UNITED STATES

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

 

Washington, D.C. 20549

 

SCHEDULE 14A

(Rule 14a-101)

Information Required in Proxy Statement

 

SCHEDULE 14A INFORMATION

Proxy Statement Pursuant to Section 14(a) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934

 

Filed by the Registrant

Filed by a Party other than the Registrant

 

Check the appropriate box:
	Preliminary Proxy Statement
	Confidential, For Use of the Commission Only (as permitted by Rule 14a-6(e)(2))
	Definitive Proxy Statement
	Definitive Additional Materials
	Soliciting Material Under § 240.14a-12

 

CSW INDUSTRIALS, INC.

 

 

(Name of Registrant as Specified In Its Charter)

(Name of Person(s) Filing Proxy Statement, if Other Than the Registrant)

 

Payment of Filing Fee (Check the appropriate box):
	No fee required.
	Fee computed on table below per Exchange Act Rules 14a-6(i)(1) and 0-11.
	(1)	Title of each class of securities to which transaction applies:
	(2)	Aggregate number of securities to which transaction applies:
	(3)	Per unit price or other underlying value of transaction computed pursuant to Exchange Act Rule 0-11 (set forth the amount on which the filing fee is calculated and state how it was determined):
	(4)	Proposed maximum aggregate value of transaction:
	(5)	Total fee paid:
	Fee paid previously with preliminary materials:
	Check box if any part of the fee is offset as provided by Exchange Act Rule 0-11(a)(2) and identify the filing for which the offsetting fee was paid previously. Identify the previous filing by registration statement number, or the Form or Schedule and the date of its filing.
	(1)	Amount Previously Paid:
	(2)	Form, Schedule or Registration Statement No.:
	(3)	Filing Party:
	(4)	Date Filed:

---

---

Table of Contents

	2017 Proxy Statement	2

---

Back to Contents

	2017 Proxy Statement	3

---

Back to Contents

 

Notice of
Annual Meeting
of Stockholders

The 2017 Annual Meeting of Stockholders (the “Annual Meeting”) of CSW Industrials, Inc. (the “Company”) will be held on Tuesday, August 15, 2017 at 9:00 a.m., local time, at the Hilton Dallas Lincoln Centre, which is located at 5410 Lyndon B. Johnson Freeway, Dallas, Texas 75240. Directions to the Annual Meeting and a map of the area are included in the proxy materials on the inside back cover and are also available online at www.proxyvote.com.

Stockholders of record of the Company’s common stock, par value $0.01 per share, at the close of business on June 28, 2017 are entitled to notice of and to vote at the Annual Meeting.

At the Annual Meeting, stockholders will vote on the following matters either in person or by proxy:

 

The enclosed proxy statement contains other important information that you should read and consider before you vote. The proxy statement and annual report to stockholders and any other proxy materials are available at www.proxyvote.com. For additional related information, please refer to the “Important Notice of Electronic Availability of Materials for the Stockholder Meeting to be held on August 15, 2017” in the enclosed proxy statement.

Your vote is important, and whether or not you plan to attend the Annual Meeting, your prompt cooperation in voting is greatly appreciated. We encourage you to vote using the Internet. You may also vote by telephone or by mail. Instructions regarding all three methods of voting are included in the proxy card and the proxy statement.

Thank you in advance for voting and for your support of the Company.

By Order of the Board of Directors,

Luke E. Alverson

Senior Vice President,
General Counsel and Secretary

             , 2017

---

Back to Contents

This summary highlights information contained elsewhere in this proxy statement. This summary does not contain all of the information that you should consider, and you should read the entire proxy statement carefully before voting. Page references are supplied to help you find additional information in this proxy statement.

2017 Annual Meeting of Stockholders

Voting Matters

How to Vote (page 9)

You can vote by any of the following methods:

Governance Highlights

	2017 Proxy Statement	5

---

Back to Contents

Board Nominees (page 12)

Senior Management (page 21)

Executive Compensation Highlights (page 22)

Objectives and Principles

Our key compensation objectives are to attract and retain key leaders, reward current performance, drive future performance and align the long-term interests of our executives with those of our stockholders. We use the following principles to effect these objectives:

 

Executive Compensation Program Elements

 

	2017 Proxy Statement	6

---

Back to Contents

 

Fiscal 2017 Executive Total Target Compensation Mix

 

 

 

Fiscal 2017 Executive Compensation Summary (page 37)

	2017 Proxy Statement	7

---

Back to Contents

Solicitation

We are providing these proxy materials in connection with the solicitation by the Board of Directors (the “Board”) of CSW Industrials, Inc., a Delaware corporation (the “Company”), of proxies to be voted at the 2017 Annual Meeting of Stockholders (the “Annual Meeting”), which will be held on Tuesday, August 15, 2017 at the Hilton Dallas Lincoln Centre, 5410 Lyndon B. Johnson Freeway, Dallas, Texas 75240, and at any adjournments or postponements of this scheduled meeting. The use of “we,” “us” or “our” in this proxy statement refers to the Company.

IMPORTANT NOTICE REGARDING THE AVAILABILITY OF PROXY MATERIALS FOR THE STOCKHOLDER MEETING TO BE HELD ON AUGUST 15, 2017

Pursuant to Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”) rules, we may furnish proxy materials, including this proxy statement and the Company’s annual report for the year ending March 31, 2017, to our stockholders by providing access to such documents on the Internet instead of mailing printed copies. Most stockholders will not receive printed copies of the proxy materials unless they request them. Instead, a Notice of Internet Availability of Proxy Materials (“Notice of Internet Availability”), which was mailed to most of our stockholders, will explain how you may access and review the proxy materials and how you may submit your proxy on the Internet. If you would like to receive a paper or electronic copy of our proxy materials, please follow the instructions included in the Notice of Internet Availability. Stockholders who requested paper copies of proxy materials or previously elected to receive proxy materials electronically did not receive the Notice of Internet Availability and are receiving the proxy materials in the format requested.

This proxy statement and the Company’s annual report for the year ending March 31, 2017 are also available electronically at www.proxyvote.com.

To access and review the materials electronically:

We encourage you to review all of the important information contained in the proxy materials before voting. If you would like to attend the Annual Meeting in person, please refer to the inside back cover of this proxy statement or www.proxyvote.com for directions to the meeting.

