February 28, 2018

DEAR FELLOW A. O. SMITH STOCKHOLDER:

I am pleased to invite you to our Annual Meeting of Stockholders, to be held at the Hilton Garden Inn, 159 Gateway Boulevard, Mooresville, North Carolina, on Monday, April 9, 2018, at 5:00 p.m. Eastern Daylight Time. The attached Notice of our 2018 Annual Meeting of Stockholders and Proxy Statement will serve as your guide to the business we will address at the meeting. You can also review our 2017 Annual Report, which incorporates our Form 10-K, to learn more about our financial performance.

Your vote is important. We encourage you to sign and return your proxy or vote by telephone or through the Internet as soon as possible so that your shares will be represented and voted at the meeting. Even if you submit a proxy, you can revoke it at any time before the meeting if you choose to attend and vote in person.

Thank you for being a stockholder and for your support of our company. I hope to see you at the Annual Meeting of Stockholders.

Sincerely,

Ajita G. Rajendra

Chairman and Chief Executive Officer

February 28, 2018

NOTICE OF 2018 ANNUAL MEETING OF STOCKHOLDERS

The 2018 Annual Meeting of Stockholders of A. O. Smith Corporation will be held at the Hilton Garden Inn, 159 Gateway Boulevard, Mooresville, North Carolina, on Monday, April 9, 2018, at 5:00 p.m. Eastern Daylight Time, for the following purposes:

Stockholders of record as of February 20, 2018, are entitled to vote at the Annual Meeting. The list of stockholders entitled to vote at the meeting will be available at our offices at 11270 West Park Place, Milwaukee, Wisconsin, as of March 29, 2018, for examination by stockholders for purposes related to the meeting.

Whether or not you plan to attend the meeting, we encourage you to vote your shares. You may vote your shares over the Internet, as we describe in the accompanying materials and the Notice of Internet Availability of Proxy Materials. As an alternative, if you received a paper copy of the Proxy Card by mail, you may sign, date and mail the Proxy Card in the envelope provided or use the toll-free telephone number on the Proxy Card. No postage is necessary if mailed in the United States. Voting over the Internet, voting via the toll-free number or mailing a Proxy Card will not limit your right to vote in person or to attend the Annual Meeting.

By Order of the Board of Directors,

James F. Stern

Executive Vice President,

General Counsel and Secretary

A. O. Smith Corporation

11270 West Park Place

Milwaukee, WI 53224

PROXY STATEMENT FOR 2018 ANNUAL MEETING

TABLE OF CONTENTS

PROXY STATEMENT

2018 ANNUAL MEETING

GENERAL INFORMATION

This Proxy Statement is furnished to stockholders of A. O. Smith Corporation in connection with the solicitation by its Board of Directors of proxies for use at the Annual Meeting of Stockholders of our company to be held on April 9, 2018, at 5:00 p.m. Eastern Daylight Time, at the Hilton Garden Inn, 159 Gateway Boulevard, Mooresville, North Carolina.

Under rules of the Securities and Exchange Commission, or “SEC”, we are furnishing proxy materials, which include our Proxy Statement and Annual Report, to our stockholders over the Internet and providing a Notice of Internet Availability of Proxy Materials by mail. You will not receive a printed copy of the proxy materials unless you request to receive these materials in hard copy by following the instructions provided in the Notice of Internet Availability of Proxy Materials. Instead, the Notice of Internet Availability of Proxy Materials will instruct you how you may access and review all of the important information contained in the proxy materials. The Notice of Internet Availability of Proxy Materials also instructs you how you may submit your proxy via the Internet. If you received a Notice of Internet Availability of Proxy Materials by mail and would like to receive a printed copy of our proxy materials, you should follow the instructions for requesting such materials included in the Notice of Internet Availability of Proxy Materials.

The company is mailing the Notice of Internet Availability of Proxy Materials on or about February 28, 2018, to each stockholder at the holder’s address of record.

Important Notice Regarding the Availability of Proxy Materials for the Stockholders Meeting to be held on April 9, 2018: The Notice of 2018 Annual Meeting of Stockholders, this Proxy Statement and our 2017 Annual Report are also available at www.proxydocs.com/aos.

Record Date

The record date for stockholders entitled to notice of and to vote at the meeting is the close of business on February 20, 2018 (the “Record Date”). As of the Record Date, we had issued 26,196,575 shares of Class A Common Stock, par value $5 per share, 26,066,195 shares of which were outstanding and entitled to one (1) vote each for Class A Common Stock directors and other matters. As of the Record Date, we had issued 164,511,017 shares of Common Stock, par value $1 per share, 145,466,878 shares of which were outstanding and entitled to one (1) vote each for Common Stock directors and one-tenth (1/10^th) vote each for other matters.

Class Voting for Directors

Under our Restated Certificate of Incorporation, as long as the number of outstanding shares of our Common Stock is at least 10% of the aggregate number of outstanding shares of our Class A Common Stock and Common Stock, the holders of the Class A Common Stock and holders of the Common Stock vote as separate classes in the election of directors. The holders of our Common Stock are entitled to elect, as a class, 33 1/3% of our entire Board of Directors, rounded up to the next whole director, and the holders of our Class A Common Stock are entitled to elect the remainder of the Board. The holders of our Class A Common Stock have the right to elect the remainder of the directors of the Board pursuant to the preceding sentence as long as the number of outstanding shares of our Class A Common Stock is 12.5% or more of the aggregate number of outstanding shares of our Class A Common Stock and Common Stock. Stockholders are entitled to one (1) vote per share in the election of directors for their

1

class of stock. As a result of these provisions and the shares of the two classes of our stock that are outstanding, holders of Common Stock will elect four directors at the Annual Meeting and holders of Class A Common Stock will elect six directors.

Quorum

A majority of the outstanding shares entitled to vote must be represented in person or by proxy at the meeting in order to constitute a quorum for purposes of holding the Annual Meeting. The voting by stockholders at the meeting is conducted by the inspectors of election. Abstentions and broker non-votes, if any, are counted as present in determining whether the quorum requirement is met.

Required Vote

Directors are elected by a plurality of the votes cast, by proxy (whether by Internet, telephone or mail) or in person, with the holders voting as separate classes. This means that the nominees who receive the greatest number of votes cast are elected as directors. Consequently, any shares that are not voted, whether by abstention, broker non-votes or otherwise, will have no effect on the election of directors.

For all other matters considered at the meeting, both classes of stock vote together as a single class, with the Class A Common Stock entitled to one (1) vote per share and the Common Stock entitled to one-tenth (1/10th) vote per share. The proposal to approve the compensation of our named executive officers by advisory vote and the proposal to ratify the appointment of Ernst & Young LLP as our independent registered public accounting firm will be approved if a majority of the votes present or represented at the meeting and entitled to vote on the matter are cast in favor of the matter. On all such other matters, an abstention will have the same effect as a vote “against” but, because shares held by brokers will not be considered entitled to vote on matters as to which the beneficial owners withhold authority, a broker non-vote will have no effect on the vote.

Cost of Soliciting Proxies

The cost of soliciting proxies, including preparing, assembling and mailing the Proxy Statement, form of proxy and other soliciting materials, as well as the cost of forwarding such material to the beneficial owners of stock, will be paid by us, except for some costs associated with individual stockholders’ use of the Internet or telephone. In addition to solicitation by mail, directors, officers, regular employees and others may also, but without compensation other than their regular compensation, solicit proxies personally or by telephone or other means of electronic communication. We may reimburse brokers and others holding stock in their names or in the names of nominees for their reasonable out-of-pocket expenses in sending proxy materials to principals and beneficial owners.

How to Vote

Via the Internet – Stockholders of record can simplify their voting by voting their shares via the Internet as instructed in the Notice of Internet Availability of Proxy Materials. The Internet procedures are designed to authenticate a stockholder’s identity to allow stockholders to vote their shares and confirm that their instructions have been properly recorded. Internet voting for stockholders of record is available 24 hours a day and will close at 11:59 p.m. (CDT) on April 5, 2018.

By Telephone – Stockholders of record who received a paper Proxy Card can vote their shares by a toll-free number on the Proxy Card or in the voting instruction form sent by their broker, bank or other agent. Telephone voting for stockholders of record is available 24 hours a day and will close at 11:59 p.m. (CDT) on April 5, 2018.

By Mail – Stockholders of record who have received a paper Proxy Card may vote by completing, signing and dating their Proxy Card and mailing it in the pre-addressed envelope. Proxy Cards submitted by mail must be received by April 6, 2018, for your shares to be voted. Stockholders who hold shares beneficially in street name and

2

received a voting instruction form from their broker, bank or other agent may vote by completing, signing and dating the instruction form provided by the broker, bank or other agent and mailing it in the pre-addressed envelope provided.

If you vote via the Internet, by telephone or by mailing a Proxy Card, we will vote your shares as you direct. For the election of directors, you can specify whether your shares should be voted “for” all or some of the nominees for director listed or you may “withhold” your vote from all or some of the nominees for director. With respect to the proposal to approve the compensation of our named executive officers by advisory vote and the proposal to ratify the appointment of Ernst & Young LLP as our independent registered public accounting firm, you may vote “for” or “against” any proposal or you may “abstain” from voting on any proposal.

If you submit a proxy via the Internet, by telephone or by mailing a Proxy Card without indicating your instructions, we will vote your shares consistent with the recommendations of our Board of Directors as stated in this Proxy Statement. Specifically, we will vote in favor of our nominees for directors, in favor of approving the compensation of our named executive officers and in favor of the ratification of the appointment of Ernst & Young LLP as our independent registered public accounting firm. If any other matters are properly presented at the Annual Meeting for consideration, then our officers named on your proxy will have discretion to vote for you on those matters. As of the date of the Notice of 2018 Annual Meeting of Stockholders, we knew of no other matters to be presented at the Annual Meeting.

At the Annual Meeting – Shares held in your name as the stockholder of record may be voted by you in person at the Annual Meeting. Shares held beneficially in street name may be voted by you in person at the Annual Meeting only if you obtain a legal proxy from the broker or other agent that holds your shares giving you the right to vote the shares and bring such proxy to the Annual Meeting.

Revocation of Proxies

You may revoke your proxy at any time before the Annual Meeting by delivering written notice of revocation or a duly executed proxy bearing a later date to the Corporate Secretary of our company or by attending the meeting and voting in person.

Stockholders Sharing the Same Address

SEC rules permit us to deliver only one copy of a single set of proxy materials to multiple stockholders sharing the same address. Upon written or oral request, we will promptly deliver a separate copy of our Annual Report and/or this Proxy Statement to any stockholder at a shared address to which a single copy of each document was delivered. Stockholders may notify our company of their requests by calling or writing Patricia K. Ackerman, Vice President, Investor Relations and Treasurer, A. O. Smith Corporation, P.O. Box 245008, Milwaukee, Wisconsin, 53224-9508; (414) 359-4130.

3

PRINCIPAL STOCKHOLDERS

The following table shows persons who may be deemed to be beneficial owners (within the meaning of Rule 13d-3 under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934) of more than 5% of any class of our stock. Unless otherwise noted, the table reflects beneficial ownership as of December 31, 2017.

Information on beneficial ownership is based upon Schedules 13D or 13G filed with the SEC and any additional information that any beneficial owners may have provided to us.

4

ELECTION OF DIRECTORS

With the retirement of Mr. Gloster Current from our Board of Directors at the end of his term at the Annual Meeting, ten directors are to be elected at the 2018 Annual Meeting to serve until the next succeeding Annual Meeting of Stockholders and thereafter until their respective successors are duly elected and qualified. Owners of Common Stock are entitled to elect four directors, and owners of Class A Common Stock are entitled to elect the six remaining directors. Included as one of the nominees to be elected by owners of Common Stock is Dr. Ilham Kadri, who previously served as a director elected by owners of Class A Common Stock. Also included as one of the nominees to be elected by owners of Class A Common Stock is Kevin J. Wheeler, who was appointed to the Board in 2017, following his appointment as president and chief operating officer, in accordance with our company’s By-Laws.

It is intended that proxies we are soliciting will be voted for the election of the nominees named below. Proxies will not be voted for a greater number of persons than the ten nominees named below. All nominees have consented to being named in this Proxy Statement and to serve if elected. If any nominee for election as a director shall become unavailable to serve as a director, then proxies will be voted for such substitute nominee as the Board of Directors may nominate.

