Compensation Discussion and Analysis

A N OTE FROM THE B ELDEN C OMPENSATION C OMMITTEE

Valued Belden Stockholders:

The Committee would like to thank Belden’s stockholders for another year of loyal support in 2015. For the fourth consecutive year, our Say-on-Pay proposal was supported by over 97% of the voted shares. This illustrates to us that: (1) the stockholders understand and support the Company’s strategy, (2) the stockholders agree that the compensation structure is well aligned with strategy and (3) the stockholders believe in the management team and there is an open line of communication between management and stockholders. Continuous engagement with the investment community is a top priority for Belden management and our consistent Say-on-Pay support signals to us that management is executing well on this priority.

That being said, 2015 was a challenging year for U.S. multinational management teams. For Belden in particular, in a year that began with the successful completion of the strategically significant Tripwire acquisition, the focus was quickly redirected. The simultaneous strengthening of the U.S. dollar and decline in oil prices impacted demand environment within several end markets. Additionally, softness with advertising spend, a source of revenue to our broadcast customers led to a temporary pause in capital spending within the industry. Overall, the diverse portfolio and the ability of the management team to quickly recognize and react to these challenges allowed Belden navigate these challenges well. The effectiveness of the Belden business system is reflected in the record EBITDA margins and strong share capture in a year which many peers reacted too late.

We acknowledge, however, the impact that the market disruptions had on equity prices in 2015. Challenging market conditions are the true test of a compensation program’s design. We believe that the Belden program is performing appropriately in these circumstances. The shorter term cash incentive plan allowed us to reward accomplishments against pre-determined objectives in areas that reflect the underlying health of the business. On the other hand, the longer term incentives provided to our executives will only result in realizable compensation if our stockholders likewise benefit from significant stock price appreciation. It is noteworthy that of the compensation shown in the Summary Compensation Table below, 68.9% of the compensation disclosed for our CEO and 56.3% for the NEOs as a whole is composed of equity grants without any current value. However, the three-year measurement period for the performance stock units and the ten-year life of the stock appreciation rights will properly incentivize the team to drive the performance needed to maximize stockholder value. On that basis and the remainder of the materials that follow, we believe that you will continue to agree that we are doing our job of aligning pay with performance.

Therefore, we request your support for Belden’s 2016 Say-on-Pay proposal and the other compensation related proposals contained in this document. If at any time you would like to discuss the compensation program, we are available to address your questions. Thank you for your consideration.

The Belden Inc. Compensation Committee

I.      Introduction

In this section, we discuss our compensation program as it pertains to our chief executive officer, our chief financial officer, and our three other most highly compensated executive officers who were serving at the end of 2015. We refer to these five persons throughout as the “named executive officers” or our “NEOs”.

II.      Executive Summary

As noted by our Compensation Committee above, 2015 was marked by steady performance despite a mixed macroeconomic environment. We began the year by successfully completing the acquisition of Tripwire, a cybersecurity asset that we will be able to leverage across all of our served markets as demand for security in connected applications continues to increase. As we made our way through the first half of 2015, it became clear that lower oil prices and a stronger US dollar would impact the demand from several end markets within the Broadcast and Industrial platforms. Despite these impediments, the business as a whole performed well, with strong performance in our enterprise solutions, broadband connectivity and network security businesses. Productivity improvement programs during the year will allow Belden to continue to protect, and in some platforms expand, its margin profile. Some financial highlights of the consolidated business included the following (see the Company’s Form 8-K filed on February 9, 2016 for a reconciliation of GAAP financial measures to non-GAAP measures):

The Company’s 2015 overall financial results and the individual performance of our NEOs are discussed under Annual Cash Incentive Plan Awards beginning on page 21.

Some of the compensation-related highlights since our last proxy statement include:

These new features enhanced a compensation program, which already had the following stockholder-friendly components:

Table of Contents

III.      2015 Say-on-Pay Review

For the fourth consecutive year, our executive compensation program was endorsed by a vast majority of our stockholders. With 93.98% of our shares voting on the issue, we received 99.04% in favor of the proposal, with only 0.93% opposing and 0.01% abstaining. We believe this is a reflection of the transparency of our program, which is clearly aligned with the interests of our stockholders. Based on this strong endorsement, we only made minor improvements to the existing program.