The proxy materials are being mailed to stockholders on or about            , 2017.

The solicitation of proxies is made by our Board and will be conducted primarily by mail. Brokerage firms and other custodians, nominees and fiduciaries are reimbursed by the Company for reasonable out-of-pocket expenses that they incur to send proxy materials to stockholders and solicit their votes. In addition to this mailing, proxies may be solicited, without extra compensation, by our officers and employees, by mail, telephone, facsimile, electronic mail and other methods of communication. The Company bears the full cost of soliciting proxies. The Company has also retained Alliance Advisors to aid in the solicitation of proxies by mail, telephone, facsimile, e-mail and personal solicitation and will request brokerage houses and other nominees, fiduciaries and custodians to forward soliciting materials to beneficial owners of the Company’s common stock, par value $0.01 per share (“common stock”). For these services, the Company will pay Alliance Advisors a fee of $8,500 plus reimbursement for reasonable out-of-pocket expenses.

To reduce the expenses of delivering duplicate proxy materials, we deliver one annual report and proxy statement to multiple stockholders sharing the same mailing address unless otherwise requested. We will promptly send a separate annual report and proxy statement to a stockholder at a shared address upon request at no cost. Stockholders with a shared address may also request that we send a single copy in the future if we are currently sending multiple copies to the same address. Requests related to delivery of proxy materials may be made by calling Investor Relations at 203.682.8311 or by writing to CSW Industrials, Inc., Attention: Investor Relations, 5420 Lyndon B. Johnson Freeway, Suite 500, Dallas, Texas 75240. Stockholders who hold shares in “street name” (as described below) may contact their brokerage firm, bank, broker-dealer or similar organization to request information about this “householding” procedure.

	2017 Proxy Statement	8

---

Back to Contents

Voting

If you are a stockholder of record at the close of business on June 28, 2017 (the “Record Date”), you may vote on the matters proposed in this proxy statement. You have one vote for each share you own.

A majority of the outstanding shares of common stock entitled to vote at the Annual Meeting and represented in person or by proxy constitutes a quorum. A quorum is necessary to conduct business at the Annual Meeting. You are part of the quorum if you have voted. Shares that the holder abstains from voting on a particular proposal are counted as present at the meeting for purposes of determining a quorum.

Broker non-votes are also counted as present for purposes of determining a quorum. A “broker non-vote” occurs when a broker holding shares in “street name” for a beneficial owner is represented in person or by proxy at the meeting but does not vote on a particular proposal because the broker has not received voting instructions from the beneficial owner and cannot or chooses not to vote the shares in its discretion for that particular proposal.

The voting standards required to elect directors and approve the other proposals, as well as the treatment of abstentions and broker non-votes, are described with each proposal under the respective “Required Vote and Recommendation” heading.

If your shares are held through a broker, your vote instructs the broker how you want your shares to be voted. If you vote on each proposal, your shares will be voted in accordance with your instructions. Brokers may vote shares they hold in “street name” on behalf of beneficial owners who have not voted with respect to certain “routine” matters. The proposal to ratify the appointment of Grant Thornton LLP (Proposal Six) is considered a routine matter, so brokers may vote shares on this matter in their discretion if no voting instructions are received. However, the election of directors (Proposal One), the advisory vote on executive compensation (Proposal Two), the vote on amendments to our Charter to remove our classified Board structure and implement majority voting in uncontested director elections (Proposals Three and Four), and the vote on the material terms of the performance goals for our 2015 Equity and Incentive Compensation Plan (Proposal Five) are NOT considered routine matters, so brokers have no discretion to vote shares for which no voting instructions are received, and no vote will be cast if you do not vote on those items. We therefore urge you to vote FOR on all voting items.

The advisory vote on executive compensation is non-binding, meaning that our Board is not obligated to take any actions, or to adjust our executive compensation programs or policies, as a result of the vote.

There are no dissenters’ rights of appraisal with respect to the matters to be acted upon at the meeting.

At the close of business on the Record Date,             shares of common stock were issued and outstanding (excluding treasury shares) that may be voted at the Annual Meeting.

Voting by Holders Whose Shares are Registered in the Name of a Brokerage Firm or Bank. If your shares are held by a broker, bank or other nominee (i.e., in “street name”), you will receive instructions from your nominee, which you must follow in order to have your shares voted. “Street name” stockholders who wish to vote at the meeting will need to obtain a proxy from the broker, bank or other nominee that holds their shares to confirm their stockholder status for entry into the Annual Meeting.

Voting by Holders for Whose Shares are Registered Directly in the Name of Stockholder. If you hold your shares in your own name as a holder of record, you must vote your shares in person at the Annual Meeting or instruct the proxy holders named on the proxy card how to vote your shares by either (i) using the Internet website or the toll-free telephone number set forth below or (ii) signing, dating and mailing the enclosed proxy card to our independent proxy tabulation firm, Broadridge Investor Communications Services (“Broadridge”), in the enclosed envelope. Each of these voting methods is described below:

	2017 Proxy Statement	9

---

Back to Contents

If you are a registered stockholder, you may revoke your proxy at any time before it has been exercised at the Annual Meeting by:

If you are a beneficial stockholder, please contact your bank, broker or nominee for instructions on how to change your vote.

Tabulation of voted proxies will be handled by Broadridge, an independent firm. Broadridge is the inspector of elections for the Annual Meeting.

Stockholder Proposals and Nominations

The rules of the SEC provide that certain stockholder proposals may be eligible for inclusion in our 2018 proxy statement. These stockholder proposals must comply with the requirements of Rule 14a-8, including a requirement that stockholder proposals be received by the Corporate Secretary no later than March 17, 2018. We strongly encourage any stockholder interested in submitting a proposal to contact the Corporate Secretary in advance of this deadline to discuss the proposal. The Nominating & Corporate Governance Committee reviews all stockholder proposals and makes recommendations to the Board for action on such proposals.