Set forth below is information regarding the business experience of each nominee for director that has been furnished to us by the respective nominees for director. Each nominee has been principally engaged in the employment indicated for the last five years unless otherwise stated. Also set forth below for each nominee for director is a discussion of the experience, qualifications, attributes or skills that led to the conclusion that the nominee should serve as a director.

NOMINEES – CLASS A COMMON STOCK

RONALD D. BROWN – Vice Chairman, The Armor Group, Inc.

Mr. Brown, 64, has been a director of our company since 2001. He is the chairperson of the Personnel and Compensation Committee and a member of the Nominating and Governance Committee of the Board. Mr. Brown joined The Armor Group, Inc. in 2013 as chief operating officer and became vice chairman in March 2017. The Armor Group, Inc. is a certified woman-owned corporation that manufactures equipment and products and provides related services to a variety of industrial markets, including beverage and food service, medical, power generation, automobile and military. From 2009 until 2014, Mr. Brown was managing director of Taft Business Consulting, LLC, a consulting group affiliated with the law firm of Taft Stettinius & Hollister LLP, which provides advisory services on a range of business issues. From 2010 to 2013, Mr. Brown served as chief financial officer of Makino, Inc., a privately held global metalworking technologies company. Prior to that, Mr. Brown was chairman and chief executive officer of Milacron Inc. from 2001 to 2008 and president and chief operating officer of Milacron Inc. from 1999 through 2001. He joined Milacron Inc. in 1980. Milacron is a supplier of plastic processing and metalworking fluid technologies; the company filed for bankruptcy in 2009. Mr. Brown also served on the Board of Zep Inc., where he was Chairman of the Compensation Committee and a member of the Nominating and Corporate Governance Committee, until it was acquired by New Mountain Capital in 2015. He also joined the James Advantage Funds in 2014 as an independent trustee, where he serves on its Audit Committee, and joined Clippard Instrument Laboratory, Inc. as a director in April 2017.

Mr. Brown’s experience as chief executive officer and chairman of a publicly held company provides valuable insight for us as to the issues and opportunities facing our company. Further, he has international and manufacturing experience with The Armor Group and in his previous position at Milacron. Like our company, The Armor Group has a manufacturing plant in Asia and, like us, Milacron faced the challenge of competing against foreign manufacturers and operated international manufacturing plants, particularly in Asia. In addition, Mr. Brown has experience as a chief financial officer and a corporate attorney. His legal background makes him well-suited to address legal and governance requirements of the SEC and New York Stock Exchange, both as chairperson of our Personnel and Compensation Committee and as a member of our Nominating and Governance Committee.

5

PAUL W. JONES – Retired Executive Chairman of the Board, A. O. Smith Corporation.

Mr. Jones, 69, has been a director of our company since 2004. He is a member of the Nominating and Governance Committee and the Personnel and Compensation Committee of the Board. He was executive chairman of the board of our company from 2013 until his retirement in 2014. Mr. Jones served as chairman of the board and chief executive officer of our company from 2011 to 2012; chairman of the board, president and chief executive officer from 2006 to 2011; and president and chief operating officer from 2004 to 2005. Prior to joining A. O. Smith, he was chairman and chief executive officer of U.S. Can Company, Inc. from 1998 to 2002. He previously was president and chief executive officer of Greenfield Industries, Inc. from 1993 to 1998 and president from 1989 to 1992. Mr. Jones has been a director of Federal Signal Corporation since 1998, where he chairs the Nominating and Governance Committee and is a member of the Compensation and Benefits Committee; and a director of Rexnord Corporation since 2014, where he is a member of the Compensation Committee, chairs the Executive Committee and was elected non-executive chairman in 2015. He was a director of Integrys Energy Group, Inc., where he chaired the Financial Committee and was a member of the Audit Committee from 2011 until its merger into Wisconsin Energy Corporation in 2015 and continued as a director and Audit Committee member of the newly formed entity, WEC Energy Group, Inc. until his resignation in December 2017. He also was a director of Bucyrus International, Inc. from 2006 until its acquisition by Caterpillar, Inc. in 2011 and chaired its Compensation Committee. In addition, he was the co-founder and is currently co-chair of The Water Council, a non-profit organization dedicated to the development of the global water industry.

Mr. Jones has extensive leadership experience as chief executive officer and chairman, both at our company and previously at U.S. Can and Greenfield Industries. He brings to our company this diverse background as the leader of a world-class manufacturing company. He is experienced in managing the operational activities of a large business and providing overall direction for a complex corporation like ours. Further, Mr. Jones is and has been a director of several other publicly-traded companies and shares his insights as to best practices from those experiences.

AJITA G. RAJENDRA – Chairman and Chief Executive Officer.

Mr. Rajendra, 66, has been a director of our company since 2011. He is a member of the Investment Policy Committee of the Board. Mr. Rajendra is chairman and chief executive officer of our company. From 2014 to 2017 he was chairman, president and chief executive officer of our company. Mr. Rajendra previously served as president and chief executive officer from 2013 to 2014, and as president and chief operating officer from 2011 to 2012. Mr. Rajendra joined the company as president of A. O. Smith Water Products Company in 2005 and was named executive vice president of the company in 2006. Prior to joining the company, Mr. Rajendra was senior vice president at Kennametal, Inc., a manufacturer of cutting tools, from 1998 to 2004. Mr. Rajendra also serves on the board of Donaldson Company, Inc., where he is a member of the Audit Committee and Human Resources Committee, and on the board of The Timken Company, where he serves on the Audit and Compensation Committees. Further, Mr. Rajendra was a director of Industrial Distribution Group, Inc. from 2007 until its acquisition by Eiger Holdco, LLC in 2008.

Mr. Rajendra’s extensive manufacturing and international experience and service to our company as our chairman and chief executive officer and in various other senior executive positions, brings to the Board knowledge and insight as to our company’s global operations and a thorough understanding of our products and markets. Further, Mr. Rajendra has experience as a director of other publicly traded companies.

BRUCE M. SMITH – Retired Chairman of the Board of Managers and Former Chief Executive Officer, Smith Investment Company LLC; Former Chairman of the Board, President and Chief Executive Officer, Smith Investment Company.

Mr. Smith, 69, has been a director of our company since 1995. He is the chairperson of the Investment Policy Committee and a member of the Personnel and Compensation Committee and the Nominating and Governance Committee of the Board. He was elected president of Smith Investment Company Inc. (“SICO”) in 1993 and served

6

as chairman and chief executive officer of SICO from 1999 until its merger with our company in 2009. Shares of our Class A Common Stock and Common Stock were SICO’s principal asset and represented a controlling position in our company until the merger. Mr. Smith was a director of SICO from 1983 to 1988 and from 1991 to 2009. From 2009 until his retirement in 2012, Mr. Smith also was chief executive officer of Smith Investment Company LLC, an entity that holds all of the assets and liabilities of SICO (other than our Class A Common Stock and Common Stock owned by SICO until the merger). From 2009 to 2016, Mr. Smith was chairman of the board of managers of Smith Investment Company LLC. He was also chief executive officer of Berlin Industries LLC, which was engaged in multicolor printing and related services, from 1996 until its sale in 2011. Further, Mr. Smith is one of three trustees of the Smith Family Voting Trust, which holds a controlling position in the stock of our company. Mr. Smith is a first cousin of Mark D. Smith, also a director of our company. Roger S. Smith, brother of director Bruce M. Smith, was a long-standing employee of our company until his retirement in January 2018. Until his retirement, Roger Smith split his time between his non-executive position as director-community affairs and at the A. O. Smith Foundation, a charitable organization.

Mr. Bruce Smith has executive level experience in handling the operational activities of SICO, with its diverse businesses. Further, he has practical experience gained through his participation on the board of SICO prior to its merger into our company. Based on his employment with our company earlier in his career and his role as a director for more than 20 years, Mr. Smith is knowledgeable of company history and understands our long-term strategic and tactical plans. Mr. Smith is a member of the Smith family, which holds a controlling interest in the stock of our company.

MARK D. SMITH – Business Manager, Strattec Security Corporation.

Mr. Smith, 56, has been a director of our company since 2001. He is a member of the Audit Committee of the Board. He has served as a product business manager for Strattec Security Corporation since 1997. Strattec Security Corporation designs, develops, manufactures and markets mechanical locks and keys, electronically enhanced locks and keys, steering column and instrument panel ignition lock housings, latches, and related access control products for major automotive manufacturers. Mr. Smith is a first cousin of Bruce M. Smith, also a director of our company.

Mr. Mark Smith is experienced in managing the operations of a manufacturing business, both at Strattec and previously with our company. Further, an important aspect of his position at Strattec is managing key customer relationships, and he brings this orientation to his service on our Board. Mr. Smith is also a member of the Smith family, which holds a controlling interest in the stock of our company.

KEVIN J. WHEELER – President and Chief Operating Officer.

Mr. Wheeler, 58, has been a director of our company since July 2017. Mr. Wheeler became president and chief operating officer of our company in May 2017. From 2013 to 2017, Mr. Wheeler held the position of senior vice president of A. O. Smith Corporation and president and general manager of its North America, India, Europe Water Heating and Export business, which is the company’s largest operating unit. Mr. Wheeler previously served as managing director of our company’s European operations, where he had responsibility for water heater business in Europe and the Middle East, and upon his return to the United States from the Netherlands, served as Vice President-International, with responsibility for all European and Asian operations, including China. Mr. Wheeler joined the company in 1993 as a regional sales manager and has held positions of increasing responsibility.

Mr. Wheeler has extensive sales, manufacturing and international experience in various executive positions with our company, most recently as our president and chief operating officer, and brings to the Board a thorough understanding of our products and markets worldwide.

7

NOMINEES – COMMON STOCK

WILLIAM P. GREUBEL – Retired Chief Executive Officer and Director, Wabash National Corporation.

Mr. Greubel, 66, has been a director of our company since 2006. He is the chairperson of the Nominating and Governance Committee and a member of the Personnel and Compensation Committee of the Board. Mr. Greubel was the chief executive officer of Wabash National from 2002 to 2007 and held various director positions with Wabash National, including chairman and executive director, until his retirement as a director in 2009. Wabash National is one of the leading manufacturers of semi-truck trailers in North America, specializing in the design and production of dry freight vans, refrigerated vans, flatbed trailers, drop deck trailers, dry and wet trailers and intermodal equipment. Mr. Greubel previously was chief executive officer of Accuride Corporation from 1998 until 2002 and president from 1994 until 1998. Mr. Greubel served as a director of Wabash National from 2002 to 2009 and of privately held Utilimaster Corp. from 2002 to 2009.

Mr. Greubel is an experienced chief executive officer, having held this leadership position at Wabash National and Accuride Corporation. By virtue of this role, he has demonstrated his capability to effectively oversee the overall direction of a publicly traded company and to manage a large manufacturing company like ours. Mr. Greubel’s experience and guidance in managing corporate restructuring and change in a large organization have been important to our acquisition integration activities.

DR. ILHAM KADRI – President and Chief Executive Officer, Diversey, Inc.

Dr. Kadri, 49, has been a director of our company since 2016. She is a member of the Audit Committee of the Board. Dr. Kadri is president and chief executive officer of Diversey, Inc. Diversey, Inc. is a leading provider of cleaning and hygiene products to the hospitality, healthcare, food and beverage, food service, retail and facility management sectors, with customers worldwide. Diversey, Inc. was spun off from Sealed Air Corporation in 2017, where Dr. Kadri was vice president and president of the Diversey Care division from 2013 to 2017. Prior to joining Sealed Air Corporation, Dr. Kadri was with Dow Chemical Company from 2007 until 2012, where she was the general manager of the Dow Advanced Materials Division, a specialty materials provider in the Middle East, Africa, and Europe, and the commercial director for Dow Water & Process Solutions, a global leader in sustainable separation and purification technology, following its acquisition of Rohm and Haas, where she served as a marketing director for the construction, coatings and industrial division. Dr. Kadri started her career with Royal Dutch Shell PLC in the Netherlands and has held positions of increasing financial and global responsibility with public and private companies.

Dr. Kadri has extensive international experience, having held executive leadership roles in Europe, the Middle East and Africa. In addition, as a chemical engineer, with a master’s degree in physics and chemistry, and a doctorate degree in reactive extrusion, Dr. Kadri brings a unique perspective on manufacturing and research and development, with a focus on sustainability and the water industry that are directly applicable to our industry. She also has broad mergers and acquisition experience that benefits our company. As an added benefit, Dr. Kadri brings gender and ethnic diversity to our Board.