IV.      Compensation Objectives and Elements

A.      Objectives

Belden’s executive compensation program is designed to support the interests of stockholders by rewarding executives for achievement of the Company’s specific business objectives, which for the NEOs in 2015 included net income from continuing operations, EBITDA, share capture, operating working capital turns and inventory turns. The overarching principles of the program are:

Table of Contents

B.      Elements

Below is an illustration of Belden’s compensation program. Individual compensation packages and the mix of base salary, annual cash incentive opportunity and long-term equity incentive compensation for each NEO varies depending upon the executive’s level of responsibilities, potential, performance and tenure with the Company. Each of the elements shown below is designed for a specific purpose, with the overall goal of achieving a high and sustainable level of Company and individual performance. The percentage of total compensation that is performance-based and therefore at risk generally increases as an officer’s level of responsibilities increases. Approximately 85% of Mr. Stroup’s 2015 summary compensation table compensation was performance-based compensation, compared to 79% in 2014 and 83% for 2013. The chart below is not to scale for any particular named executive officer.

Additionally, the Company provides competitive retirement and benefit programs to our NEOs on the same basis as other employees and limited perquisites as described under Compensation Policies and Other Considerations .

C.      Pay for Performance Philosophy

Our ability to execute on our strategic plan relies on implementation of our talent management program. We continually seek to hire and retain high performing and high potential managers to both drive performance today and build a dependable bench of successors for the future. This philosophy includes both compensating these managers well when we achieve our performance goals as well as placing large portions of management compensation at risk so we do not pay for underperformance.

We believe that this philosophy has provided an appropriate balance to drive continuous improvement while retaining high performers through challenging times. More importantly, we believe the incentives we provide for achievement without rewarding under-performance aligns the interests of our managers closely with those of our investors, which is the main objective.

Table of Contents

D.      Compensation Design

Role of Compensation Consultant

Following an analysis based on rules promulgated by the NYSE, the Compensation Committee has retained Deloitte Consulting LLP (“Deloitte Consulting”) as its independent compensation consultant. Deloitte reports directly to the Committee. The Committee generally relies on Deloitte to provide it with comparison group benchmarking data and information as to market practices and trends, and to provide advice on key Committee decisions.

In 2015, Deloitte Consulting provided advice to the Compensation Committee and management in connection with the composition of peer companies we use for benchmarking purposes, the design of our annual cash incentive and long-term incentive programs, and our executive employment agreements. For its compensation consulting in 2015, we paid Deloitte Consulting $162,797.

In 2015, our financial management separately engaged affiliates of Deloitte Consulting to perform other services involving internal controls auditing, tax consulting and acquisition due diligence. For these non-compensation related services, we paid Deloitte $2,988,411. The Compensation Committee did not approve these charges prior to their incurrence, but considered them in connection with Deloitte Consulting’s retention for 2016. Given the nature and scope of these other services, the Compensation Committee does not believe this work had any impact on the independence of our independent consultant.

Benchmarking and Survey Data

In determining total compensation levels for our NEOs, the Compensation Committee reviews market trends in executive compensation and a competitive analysis prepared by Deloitte Consulting, which compares our executive compensation to both the companies in the comparator group described below and to broader market survey data. The Committee also considers other available market survey data on executive compensation philosophy, strategy and design. The Company’s compensation philosophy is to target base salaries at the 50th percentile of the competitive market. Individual executives may have base salaries above or below the target based on their individual performances, internal equity and experience. As discussed above, at-risk incentive compensation components have the potential to reward our executives at levels above industry medians, but only when the Company is outperforming the industry.

The Committee chose our comparator group from companies in the primary industry segments in which the Company operates and competes for talent.

The comparator group companies for 2015 were as follows:

ISS and Glass-Lewis independently develop and publish peer groups that they use to analyze our compensation. It is noteworthy that of the 14 companies in our comparator group, 12 were chosen by ISS, Glass-Lewis, or both, as appropriate peer companies. The Committee considers the comparator group competitive pay analysis and survey data as non-determinative data points in making its pay decisions. The approach to pay decisions is not formulaic and the Committee, based on advice from Deloitte Consulting, exercises judgment in making them.