Alternatively, under the Company’s Bylaws, if a stockholder does not want to submit a proposal for inclusion in our proxy statement but wants to introduce it at our 2018 annual meeting, or intends to nominate a person for election to the Board directly (rather than by recommending such person as a candidate to our Nominating & Corporate Governance Committee as described below under “Board of Directors—Committees of the Board — Nominating & Corporate Governance Committee”), the stockholder must submit the proposal or nomination in writing between April 17, 2018 and May 17, 2018. If, however, the 2018 annual meeting is held more than 30 days before or more than 30 days after the anniversary of the 2017 Annual Meeting, the stockholder must submit any such proposal no later than the 90th calendar day prior to the 2018 annual meeting or 10 days following the date on which the date of the 2018 annual meeting is publicly announced. The stockholder’s submission must be made by a registered stockholder on his or her behalf or on behalf of a beneficial owner of the shares, and must include detailed information specified in our Bylaws concerning the proposal or nominee, as the case may be, and detailed information as to the stockholder’s interests in Company securities. We will not entertain any proposals or nominations at the 2018 annual meeting that do not meet these requirements.

If the stockholder does not comply with the requirements of the SEC, we may exercise discretionary voting authority under proxies that we solicit to vote in accordance with our best judgment on any such stockholder proposal or nomination. The Company’s Bylaws are posted on our website at www.cswindustrials.com under the “Investors — Corporate Governance” caption. To make a submission or to request a copy of the Company’s Bylaws, stockholders should contact our Corporate Secretary at the following address:

CSW Industrials, Inc.
5420 Lyndon B. Johnson Freeway, Suite 500
Dallas, Texas 75240
Attention: Corporate Secretary

	2017 Proxy Statement	10

---

Back to Contents

The Company’s Board currently consists of seven directors. There are currently three classes of directors, and the members of each class hold office until the third succeeding annual meeting of stockholders after which they were elected. The Board has nominated Linda Livingstone and William Quinn, whose terms of office are expiring at the 2017 Annual Meeting, to serve a new term that will expire at the 2020 annual meeting of stockholders. Biographical information regarding the nominees is provided below under the headings “Board of Directors—Biographical Information—Nominees to Serve an Annual Term Expiring at the 2020 Annual Meeting of Stockholders.”

As described under “Proposal Three—Amend the Charter to Eliminate the Classified Structure of the Board of Directors”, the Company is submitting a proposal for stockholder approval at this Annual Meeting that, if approved, would eliminate the classified structure of the Board. If Proposal Three is approved by our stockholders, the annual election of Board members would be phased in, with Board members whose terms expire being elected for annual terms beginning at the 2018 annual meeting of stockholders. The current terms of previously-elected directors (including those directors under this Proposal One) will not be affected. As such, the outcome of the vote on Proposal Three will not impact the election of directors under this Proposal One at this Annual Meeting.

Required Vote and Recommendation

Our Bylaws currently require that Board nominees will be elected by a plurality of the affirmative votes cast in person or represented by proxy. Abstentions and broker non-votes will have no effect on the determination of whether a plurality exists with respect to a given nominee. The nominees receiving the highest number of affirmative votes will be elected.

The individuals named as proxies on the enclosed proxy card will vote your proxy “FOR” the election of these nominees unless you instruct otherwise or you withhold authority to vote for any one or more of them. If any director is unable to stand for re-election, the Board may reduce the number of directors or choose a substitute. The nominees have indicated their willingness to serve as a director, and we have no reason to believe the nominees will not be able to stand for re-election.

The Board recommends that you vote “FOR” the election of Dr. Livingstone and Mr. Quinn to serve as directors.

	2017 Proxy Statement	11

---

Back to Contents

Board of Directors - Biographical Information

LINDA A. LIVINGSTONE, PH.D.

Age 57
Director since September 2015
Independent

Committees

Experience

Dr. Livingstone is currently the President of Baylor University, a position she has held since June 2017. From August 2014 through May 2017, she served as Dean of The George Washington University School of Business, and she previously served as Dean of the Graziadio School of Business and Management at Pepperdine University from June 2002 through July 2014. Dr. Livingstone began her academic career at Baylor University, where she served for eleven years as an Assistant and then Associate Professor of Management and most recently as Associate Dean for Graduate Programs. From 2010 to 2016, Dr. Livingstone served as a member of the Board of Directors for the Association to Advance Collegiate Schools of Business, the preeminent international accrediting body for business schools, including serving as chair of the Board of Directors from 2014 to 2015. Dr. Livingstone is the past Chair of the Board of Directors of Oaks Christian School in Westlake Village, California, currently serves on the Board of Directors at Trinity Christian School in Fairfax, Virginia, and is a former Board Member of the Graduate Management Admissions Council, the organization that administers the GMAT exam.

Key Skills and Qualifications

We believe Dr. Livingstone is well qualified to serve as a director due to her extensive experience as an administrator and educator in the field of business administration, which provide a valuable perspective on strategic planning, corporate governance, compliance, executive compensation and leadership development matters.

WILLIAM F. QUINN

Age 69
Director since September 2015
Independent

Committees

Experience

From April 2009 through September 2015, Mr. Quinn served as Executive Chairman and Founder of American Beacon Advisors, a mutual fund advisory firm. Mr. Quinn also serves as Independent Trustee of the National Railroad Retirement Investment Trust. Mr. Quinn served as President and CEO of American Beacon Advisors from the time the firm was created in 1986 until 2009. Mr. Quinn joined American Airlines’ former subsidiary, Sky Chefs Inc., in 1974 and became Vice President and Controller in 1978. He served as Assistant Treasurer of American Airlines from 1979 to 1986 with responsibility for overseeing and managing the American Airlines short-term cash portfolio and pension funds. Prior to joining American Airlines, Mr. Quinn worked for Arthur Young & Company in New York. Mr. Quinn is a former Chairman of the Committee for the Investment of Employee Benefits (CIEBA), a nationally recognized organization of large corporate pension funds. In prior roles, he has served on the boards of the American Airlines Federal Credit Union, Crescent Real Estate Equities, Inc., the publicly traded Special Acquisition Companies affiliated with Thomas Hicks and the American Beacon mutual funds.

Key Skills and Qualifications

We believe Mr. Quinn is well qualified to serve as a director due to his extensive financial, accounting, and compensation and benefits expertise. Mr. Quinn also has broad executive and board leadership experience and compliance and governance expertise.

