, 30%; and Mr. Hoogenboom, 15%. The Compensation Committee determined for fiscal 2011 that the cash incentives paid would range from zero to

EXECUTIVE COMPENSATION (CONTINUED)

150% of salary with a target of 100% of salary; provided, however, that Mr. Moore’s cash incentive paid would range from zero to 60% of his salary, as he did not become a Covered Employee until this Proxy Statement. The Compensation Committee may reduce or eliminate the amount of a named executive officer’s annual cash incentive award, at the Compensation Committee’s sole discretion, based solely on individual performance.

The Incentive Plan in place for fiscal 2011 provided for an aggregate cash incentive compensation award pool of 1.5% of our pre-tax income for fiscal 2011. In July 2011, the Compensation Committee calculated the aggregate non-equity compensation award pool based on our audited pre-tax income and each individual’s cash incentive payout amount. For fiscal 2011, the Company’s reported pre-tax income was $295.0 million, providing a cash incentive compensation award pool under the Incentive Plan for the Covered Employees of approximately $4.4 million. Upon the recommendation of our Chief Executive Officer, and after a review of a variety of factors described below, the Compensation Committee awarded cash incentives totaling $2,215,000 to the Covered Employees, which was significantly below the aggregate amount authorized to be paid pursuant to the award pool formula. The cash incentive compensation paid to the Covered Employees equaled approximately 120% of their salary for fiscal 2011.

In July 2011, the Compensation Committee determined, on a percentage basis, the portion of the aggregate cash incentive award pool under the Incentive Plan to be awarded to each of the Covered Employees under Section 162(m) of the Internal Revenue Code in respect of the Company’s performance for the fiscal year ending May 31, 2012 as follows: Mr. Frank C. Sullivan, 40%; Mr. Rice, 30%; Mr. Hoogenboom, 15%; and Mr. Moore, 15%. Mr. Matejka, the Chief Financial Officer of the Company, although not a Covered Employee under the Section 162(m) definition, is eligible to receive cash incentive compensation for fiscal 2012 based on the same performance criteria as the Covered Employees listed above. The Compensation Committee also determined that for fiscal 2012 the cash incentive compensation paid would range from zero to 150% of salary with a target of 100% of salary.

The named executive officers during fiscal 2011 had financially measured performance objectives that were the same as the corporate performance objectives described below. These performance objectives are evaluated independently, and it is not necessary to obtain each performance objective to receive an award.

The corporate performance objectives that were targeted are as follows:

As disclosed above, the Incentive Plan in place for fiscal 2011 provided for an aggregate cash incentive compensation award pool of approximately $4.4 million. The maximum portion of the award pool that each Covered Employee could be awarded was: Mr. Frank C. Sullivan – 40% or $1,760,000; Mr. Rice – 30% or $1,320,000; and Mr. Hoogenboom – 15% or $670,000. However, the Compensation Committee had set a maximum award of 150% of the Covered Employee’s base salary as a limit, with a target award of 100% of the Covered Employee’s base salary. As a result, the maximum award that could be earned by the Covered Employee was: Mr. Frank C. Sullivan – $1,275,000; Mr. Rice – $930,000; and Mr. Hoogenboom – $535,500. The actual awards were as follows: Mr. Frank C. Sullivan, $1,020,000; Mr. Rice, $750,000; and Mr. Hoogenboom, $445,000.

In determining the actual incentive compensation awards for fiscal 2011 for Messrs. Frank C. Sullivan, Rice, Hoogenboom and Matejka, the following criteria were considered: (i) if the Company achieved its planned percentage increase of earnings before interest and taxes, the named executive would receive an award equal to 50% of his base salary; (ii) if the Company achieved revenue growth of 8% or above, the named executive would receive an additional award equal to 30% of his base salary; (iii) the named executive could earn an additional award of up to 30% of his base salary if the Company achieved exceptional growth in financially measured objectives, such as gross margin improvement or improvement in return on invested capital or capital adjusted net earnings; and (iv) the Chief Executive Officer, in the exercise of his discretion, could award the named executive an additional award of up to 40% of his base salary based on the achievement of non-financially measured management objectives. Based on the achievement by the Company of the first two criteria listed above (for 50% and 30% of the named executive’s base salary, respectively) and portions of the third and fourth criteria listed above (for 25% and 15% of the named executive’s base salary, respectively), these named executives each were awarded incentive compensation equal to approximately 120% of their base salaries. For these named executives, the portion of their incentive compensation