Each year, the Committee reviews the performance evaluations and pay recommendations for the named executive officers and the other senior executives. The Compensation Committee, with input from the Board, meets in executive session without the CEO present to review the CEO’s performance and set his compensation.

In its most recent review in February 2016, the Committee concluded that the total direct compensation of executive officers, with respect to compensation levels, as well as structure, are consistent with our compensation design and objectives.

Table of Contents

V.      2015 Compensation Analysis

A.      Base Salary Adjustments

Salaries of executive officers are reviewed annually and at the time of a promotion or other change in responsibilities. Increases in salary are based on a review of the individual’s performance, the competitive market, the individual’s experience and internal equity. For executives who earn a composite individual performance score of 3 or more, base salaries may be adjusted using a merit salary increase matrix, discussed below. An executive who scores less than 3 and fails to improve his or her performance may be subject to disciplinary action, including dismissal.

The executive is scored on our merit salary increase matrix that is annually reviewed and, if appropriate, revised to reflect the competitive market based on the salary survey data noted above. The Committee reviews the merit budget and salary increase matrix. The executive’s salary is classified based on three categories: below market, market and above market. Company-wide, the ranking system is designed to take the form of a normal distribution, as follows:

1 – Least Effective – At least 5% of workforce

2 – Needs Improvement – At least 10% of workforce

3 – Effective-Consistently Meets Expectations – 50% to 70% of workforce

4 – Highly Valued – Combined with ‘5’, no more than 15% of workforce

5 – Exceptional – No more than 5% of workforce

The timing and amount of any salary adjustment will be based on the executive’s annual overall performance ranking and whether the executive falls “below,” “at” or “above” market as compared to the median of the applicable market data noted above.

For example, an executive with an overall ranking of “5” who is “above market” will receive a lower salary increase than an executive with a ranking of “5” who is “below market”.

The named executive officers’ salaries as of December 31, 2015 are provided in the following table:

Table of Contents

B.      Annual Cash Incentive Plan Awards

Executive officers participate in our annual cash incentive plan. Overall, we had 1,935 employees participate in the plan’s 2015 performance offering. Under the plan, participants earn cash awards based on the achievement of Company and individual performance goals. For 2015, the amount paid under the plan to all participants was approximately $22.0 million or approximately 6.7% of adjusted net income before ACIP expense. This compares to approximately 7.7%, 7.3%, 7.2% and 8.1% in 2014, 2013, 2012 and 2011, respectively, as shown below:

A participant’s award (other than the CEO) is computed using the following formula:

ACIP Award = Base Salary  X  Target Percentage  X  Financial Factor  X  Personal Performance Factor

In 2012, based on the fact that Mr. Stroup’s personal performance factor (“PPF”) had consistently been equal to or greater than 1.0, the Compensation Committee removed the component from the calculation of Mr. Stroup’s ACIP award. The Committee desired to avoid any perception that the PPF was simply serving as a second multiplier to Mr. Stroup’s award. Given his direct reporting relationship to the Board, the Committee is comfortable that Mr. Stroup is accountable without the need of the additional lever to adjust his ACIP award downward or upward.

Target Percentages

For 2015, each NEO’s ACIP Target Percentages were as follows: Mr. Stroup – 130%, Mr. Derksen – 75% and Messrs. Pennycook, Rosenberg and Vestjens – 70%.

Table of Contents

Financial Factors

As stated above, performance targets for calculating the Financial Factors were based on net income from continuing operations, EBITDA, share capture, operating working capital turns and inventory turns. In addition, as discussed further below, the performance stock units (“PSUs”) had performance targets based on relative total stockholder return and free cash flow. In order to ensure that we are rewarding performance that drives stockholder value, these factors flow from and support the strategic financial goals we communicate to our investors.