	2017 Proxy Statement	12

---

Back to Contents

JOSEPH B. ARMES

Age 55
Director since September 2015

Experience

Mr. Armes has served as Chief Executive Officer and Chairman of the Board of Directors of the Company since September 2015. Prior to the Company’s spin-off from Capital Southwest Corporation, a capital provider to middle market companies, in September 2015, Mr. Armes served as the Chief Executive Officer and President of Capital Southwest Corporation from June 2013 to September 2015, and as a board member and president of the Company’s predecessor from November 2014 to September 2015. He currently serves as Chairman of the Capital Southwest Corporation board of directors, a position he has held since January 2014; as disclosed by Capital Southwest Corporation, Mr. Armes will resign from the Capital Southwest Corporation board of directors in August 2017. Since December 2013, Mr. Armes has served as a board member and as audit committee chairman for RSP Permian, Inc., an independent oil and natural gas exploration and production company. From 2005 to 2010, Mr. Armes served as the Chief Operating Officer of Hicks Holdings LLC, a private investment firm. Prior to 2005, he served as Executive Vice President, Chief Financial Officer and General Counsel of Hicks Sports Group, LLC, an owner and manager of various professional sports teams. Rangers Equity Holdings GP LLC, a subsidiary of Hicks Sports Group LLC, had an involuntary bankruptcy petition filed against it in the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Northern District of Texas on May 28, 2010. He also previously served as Executive Vice President and General Counsel of Suiza Foods Corporation (now Dean Foods Company), a publicly traded food and beverage company, and as Vice President and General Counsel of The Morningstar Group, Inc., a publicly traded food and beverage company.

Key Skills and Qualifications

We believe Mr. Armes is well qualified to serve as a director due to his position as the Company’s Chief Executive Officer, which provides the Board with intimate knowledge of the Company’s day-to-day operations. Mr. Armes also has broad executive and board leadership experience, compliance and governance expertise, and extensive corporate development experience, which supports the Company’s strategic growth plans.

ROBERT M. SWARTZ

Age 65
Director since September 2015
Independent, Lead Independent Director

Committees

Experience

From January 2011 until June 2016, Mr. Swartz has served as the Executive Vice President and Chief Operating Officer for Glazer’s, Inc., a privately held distributor of wines and spirits, until Glazer’s combination with Southern Wine and Spirits. From July 2016 through December 2016, Mr. Swartz oversaw the integration of the combined company, Southern Glazer’s Wine and Spirits of America. Since January 2017, Mr. Swartz has served as a member of the board of managers of Glazer’s Beer & Beverage, LLC. Previously, Mr. Swartz was Managing Director and Partner of Hicks Equity Partners LLC, a privately held investment firm. Since 2011, Mr. Swartz has served on the board of directors of Environmental Pest Services LLC. From September 2009 to March 2015, Mr. Swartz served on the board of directors of Resolute Energy Corporation, and from 2011 through 2015, served on the board of directors of Ocular LCD, Inc. Mr. Swartz also served in various executive positions at Centex Corporation from 1999 to 2007.

Key Skills and Qualifications

We believe Mr. Swartz is well qualified to serve as a director due to his experience and expertise in corporate development, finance and accounting. Mr. Swartz also has extensive executive and board leadership experience as well as deep operational expertise.

	2017 Proxy Statement	13

---

Back to Contents

MICHAEL R. GAMBRELL

Age 63
Director since September 2015
Independent

Committees

Experience

Mr. Gambrell is a former Executive Vice President of The Dow Chemical Company, a publicly traded chemicals company, and served as an advisor to the Chairman and CEO of Dow from 2011 to 2012. He retired in December 2012 after serving 37 years with Dow. During his time at Dow, Mr. Gambrell served on the company’s Executive Leadership Committee, Strategy Board, Sustainability Team and Geographic Leadership Council, and he is an ex officio member of Dow’s board of director’s Environment, Health and Safety Committee. In 2012, Mr. Gambrell founded GamCo, LLC, a privately-held company providing advisory services to public, private equity, and start-up companies as well as non-profit organizations. From 2012 to 2015, he served as Chairman of the Campbell Institute, and also served as a director and member of the Executive Committee and Strategic Planning Committee of the National Safety Council from 2011 to 2015. Mr. Gambrell formerly served as a director of TRW Automotive Inc. and as a member of the TRW audit committee, from 2007 until the company’s sale in 2015. He is also a Director Emeritus of the US-India Business Council. Mr. Gambrell served as a member of The University of Michigan Engineering Advisory Council from 2006 to 2012. From 2010 to 2012, Mr. Gambrell served on the U.S. Department of Commerce Manufacturing Council, which advises the Secretary of Commerce on matters related to the competitiveness of the U.S. manufacturing sector.

Key Skills and Qualifications

We believe Mr. Gambrell is well qualified to serve as a director due to his executive and board leadership experience and extensive knowledge of the chemicals industry, which provide a deep understanding of the Company’s products, customers, end markets, competitive landscape, and operational challenges and opportunities. In addition, Mr. Gambrell has extensive corporate development experience and integration expertise, as well as his knowledge and experience in addressing health, safety and environmental issues, which provide unique insight to the Company’s strategic growth plans.

TERRY L. JOHNSTON

Age 59
Director since January 2017
Independent

Committees

Experience

Mr. Johnston currently serves as Executive Vice President and Chief Operating Officer of the Commercial Segment of Lennox International Inc., a leading international provider of heating and cooling systems and technologies for residential and commercial applications. Mr. Johnston has served in his current role since January 2013 and has held roles of increasing responsibility with Lennox International since joining in 2001. Prior to his time with Lennox International, Mr. Johnston spent 20 years with General Electric Company, serving primarily in marketing and commercial leadership roles.

Key Skills and Qualifications

We believe Mr. Johnston is well qualified to serve as a director due to his executive leadership experience and extensive knowledge of the Company’s served industrial markets. In addition, Mr. Johnston has extensive strategic planning experience and operational and commercial expertise, which positions him well to support the Company’s growth strategy and manufacturing optimization focus.