IDELLE K. WOLF – Retired President, Barnes Distribution.

Ms. Wolf, 65, has been a director of our company since 2005. She is a member of the Audit Committee of the Board. Ms. Wolf was president of Barnes Distribution from 2006 to 2007 and vice president of Barnes Group Inc. from 2000 to 2007. She previously was president of Barnes Distribution North America from 2004 through 2005. She joined Barnes Group Inc. as vice president and as chief operating officer of Barnes Distribution in 2000. Barnes Distribution is a leading distributor of maintenance, repair, operating and production supplies with distribution centers in North America, Europe and Asia.

Ms. Wolf has extensive executive level financial and operating experience. She is a Certified Public Accountant with audit experience and has a thorough knowledge and understanding of generally accepted accounting principles and auditing standards and how they apply to budgeting and financial reporting systems. Accordingly, Ms. Wolf serves on our Audit Committee and is qualified as an audit committee financial expert under SEC regulations. Ms. Wolf also adds a distribution orientation to our Board, with a thorough understanding of distribution issues and opportunities on a worldwide basis. As an added benefit, Ms. Wolf brings gender diversity to our Board.

8

GENE C. WULF – Retired Director and Executive Vice President, Bemis Company, Inc.

Mr. Wulf, 67, has served as a director of our company since 2003. He is the chairperson of the Audit Committee of the Board. Until his retirement in 2011, Mr. Wulf served as executive vice president of Bemis Company, Inc., where he was responsible for integration of acquisitions, as well as global corporate strategy and information technology. He previously was senior vice president and chief financial officer of Bemis Company, Inc. from 2005 to 2010; was vice president, chief financial officer and treasurer of Bemis Company, Inc., from 2002 through 2005; and was vice president and controller from 1998 to 2002. He also served as a director of Bemis Company, Inc. from 2006 until his retirement in 2011. Bemis Company, Inc. is one of the largest flexible packaging companies in the Americas.

Mr. Wulf is proficient in developing and managing a broad-based financial function and is familiar with financial analytics used to measure business performance in a manufacturing company. He has a thorough knowledge and understanding of generally accepted accounting principles and auditing standards and how they should be applied to budgeting and financial reporting systems. Based on his experience as a chief financial officer of a publicly held company, he shares his insights as to the best practices at companies like ours. With his strong financial background, Mr. Wulf serves on our Audit Committee and, further, meets the SEC definition of an audit committee financial expert. In addition, he has provided a practical orientation with respect to the business consolidation that our company has undertaken over the last several years.

GOVERNANCE OF OUR COMPANY

The Board of Directors

Our business is managed under the direction and oversight of the Board of Directors, who are elected by the stockholders. Directors meet their responsibilities by participating in meetings of the Board of Directors and Board Committees on which they sit, through communication with our chairman and chief executive officer and other officers and employees, by consulting with our independent registered public accounting firm and other third parties, by reviewing materials provided to them and by visiting our offices and plants. During 2017, the Board held six meetings, including one telephonic meeting. The standing Committees of the Board of Directors held a total of 23 meetings, including eight meetings that were conducted telephonically. All directors attended at least 75% of the meetings of the Board and Committees on which they served during 2017. Although we have no formal policy on director attendance, all ten of our then-current directors attended our 2017 Annual Meeting of Stockholders.

The non-management directors of the Board met in executive session without management present five times in 2017. The lead director who presides at such meetings rotates on an annual basis among the chairpersons of the following Committees in the following order: Audit Committee, Nominating and Governance Committee, Personnel and Compensation Committee and Investment Policy Committee. The lead director from April 2017 to April 2018 was Bruce M. Smith, the chairperson of the Investment Policy Committee. The Nominating and Governance Committee designated Gene C. Wulf, the chairperson of the Audit Committee, as the lead director from April 2018 to April 2019. Any party wishing to communicate with the lead director may send correspondence to the Lead Director, c/o James F. Stern, Corporate Secretary, A. O. Smith Corporation, 11270 West Park Place, P.O. Box 245008, Milwaukee, Wisconsin, 53224-9508.

Director Independence and Financial Literacy. The Smith Family Voting Trust has the power to elect a majority of our Class A Directors, who make up a majority of the Board. As of December 31, 2017, the Smith Family Voting Trust directly or beneficially owned 95.91% of Class A Common Stock and therefore 95.91% of voting power with respect to the election of the Class A Directors. Since the Board is currently composed of seven Class A Directors (six following Mr. Current’s retirement) and four Common Stock Directors, the Smith Family Voting Trust effectively exercises control over voting power for the election of our directors, and therefore, we are a “controlled company” under the New York Stock Exchange (“NYSE”) rules. As a controlled company, under NYSE rules, we may choose to not have a majority of independent directors or compensation or governance

9

committees consisting solely of independent directors. Notwithstanding our status as a controlled company, the Board has not elected to exercise the “controlled company” exemption in any respect because, as described below, we have a Board in which a majority of our members consist of independent directors, and all members of the Audit Committee, Personnel and Compensation Committee and Nominating and Governance Committee are independent for SEC and NYSE purposes.

As described in the Corporate Governance Guidelines available on our website, www.aosmith.com, we apply the NYSE rules to determine director independence. The Nominating and Governance Committee annually evaluates the independence of each director and makes recommendations to the Board. As part of this process, the Committee evaluates any related party transactions disclosed by directors in the detailed Directors’ and Officers’ Questionnaires completed annually by each director. No transactions were above the reporting threshold for related party transactions under SEC rules. In making its recommendations, the Committee also applied the NYSE rules and evaluated any other legal, accounting and family relationships between directors and our company.

The Committee and the Board considered that director Bruce M. Smith’s brother, Roger S. Smith, has been a long-standing employee in a nonexecutive capacity. Until his January 2018 retirement, Mr. Roger Smith split his time between the company and the A. O. Smith Foundation, a charitable organization, and was subject to the same terms and conditions of employment as other salaried employees. Further, the Committee and the Board considered that Bruce M. Smith served as chairman of the board of managers of Smith Investment Company, LLC until his retirement in 2016. The Committee and the Board concluded that each of the foregoing relationships was not a material relationship for governance purposes and did not affect Mr. Bruce M. Smith’s independence.

The Board has determined that Messrs. Brown, Current, Jones, Greubel, Bruce M. Smith, Mark D. Smith and Wulf, Dr. Kadri and Ms. Wolf meet the NYSE independence requirements. Messrs. Rajendra and Wheeler are considered management directors by virtue of their current positions as executive officers of our company.

The Board recognizes that the NYSE rules require financial literacy of Audit Committee members only. Notwithstanding that, as a best practice, the Board has reviewed the qualifications and experience of its members and determined that each director is financially literate within the meaning of the NYSE rules.

Board Information and Stockholder Communications. We are committed to making our corporate governance information accessible to stockholders and other interested parties. Accordingly, on our website, www.aosmith.com, under the “Investors” heading, and then “Governance” subheading, we have published the A. O. Smith Corporation Guiding Principles and the Financial Code of Ethics and provided a link for Stockholder Contacts to Communicate with Directors. Likewise, under “Investors,” “Governance,” and then “Board of Directors,” we have available a list of the Board of Directors and the Charters for the Audit, Investment Policy, Nominating and Governance, and Personnel and Compensation Committees. Further, under the “Board Committees and Charters” subheading, we have Committee Assignments, Corporate Governance Guidelines and Criteria for Selecting Board of Director Candidates. Finally, SEC filings, including our Form 10-K, Forms 10-Q, Forms 8-K, Proxy Statement and Section 16 filings, are available for review on this website under the heading “Investors,” and then “SEC Filings” subheading. Stockholders may also request that these documents be mailed by sending their request to the address provided below.

We encourage communication with our directors. Any interested party may communicate with a particular director, all directors, non-management or independent directors as a group or the lead director by mail or courier addressed to him/her or the entire Board in care of the Corporate Secretary at the following address:

c/o James F. Stern, Corporate Secretary

A. O. Smith Corporation

11270 West Park Place

P.O. Box 245008

Milwaukee, WI 53224-9508

The Corporate Secretary will forward this communication unopened to the addressed director.

10

Compensation Committee Interlocks and Insider Participation. The members of the Personnel and Compensation Committee are Ronald D. Brown, William P. Greubel, Paul W. Jones and Bruce M. Smith. No member of this Committee serves as a member of a board of directors or compensation committee of any entity that has one or more executive officers serving as a member of our Board or Personnel and Compensation Committee.

Procedure for Review of Related Party Transactions. Potential conflicts of interest must be approved in advance, including related party transactions reportable under SEC rules, or related to the Smith family, in accordance with our Corporate Governance Guidelines. We have a detailed code of conduct, the A. O. Smith Corporation Guiding Principles, which applies to all employees, officers and directors, and specifically addresses conflicts of interest. There has been no waiver of the code of conduct, requested or granted, for any directors or officers. Further, the Corporate Governance Guidelines provide the procedure for review of related party transactions reportable under SEC rules, with approval by the Nominating and Governance Committee required if any such transaction involves a director, executive officer or his/her immediate family members. Other than the matters identified in “Director Independence and Financial Literacy,” each of which was reviewed by the Nominating and Governance Committee and the Board and determined to not be material, there have been no related party transactions.

Potential Director Candidates. The Nominating and Governance Committee will consider any candidate recommended by stockholders, directors, officers, third-party search firms and other sources for nomination as a director. The Committee considers the needs of the Board and evaluates each director candidate in light of, among other things, the candidate’s qualifications. All candidates’ minimum qualifications are identified in the Corporate Governance Guidelines and the Criteria for Selecting Board of Director Candidates, both of which can be found on our website by clicking on “Investors,” then “Governance,” followed by “Board Committees and Charters.” To summarize, all non-management candidates should be independent and possess substantial and significant experience which would be of value to our company in the performance of the duties of a director. Recommended candidates must be of the highest character and integrity, free of any conflicts of interest, have an inquiring mind and vision, and possess the ability to work collaboratively with others. Further, Directors should have diverse backgrounds and expertise, including diversity of gender and race, required for the Board to fulfill its duties. Each candidate must have the time available to devote to Board activities and be of an age that, if elected, the candidate could serve on the Board for at least five years before reaching the mandatory retirement age, which is 72, absent a waiver approved by the Board. Finally, we believe it appropriate for certain key members of our management to participate as members of the Board, while recognizing that a majority of independent directors must be maintained at all times. All candidates will be reviewed in the same manner, regardless of the source of the recommendation. Although not part of any formal policy, our goal is a balanced and diverse Board, with members whose skills, background and experience are complementary and, together, cover the spectrum of areas that impact our business.

A stockholder recommendation of a director candidate must be received no later than the date for submission of stockholder proposals. Please see the section of this proxy entitled, “Date for Stockholder Proposals.” The recommendation letter should be sent by mail to the Chairperson, Nominating and Governance Committee, c/o James F. Stern, Corporate Secretary, A. O. Smith Corporation, 11270 West Park Place, P.O. Box 245008, Milwaukee, Wisconsin 53224-9508.

The recommendation letter must, at a minimum, provide the stockholder’s name, address, the number and class of shares owned; the candidate’s biographical information, including name, residential and business address, telephone number, age, education, accomplishments, employment history (including positions held and current position), and current and former directorships; and the stockholder’s opinion as to whether the stockholder recommended candidate meets the definitions of “independent” and “financially literate” under the NYSE rules. In addition, the recommendation letter must provide the information that would be required to be disclosed in the solicitation of proxies for election of directors under federal securities laws. The stockholder must include the candidate’s statement that he/she meets these requirements and those identified on our website; is willing to promptly complete the questionnaire required of all officers, directors and candidates for nomination to the Board; will provide such other information as the Committee may reasonably request; and consents to serve on the Board if elected.

11

Board Committees

The Board of Directors has delegated some of its authority to Committees of the Board. There are four standing Committees: the Audit Committee, the Personnel and Compensation Committee, the Investment Policy Committee and the Nominating and Governance Committee. Each standing committee is discussed below.