Performance Factor Determination and Adjustments

The performance factors we use that make up the Financial Factor support our short- and long-range business objectives and strategy. We have selected multiple factors because we believe no one metric is sufficient to capture the performance we are seeking to achieve and any one metric in isolation may not promote appropriate management performance. Management and the Board believe that income from continuing operations and EBITDA are the financial metrics most clearly aligned with the enhancement of stockholder value. Therefore, they are weighted heavily in our consolidated and platform targets. Additionally, share capture continues to be an important measure of our performance versus our competitors. And despite the maturity of our development from a Lean manufacturing standpoint, continuous improvement in inventory and working capital turnover remains a high corporate priority.

In setting performance goals, we consider our annual and long-range business plans and factors such as our past variance to targeted performance, economic and industry conditions, and our industry performance. We set challenging, realistic goals that will motivate performance within the top quartile of our comparator group based on consensus data on the peer companies publicly available at the time the targets are set. We recognize that the metrics may need to change over time to reflect new priorities and, accordingly, review these performance metrics at the beginning of each performance period.

In 2015, thresholds, targets and maximum levels for the performance factors that make up the Financial Factors were set to challenge management to grow the company in a low growth environment. For instance, the 2015 target for consolidated net income from continuing operations reflected a 30% increase over actual 2014 performance. Likewise, the consolidated share capture target represented an almost 68% improvement over actual 2014 performance. Targets for the business platforms reflected similar stretch improvement initiatives. While platform performance on EBITDA and working capital/inventory turns did not fully meet our expectations, outperformance on share capture was achieved at the platform and consolidated levels. We view this as a positive result of our Belden Market Delivery System.

Table of Contents

Officers with company-wide responsibilities (Messrs. Stroup, Derksen and Rosenberg) were measured using consolidated performance. Mr. Pennycook and Mr. Vestjens were compensated based on the performance of the Enterprise Connectivity Solutions and Broadcast Solutions platforms, respectively. The applicable factors and weighting percentages are set prior to each performance period as shown in the chart below and illustrated in further detail on Appendix I .

Consistent with the terms of the annual cash incentive plan, the performance factors were adjusted to reflect certain unusual events that occurred during the year. These adjustments can result in either increases or decreases in performance factors and in 2015 primarily concerned amortization of intangible assets, deferred gross profit adjustments, restructuring of the Company’s operations, purchase accounting effects of acquisitions, depreciation expense, as well as the income tax impact of these adjustments. The Compensation Committee and the Audit Committee meet jointly to analyze and approve the adjustments recommended by management. The Committees agree that it was appropriate to adjust the financial results for these matters to properly capture our operating results and to eliminate the potential for managers delaying strategic decisions beneficial to the Company in the long term (e.g., restructuring) because of the impact of those decisions on short-term financial metrics or to benefit from favorable one-time adjustments or unbudgeted events (such as acquisitions).

For each individual performance factor, threshold, target and maximum amounts are set by the Compensation Committee. Actual performance at the threshold level is reflected with a Financial Factor score of 0.5, actual performance at the target level is reflected with a Financial Factor score of 1.0 and actual performance at or above the maximum level is reflected with a Financial Factor score of 2.0. Performance between the threshold and target and between the target and maximum are interpolated on a linear basis. Actual performance below the threshold would result in a component score of 0 and the failure to achieve at least threshold performance on the net income/operating income component would result in an overall Financial Factor of 0. Because Financial Factors are capped at 2.0 and because, as described below, he does not have a Personal Performance Factor, Mr. Stroup’s ACIP payout cannot mathematically be higher than 200% of his target payout.

Table of Contents

The performance factor definitions, thresholds, targets and actual results, as well as the applicable weighting and calculations for each NEO are contained in Appendix I , which is incorporated herein by this reference. The applicable 2015 Financial Factor for the NEOs is as follows:

Personal Performance Factor

Each named executive officer other than Mr. Stroup establishes annual personal performance objectives. As discussed above, the Committee feels that the consolidated Financial Factor is the best reflection of Mr. Stroup’s personal performance and, thus, he does not have a separate Personal Performance Factor (“PPF”). The other NEO’s objectives are agreed upon between the NEO and Mr. Stroup. At the end of the year, the parties measure progress relative to the objectives. Mr. Stroup scores each NEO’s PPF on a scale of 0.5 to 1.5.