	2017 Proxy Statement	14

---

Back to Contents

J. KENT SWEEZEY

Age 64
Director since December 2016
Independent

Committees

Experience

Mr. Sweezey is a founding partner of Turnbridge Capital, LLC, an energy services, equipment and infrastructure-focused private equity firm, which was founded in 2008. He currently serves as a member of the boards of directors of Impact Selector, Inc. and DeBusk Services Group. Prior to co-founding Turnbridge Capital, Mr. Sweezey served as the Managing Partner of Centre Southwest Partners, LLC, a middle-market private equity firm focused primarily on energy services and equipment-related investments. Prior to his time with Centre Southwest Partners, Mr. Sweezey was with Donaldson, Lufkin & Jenrette (“DLJ”) and its successor firm, Credit Suisse First Boston, from 1984 to 2002, serving most recently as a managing director, where he focused on transactions for companies in the energy sector, as well as companies in the consumer products, building products, and manufacturing sectors. Mr. Sweezey was also involved in DLJ’s early principal investing activities through its investments in Seven-Up Company, Dr Pepper/Seven-Up Companies, and Dr Pepper Bottling Company of Texas, where he served on the board of directors from 1989 to 1999.

Key Skills and Qualifications

We believe Mr. Sweezey is well qualified to serve as a director due to his executive leadership experience, strategic acquisition and financial expertise, and governance expertise. His extensive experience in corporate development matters positions him well to support the execution of the Company’s growth strategy and capital allocation plans.

Role of the Board; Corporate Governance Matters

The Board has a duty to oversee the Chief Executive Officer and other senior management in the competent and ethical operation of the Company and help ensure that our stockholders’ best interests are being served. In its efforts to satisfy this duty, the Board has established Corporate Governance Guidelines designed to promote effective oversight of the Company’s business affairs that the Board monitors, which it updates as it deems appropriate.

The Guidelines set parameters for the director selection process and the composition of the Board and its committees. The Guidelines also determine the formal process for review and evaluation of the Chief Executive Officer, as well as succession planning and management development. The Guidelines further establish policies for director compensation and review of individual directors and the Board’s performance. The Guidelines also require a director who is also a Company employee to offer his or her resignation when such director’s employment with the Company ends. Additionally, these Guidelines establish age limits for directors.

Further, the Guidelines require that a majority of the Board members satisfy applicable independence requirements set forth in NASDAQ listing rules and under applicable law. Only those directors who have no material relationship with the Company (except in his or her role as a director) are deemed independent. The Board has determined that, other than Mr. Armes, the Company’s Chairman and Chief Executive Officer, each member of the Board, including the directors nominated for re-election, meets the independence standards set forth in the applicable rules of the SEC and NASDAQ. In making this determination, the Board considered that Mr. Gambrell is the sole member of GamCo, LLC, a consulting firm from which the Company receives strategic advisory services. As discussed under “Board of Directors Compensation”, the Company pays GamCo, LLC $100,000 per year for these services. The Board determined that this relationship did not impair Mr. Gambrell’s independence, whether under applicable rules of the SEC, NASDAQ or otherwise.

The Company’s Corporate Governance Guidelines, as well as the Company’s Code of Business Conduct and Ethics, are available on the Company’s website at www.cswindustrials.com under the “Investors — Corporate Governance” caption.

In July 2016, the Company’s Board publicly announced plans to expand the Board from five members to seven members, consistent with its intentions to build out the Company’s governance infrastructure following the Company’s spin-off from Capital Southwest Corporation in 2015. The Board conducted a thoughtful search for two additional members in the second half of calendar year 2016 utilizing nationally-recognized search firms, with the intent of identifying candidates who possess the requisite skills and experience needed to assist in executing the Company’s strategic growth plans.

	2017 Proxy Statement	15

---

Back to Contents

While no particular search criteria were specified, the Board sought to add new members who offered significant strategic acquisition and financial expertise and relevant industry experience and contacts. Additionally, the Board sought and received feedback from stockholders through the process. The search process resulted in the appointment of Kent Sweezey in December 2016 and Terry Johnston in January 2017. As discussed above under “Board of Directors – Biographical Information”, the Board believes both Mr. Sweezey and Mr. Johnston are well qualified directors, whose backgrounds and areas of expertise align well with the Company’s vision and will support the execution of our strategic growth and operational improvement plans.

The Board believes that it is important to retain flexibility to allocate the responsibilities of the positions of Chairman of the Board and Chief Executive Officer in a manner that it believes is in the best interests of the Company and its stockholders. The Board does not have a policy with respect to whether the Chief Executive Officer should also serve as Chairman. Rather, the Board considers this issue as part of the succession planning process and makes this decision based on its evaluation of current circumstances and the needs of the Company at any time it is considering the Chief Executive Officer role. Based on Mr. Armes’ significant knowledge of the Company, the Board has concluded that combining the roles of Chairman and Chief Executive Officer is in the best interests of the Company and its stockholders at this time to promote the pursuit of the Company’s business objectives and strategic growth plans.

The Board also believes in the importance of placing an independent director in a position of leadership and oversight, and has appointed Mr. Swartz as the lead independent director of the Board. Among other responsibilities, the lead independent director convenes and chairs regular and special executive sessions of the independent directors and serves as a liaison between the independent directors and our Chairman and CEO, facilitating a more efficient exercise of the Board’s fiduciary duties in the current structure. We also believe the lead independent director further enhances independent oversight by providing input on the Board’s annual schedule and collaborating with the Chairman and Chief Executive Officer on the agendas for all Board meetings. Additionally, the lead independent director provides support and advice to the Chairman and Chief Executive Officer, reinforcing the reporting relationship, and accountability, of the Chief Executive Officer to the Board.

The Company’s Chief Executive Officer and other members of senior management are responsible for the ongoing assessment and management of the risks the Company faces, including risks relating to capital structure, liquidity and credit, financial reporting and public disclosure, operations and governance. The Board and each of the Board’s three committees (the Audit Committee, Compensation & Talent Development Committee and Nominating & Corporate Governance Committee) oversee senior management’s policies and procedures in addressing these and other risks that fall within the scope of the Board’s and the committees’ respective areas of oversight responsibility. For example, the Board directly oversees risk management relating to strategic planning and risk management relating to capital structure and liquidity, the Nominating & Corporate Governance Committee directly oversees risk management relating to director independence and corporate governance, and the Compensation & Talent Development Committee directly oversees risk management relating to employee compensation, organizational design and leadership succession planning. Additionally, the Audit Committee directly oversees risk management relating to financial reporting and public disclosure and legal and regulatory compliance and reviews and discusses the process by which the Board and its committees oversee senior management’s exercise of risk management responsibilities. The Board is regularly informed through committee reports of each committee’s activities in overseeing risk management within their respective areas of oversight responsibility.