Audit Committee. With the addition of Dr. Ilham Kadri in 2017, the Audit Committee consisted of five members, each of whom meets the independence and financial literacy requirements of the NYSE and the SEC. With the retirement of Mr. Gloster Current in connection with the Annual Meeting, the Audit Committee will again consist of four members. The Audit Committee’s duties include appointing the firm that will act as our independent registered public accounting firm. The Audit Committee’s duties and responsibilities are set forth in its Charter, which has been approved by the Board of Directors and is available on our website. The Board of Directors has determined that Ms. Wolf and Mr. Wulf qualify as “audit committee financial experts” as defined by the SEC. The Audit Committee met eleven times during 2017, with seven of those meetings being telephonic. The Report of the Audit Committee is included as part of this Proxy Statement.

Personnel and Compensation Committee. The Personnel and Compensation Committee is responsible for establishing and administering our compensation and benefit plans for officers, executives and management employees, including the determination of eligibility for participation in such plans. It determines the compensation to be paid to officers and certain other selected executives and evaluates the performance of the chairman and chief executive officer in light of established goals and objectives. As it deems appropriate, the Committee may retain independent consultants to provide recommendations as to executive compensation. The Committee reviews the recommendation of the Nominating and Governance Committee concerning any conflicts involving such consultants and makes a determination as to the independence prior to their retention. The Committee also directs the senior vice president – human resources and public affairs to prepare computations for its consideration and considers recommendations of the chief executive officer as to compensation of executives other than the chief executive officer. The Committee also has authority to establish subcommittees and delegate authority to such subcommittees to accomplish the duties and responsibilities of the Committee. The Committee has established a subcommittee consisting of Messrs. Brown, Greubel and Bruce Smith and delegated to it certain responsibilities of the Board and the Committee with respect to compensation that is intended to qualify as “performance-based compensation” within the meaning of Section 162(m) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended, and to perform other duties delegated from time to time by the Board or the Committee. Each of Messrs. Brown, Greubel and Bruce Smith meets the requirements to be considered an “outside director” within the meaning of Section 162(m).

The Personnel and Compensation Committee’s duties and responsibilities are set forth in its Charter, which has been approved by the Board and is available on our website. With the addition of Mr. Jones, the Committee consists of four directors, all of whom are independent under NYSE rules and have been determined to be independent of any conflict with respect to the Committee’s compensation consultant. The Committee held five meetings during 2017, including one telephonic meeting. The Personnel and Compensation Committee Report is included as part of this Proxy Statement.

Investment Policy Committee. The Investment Policy Committee is responsible for establishing investment policy and certain other matters for all of our qualified retirement plans. The responsibilities and duties of the Investment Policy Committee are set forth in its Charter, which has been approved by the Board and is available on our website. At its April 2017 meeting the Board reassigned Mr. Jones to the Nominating and Governance Committee and the Personnel and Compensation Committee. Accordingly, the Investment Policy Committee now consists of two members. The Investment Policy Committee held four meetings during 2017.

Nominating and Governance Committee. The Nominating and Governance Committee oversees our governance processes and procedures, assists the Board in identifying qualified candidates for election as Board members, and establishes and periodically reviews criteria for selection of directors. This Committee reviews our company’s and the Board Committees’ structures to ensure appropriate oversight of risk. Further, the Committee

12

provides direction to the Board as to the independence, financial literacy and financial expertise of directors, and the composition of the Board and its Committees. As part of its responsibilities, the Committee reviews the independence of consultants to the Personnel and Compensation Committee and makes recommendations to the Personnel and Compensation Committee as to their independence. The Committee also is responsible for reviewing and making recommendations to the Board as to director compensation. The responsibilities and duties of the Nominating and Governance Committee are set forth in its Charter, which has been approved by the Board and is available on our website. The Committee consists of four members, all of whom are independent under the NYSE rules. The Nominating and Governance Committee met three times during 2017. The Report of the Nominating and Governance Committee is included as part of this Proxy Statement.

The table below shows Committee membership and the number of meetings of the full Board and each standing Committee in 2017.

Our Leadership Structure

Ajita G. Rajendra holds the combined position of chairman and chief executive officer. He assumed the role of chairman in 2014, in addition to his position as chief executive officer, which he assumed in 2013. Mr. Rajendra also held the position of president from 2013 until 2017, when we named Kevin J. Wheeler president and chief operating officer.

With the combined position of chairman and chief executive officer, we have a single strong leader who represents our company. This is the leadership structure that A. O. Smith has traditionally used and, we believe, benefits our stockholders, customers, employees, business partners and other key stakeholders by having a single, well-recognized and regarded leader.

We believe that this structure strengthens our company’s leadership and does not impair the Board’s independence. The members of our Board and the four standing Board Committees provide appropriate oversight.

13

In this regard, the Audit Committee oversees the accounting and financial reporting processes, as well as legal and compliance matters. The Personnel and Compensation Committee oversees the annual performance of our chairman and chief executive officer, as well as our executive compensation program. The Nominating and Governance Committee evaluates independence issues and monitors matters such as the composition of the Board and its Committees, Board performance and “best practices” in corporate governance. The Investment Policy Committee oversees our investments with respect to benefit plans. Each Committee is led by a chairperson other than the chairman and chief executive officer, and as discussed in more detail in this Proxy Statement, the entire Board of Directors is actively involved in overseeing our risk management. All together, we believe this framework strikes a sound balance with appropriate oversight.

Further, we have a lead director who is an independent director and presides at meetings of all nonmanagement directors in executive session. These meetings generally are held in conjunction with most regular Board meetings. In 2017, each in-person Board meeting included a nonmanagement directors’ session. This allows directors to speak candidly on any matter of interest, without the chairman and chief executive officer or other managers present. In accordance with our Corporate Governance Guidelines, the role of lead director rotates on an annual basis, as opposed to a meeting-by-meeting rotation like some companies, to provide continuity in director oversight. We believe this structure provides consistent and effective oversight of our management and our company.

Our directors bring a broad range of leadership experience to the boardroom and regularly contribute to the thoughtful discussion involved in overseeing the affairs of our company. We believe all Board members are well-engaged in their responsibilities, and all Board members express their views and are open to the opinions expressed by other directors. We do not believe that appointing an independent board chairman, or a permanent lead director, would improve the performance of the Board.

Consideration of Risk

Our Board is actively involved in overseeing our risk management. Operational and strategic presentations by management to the Board include consideration of the challenges and risks to our business, and the Board and management actively engage in discussion on these topics. Periodically, the Board also reviews and discusses a report from management on risk issues and also receives more detailed presentations on specific risk topics relevant to our company at three to four Board meetings each year. This report is compiled by senior management and approved by the chief executive officer.

In addition, each of our Board Committees considers risk within its area of responsibility. For instance, our Audit Committee asks management to address a specific critical accounting issue at most of its meetings and considers the overall impact that the issue has on our financial position and risk profile. In addition, they discuss legal and compliance matters and assess the adequacy of our risk-related internal controls. Further, the Audit Committee oversees the frequency and creation of surveys by management as part of our company’s Enterprise Risk Management Program. Likewise, the Personnel and Compensation Committee considers risk and structures our executive compensation programs with an eye to providing incentives to appropriately reward executives for growth without undue risk taking. Each year, the Personnel and Compensation Committee also performs a risk assessment with respect to our executive compensation program and reviews the executive succession process. The Investment Policy Committee evaluates the risk and return of our investments and has retained a financial advisor to assist on such matters. The Nominating and Governance Committee annually reviews governance practices with respect to risk and oversight. Additionally, on an annual basis, the Nominating and Governance Committee reviews our company’s and Board Committees’ structures to ensure appropriate oversight of risk.

Further, our approach to compensation practices and policies applicable to employees throughout our organization is consistent with that followed for executives. In this regard, the Personnel and Compensation Committee analyzed our compensation and, among other things, concluded that no individual business segment carries a significant portion of our risk profile; has significantly different compensation structure from the others; pays compensation expenses as a significant percentage of its revenue, or varies significantly from the overall risk

14

and reward structure of our company. Accordingly, we believe that risks arising from our operating environment and our incentive programs are not reasonably likely to have a material adverse effect on our company.

We benchmark our compensation and benefits packages at all levels of the organization no less than every other year. Base pay, bonus targets and long-term incentives are targeted to market median for each position. Most exempt salaried positions are eligible for participation in a bonus program. For employees in a corporate function, annual incentive programs are based upon attainment of the same Return on Equity targets as our executives. Annual incentive programs at our business segments are based upon attainment of financial and strategic objectives established and approved annually. A limited number of key managers are eligible to participate in a long-term incentive program that awards stock options and/or restricted stock units in varying amounts based upon position and market comparisons. However, awards normally are subject to at least three-year vesting periods. We feel this combination of base salary, bonus plans tied to critical financial measurements and long-term incentives with three-year or more vesting periods is balanced and serves to motivate our employees to accomplish our company objectives and retain key employees while avoiding unreasonable risk taking.

15

DIRECTOR COMPENSATION

The Nominating and Governance Committee of the Board of Directors is responsible for reviewing and making recommendations to the Board as to director compensation, which is reviewed annually in July. Non-employee directors are compensated in the form of cash and shares of Common Stock.

The Committee made no changes in its director compensation program for 2017. Accordingly, directors received a cash annual retainer in the amount of $50,000, paid quarterly, for Board service, and an award of shares of Common Stock with a market value of $125,000 on the date of the award. The lead director received an additional annual retainer of $20,000. Directors received $2,500 for attendance at each Board meeting and the annual stockholders’ meeting, plus expenses, and $1,000 for each telephonic Board and Committee meeting. Each Personnel and Compensation Committee, Nominating and Governance Committee and Investment Policy Committee member received an annual retainer of $3,000, with the chairperson of each receiving $10,000;

16

Committee members also received $2,500 per meeting, plus expenses. Each Audit Committee member receives an annual retainer of $5,000, with the chairperson receiving an annual retainer of $15,000; Committee members also receive $2,500 per meeting, plus expenses. Directors who are our employees were not compensated for service as directors or Committee members or for attendance at Board or Committee meetings.

During 2017, the Committee conducted a comprehensive review of its director compensation program. As part of this process, the Committee considered a Willis Towers Watson assessment of director compensation trends and other information concerning director compensation. In particular, the Committee considered the trend to simplify director compensation by eliminating meeting fees in favor of an inclusive Board member and Committee member retainer. Following review and discussion, the Committee elected to eliminate all meeting fees and to adjust the Board and Committee retainers accordingly, to be effective January 1, 2018.

Beginning in 2018, Directors will receive a cash annual retainer of $65,000, paid in quarterly amounts of $16,250. The lead director retainer of $20,000 annually remains unchanged. Each Personnel and Compensation Committee and Investment Policy Committee member receives an annual retainer of $13,000, paid quarterly, and each member of the Nominating and Governance Committee receives $10,500 annually, with the chairperson of each of these Committees receiving an additional $7,000 annual retainer. Each Audit committee member receives an annual retainer of $23,500, paid quarterly with the chairperson receiving an additional $10,000 annual retainer. The award of shares of Common Stock to each director remains unchanged. Each director receives Common Stock with a market value of $125,000 on the date of the award. The retainers were calculated to be comparable to the directors’ total compensation under the previous system, while simplifying record keeping and reporting.

The Board requires that every new director participate in a detailed orientation, including visits to our key operations. This encompasses a review of business and financial operations, meetings with business executives and others, and an overview of our corporate governance policies and procedures. New directors are paid $2,500 to compensate them for their time devoted to orientation matters.

The stock ownership requirement for directors is the two-year average of all cash compensation received by the director, multiplied by five. Each director is required to acquire beneficial ownership of A. O. Smith Corporation Common Stock having an aggregate value equal to this stock ownership requirement within five years of his or her election as a new director. All directors have met this requirement, except Dr. Kadri, who joined the Board approximately one year ago.