EXECUTIVE COMPENSATION (CONTINUED)

based on achievement of non-financially measured management objectives was awarded based upon each such named executive’s involvement in the Company’s merger and acquisition transactions in fiscal 2011 and the Company’s overall return to stockholders versus both the market and the Company’s peers, as determined in the discretion of the Chief Executive Officer. In addition, Mr. Moore was awarded 60% of his base salary based upon (i) the Company’s achievement of its planned percentage increase of earnings before interest and taxes, (ii) consideration of compensation provided to executives at similarly-situated companies relative to Mr. Moore’s duties and responsibilities, and (iii) achievement of non-financially measured objectives, including involvement in the Company’s merger and acquisition transactions in fiscal 2011 and the Company’s overall return to stockholders versus both the market and the Company’s peers, as determined in the discretion of the Chief Executive Officer.

Equity Compensation

We use equity compensation to align our named executive officers’ interests with those of our stockholders and to attract and retain high-caliber executives through recognition of anticipated future performance. Under our Omnibus Equity and Incentive Plan, or Omnibus Plan, we can grant a variety of stock-based awards, including awards of restricted stock and stock appreciation rights. After reviewing executive compensation practices against our defined comparative framework, including reviewing equity awards for similarly situated officers at companies in the diversified chemicals and speciality chemicals segments of the Company’s industry which fall within a reasonable size range (in terms of sales) and operate businesses similar to that of the Company, our Chief Executive Officer makes annual recommendations to the Compensation Committee of the type and amount of equity awards for the Chief Executive Officer and other executive officers. In determining the equity incentive compensation component of Chief Executive Officer compensation, the Compensation Committee considers, in addition to the factors used to determine salary and cash incentive compensation:

In determining the equity incentive compensation of the other executive officers, the Compensation Committee reviews and approves a mix of business plan goals, with a significant amount of emphasis placed on the compensation recommendations of the Chief Executive Officer. After receiving the Chief Executive Officer’s recommendations, the Compensation Committee meets without the Chief Executive

Officer present to consider his recommendations. The Compensation Committee must approve any recommended equity grants before they can be made.

The Compensation Committee uses the various equity incentive awards available to it under the Omnibus Plan to retain executives and other key employees and achieve the following additional goals:

The Compensation Committee’s current intention is to achieve these goals by making annual awards to the Company’s executive officers and other key employees, using a combination of performance-based restricted stock and stock-settled stock appreciation rights.

Performance Earned Restricted Stock (PERS). The Compensation Committee awards Performance Earned Restricted Stock, or PERS, under the Omnibus Plan. The threshold and maximum number of and performance goals for the award of PERS for a given fiscal year are set in July of that year. Beginning with fiscal 2010, the determination of whether and to what extent the PERS have been achieved for a fiscal year is made at the July meeting of the Compensation Committee following the close of that fiscal year. In years prior to fiscal 2010, the determination of whether and to what extent the PERS had been achieved for a fiscal year was made at the October meeting of the Compensation Committee following the close of that fiscal year. Based on that determination, the actual grants, if any, with respect to a fiscal year are made at that same meeting. For example, with respect to fiscal 2009, the maximum number and performance goals were set in July 2008 and the Compensation Committee determined whether and to what extent the PERS were achieved at its meeting in October 2009. However, based on that determination, no grants were made by the Compensation Committee at the October 2009 meeting. With respect to fiscal 2011, the maximum number and performance goals were set in July 2010 and the Compensation Committee determined whether and to what extent the PERS were achieved at its meeting in July 2011.

The percentage of shares with respect to which the performance goal has been achieved is determined by

EXECUTIVE COMPENSATION (CONTINUED)

reference to the percentage increase of planned earnings before interest and taxes which is attained. In making the determination of whether the planned increase has been attained, the actual fiscal year results are adjusted for the exclusion of restructuring, asbestos and other similar charges or credits that are not central to the Company’s operations as shown on the Company’s financial statements as certified by the Company’s independent registered public accounting firm. If less than 75% of the planned increase is attained, then the performance goal will not be achieved with respect to any shares. If 75% to 100% of the planned increase is attained, then the performance goal will be achieved with respect to an equivalent percentage of shares. For example, if 91% of the planned increase is attained, then the performance goal will be achieved with respect to a maximum amount of 91% of the shares. The percentage of the planned increase attained will be rounded down to the closest whole number (e.g., 85.5% would be rounded down to 85%). If more than 100% of the planned increase is attained, then the performance goal will be achieved with respect to 100% of the shares.