The personal performance goals reflected in the Personal Performance Factor measure the attainment of short- and long-term goals that often are in furtherance of achieving objectives set out in our three-year strategic plan. Personal performance goals can be qualitative in nature and the determination of the NEO’s degree of attainment of them generally requires the judgment of Mr. Stroup.

As a general rule, the higher in the organizational structure that one sits, the more global in scope are his or her personal objectives. Mr. Derksen, as the CFO, had objectives in the areas of talent management, and information technology and investor relations performance, but also focused other objectives on areas specific to the finance function, e.g., accounting, tax and capital structure. As the chief strategy officer, Mr. Rosenberg had objectives relating to the Company’s M&A funnel and integration, as well as talent management and other strategic objectives. As the EVPs of two of Belden’s product platforms, the objectives of Messrs. Pennycook and Vestjens were supportive of the Company’s global goals, but focused within their respective business units. Their objectives related to the areas of growth, both organic and M&A, talent management and operational excellence through the continued institution of Lean enterprise principles in their respective business units.

The 2015 Personal Performance Factors for the NEOs as recommended by Mr. Stroup and approved by the Committee ranged from 1.00 to 1.15.

Table of Contents

C.      Performance-Based Equity Awards

Our long-term equity incentive plan is designed to align the financial interests of our executives and our stockholders by providing executives with a continuing stake in the long-term success of the company. With grants of SARs that have value only if Belden’s stock price increases and PSUs that only convert into Belden shares if certain performance metrics are achieved, the plan emphasizes Pay-for-Performance. For 2015, executive officers received 50% of their LTI award (discussed below) under the plan in the form of SARs and 50% in the form of PSUs.

Individual performance, the competitive market, executive experience and internal equity were factors used to determine the total dollar value of SARs and PSUs granted to each executive officer in 2015, which we refer to as the “Long-Term Incentive Value”, or “LTI Value”.

LTI Value

We use the following matrix to determine the LTI as a percentage of base salary for each officer:

An officer did not receive an equity award in 2015 if his or her 2014 Personal Performance Factor was less than 0.85. Mr. Stroup does not have a target LTI percentage or a Personal Performance Factor. At its February 2015 meeting, the Compensation Committee awarded Mr. Stroup LTI valued at approximately $3.75 million, or approximately 441% of base salary. Mr. Derksen has a Target LTI of 160% while Messrs. Pennycook, Rosenberg and Vestjens each have a Target LTI percentage of 120% of their respective base salaries.

To illustrate the LTI value matrix, assume a base salary of $200,000 and a Target LTI percentage of 50%. The Target LTI is $100,000. Assuming the officer’s PPF is 1.0, he or she would receive equity valued between $70,000 and $120,000. If the same officer’s PPF is 1.20, he or she would receive equity valued between $100,000 and $190,000. The exact amount granted within the range for each individual is at the discretion of the individual’s immediate supervisor (the “LTI Award”)

For 2015, the NEOs received 50% of their LTI Award in the form of SARs and 50% in the form of PSUs. We use the Black-Scholes-Merton (“Black-Scholes”) option pricing formula to calculate SAR values. Instead of using the grant date stock price as the input in the Black-Scholes formula, we use a one-year average price of the stock (the “Average Belden Stock Price”). That same price is utilized to determine the number of PSUs granted. In summary, the LTI Award is allocated into the number of units resulting from the following formulas:

SARs = 50% of the LTI Award divided by the Black-Scholes value of a Belden SAR, rounded to the nearest unit.

PSUs = 50% of the LTI Award divided by the Average Belden Stock Price, rounded to the nearest unit.

Half of the PSUs granted in 2015 will be measured based on total stockholder return (TSR) relative to the S&P 1500 Industrials Index. The other half of the PSUs will be measured based on cumulative consolidated free cash flow. The PSU agreements state that following the three-year performance period, a conversion factor ranging from 0 to 2.0 will be applied to each award. The result of that formula, rounded to the nearest whole unit, is the gross number of Belden shares the officer will receive. The actual number of shares to be distributed will be net of any required withholding taxes. The PSUs granted in 2015 will be measured on the performance period from January 1, 2015 to December 31, 2017, and the conversion and any required payout will occur in the first quarter of 2018.