Certain directors have elected to defer the payment of their fees and receipt of Common Stock shares under the A. O. Smith Nonqualified Deferred Compensation Plan (the “Deferred Compensation Plan”). The Deferred Compensation Plan allows directors to defer all or a portion (not less than 25%) of their fees until a later date, but not later than the year in which the director ceases service as a director. Payments can be made in a lump sum or in not more than ten annual installments. This is handled as a bookkeeping entry, with gains and losses credited to the director’s account each month based on the director’s crediting election. The crediting election is used to designate the investment fund(s) as the basis for calculating the rate of return equivalent for the director’s account. The current funds available for a crediting election are: Fidelity VIP Government Money Market Division, PIMCO VIT Total Return Division, Principal LifeTime 2010 Division, Principal LifeTime 2020 Division, Principal LifeTime 2030 Division, Principal LifeTime 2040 Division, Principal LifeTime 2050 Division, Principal LifeTime 2060 Division, Principal LifeTime Strategic Income Division, Principal Global Investors – Equity Income Division, Vanguard VIF Balanced Division, MFS Growth Division, Vanguard VIF Equity Index Division, American Century VP Mid Cap Value Division, Delaware VIP Small Cap Value Division, Janus Henderson Enterprise Division, Templeton Foreign VIP Division, and A. O. Smith Stable Value Fund. No directors elected to defer payment of director fees during 2017. Ronald D. Brown, Gloster B. Current, Jr., William P. Greubel and Bruce M. Smith have deferred receipt of their stock awards, which consequently are treated as restricted stock units. Dividends on stock which have been deferred as restricted stock units are also received in the form of restricted stock units based on the average of the high and low price of our Common Stock on the date of the dividend.

17

STOCK OWNERSHIP

Security Ownership of Directors and Management

The following table shows, as of December 31, 2017, the Class A Common Stock and Common Stock of our company beneficially owned by each director, each nominee for director, each named executive officer in the “Summary Compensation Table” and by all directors and executive officers as a group.

Compliance with Section 16(a) of the

Securities Exchange Act

Section 16(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 requires our directors and executive officers, and persons who own more than ten percent of a registered class of our company’s equity securities, to file reports of ownership and changes in ownership with the SEC and the NYSE. Executive officers, directors and greater than ten percent stockholders are required by SEC regulations to furnish us with copies of all Section 16(a) Forms 3, 4 and 5 which they file.

18

Based solely on our review of the copies of such forms we received and written representations from certain reporting persons during fiscal year 2017, we believe that all filing requirements applicable to our executive officers, directors and greater than ten percent beneficial owners were met.

EXECUTIVE COMPENSATION

Compensation Discussion and Analysis

Compensation Philosophy

We believe that effective executive compensation programs are critical to our long-term success. We have developed compensation programs with the following objectives:

Our long-term incentive opportunities link a significant portion of executive compensation to our performance through restricted stock unit and stock option awards. Executive officers also are expected to comply with established stock ownership guidelines which require acquisition and retention of specific levels of our Common Stock. Our view is that this stock ownership encourages executive performance but discourages executives from taking undue risk.

We believe executive total compensation opportunity should increase commensurate with responsibility and capacity to influence our results. Additionally, as responsibility and accountability increase, so should the portion of compensation which is at risk. Therefore, not only do base salaries increase with position and responsibility, but short-term and long-term incentive opportunities as a percentage of total compensation increase as well.

Our executive compensation package is designed to strike a balance between short-term cash compensation in the form of fixed salaries and variable annual incentive plans and long-term compensation in the form of cash-based performance units and equity awards with three-year vesting periods. For the chief executive officer, approximately 20% of 2017 total target compensation was comprised of base salary, with the remaining 80% being variable compensation dependent on our company performance. The variable compensation was divided so that approximately 20% of total target compensation was attributable to annual incentive bonus and approximately 60% was long-term incentive compensation. The Committee approved a long-term incentive plan for 2017, which targeted 66% of the chief executive officer’s long-term incentives, or approximately 40% of total compensation, as equity-based awards.

For the other named executive officers, approximately 30-40% of total target compensation was comprised of base salary, with the remaining 60-70% being based on our company performance. The only exception is Mr. Ding, for whom 70% of his annual variable pay is based on the profitability of his business unit, calculated based on sales and earnings before interest and taxes. The variable compensation is structured so that approximately 20-25% of total target compensation represents annual incentive bonus, with roughly 40-45% attributable to long-term incentive compensation. The Committee targeted 66% of the long-term incentives, or approximately 25-30% of total target compensation, as equity-based awards for those other named executive officers.

We believe this combination results in a competitive compensation package that provides an incentive for our executives to lead with a focus on short-term results, while positioning us for long-term sustained performance.

19

With approximately 25-40% of their total compensation tied to equity awards, we believe the decisions of named executive officers are aligned with the best interests of our stockholders. We believe this combination of base pay and short-term and long-term incentives supports our objectives of pay-for-performance, while mitigating the potential for undue risk taking because it ties a significant portion of the executive officer’s compensation to sustained, long-term performance.

We believe our compensation philosophy is appropriate and aligned with stockholders, as demonstrated by our stock performance. We reported adjusted earnings per share from continuing operations of $2.17 for 2017, which was a 16.0% improvement over the prior year. We maintained our focus on growing stockholder value and, as shown in the table below, our total stockholder return for December 31, 2012 to 2017 significantly exceeded the S&P Midcap 400 Index, S&P Select Industrials Index, S&P 500 Index and that of the Russell 1000 Index. We added the S&P 500 Index and the S&P 500 Select Industrials Index as appropriate indices for comparison as our common stock was added to the S&P 500 Index in July 2017 and removed from the S&P Midcap 400 Index at the same time. In future periods, the S&P 400 Midcap 400 Index and the Russell 1000 Index will not be included in the comparison.

Comparison of Five-Year Cumulative Total Return

From December 31, 2012 to December 31, 2017

Assumes $100 Invested with Reinvestment of Dividends

Outside Consultants

Just as we compete for market share in highly competitive global markets, we compete for talent in equally competitive labor environments. In order to attract and retain critical leadership in these competitive environments, we strive to provide a comprehensive and competitive total compensation package. We utilize the resources of an independent compensation consultant to aid in establishing our programs and to monitor how they compare with the marketplace. Specifically, the Personnel and Compensation Committee (“PCC”) has retained Willis Towers

20

Watson, a leading global executive compensation consulting group, to advise the PCC on market trends relative to executive compensation, provide market data as requested and share input and views on issues being discussed by the PCC.

The PCC has sole authority to approve the independent compensation consultant’s fees and terms of engagement on executive compensation matters. The PCC annually reviews its relationship with Willis Towers Watson to ensure its independence on executive compensation matters, taking into account the independence analysis and recommendation of the Nominating and Governance Committee (“NGC”). In making its recommendation, the NGC reviewed the independence of Willis Towers Watson and the individual representatives of Willis Towers Watson who served as the PCC’s advisors, considering the following specific factors: (i) other services provided to us by Willis Towers Watson; (ii) fees paid by us to Willis Towers Watson as a percentage of Willis Towers Watson’s total revenue; (iii) policies and procedures maintained by Willis Towers Watson that are designed to prevent a conflict of interest; (iv) any business or personal relationships between the individual representatives of Willis Towers Watson who advised the PCC and any member of the PCC; (v) any shares of our company’s common stock owned by the individual representatives; and (vi) any business or personal relationships between our executive officers and Willis Towers Watson or the individual representatives.

We paid Willis Towers Watson $50,735 of fees in 2017 for consulting services provided to the PCC regarding executive compensation matters. Management subscribes to various Willis Towers Watson compensation databases. Additionally, management utilizes Willis Towers Watson in various consulting capacities related to employee benefits programs and nonexecutive salaried employee compensation, as well as director compensation benchmarking. The following table sets forth the fees we paid to Willis Towers Watson in 2017 for services other than those provided to the PCC.

We understand that the Willis Towers Watson personnel who provide advice to us on executive and director compensation matters are separate from and do not provide other compensation services to our company, nor do they serve as our account manager. Other Willis Towers Watson personnel separately provide such other services. The PCC does not approve the services provided by Willis Towers Watson outside the executive compensation advisory role to the PCC but is aware these services are provided.

The PCC concluded, based on the evaluation described above and recommendation from the NGC, that these nonexecutive compensation services performed by Willis Towers Watson did not raise a conflict of interest or impair Willis Towers Watson’s ability to provide independent advice to the PCC regarding executive compensation matters. The PCC’s conclusion was based on a representation letter provided by Willis Towers Watson, the limited scope of the other services provided to us by Willis Towers Watson, the small percentage of Willis Towers Watson’s revenues represented by the fees paid by us, the separation within Willis Towers Watson between its compensation consulting business and its other businesses, the absence of any conflicting relationships between the individual representatives of Willis Towers Watson who provided advice to the PCC or Willis Towers Watson, on the one hand, and members of the PCC or our executive officers, on the other, and review of director and executive officer responses to our annual Directors’ and Officers’ Questionnaire.

Benchmarking

We endeavor to benchmark our executive compensation against similarly situated executives in comparably sized organizations. We believe we compete for executive resources with other nonfinancial institutions across

21

multiple industrial segments. With that in mind, our consultants utilize broad-based, general industry salary surveys and regress their data to organizations with $2.8 billion in revenues. We believe market median is an appropriate target for our total compensation program. We attempt to design both short-term and long-term incentives to produce rewards in excess of median market levels when company performance is better than target. The PCC authorized Willis Towers Watson to perform a detailed analysis of our executive compensation levels in 2017, as we do each year.

As we describe below, the PCC asked Willis Towers Watson to provide input on marketplace trends in executive compensation, and overall compensation and components of compensation for 12 executive positions. We compared each of the named executive officers at the 50^th percentile of market survey data.

We utilize Willis Towers Watson because we believe its survey resources ensure consistent and statistically valid data that is representative of the market in which we compete for executive talent. Its database includes a broad array of over 500 companies. We did not rely on a specific subgroup of peer companies within that database. In working with Willis Towers Watson, we played no role in selecting the companies for which the data was obtained.

For 2017 compensation, Willis Towers Watson performed a regression analysis to reflect base pay levels of an organization with $2.8 billion in revenue and reported its findings to the PCC in October 2016. Its comparison focused on overall compensation, as well as base salary, annual incentive bonus, equity awards and each of the other compensation elements discussed below. We believe its methodology provides appropriate comparisons by utilizing industrial companies of comparable size and referencing databases with comparable executive officer positions.

For 2017, the PCC targeted our overall compensation and benefits programs and each element of compensation at the median level of the surveyed companies. Since a number of variables can influence the relationship of an individual executive’s pay components to the survey median data, the PCC considers a range of 90% to 110% of median to be appropriate when reviewing total compensation. Although the PCC attempts to have each component of compensation in this target range, the PCC puts greater emphasis on achieving the target at the total compensation level. Variables considered include, but are not limited to, education, position tenure, previous experience, level of performance, additional responsibilities, and, as appropriate, recruitment considerations.

For 2018, we compared ourselves to the market median of other companies with revenues of $3.0 billion.

Consideration of Stockholder Vote on Executive Compensation

At our 2017 annual meeting, our stockholders approved the compensation of our named executive officers by over 99% of the votes cast, which is nearly identical to 2016 and previous years. The PCC considered this vote when setting 2018 compensation levels for other executives and, as discussed below, made very few changes to the 2018 program.

Role of Executives in Compensation Decisions

The PCC annually reviews chief executive officer performance and makes recommendations regarding chief executive officer compensation for consideration by the full Board. For 2017, the PCC reviewed and made recommendations to the Board on the compensation of the chief executive officer. The chief executive officer is not present during discussions regarding his compensation and does not play any role in determining his own compensation. As it deems appropriate, the PCC utilizes the Willis Towers Watson compensation data and directs the senior vice president - human resources and public affairs to prepare computations for its consideration. With respect to other executives, the chief executive officer annually reviews performance and makes compensation recommendations to the PCC. The chief executive officer reviews compensation data provided by Willis Towers Watson, consults with the senior vice president - human resources and public affairs and considers the individual factors listed above before making his recommendations. The PCC can exercise its discretion to modify any recommended compensation to such executives.

22

Compensation Elements

The PCC takes a balanced approach to executive compensation. Our executive compensation package is comprised of several key components which are designed to work together to provide executives with a total compensation package that is competitive with industry norms. For 2017, total compensation included:

Each of these components of the executive compensation package is discussed below.

Base Salary

Base salary provides the executive with a consistent, market competitive stream of income on a semimonthly basis. Absent unusual circumstances, we review base salary levels annually, with adjustments effective January 1. The chief executive officer considers each senior executive individually for base salary actions and recommends appropriate adjustments. The PCC annually evaluates the appropriate base salary for the chief executive officer and reviews and approves his recommendations for the other named executive officers. When considering base salary increases, consideration is given to industry experience, individual performance, level of contribution, pay levels relative to market pay practices, as well as our overall financial condition. While the chief executive officer recommends compensation adjustments for the other named executive officers, his recommendations must be approved and authorized by the PCC. The chief executive officer and the PCC rely upon competitive survey data from Willis Towers Watson and their own diverse experiences with executive compensation when making compensation decisions.