In July 2010, pursuant to the Omnibus Plan, the Compensation Committee approved a contingent award of PERS to the Covered Employees of up to 200,000 shares (including 100,000 shares for the Chief Executive Officer) to be based on the level of attainment of fiscal 2011 performance goals related to an increase in planned earnings before interest and taxes. In July 2010, the Compensation Committee established a 5.1% increase in adjusted earnings before interest and taxes over fiscal 2010 levels as the target for purposes of determining the amount of PERS awards earned by the named executive officers with respect to fiscal 2011. The actual increase in adjusted earnings before interest and taxes for fiscal 2011 over fiscal 2010 was 15.4%. As a result, the maximum amount of PERS could have been granted. However, the Compensation Committee elected to reduce the number of PERS awarded to the Covered Employees. The PERS granted to each of the named executive officers are set forth below in the Grants of Plan-Based Awards for Fiscal 2011 table.

Stock Appreciation Rights (SARs). In October 2010, pursuant to the Omnibus Plan, the Compensation Committee awarded Stock Appreciation Rights, or SARs, totaling 350,000 shares to the executive officers. In July 2011, pursuant to the Omnibus Plan, the Compensation Committee awarded SARs totaling 350,000 shares to the executive officers. The SARs awards granted to the named executive officers in October 2010 and July 2011 are set forth below in the Grants of Plan-Based Awards for Fiscal 2011 table.

Supplemental Executive Retirement Plan (SERP) Restricted Stock. The RPM International Inc. 2007 Restricted Stock Plan was established to provide for the cash payment of supplemental retirement and death benefits to officers and other key employees of the Company designated by the Board of Directors whose retirement plan benefits may be limited under applicable law and the Internal Revenue Code. In July 2010, the Compensation Committee awarded 27,785 shares of restricted stock to the executive officers under the 2007 Restricted Stock Plan.

Performance Contingent Restricted Stock (PCRS). In July 2007, the Compensation Committee approved contingent awards of Performance Contingent Restricted Stock, or PCRS, to the named executive officers. The purpose of the 2007 PCRS awards was to provide an added incentive to key officers to improve the long-term performance of the Company. The Compensation Committee determined that the 2007 PCRS awards were appropriate to continue the long-term incentive opportunity to key officers that was previously satisfied by awards under the Company’s 2002 Performance Accelerated Restricted Stock (PARS) Plan, which was terminated on July 17, 2007. The 2007 PCRS awards were made pursuant to the Omnibus Plan and were contingent upon the level of attainment of performance goals for the three-year period from June 1, 2007 ending May 31, 2010. On July 19, 2010, the Compensation Committee determined that the requisite performance goals for the 2007 PCRS awards had not been achieved for the three-year period ended May 31, 2010, and as a result the 2007 PCRS awards of 187,000 shares were forfeited back to the Company by the named executive officers as of such date.

In October 2010, the Compensation Committee approved contingent awards of PCRS to Messrs. Frank C. Sullivan, Rice, Hoogenboom and Moore, of up to 435,000 shares (subject to a grant limit for each individual of no more than 175,000 shares of PCRS and PERS, in the aggregate, during any one fiscal year). The purpose of the 2010 PCRS awards is to provide an added incentive to key officers to improve the long-term performance of the Company. The 2010 PCRS awards were made pursuant to the Omnibus Plan and are contingent upon the level of attainment of performance goals for the three-year and five-year periods from June 1, 2010 ending May 31, 2013, and from June 1, 2010 ending May 31, 2015, respectively. The determination of whether and to what extent the 2010 PCRS awards are achieved for such periods will be made following the close of each of fiscal year 2013 and fiscal year 2015, respectively.

For the three-year period ending May 31, 2013 and the five-year period ending May 31, 2015, the percentage of PCRS

EXECUTIVE COMPENSATION (CONTINUED)

with respect to which the performance goals have been achieved for each such period will be determined by reference to the increase in earnings before interest expense and income tax expense (“EBIT”) for each such period. In making the determination of what increase in EBIT has been achieved, actual results will be adjusted for the exclusion of restructuring, asbestos and other similar unusual charges or credits that are not central to the operations of the Company as shown on the Company’s consolidated financial statements as audited by the Company’s independent registered public accounting firm. If the increase in EBIT is less than 75% of the planned increase in EBIT for a performance period, then the performance goal will not be achieved with respect to any PCRS for the period. If the increase in EBIT is 75% to 100% of the planned increase in EBIT for a performance period, then the performance goal will be achieved with respect to an equivalent percentage of PCRS for the period. The percentage of EBIT attained will be rounded down to the closest whole number. If the increase in EBIT is more than 100% of the planned increase in EBIT for a performance period, then the performance goal will be achieved with respect to 100% of the PCRS for the period.