Conversion will be effected based on the following threshold, target and maximum levels:

Table of Contents

For the PSUs based on relative TSR, threshold performance results in a conversion factor of 0.25, target performance results in a conversion factor of 1.00 and maximum performance results in a conversion factor of 2.00. Performance between threshold and target and between target and maximum are interpolated on a linear basis.

For the PSUs based on consolidated free cash flow, threshold performance results in a conversion factor of 0.50, target performance results in a conversion factor of 1.00 and maximum performance results in a conversion factor of 2.00. Performance between threshold and target and between target and maximum are interpolated on a linear basis.

The SARs provide a material incentive for executives to increase the Company’s share price during their ten-year term, and they serve as a retention tool because they take three years to fully vest. The PSUs drive performance against targets during the three-year performance period.

At its February 2015 meeting, the Compensation Committee approved equity award grants in the form of 223,506 SARs, 90,817 PSUs and 62,862 RSUs to over 375 employees. The table below shows the total 2015 grants of SARs and RSUs to the named executive officers.

VI.      Compensation Policies and Other Considerations

Stock Ownership Guidelines

To align their interests with those of the Company’s stockholders, the Company’s executive officers must hold stock whose value is at least three times their annual base salary (six times in the case of Mr. Stroup). Officers have five years from the date they are appointed an officer to acquire the appropriate shareholdings. In addition, officers must make interim progress toward the ownership requirement during the five year period – 20% after one year, 40% after two years, 60% after three years and 80% after four years. For purposes of determining ownership, unvested RSUs and the value of vested but unexercised, in-the-money options and SARs are included. For calculation purposes, the Company will use the higher of the current trading price or the acquisition price. As of March 31, 2016 (our record date for the annual meeting), each of the named executive officers either met his interim or five-year stock ownership guideline. In accordance with Company policy, an officer is prohibited from selling Belden stock received from the Company as an equity award until the officer meets the interim guideline.

Table of Contents

Tax and Accounting Considerations

Section 162(m) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended, imposes a $1 million limit on the amount that a public company may deduct for compensation paid to the Company’s CEO or any of the Company’s other NEOs who are employed as of the end of the fiscal year. This limitation does not apply to compensation that meets the requirements under Section 162(m) for “qualifying performance based” compensation (i.e., compensation paid only if performance meets pre-established objective goals based on performance criteria approved by stockholders). The Company’s incentive compensation plans are designed to qualify under Internal Revenue Code Section 162(m) to ensure tax deductibility. However, the Committee retains the flexibility to design and administer compensation programs that are in the best interests of Belden and its stockholders.

Annual non-equity based incentive compensation and PSUs for our Named Executive Officers are unguaranteed, subject to maximum payout amounts based on the achievement of the Section 162(m) performance objectives established by the Committee annually. These objectives are selected by the Committee from among the performance metrics in the annual incentive plan for non-equity based compensation and the long term incentive plan for the PSUs. See Item IV, beginning on page 42 for a broader discussion of the long term incentive plan performance metrics. The Committee may exercise “negative discretion” to reduce the award based on an assessment of Company and individual performance. For 2015, the Committee awarded less than the maximum amount. Also, our compensation plans comply with the requirements of Internal Revenue Code Section 409A, which requires that nonqualified deferred compensation arrangements must meet specific requirements.

In accordance with FASB ASC Topic 718, for financial statement purposes, we expense all equity-based awards over the period earned based upon their estimated fair value at grant date.

Executive Compensation Recovery

In accordance with the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, Mr. Stroup, as CEO, and Mr. Derksen, as CFO, must forfeit certain bonuses and profits if the Company is required to restate its financial statements as a result of misconduct. In addition, if the Board of Directors determines that any other executive officer has engaged in fraudulent or intentional misconduct that results in the Company restating its financial statements because of a material inaccuracy, the Company, as permitted by law, will seek to recover any cash incentive compensation or other equity-based compensation (including proceeds from the exercise of a stock option or SAR) received by the officer from the Company during the 12-month period following the first public issuance or filing with the SEC of the financial statement required to be restated. The Company will revisit its clawback policies once the proposed rules issued by the SEC implementing the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act of 2010 (the “Dodd-Frank Act”) are finalized.