In reviewing and approving individual base salary adjustments for the named executive officers for 2017, the PCC relied upon salary data for comparable positions from the 2016 Willis Towers Watson Executive Compensation Database, which was aged 3% to reflect anticipated market movement from the 2016 survey through year-end 2017. Effective January 1, 2017, the PCC authorized increases of 3.0% to Messrs. Rajendra, Kita, Wheeler, Stern and Ding.

A change to Mr. Wheeler’s position in 2017 resulted in a commensurate base salary change. Upon his election as president and chief operating officer effective June 1, 2017, the PCC increased Mr. Wheeler’s base salary an additional 18%. The PCC also adjusted Mr. Wheeler’s annual incentive target, as we describe below in the section entitled, “Annual Incentive Compensation and Discretionary Bonuses.”

23

In reviewing 2018 base salaries at its December 2017 meeting, the PCC approved increases of about 3% for Messrs. Rajendra, Kita and Stern, and an increase of about 15% for Mr. Wheeler and about 8% for Mr. Ding to align them more closely with market median base pay. Based upon input from Willis Towers Watson, we believe that the 2018 base salaries for our named executive officers are in the aggregate approximately 105% of the projected market median. This is within our desired target range of 90% to 110%. Further, we anticipate market increase for base salaries to average 3% in 2018, which we took into account in determining 2018 salaries.

Executive Incentive Compensation

We include both annual and long-term incentives in our executive compensation package. The goal of our incentive plans is to focus executives on both short-term financial and strategic objectives, while ensuring their commitment to our long-term growth and stability. Our incentive plans tie financial awards to our financial and strategic success and the interests of our stockholders, and provide pay in addition to annual base salary when warranted by corporate financial performance.

Annual Incentive Compensation and Discretionary Bonus

Each year, the PCC reviews and approves our financial objectives for both the company and its business units. The executive annual incentive bonus is tied to achieving those objectives. The better we perform relative to these objectives, the higher the incentive bonus payment.

The annual target incentive bonus typically is calculated as a percent of annual base pay as of January 1 of the performance year. The target percent for incentive compensation, like base salary, is determined through periodic benchmarking and review of the median level survey data provided by Willis Towers Watson. Annual incentive compensation represents an “at risk” component of the executive compensation package. Actual incentive bonus amounts are dependent upon performance against specific measurements and may vary from 0% to 200% of targeted amounts.

24

As a general principle, the portion of an executive’s compensation tied to incentive compensation increases with the executive’s level of responsibility. Thus, the chief executive officer’s annual incentive opportunity is greater than that of the other named executive officers. We targeted an annual incentive opportunity for the chief executive officer at 110% of base pay in 2017 based upon Willis Towers Watson survey data for comparably situated executives. As a result of his election as president and chief operating Officer effective on June 1, 2017, Mr. Wheeler’s annual incentive target was increased to 78% and the basis for his annual incentive compensation was changed to Return on Equity. The relationship of our incentive targets to market median comparisons is illustrated in the following table. No other changes were made to executive annual incentive targets during 2017.

The 2017 annual incentive plan for all corporate executives was based on achieving a target financial measure of 21.53% Return on Equity, which the PCC established at its February 2017 meeting based upon historical performance, its assessment of the 2017 business plan, the competitive environment and overall performance objectives. Return on Equity is calculated by dividing net income by stockholder equity, adjusted to exclude certain extraordinary or nonrecurring items, as provided for in the 2017 annual incentive plan. We use Return on Equity as the basis for determining annual incentive compensation for corporate executives because we believe it represents a sound measure of our performance that is easily recognized and readily used by investors and that links executive performance to stockholder interests. For business unit executives, the incentive plan is based on meeting the Return on Equity and other objectives, described below.

For January through May 2017, while Mr. Wheeler was in the role of senior vice president, North America, India, Europe Water Heating and Export, we used two components to calculate his annual incentive: Return on Equity of 21.53% and business unit performance based on meeting an internal financial objective, Return on Performance Assets, at the business unit. After his election as president and chief operating officer on June 1, 2017, the basis for his annual incentive compensation was changed to be fully based on Return on Equity. For Mr. Wheeler’s annual incentive, Return on Performance Assets is calculated by dividing the business unit’s operating earnings before interest and taxes by the total business unit’s net assets excluding cash and equivalents, debt and income tax accounts. This calculation emphasizes asset optimization and, therefore, is a better indicator of return on our investment at the business unit level. Seventy percent (70%) of the incentive opportunity for Mr. Wheeler for January through May 2017 was contingent upon achieving the Return on Performance Assets financial goal, with the balance linked to our company achieving its Return on Equity goal.

For Mr. Ding, we used three components to calculate his annual incentive: Return on Equity of 21.53% and two business unit performance objectives. Forty percent (40%) of Mr. Ding’s incentive opportunity is based on China’s performance with respect to earnings before interest and taxes (EBIT), thirty percent (30%) on China sales and thirty percent (30%) on Return on Equity as described above.

25

We reported record earnings in 2017 and achieved 118.9% of the corporate Return on Equity incentive bonus target, 111.9% of the Return on Performance Assets target, and 113.9% of the combined China EBIT and sales targets. Accordingly, the named executive officers were awarded incentive compensation bonuses set forth in the table below. In addition, the PCC may award discretionary bonuses it deems appropriate. The PCC approved a discretionary bonus of $50,000 to Mr. Ding in consideration of the China business unit achieving certain revenue milestones. This bonus is included in the amount reflected in the table below.

2017 Annual Incentive Awards and Discretionary Bonus

Long-Term Incentive Compensation

Long-term incentive compensation consists of stock options, restricted stock units and performance units, all of which are focused on ensuring sustained performance over a multi-year period. We believe strongly that equity-based long-term incentives effectively link the interests of senior management to the interests of our stockholders. The allocation of total value between each of the long-term incentive components may vary from year-to-year based on our focus, as determined by the PCC. The long-term incentive portion of an executive’s compensation is “at risk” and is dependent upon corporate performance and growth in stock value.

The stated purpose of the Combined Incentive Compensation Plan, which is the vehicle for awarding long-term incentives, is to provide compensation as an incentive to induce key employees to remain in our employ and to encourage them to secure or increase their stock ownership in our company or to otherwise align their interests with our stockholders. The Combined Incentive Compensation Plan motivates behavior through growth-related incentives to achieve long-range revenue and profitability goals.

The total target value of all long-term incentive components is compared to comparable positions in the marketplace. Again, the PCC utilizes Willis Towers Watson to assist in benchmarking against the median level of surveyed companies to determine market competitive long-term incentive targets for executive positions.

Based upon the analysis provided by Willis Towers Watson in October 2016, long-term incentive grants to our named executive officers were valued in the aggregate at 88% of market median. Mr. Wheeler received his grant prior to his election as president and chief operating officer, and his 2017 grant reflects market value for his prior role at 98% of market median. The 59% projected market value shown for Mr. Wheeler reflects the market position of his 2017 grant based on his new role.

The following table shows long-term incentive grants to named executive officers in 2017, and compares such grants to market median.

26

Emphasis on Performance-Based Awards

Our approach is to structure our awards so that restricted stock units represent 33% of our long-term incentive awards, stock options 33% and performance units 34%. All of these long-term awards are performance-based.

Restricted stock units entitle the executive to receive a share of Common Stock for each unit when the restricted stock unit vests. Restricted stock units are time-based, but have a minimum performance threshold based on average Return on Equity that must be achieved in order to vest. The average Return on Equity is calculated by dividing net income by stockholder equity, adjusted to exclude certain extraordinary and nonrecurring items, averaged over the three-year vesting period. We use average Return on Equity because we believe it represents a sound measure of our performance that is easily recognized and readily used by investors and that links executive performance to stockholder interest over the three-year performance period of the award. The value to the executive of restricted stock units is dependent upon the value of our Common Stock at the time of vesting. Restricted stock units are used to provide a combination of retention value and incremental performance incentives. For 2017, the minimum average Return on Equity for restricted stock unit payouts was 5%.

Stock options granted through the Combined Incentive Compensation Plan are valued at fair market value on the day of the grant, which is calculated by averaging the high and the low trading prices of our Common Stock on the NYSE on the day of the grant. The value of options to an executive is entirely dependent upon the growth of our stock price over the option price. Under the terms of the Combined Incentive Compensation Plan, options may not be repriced once granted. Stock options are used to incent higher stock prices and incremental stockholder value creation, as no value is realized unless the stock price increases above the grant price.

The PCC elected to continue to use Return on Invested Capital (“ROIC”) as a percent of the Cost of Capital as the performance measure for performance units in 2017. We believe ROIC represents a sound measure of how effectively executives manage capital. The goal is to achieve ROIC as a percent of the Cost of Capital at or above 100%. Performing at this level means we are maintaining or creating additional stockholder value. We calculate ROIC by taking net operating profit after taxes and dividing it by total capital. As with annual incentive compensation objectives, the PCC sets targets at levels that are difficult to achieve, but with the expectation they are attainable.

Performance units are valued at the time of grant at $100. Their value to the executive is dependent upon ROIC performance as a percent of the Cost of Capital over a three-year vesting period. For 2017, the PCC continued the performance/payout relationship previously implemented. We must earn 100% ROIC as a percent of the Cost of Capital during the measurement period in order for executives to achieve a minimum payout under the plan. At 100% performance, executives will earn 50% of their target value. Target value payouts will be earned at 279% performance over the course of the measurement period and a maximum payout of 200% of target will be earned should we return 558% ROIC as a percent of the Cost of Capital between January 1, 2017, and December 31, 2019.

Through December 2017, which includes one year of the three-year performance period, the performance units granted in February 2017 had an estimated value of approximately 160% of their target value. Through December 2017, which includes two years of the three-year performance period, the performance units granted in February 2016 had an estimated value of approximately 200% of their target value.

At target, the combined value of the three components of executive long-term incentives (stock options, restricted stock units and performance awards) should represent market median long-term incentive awards consistent with the Willis Towers Watson survey. Based upon the PCC’s October 2017 analysis, target long-term incentives for our named executive officers compared to market median are reflected on the table on page 25.

27

Payout of 2015-2017 Performance Awards

Performance units awarded in February 2015 for the period 2015-2017 were paid in February 2018. These awards were based upon the ROIC as a percent of the Cost of Capital for the three-year period (2015-2017). The units originally were valued at $100 per share. Based upon our performance during the measurement period, our ROIC exceeded the Cost of Capital by over 368.7%, which resulted in the units being paid out at $185 per share.

Timing of Awards

Long-term incentive grants are awarded annually in February, shortly after earnings are released for the prior year. The chief executive officer has the authority to implement midyear equity grants as they relate to senior management employee promotions and new hires in order to align them as quickly as possible to stockholder interests and to make equity adjustments if circumstances warrant. This authority does not include midyear grants for executive officers.

Share Ownership Guidelines

We have developed share ownership guidelines requiring minimum levels of Common Stock accumulation and ownership, depending on the executive’s position. Current ownership guidelines applicable to current named executive officers are as follows, based on the average stock price in the prior year:

These ownership guidelines are targeted to be competitive with comparable positions in the marketplace. They also are intended to align executive interests with those of our stockholders. The PCC periodically monitors ownership guidelines to ensure they are consistent with the market and makes adjustments, as appropriate. Executives are expected to achieve these ownership guidelines within a reasonable period of time after becoming an executive at our company. Once achieved, the level of ownership must be maintained. Including granted but unvested restricted stock units, all named executive officers are in compliance with the ownership guidelines.

Consideration of Risk in Executive Compensation Plans

We believe our total compensation package mitigates unreasonable risk taking by our senior executives. In this regard, we strike a balance between short-term and long-term cash and equity awards. A significant portion of our executives’ pay is linked to the achievement of financial goals directly aligned to stockholder interests: Return on Equity and ROIC as a percent of the Cost of Capital. The competitive annual incentive plan rewards executives for achieving short-term performance targets, which keeps them focused on day-to-day business fundamentals. On the other hand, our long-term cash and equity awards incent executives to take a long-term view of our company and to assume reasonable risks to develop new products, explore new markets and expand existing business.