Up to one-half of an individual’s aggregate PCRS grant may vest at the end of the three-year performance period, and the remainder of an individual’s aggregate PCRS grant may vest at the end of the five-year performance period, if the performance goals for such periods are achieved, in each case multiplied by the percentages set forth above. The percentage of PCRS with respect to which the performance goals are not achieved will be forfeited. The Compensation Committee set the performance goals related to the 2010 PCRS awards at levels it believed to be achievable but would require the Company to meaningfully grow earnings.

Timing of Equity Grants

Equity grants are made in July and October at regularly scheduled meetings of the Compensation Committee. Board and Compensation Committee meetings are generally scheduled at least a year in advance. Scheduling decisions are made without regard to anticipated earnings or other major announcements by the Company.

Employment Agreements and Related Arrangements

We are a party to the following employment agreements with our named executive officers:

Pursuant to the employment agreements, each of Messrs. Frank C. Sullivan, Rice, Hoogenboom and Moore serves for a term ending on May 31, 2011, which is automatically extended for additional one-year periods unless either party gives the other party notice of nonrenewal two months in advance of the annual renewal date. In accordance with these automatic extension provisions, the employment agreement with each of these named executive officers has been extended to May 31, 2012. Each of Messrs. Frank C. Sullivan, Rice, Hoogenboom and Moore is also eligible to receive such annual cash incentive compensation or bonuses as our Compensation Committee may determine based upon our results of operations and other relevant factors. Messrs. Frank C. Sullivan, Rice, Hoogenboom and Moore are also generally entitled to participate in our employee benefit plans. Under the employment agreements, each of these named executive officers is entitled to receive fringe benefits in line with our present practice relating to the officer’s position, including the use of the most recent model of a full-sized automobile.

Mr. Matejka has been Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of the Company since April 30, 2010. Mr. Matejka’s compensation consists of an annual base salary of $350,000 effective through May 31, 2012, and eligibility to participate in the Company’s performance bonus program. Furthermore, Mr. Matejka is entitled to receive fringe benefits in line with our present practice relating to his position, including the use of a full-sized automobile. In connection with his election as an executive officer on April 30, 2010, the Company and Mr. Matejka entered into an agreement that contains change in control provisions substantially similar to those contained in the Company’s employment agreements with its other named executive officers.

EXECUTIVE COMPENSATION (CONTINUED)

See “Other Potential Post-Employment Compensation” for a discussion of additional terms of the employment agreements and Mr. Matejka’s change in control agreement related to restrictive covenants and potential post-employment compensation.

Post-Employment Compensation and Change in Control

Each of the employment agreements with Messrs. Frank C. Sullivan, Rice, Hoogenboom and Moore, and the change in control agreement with Mr. Matejka, provides for payments and other benefits if the named executive officer’s employment terminates under certain circumstances, such as being terminated without cause within two years of a change in control. We believe that these payments and other benefits are important to recruiting and retaining our named executive officers, as many of the companies with which we compete for executive talent provide for similar payments to their senior employees. Additional information regarding these payments and other benefits is found under the heading “Other Potential Post-Employment Compensation.”

Section 162(m) of the Internal Revenue Code

In the course of fulfilling its responsibilities, the Compensation Committee routinely reviews the impact of Section 162(m) of the Internal Revenue Code, which disallows a tax deduction for certain compensation paid in excess of $1,000,000 to the Chief Executive Officer and the next three highest paid executive officers of the Company, excluding the Chief Financial Officer. The regulations under Section 162(m), however, except from this $1,000,000 limit various forms of compensation, including “performance-based” compensation. The Company’s performance-based Incentive Plan, described above, and the Omnibus Plan satisfy the requirements of this Section 162(m) exemption. Although the Compensation Committee carefully considers the impact of Section 162(m) when administering the Company’s compensation programs, the Compensation Committee does not make decisions regarding executive compensation solely based on the expected tax treatment of such compensation. In order to maintain flexibility in designing compensation programs that retain key leaders, reward past performance, incentivize strong future performance and align executives’ long-term interests with stockholders, the Compensation Committee may deem it appropriate at times to forgo Section 162(m) qualified awards in favor of awards that may not be fully tax-deductible. This has occurred, for example, when the Company’s operating results were adversely impacted by restructuring, asbestos or other non-operating charges, yet the Company performed significantly better than its business plan notwithstanding the charges.