Insider Trading; Hedging and Pledging of Company Stock

Company policy requires executive officers and directors to consult the Company’s legal department prior to engaging in transactions involving Belden stock. In order to protect the Company from exposure under insider trading laws, executive officers and directors are encouraged to enter into pre-programmed trading plans under Securities Exchange Act Rule 10b5-1. The Company will not approve hedging or monetization transactions including, but not limited to, through the use of financial instruments such as exchange funds, prepaid variable forwards, equity swaps, puts, calls, collars, forwards and other derivative instruments, or through the establishment of a short position in the Company’s securities. Executive officers and directors are prohibited from utilizing margin accounts to engage in transactions in Belden stock and from pledging Belden stock for any purpose. The Company will revisit its trading policies once the proposed rules issued by the SEC implementing the Dodd-Frank Act are finalized.

Equity Compensation Grant Practices

The Committee approves all grants of equity compensation, including stock appreciation rights, performance stock units and restricted stock units, to executive officers of the Company, as defined in Section 16 of the Exchange Act. All elements of executive officer compensation are reviewed by the Committee annually at its February/March meeting. Generally, the Company’s awards of stock appreciation rights, performance stock

Table of Contents

units and/or restricted stock units are made at that meeting, but may be made at other meetings of the Committee. The Committee meeting date, or the next business day if the meeting falls on a non-business day, is the grant date for stock appreciation rights and restricted stock unit awards. The Company may also make awards in connection with acquisitions or promotions, or for retention purposes. Under the Company’s equity plan, the Committee may delegate to the Company’s CEO the authority to grant stock options to any employees of the Company other than executive officers of the Company as that term is defined in Section 16 of the Exchange Act. The Committee has exercised this authority and delegated to the CEO the ability to make limited equity grants in connection with promotion, retention and acquisitions, which he uses strategically but infrequently. Awards made by the CEO are reported to the Committee on a periodic basis.

Employment Agreements: Severance, Termination and Retirement

The Company has an employment agreement with each of the named executive officers. We believe that our agreements are essential in attracting and retaining the desired executive talent in a competitive market. In addition, the agreements benefit the Company by providing for the upfront agreement of each executive on certain important provisions, including post-termination covenants and an agreement to provide a full release of claims against the Company. These agreements address key provisions of the employment relationship, including payment of severance benefits upon a termination of employment before and after a change of control of the Company. Beginning in 2010, new executive employment agreements no longer contain a gross-up to compensate the executives for an Internal Revenue Code Section 280G excise tax. Instead the executives are given the option of either (a) collecting their full severance and paying the excise tax themselves with no assistance from the Company or (b) reducing the severance payments to an amount that prevents the excise tax from being imposed. Information regarding benefits under these agreements is provided following this Compensation Discussion and Analysis under the heading Potential Payments upon Termination or Change of Control .

Aircraft

The Company owns and from time to time leases corporate aircraft to provide flexibility to executive officers and other associates to allow more efficient use of executive time for Company matters. The Nominating and Corporate Governance Committee reviews management’s use of corporate aircraft throughout the year to confirm that it is consistent with this philosophy and in full compliance with the regulations promulgated by the Federal Aviation Administration, the Internal Revenue Service and the Securities and Exchange Commission.

Benefits and Perquisites

The named executive officers receive retirement and health care benefits on a consistent basis with other Belden employees. As described in Pension Benefits and Nonqualified Deferred Compensation , excess defined benefit and defined contribution plans are offered to eligible U.S. employees. In order to attract and retain talented officers, we have provided certain other compensation to our NEOs. In connection with an expatriate assignment in Hong Kong that ended in 2014, Mr. Vestjens was, by agreement, entitled to tax equalization, including a gross-up to make him whole financially. Other than this limited exception, it is our policy to not provide tax gross-ups for any perquisites provided to executive officers.