Further, our executives are stockholders with established share ownership guidelines requiring them to acquire and hold A. O. Smith stock. Their stock grants vest over three-year periods so they are incented to build stockholder value over time. Their cash performance units also are subject to vesting over a three-year period, and their payout is tied to ROIC over the same period of time.

Our performance-based pay components are tied to company-wide results. We have implemented caps on our annual cash incentive plan and our long-term performance units. Our equity programs limit and define the number

28

of shares, but the value of the award is determined by the stock market at the time they vest or are exercised, which we believe provides a strong connection with stockholder interests.

The PCC reviewed the company’s annual and long-term incentive plans at the PCC’s July 2017 meeting. As a result of its review, the PCC concluded that our program is unlikely to place the company at material risk. In this regard, several of our current practices effectively mitigate risk and promote performance.

As part of this process, the PCC reviewed the risk assessment process conducted by Willis Towers Watson at the PCC’s direction and discussed with Willis Towers Watson any changes over the last year that could impact risk. The PCC concluded that no plan changes were implemented in 2017 that would affect the existing risk profile of any of the plans.

In addition, we have implemented an executive compensation reimbursement policy, requiring the executives to reimburse incentive compensation erroneously awarded in certain circumstances in the event of a material restatement, commonly called a “clawback.” We believe this policy, discussed in greater depth in the section of the Compensation Discussion and Analysis entitled, “Executive Compensation Reimbursement Policy,” mitigates the risk of a financial restatement by ensuring that our executive officers continuously monitor and maintain the accuracy of our reported financial results and adhere to our Guiding Principles.

Executive Life Insurance

The A. O. Smith Executive Life Insurance Plan is a program intended to provide income security for a named beneficiary in the event of death. The plan generally provides a market-competitive life insurance benefit equal to three times the executive’s annual base salary during employment and one times the annual base salary after retirement. We may at our discretion transfer ownership of the post-retirement policy equivalent of one times annual base salary to an executive upon retirement.

Executive Pension

The retirement plans provided to our executives are consistent with our philosophy of providing competitive retirement benefits for all employees in order to attract and retain critical talent, as well as ensure a secure retirement for employees who contributed to our success over a sustained period of time.

Executive pension benefits are provided in one of two ways, depending on when the executive became eligible. One is through a qualified defined benefit plan, the A. O. Smith Retirement Plan, which closed to new entrants on January 1, 2010, and which stopped accruing benefits for participants on December 31, 2014. For executives hired or promoted into a qualifying executive position prior to July 2010, this defined benefit plan is complemented by a non-qualified supplemental executive retirement plan. Executives hired or promoted into a qualifying executive position after July 2010 do not participate in the existing supplemental executive retirement plan, but are eligible to participate in a defined contribution restoration plan described in the “Defined Contribution Retirement Savings Plan” section below.

A detailed discussion of terms of the defined benefit plans follows the “Pension Benefits” Table.

Defined Contribution Retirement Savings Plan

We have a defined contribution plan, the A. O. Smith Retirement Security Plan, for all U.S. salaried employees, including the named executive officers. The plan is structured as a 401(k) plan with a 100% match on the first 1% of employee savings and a 50% match on the next 5% of employee savings. We provide a company contribution under the A. O. Smith Non-qualified Deferred Compensation Plan to executives who contributed the maximum eligible tax-deferred employee contributions allowed by law to the 401(k) Plan. The amount of the company contribution to the executive under the Non-qualified Deferred Compensation Plan is the difference between the match the executive would have received without the restrictions placed on compensation eligible for contributions to the 401(k) plan by the Internal Revenue Code and the actual match received under the 401(k) plan.

29

The A. O. Smith Retirement Security Plan also provides an annual non-matching company contribution to employee 401(k) accounts of 3% of employee base salary and bonus up to the compensation limits specified in the Internal Revenue Code. This nonmatching contribution was introduced as of January 1, 2015, at the time employees ceased accruing benefits under the A. O. Smith Retirement Plan. Additionally, a defined contribution restoration plan is available for executives who are not eligible for the supplemental executive retirement plan. They receive an annual company contribution under the A. O. Smith Non-qualified Deferred Compensation Plan of 3% of pay (base plus bonus) based on pay above the Internal Revenue Service pay limit. Mr. Wheeler and Mr. Ding are the only named executives participating in the defined contribution restoration plan.

A discussion of the A. O. Smith Non-qualified Deferred Compensation Plan, under which executives may elect to defer all or part of their salary, annual incentive bonus or restricted stock units, follows the “Non-qualified Deferred Compensation” Table.

Executive Perquisites

We provide a perquisite allowance to our senior executives except Mr. Ding, paid semimonthly. From time to time, the PCC reviews the perquisite allowance program against current market trends. In 2016, the PCC reviewed and approved freezing and grandfathering the value of the perquisite allowance at the current amount for executives currently in the perquisite allowance program. All new executives will be eligible for the executive physical program and reimbursement for tax planning and preparation services, but will not receive a semimonthly perquisite allowance. Perquisite allowances for the named executive officers are:

Mr. Ding is considered an executive on a foreign assignment and, in lieu of a perquisite allowance, is provided with certain expatriate benefits, including tax equalization, home leave expenses, hardship premium, housing allowance, cost of living differential, medical insurance membership and tax preparation service. These benefits are discussed in more detail in the narrative discussion following the Components of All Other Compensation Table.

In addition to the grandfathered perquisite allowance, executives may receive executive physicals, reimbursement for spousal travel to Board or executive meetings for business purposes, including, on an infrequent basis, spousal travel on the corporate aircraft for such meetings, occasional tickets to sporting events and other items of incidental value.

Executive Agreements

The named executive officers participate in the A. O. Smith Senior Leadership Severance Plan (the “Senior Leadership Severance Plan”), which protects executives financially in the event of employment termination in circumstances identified in the Plan, including a change in control of our company. These protections help to ensure that executives will remain focused on managing our company in the event of a pending change in control or other circumstances. Furthermore, this Plan provides a more attractive compensation package when recruiting key talent. Lastly, instead of negotiating individual separation arrangements upon a termination, the PCC can ensure consistent and equitable treatment for all executives.

The Plan provides each executive with a cash severance (represented as a multiple of their annual cash compensation), medical benefit continuation and outplacement services. Additionally, vesting of long-term incentive awards is accelerated in certain cases. To be covered by the Plan, an executive must sign a noncompete,

30

nonsolicitation, assignment of inventions and confidentiality agreement. To receive these benefits, an executive must sign a release from future claims against our company. The Plan also provides for enhanced cash severance benefits upon a change in control, as discussed below.

Additionally, as an inducement to hire, Mr. Rajendra requested and was provided with a pension supplement which is described in more detail in the compensation tables and narrative section of this disclosure. This pension supplement was intended to replace benefits he forfeited in order to join us.

Further, in 2017 Mr. Ding was provided with a special retention award as an incentive for him to remain with our company until his normal retirement date. This retention award, which is only paid if our Return on Equity meets a specified threshold, is described in more detail in the narrative discussion following the table on Grants of Plan-Based Awards.

Tax Considerations

The PCC considers its primary goal to be the design of compensation strategies that further the economic interests of our company and stockholders.

The PCC has authority to establish subcommittees and delegate authority to such subcommittees to accomplish the duties and responsibilities of the PCC. Under this authority, the PCC has established a subcommittee consisting of Messrs. Brown, Greubel and Bruce Smith to discharge the responsibilities of the PCC with respect to compensation intended to qualify as “performance-based compensation” within the meaning of Section 162(m) of the Code. References to the PCC in the context of performance-based compensation and equity awards to the NEOs in this Compensation Discussion and Analysis include the subcommittee.

The Tax Cuts and Jobs Act made significant changes to Section 162(m) of the Code that will impact public companies, including our company, beginning in 2018. Starting with the 2018 fiscal year, only performance-based compensation that is paid pursuant to a binding contract in effect on November 2, 2017 will be exempt from the $1,000,000 deduction limit. Accordingly, any compensation that we pay in the future pursuant to new compensation arrangements entered into after November 2, 2017, even if performance-based, will count towards the $1,000,000 deduction limit. In addition, the $1,000,000 deduction limit will apply to a broader group of executives, including any individual who serves as our chief executive officer or chief financial officer at any time after January 1, 2018, plus any executive who is among our three most highly compensated executive officers for any fiscal year beginning with 2018. As a result of these changes made to Section 162(m) and to maintain flexibility in compensating executive officers in a manner designed to promote varying corporate goals, we anticipate that some of the compensation that we provide to our executive officers may not be deductible in the future.

Executive Compensation Reimbursement Policy

The PCC has implemented a requirement that executive officers who receive payments of performance-based awards (annual or long-term incentive awards, stock-based awards, and any other form of cash or equity compensation other than salary) must, upon request of the PCC, reimburse us for those payments where, (1) the payments were based on the achievement of certain financial results during a specified performance period; (2) the financial results were subsequently subject to a material restatement; and (3) the restatement resulted from material noncompliance with financial reporting requirements under applicable laws. Beginning in 2016, the PCC revised award agreements to also provide for reimbursement, in the PCC’s discretion, when an executive officer has direct knowledge of conduct that is materially adverse to our company, including conduct that could warrant dismissal or is a violation of our Guiding Principles code of conduct, or any law, regulation or listing standard, regardless of whether we learn of the conduct before or after the executive officer’s termination of employment. In those circumstances, we may obtain reimbursement, or “clawback,” of any amount by which the payment of the award to the executive officer exceeds the lower payment that would otherwise have been made to the executive officer based on the restated financial results, or an amount equal to the financial, reputational or other harm incurred by our company as a result of the materially adverse conduct. If the clawback arises from a material restatement of our

31

financial results, we will not seek reimbursement of payments of awards where the payment was made more than three years before the occurrence of the restatement. If the clawback relates to knowledge of materially adverse conduct, there is no time limit imposed in the award agreements on our reimbursement rights.

The PCC believes that implementing this reimbursement requirement for all awards issued under our various incentive plans, including our Combined Incentive Compensation Plan, is important to help ensure that our executive officers continuously monitor and maintain the accuracy of our reported financial results and comply with all regulations and our code of conduct. Further, the PCC believes that this reimbursement requirement aligns our executive officers’ compensation with our interests in ensuring full compliance with financial reporting requirements to which we are subject as a public company and our commitment to conduct business in compliance with all legal requirements and our Guiding Principles. We believe the reimbursement requirement will further align our executive compensation programs with our core compensation philosophy and objectives by tying payments on performance awards and annual incentive compensation to actual achieved financial results of our company and our culture of compliance. This will further serve our long-term objective of aligning compensation of our executive officers with the interests of our stockholders.

32

SUMMARY COMPENSATION TABLE

The Summary Compensation Table reflects information concerning compensation awarded to, earned by or paid to our chief executive officer, chief financial officer and other named executive officers during fiscal years 2017, 2016 and 2015.

33

COMPONENTS OF 2017 ALL OTHER COMPENSATION

34

GRANTS OF PLAN-BASED AWARDS

The table below reflects the plan-based awards made under the Combined Incentive Compensation Plan to each of the named executive officers during 2017.

No named executive officer at our company has an employment agreement for a specific period of time. Rather, all executives serve at the pleasure of the Board. Mr. Ding has a special retention agreement that provides if he remains employed with our company and certain corporate Return on Equity performance criteria are met, then we will pay him a retention bonus of $500,000 on June 1, 2022, and $1,000,000 on June 1, 2027. Each named executive officer participates in the Senior Leadership Severance Plan. See the discussion entitled, “Employment Contracts, Termination of Employment and Change in Control Arrangements” for additional information.

35

Further, Mr. Rajendra has a pension agreement, which is reviewed in the discussion following the “Pension Benefits” Table. Otherwise, his compensation is consistent with the policies and practices discussed in the “Compensation Discussion and Analysis.”

36

OUTSTANDING EQUITY AWARDS AT DECEMBER 31, 2017

The table below reflects all outstanding equity awards made under the Combined Incentive Compensation Plan to each of the named executive officers.

37

38

OPTION EXERCISES AND STOCK VESTED

The following table provides information related to options exercised and stock vested for each of the named executive officers during fiscal year 2017.