Perks and Other Benefits

Our named executive officers participate in various employee benefit plans that are generally available to all employees and on the same terms and conditions as with respect to other similarly situated employees. These include normal and customary programs for life insurance, health insurance, prescription drug insurance, dental insurance, short and long term disability insurance, pension benefits, and matching gifts for charitable contributions. While these benefits are considered to be an important and appropriate employment benefit for all employees, they are not considered to be a material component of a named executive officer’s annual

compensation program. Because the named executive officers receive these benefits on the same basis as other employees, these benefits are not established or determined by the Compensation Committee separately for each named executive officer as part of the named executive officer’s annual compensation package.

In addition, we maintain a 401(k) retirement savings plan for the benefit of all of our employees, including our named executive officers. In fiscal 2011, we provided a Company match of up to 4% of the qualified retirement plan compensation limit per employee, which executives also were able to receive. RPM’s company match is fully vested to all employees, including executives, at the time of contribution. As is the case with all employees, named executive officers are not taxed on their contributions to the 401(k) retirement savings plan or earnings on those contributions until they receive distributions from the 401(k) retirement savings plan, and all RPM contributions are tax deductible by us when made.

During fiscal 2011 we provided car allowances to our named executive officers. Also during fiscal 2011, we made periodic executive physical examinations available to each named executive officer and provided financial and estate planning to Messrs. Frank C. Sullivan and Rice. In addition, we paid executive life insurance premiums for the benefit of our named executive officers.

We periodically review the perquisites that named executive officers receive.

Other Plans

In addition to the above described plans, the Company offers a tax qualified defined benefit retirement plan. Information about this plan can be found under the heading “Pension Benefits for Fiscal 2011.” The Company also offers a deferred compensation plan. Under this plan, selected management employees, certain highly compensated employees and

EXECUTIVE COMPENSATION (CONTINUED)

Directors are eligible to defer a portion of their salary, bonus, incentive plan amounts and Director fees until a future date. A participant’s account will be credited with investment gains or losses as if the amounts credited to the account were invested in selected investment funds. Any compensation deferred under the plan is not included in the $1,000,000 limit provided for under Section 162(m) of the Internal Revenue Code until the year in which the compensation actually is paid. Additional information about this plan can be found under the heading, “Nonqualified Deferred Compensation for Fiscal 2011.”

Report of the Compensation Committee

The Compensation Committee has reviewed and discussed the Compensation Discussion and Analysis required by Item 402(b) of Regulation S-K with the Company’s management and legal counsel. Based on that review and discussion, the Committee recommended to the Board of Directors that the Compensation Discussion and Analysis be included in the Company’s Annual Report on Form 10-K and in the Company’s definitive proxy statement prepared in connection with its 2011 Annual Meeting of Stockholders.

COMPENSATION COMMITTEE

Charles A. Ratner, Chairman

John P. Abizaid

David A. Daberko

Dr. Jerry Sue Thornton

The above Report of the Compensation Committee does not constitute soliciting material and should not be deemed filed with the Commission or subject to Regulation 14A or 14C

(other than as provided in Item 407 of Regulation S-K) or to the liabilities of Section 18 of the Exchange Act, except to the extent that the Company specifically requests that the information in this Report be treated as soliciting material or specifically incorporates it by reference into a document filed under the Securities Act of 1933 (the “Securities Act”) or the Exchange Act. If this Report is incorporated by reference into the Company’s Annual Report on Form 10-K, such disclosure will be furnished in such Annual Report on Form 10-K and will not be deemed incorporated by reference into any filing under the Securities Act or the Exchange Act as a result of furnishing the disclosure in this manner.

Compensation-Related Risk Assessment

The Compensation Committee considers risks related to the attraction and retention of talent and risks relating to the design of compensation programs and arrangements affecting executive officers and employees. Our compensation programs reward outstanding performance by our operating companies, and do not encourage excessive risk taking on the part of our executive officers and employees. After considering the Company’s compensation program as a whole and receiving the input of the Compensation Committee, we have concluded that risks arising from our compensation policies and practices applicable to our employees are not reasonably likely to have a material adverse effect on the Company. In reaching that conclusion, we considered, among other things, the general performance-based philosophy of our compensation program, the material consistency of our compensation structure throughout all key employee levels of the Company, the balance of long and short term components of compensation, and the Company’s risk profile generally.

EXECUTIVE COMPENSATION (CONTINUED)

EXECUTIVE COMPENSATION (CONTINUED)

EXECUTIVE COMPENSATION (CONTINUED)