The Board held eight meetings in fiscal 2017. Executive sessions of non-employee directors are normally held at each regular Board meeting. Any non-employee director may request that additional executive sessions be scheduled. Stockholders may communicate with the Company’s non-employee directors by following the instructions set forth under “—Stockholder Communications with the Board” below. In fiscal 2017, each director attended at least 75% of the meetings of the Board and the committees on which he or she served during the period for which he or she was a director.

The Company encourages all directors to attend the annual meeting of stockholders, though the Company does not have a specific policy with respect to director attendance. All directors then on the Board attended the 2016 annual meeting of stockholders.

	2017 Proxy Statement	16

---

Back to Contents

Stockholders and other interested parties may communicate with the Board directly by writing to: Robert Swartz, Lead Independent Director, c/o CSW Industrials’ Corporate Secretary, CSW Industrials, Inc., 5420 Lyndon B. Johnson Freeway, Suite 500, Dallas, Texas 75240. All such communications will be delivered to our lead independent director.

Committees of the Board

The Board maintains an Audit Committee, a Compensation & Talent Development Committee (“Compensation Committee”) and a Nominating & Corporate Governance Committee (“N&CG Committee”). Only independent directors are eligible to serve on these standing Board committees. Each committee is governed by a written charter. The charters of the Audit Committee, Compensation Committee, and N&CG Committee are available on the Company’s website at www.cswindustrials.com under the “Investors — Corporate Governance” caption.

The following table identifies the current members of each of the Board’s committees and the number of meetings held in fiscal 2017:

The Audit Committee directly engages the Company’s independent auditors, pre-approves the scope of the annual external audit and pre-approves any audit and non-audit services to be provided by the independent auditor. The Audit Committee also meets with management and the independent auditors to review the annual and quarterly financial statements and considers the reports and recommendations of independent auditors pertaining to audit results, accounting practices, policies and procedures and overall internal controls.

The Audit Committee meets regularly with the independent auditors in executive sessions to discuss their reports on a confidential basis. In addition, the Audit Committee prepares and issues the “Report of the Audit Committee” included in this proxy statement.

The Compensation Committee is responsible for establishing executive compensation for officers, including the Chief Executive Officer. As further discussed under “Executive Compensation,” decisions regarding compensation are made by the Compensation Committee in a manner that is intended to be internally equitable, externally competitive and act as an incentive for effective performance in the best interests of our stockholders, while adhering to and promoting the Company’s business objectives. The Compensation Committee is the administrator of the Company’s equity and incentive compensation plan for key employees. The Compensation Committee may, under certain circumstances, delegate routine or ministerial activities under this plan to management.

	2017 Proxy Statement	17

---

Back to Contents

The Compensation Committee also reviews the recommendations of management regarding adjustments to the Company’s executive compensation programs. The Compensation Committee has engaged an independent executive compensation consultant, Longnecker & Associates, which assists the Compensation Committee in evaluating the Company’s compensation programs and adherence to the philosophies and principles stated below under “Executive Compensation—Compensation Discussion and Analysis.”

The Compensation Committee is also responsible for reviewing management succession plans and for recommending changes in director compensation to the Board. The Compensation Committee periodically reviews the organizational design, management development plans and managerial capabilities of the Company. The Compensation Committee also prepares and issues the “Compensation & Talent Development Committee Report” included in this proxy statement.

The N&CG Committee is responsible for making recommendations to the Board for the positions of Chairman of the Board and Chief Executive Officer. The N&CG Committee is also responsible for recommending candidates for membership to the Board. Further, the N&CG Committee reviews and recommends, as deemed appropriate, changes to the Company’s corporate governance policies consistent with SEC rules and NASDAQ corporate governance requirements.

Director Candidate Identification and Evaluation. Prior to considering director nominee candidates, the N&CG Committee assesses the appropriateness of the Board’s current size and composition and whether any vacancies on the Board are expected due to retirement, age limits or other factors. If additional directors are needed or vacancies are anticipated or otherwise arise, the N&CG Committee utilizes a variety of methods for identifying and evaluating director nominee candidates.

The identification and evaluation of director candidates begins with the Company’s Corporate Governance Guidelines, which establish the criteria for Board membership. As a starting point under the Guidelines, the N&CG Committee assesses a director candidate’s judgment, skill, diversity, integrity, experience with business and other organizations of comparable size, as well as the interplay of the candidate’s experience with the experience of current Board members. In evaluating these characteristics, including diversity, the Board considers individual qualities and attributes, such as educational background, professional skills, business experience and cultural viewpoint, as well as more categorical diversity metrics, such as race, age, gender and nationality. This consideration is implemented through the selection process for director nominees, and the Board assesses its effectiveness in promoting diversity through an annual self-assessment process that solicits feedback concerning the appropriateness of the Board’s diversity, among other critical performance factors.

The N&CG Committee considers various potential director candidates who may come to the attention of the N&CG Committee through current Board members, professional search firms, stockholders or other persons. A stockholder desiring to recommend a candidate for election to the Board should submit a written notice, as required by the Company’s Bylaws, including the candidate’s name and qualifications to our Corporate Secretary, who will refer the recommendation to the N&CG Committee. The N&CG Committee may require any stockholder-recommended candidate to furnish such other information as may reasonably be required to determine the eligibility of such recommended candidate or to assist in evaluating the recommended candidate. The N&CG Committee may require the submission of a fully completed and signed Questionnaire for Directors and Executive Officers on the Company’s standard form and a written consent by the stockholder-recommended candidate to serve as a director, if so elected.

All identified candidates, including stockholder-recommended candidates, are evaluated by the N&CG Committee using generally the same methods and criteria, although those methods and criteria may vary from time to time depending on the N&CG Committee’s assessment of the Company’s needs and current situation.