PENSION BENEFITS

We maintained a qualified defined benefit pension plan, the A. O. Smith Retirement Plan, for all eligible salaried employees that was closed to new entrants in 2010. Credited service was determined as of December 31, 2014, when the Plan was frozen. The plan provides a monthly retirement benefit at normal retirement age equal to 1.1% of five-year final average pay, plus 0.5% of five-year final average pay in excess of social security compensation multiplied by credited service up to a 40-year maximum. Average annual pay includes base salary and 50% of annual bonus. Benefit accruals under the A. O. Smith Retirement Plan ceased as of December 31, 2014. In its place, we provide a nonelective company contribution under the A. O. Smith Retirement Security Plan, which is our 401(k) plan.

We also maintain the A. O. Smith Corporation Executive Supplemental Pension Plan to provide benefits to an executive whose benefits in the A. O. Smith Retirement Plan are subject to limitations under the Internal Revenue Code and to take into account 100% of an executive’s annual incentive bonus. The Executive Supplemental Pension Plan provides a benefit equivalent to 1.65% of the executive’s five-year final average pay times years of credited

39

service up to a 40-year maximum, less the benefit provided from the A. O. Smith Retirement Plan. In July 2010, the PCC decided to continue the existing Executive Supplemental Pension Plan for all executive officers participating at that time, which includes Messrs. Rajendra, Kita and Stern. Its decision, however, reduces the final retirement benefit for affected executives by the amount of the monthly benefit that was lost when the A. O. Smith Retirement Plan stopped accruing benefits on December 31, 2014. Executives hired or promoted to a qualifying position after July 2010 do not participate in the existing defined benefit Executive Supplemental Pension Plan. Instead, they participate in a defined contribution restoration plan that will provide a 3% contribution under the A. O. Smith Non-qualified Deferred Compensation Plan per year of pay (base salary plus annual bonus) based on compensation above the Internal Revenue Service limit. All named executive officers participate in the Executive Supplemental Pension Plan except Mr. Wheeler and Mr. Ding. Mr. Wheeler and Mr. Ding participate in the defined contribution restoration plan.

The normal retirement age under the A. O. Smith Retirement Plan and the Executive Supplemental Pension Plan for Mr. Rajendra is 66; for Messrs. Kita, Wheeler, Stern and Ding, the normal retirement age is 67. Each plan provides for early retirement as early as age 57 and 10 years of service but with reductions in the normal retirement benefit. The reductions for benefits provided by the A. O. Smith Retirement Plan are equal to 6.67% per year between the age at retirement and the executive’s normal retirement age less three years (also called the unreduced retirement age). Mr. Rajendra is retirement eligible, and Mr. Kita and Mr. Wheeler are currently eligible for early retirement. If an executive retires early, the single lump-sum amount to be paid from the Executive Supplemental Pension Plan is calculated based upon the unreduced benefit commencing at the unreduced retirement age discounted for interest between the unreduced retirement age and executive’s age at early retirement using the after-tax yield on the Barclays Capital U.S. Corporate Index. Executives terminating before age 57 and 10 years of service with a vested benefit receive a single lump-sum amount from the Executive Supplemental Pension Plan calculated in the same manner as for early retirement, except the benefit is based upon the unreduced benefit commencing at the executive’s normal retirement age, discounted for interest between the executive’s normal retirement age and the executive’s age at termination.

The “Present Value of Accumulated Benefit” set forth in the table above is based on assumptions and valuation dates that are the same as those used for the valuation of pension liabilities in the company’s most recent Annual Report. Retirement age under the A. O. Smith Retirement Plan and the Supplemental Executive Retirement Plan is assumed to be the earliest age that an executive can retire with an unreduced benefit, which is age 64 for Mr. Kita, Mr. Wheeler, Mr. Stern and Mr. Ding, and 63 for Mr. Rajendra. Post-retirement mortality rates are based on the RP2014 Healthy Annuitant Mortality Table (white-collar variant), including generational improvements using scale MP2017. The assumption is made that there is no probability of pre-retirement death or termination by any other cause.

The A. O. Smith Retirement Plan pays benefits in the form of a single life retirement annuity. Optional forms of annuity payment are available on an actuarially equivalent basis. The retirement benefit under the Executive Supplemental Pension Plan is paid as a single lump-sum to the executive upon retirement. The lump-sum amount is calculated by determining the amount necessary (on an after tax basis to the executive) to purchase a commercial annuity that will provide a monthly amount equivalent to the after-tax amount the executive would receive if the monthly pension would be paid directly by us. To calculate the “Present Value of Accumulated Benefits” for the benefit under the Executive Supplemental Pension Plan, assumptions are made regarding the executive’s tax rate at retirement and post-retirement tax rate and a lump-sum interest rate obtained by surveying various annuity companies (currently 3.0%). As an offset to a portion of the lump-sum payment obligation to the executive, we may transfer life insurance policies to the executive valued at the cash surrender value of the life insurance policies.

We do not have a policy to grant extra years of service. One named executive has a special arrangement negotiated upon his employment with us. Having completed 10 years of service, Mr. Rajendra will be eligible for a payment of $85,000 per year. Under this arrangement, the company will provide semimonthly payments of $3,541.67 to Mr. Rajendra for the balance of his life, with the first payment commencing six months following his separation, as required by law. Payments are treated as taxable wages for FICA purposes. Mr. Rajendra’s benefit is in addition to the benefits provided by the A. O. Smith Retirement Plan and the Executive Supplemental Pension

40

Plan. This agreement was granted in order to compensate Mr. Rajendra for benefits forfeited from his prior employer upon termination.

NON-QUALIFIED DEFERRED COMPENSATION

Each executive has an account in the A. O. Smith Non-qualified Deferred Compensation Plan, which each year is credited with supplemental company contributions and notional dividend equivalents on restricted stock and restricted stock units. The executive’s account is a bookkeeping entry only. Amounts credited to the executive’s account are credited with gains and losses each month based on the executive’s crediting election. The crediting election is used to designate the investment fund(s) as the basis for calculating the rate of return equivalent for the executive’s account. The current funds available for a crediting election are: Fidelity VIP Government Money Market Division, PIMCO VIT Total Return Division, Vanguard VIF Balanced Division, Principal LifeTime Strategic Income Division, Principal LifeTime 2010 Division, Principal LifeTime 2020 Division, Principal LifeTime 2030 Division, Principal LifeTime 2040 Division, Principal LifeTime 2050 Division, Principal LifeTime 2060 Division, Principal Global Investors-Equity Income Division, American Century VP Mid-Cap Value Division, Janus Henderson Enterprise Division, Delaware VIP Small Cap Value Division, MFS Growth Division, Vanguard VIF Equity Index Division, Templeton Foreign VIP Division, and A. O. Smith Stable Value Fund.

The Non-qualified Deferred Compensation Plan also allows executives to defer payment of all or a part of their base salary, annual incentive bonus or restricted stock units to a future date. Deferred amounts are credited to the executive’s account in the Non-qualified Deferred Compensation Plan, and gains and losses on the deferred amounts are credited in the same manner as described above for supplemental company contributions and notional dividend equivalents, except that deferrals of restricted stock units are deemed invested in shares of our Common Stock for purposes of determining gains and losses, and dividend equivalents on such restricted stock units are credited in the form of additional restricted stock units.

Executives are eligible to receive payment of amounts in their accounts under the Non-qualified Deferred Compensation Plan beginning upon termination of employment (six months after termination in the case of the amounts credited to accounts on or after January 1, 2005).

EMPLOYMENT CONTRACTS, TERMINATION OF EMPLOYMENT

AND CHANGE IN CONTROL ARRANGEMENTS

We have a Senior Leadership Severance Plan, in which all of the named executive officers participate. The Board implemented the Senior Leadership Severance Plan to establish financial protection for our executives upon various employment termination scenarios, including a change in control of our company. We believe the Senior

41

Leadership Severance Plan assists in retention of executives and provides a more attractive compensation package when recruiting key talent. Furthermore, instead of negotiating individual separation arrangements upon a termination, the Board can ensure consistent and equitable treatment for all executives through the Senior Leadership Severance Plan.

The Senior Leadership Severance Plan provides that each named executive officer will receive severance benefits upon a “Qualifying Termination” and provides for vesting of certain equity awards upon a “Change in Control.” Under the Senior Leadership Severance Plan:

In order to be covered by the Senior Leadership Severance Plan, named executive officers must sign a noncompete, nonsolicitation, assignment of inventions and confidentiality agreement. In order to receive severance benefits, the named executive officers must sign a release of all claims against our company and its affiliates.

The Senior Leadership Severance Plan had an irrevocable term through July 31, 2013, and automatically renews for successive one-year periods. The Plan will automatically renew for two years upon a Change in Control.

In the event of a Qualifying Termination, Mr. Rajendra will receive 24 months of continuation of pay. Messrs. Kita, Wheeler, Stern and Ding will receive continuation of pay for 18 months. The continuation of pay will be equal to the executive’s annual salary and target bonus during the year of termination. Each named executive officer will also receive within 2-1/2 months after the end of the year in which the termination occurred a lump-sum payment of the actual bonus based on performance that would have been payable for the year of termination adjusted on a pro rata basis based on days employed during the bonus plan year. Each named executive officer will also receive medical benefit continuation and outplacement (capped at 25% of the executive’s annual base salary) through the Severance Period (the period during which the executive receives salary continuation).

Upon a Qualifying Termination without a Change in Control, long-term incentive awards are treated as follows: (i) any unvested or unearned long-term incentive awards that were granted during the calendar year of the termination date will be forfeited; (ii) unvested stock options become vested on a pro rata basis; (iii) unvested shares of restricted stock and unvested restricted stock units that vest solely on the passage of time that were granted in any calendar year before the termination become vested on a pro rata basis; and (iv) unearned performance shares and

42

performance units, and unearned shares of restricted stock and restricted stock units that vest based on the achievement of performance goals will be paid at the end of the actual performance period on a pro rata basis based on actual performance.

Upon a Qualifying Termination within two years following a Change in Control, the named executive officers will be eligible for an enhanced benefit. The named executive officers, other than Mr. Rajendra, will receive a lump-sum severance payment equal to 15 months of base salary and target bonus, and a lump-sum payment equal to 9 months of base pay and target bonus in consideration for the noncompete provisions. Mr. Rajendra will receive a lump-sum payment equal to 24 months of base salary and target bonus, and a lump-sum payment equal to 12 months of base pay and target bonus in consideration for the noncompete provisions. Each named executive officer will also receive a lump-sum payment of the target bonus that would have been payable for the year of termination adjusted on a pro rata basis based on days employed during the bonus plan year. The named executive officers also will be eligible to receive continued medical and outplacement benefits during the Severance Period.

Furthermore, upon a Change in Control, long-term incentive awards are treated as follows: (i) unvested stock options become fully vested; (ii) unvested shares of restricted stock and unvested restricted stock units that vest solely on the passage of time become fully vested; and (iii) unearned performance shares and performance units, and unearned shares of restricted stock and restricted stock units that vest based on the achievement of performance goals are paid out at the target amount, adjusted on a pro rata basis based on the time the executive was employed during the relevant performance period. However, if the Change in Control is the result of a sale of our company’s or a relevant business unit’s assets, then the executive will only receive such treatment with respect to his long-term incentive awards if the executive experiences a Qualifying Termination within 24 months of such Change in Control.

The company will reimburse the named executive officer for excise tax liability resulting from payments received in connection with his or her termination following a Change in Control if the executive’s Parachute Payments (as defined under Internal Revenue Code Section 280G) exceed the officer’s safe harbor (as defined under Internal Revenue Code Section 280G) by more than 10 percent. The company will cap the executive’s total payment if his or her total net benefit is less than 110 percent of the executive’s respective safe harbor amount, which we refer to as “Effect of Modified Gross-up Provision” in the table below.

Set forth below are tables showing payments and benefits to each named executive officer upon a Qualifying Termination or a Change in Control and a Qualifying Termination under the Senior Leadership Severance Plan.

We list the estimated amount of compensation payable to each of our named executive officers in each situation in the tables below assuming that a Qualifying Termination or Change in Control and Qualifying Termination occurred at December 31, 2017, and that our Common Stock had a value of $61.28, which was the closing market price for our Common Stock on December 29, 2017. The actual amount of payments and benefits can only be determined at the time of such a Qualifying Termination or Change in Control, and therefore the actual amounts would vary from the estimated amounts in the tables below.

43

Payments Resulting From A Qualifying Termination

December 31, 2017