	2017 Proxy Statement	18

---

Back to Contents

Board of Directors Compensation

The following table sets forth certain information with respect to our non-employee director compensation for the fiscal year ended March 31, 2017. Compensation information for Mr. Armes is set forth below under “Executive Compensation—Summary Compensation Table.” Mr. Armes did not receive any compensation for his service as a director.

In 2017, non-employee directors received, as applicable: (a) an annual cash retainer of $60,000; (b) an annual cash retainer for services as lead independent director of $23,750; (c) equity compensation with a target value of $75,000; and (d) committee chair and meeting participation fees according to the following schedule:

Directors are also eligible to receive special additional compensation when performing services that have been determined by the Board to be well above and beyond the normal director service requirements. The Board has not set a compensatory rate for such services, and no fees were paid for this purpose in 2017. The compensation elements and amounts were established by the Board after review of data prepared by Longnecker & Associates, the Compensation Committee’s independent consultant, showing competitive director compensation levels for peer companies and the Company’s benchmark peer group, which is discussed under “Executive Compensation.”

The equity portion of non-employee director compensation is provided in the form of restricted stock of the Company having a $75,000 market value on the date of grant. The Company anticipates making these annual non-employee director equity grants on October 1 of each year. Voting rights accompany such restricted stock, which fully vest after the earlier of one year from the date of grant, the termination of the director’s service due to death or disability or a change in control. Under the Company’s Common Stock Ownership and Retention Guidelines, all non-employee directors are expected to own shares of Company common stock with a value at least five times his or her annual cash retainer (currently valued at $300,000) by his or her fifth anniversary of Board service. For 2017, all non-employee directors were in process of meeting the stock ownership guidelines and in compliance with Company policy.

	2017 Proxy Statement	19

---

Back to Contents

Compensation Committee Interlocks and Insider Participation

During 2017, the members of the Compensation Committee included Dr. Livingstone (chair), Mr. Gambrell, Mr. Johnston, Mr. Quinn, Mr. Swartz and Mr. Sweezey. None of the members of the Compensation Committee were at any time during 2017 an officer or employee of the Company. None of our executive officers serve as a member of the board of directors or a compensation committee of any entity that has one or more executive officers serving as a member of our Board or Compensation Committee.

	2017 Proxy Statement	20

---

Back to Contents

The following sets forth certain information regarding the Company’s senior management. Information pertaining to Mr. Armes, who is both Chairman of the Board and an executive officer of the Company, is presented above under “Board of Directors—Biographical Information—Directors Serving a Term Expiring at the 2018 Annual Meeting of Stockholders.”

Christopher J. Mudd has served as President and Chief Operating Officer of the Company since September 2015. Prior to the Company’s spin-off from Capital Southwest Corporation, a capital provider to middle market companies, in September 2015, he served as Senior Vice President, Operations of Capital Southwest from January 2015 to September 2015. From 2003 to December 2014, Mr. Mudd served as president and general manager at Dexco Polymers LP, a joint venture of Dow Chemical and ExxonMobil, which was acquired in 2011 by TSRC Corporation, a publicly traded chemical company. From 1998 to 2002, Mr. Mudd was the Senior Commercial Manager for Energy and Fuels at Dow Hydrocarbons and Resources. Prior to 1998, he served in various positions of increasing responsibility at The Dow Chemical Company.

Gregg W. Branning has served as Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer since June 2016. From September 2012 to March 2016, he served as Senior Vice President, Chief Financial Officer and Secretary of Myers Industries, Inc., a polymer products manufacturer. From December 2008 to August 2012, he served as Vice President Finance and Chief Financial Officer for Thomson Industries, a subsidiary of Danaher Corporation.

Luke E. Alverson has served as Senior Vice President, General Counsel and Secretary since February 2016. From May 2008 to February 2016, he held roles of increasing responsibility with Flowserve Corporation, a leading global manufacturer of fluid motion control products and provider of related services, serving most recently as Vice President, Corporate Legal Services and Assistant Secretary. Prior to 2008, Mr. Alverson was associated with the law firms of Vinson & Elkins, LLP in Dallas, Texas, and Hallett & Perrin, P.C., in Dallas, Texas.

Craig J. Foster has served as Senior Vice President & General Manager, Specialty Chemicals since January 2016. From June 2015 to August 2015, Mr. Foster was Vice President and General Manager, Elastomers Division, at Zeon Chemicals, a Japanese specialty chemicals company. From 1995 to June 2015, he served in positions of increasing responsibility with Flint Group, a specialty chemicals company serving the food packaging and publications industries, where he was most recently regional president of China and India, president of Print Media EMA and president of pigments, chips and resins. While at Flint Group, Mr. Foster also served as the functional executive responsible for the global operations of the company. Prior to his time at Flint, Mr. Foster served as purchasing supervisor at Akzo Nobel Coatings and also served in the U.S. Navy within the Nuclear Submarine Force and the Naval Mobile Construction Force.

Don J. Sullivan has served as the Senior Vice President & General Manager, Industrial Products since January 2016. From May 2015 to January 2016, Mr. Sullivan was the Chief Operating Officer for RectorSeal, one of the Company’s operating subsidiaries. From October 2010 to April 2015, he served as Division President of Goodman Global, a member of the Daikin Group, a leading global HVAC manufacturer. Prior to 2005, Mr. Sullivan held a variety of management positions at Carrier Corporation, a leading heating, air-conditioning and refrigeration solutions company, including sales, product management and general management.

	2017 Proxy Statement	21

---

Back to Contents

Compensation Discussion and Analysis

Introduction

The following sections contain our Compensation Discussion and Analysis (“CD&A”). This CD&A provides an overview and analysis of our executive compensation program and policies and the material compensation decisions we have made for our principal executive officer, our principal financial officer and our other executive officers named in the “Summary Compensation Table” on page 37. We refer to this group of executive officers collectively as our “Named Executive Officers” throughout this document. During fiscal year ended March 31, 2017 (“fiscal 2017”), our Named Executive Officers were:

Fiscal 2016 Executive Compensation Vote

At last year’s annual meeting, we conducted our first stockholder vote to approve the compensation of our Named Executive Officers for fiscal 2016. Fiscal 2016 was only a partial fiscal year as a result of our spin-off from Capital Southwest Corporation (“CSWC”) in October 2015 (the “Spin-Off”). Last year, 73.3% of the votes cast in the executive compensation vote were voted in favor of the compensation of our Named Executive Officers as described in our 2016 proxy statement. In consideration of the results, the Compensation Committee acknowledged the support received from our stockholders and also engaged with several of our largest stockholders to review and receive feedback on certain elements of our executive compensation program. Following this engagement, the Compensation Committee has made certain modifications to our executive compensation program for fiscal 2018 as described below.

Executive Compensation Program Changes for Fiscal 2017

The Compensation Committee is committed to continuously evaluating our executive compensation program, with a focus on the best interests of our stockholders and the Company and sound compensation practices, as our Company matures and establishes its performance as an independent, publicly traded company. The Compensation Committee conducted its first annual review of our executive compensation program and policies in June 2016, the first quarter of fiscal 2017. As the executive compensation program was established in September 2015 in connection with the Spin-Off, most elements of the executive compensation program were left in place for fiscal 2017.

In fiscal 2017, our Board adopted a Recoupment of Incentive Compensation Policy, or “clawback” policy (the “Recoupment Policy”), which reinforces our commitment to our business objectives and core values. Under the Recoupment Policy, the Compensation Committee has the ability to recoup certain incentive compensation paid to an executive, within the prior three years, if the Company is required to restate its financial statements. If a restatement occurs, the Compensation Committee can require an executive to reimburse the Company for all incentive compensation received that was greater than the amount the Compensation Committee determines was actually earned based on the restated financial results.

Executive Compensation Program Changes for Fiscal 2018

During each of its meetings in fiscal 2017, the Compensation Committee reviewed and discussed the Company’s compensation philosophy and elements of the executive compensation program. Additionally, following our first annual meeting in August 2016, the Compensation Committee engaged with several stockholders in late 2016 and early 2017 regarding our executive compensation program. Acknowledging that our first CD&A in 2016 was complicated by required disclosures for Spin-Off-related compensation for certain executives, which were determined by CSWC and not the Company, the Compensation Committee received supportive and constructive feedback from stockholders regarding certain executive compensation program elements.

Supported by stockholder feedback, the Compensation Committee evaluated all elements of our compensation program for fiscal 2018, in consultation with Longnecker & Associates, the Compensation Committee’s independent compensation consultants (“Longnecker”), and management. As a result of this evaluation, the Compensation Committee made changes to the Company’s executive compensation program for fiscal 2018. While this CD&A discusses our executive compensation program for fiscal 2017, which was determined in the first half of calendar 2016 before our 2016 annual meeting, the following changes have been made to our executive compensation program for fiscal 2018. These changes are summarized below and will be discussed in further detail in our proxy statement for the 2018 annual meeting.

	2017 Proxy Statement	22

---

Back to Contents

Fiscal 2018 Annual Incentive Program Changes

The Compensation Committee made three changes to the annual incentive program (“AIP”) design for fiscal 2018, relating to the performance measures, the weighting of the performance measures, and the performance levels within the AIP.

For fiscal 2018, earnings before interest, taxes, depreciation and amortization (“EBITDA”) will be replaced with consolidated operating income as the primary financial performance measure for the AIP. Additionally, the financial measure weighting will be increased from fiscal 2017’s 60% of total AIP to 70% of total AIP. The two individual performance metrics, which for fiscal 2017 were together weighted at 40% of total AIP, will be restructured, and the remaining 30% of total AIP will be allocated to qualitative individual performance.

 

The Compensation Committee believes that by increasing the weighting of the financial performance measure and decreasing the weighting of individual performance measures, which could be viewed as discretionary, more emphasis is placed on objective performance criteria, consistent with our compensation philosophy and objectives. At the same time, the Compensation Committee continues to believe that the AIP should continue to have non-financial, non-formulaic elements that allow positive or negative compensation adjustment based on qualitative performance assessments, consistent with our Company’s culture.

Concerning the financial performance metric, the Compensation Committee evaluated several metrics consistent with the desire to promote our annual operating budget and increase stockholder value. Based on this analysis, the Compensation Committee determined that consolidated operating income, a U.S. GAAP financial measure, is an appropriate and more direct measure of the Company’s annual operating results and earnings performance as an integrated industrial manufacturing company.

Concerning performance levels, the threshold performance level for the financial performance measure will be increased from 70% of target to 75% of target. Additionally, the maximum performance level for the financial performance measure will be decreased from 150% of target to 125% of target. By raising the threshold and lowering the maximum performance levels, it both enhances the rigor of the AIP, making a minimum payout under the AIP more difficult to obtain, and creates a more realistic incentive to drive above-target financial results for stockholders’ benefit. Additionally, the Compensation Committee believes these revised threshold and maximum performance levels for the financial performance measure are more in line with general market practices for companies of our size and in our industries.

 

 

Fiscal 2018 Long-Term Incentive Program Changes

The Compensation Committee made two changes to the long-term incentive program (“LTIP”) design for fiscal 2018, both relating to performance share awards, which comprise approximately 50% of each Named Executive Officer’s total LTIP opportunity.

In July 2016, the Company was added to the Russell 2000 and 3000 indexes. With this inclusion, the Compensation Committee decided to transition the external benchmark used for total shareholder return (“TSR”) measurement, which is the performance metric used for our performance share awards, away from the “benchmark peer group” to the Russell 2000 index. The Compensation Committee believes that the use of an index in which the Company is a member is a more objective and transparent benchmark for measuring relative TSR.

Additionally, the Compensation Committee modified the vesting schedule for performance share awards. Beginning with fiscal 2018 performance share awards, a relative TSR ranking by the Company at or above the 80^th percentile of the Russell 2000 Index will result in a payout score of 200%. The Compensation Committee also added a qualifier on the payout that limits the maximum payout to 100% of target if the Company’s TSR is negative over the performance period, irrespective of the Company’s TSR compared to the Russell 2000. The LTIP changes are represented in the following table:

	2017 Proxy Statement	23

---

Back to Contents

Pay for Performance

The Compensation Committee, which is made up entirely of independent directors, determines the total amount and appropriate mix of compensation for our Named Executive Officers. We believe that our compensation program is designed to align pay with the level of performance generated, with incentive compensation representing the majority of total compensation. Accordingly, for fiscal 2017, the CEO had 81.1% of his target pay “at risk,” or dependent upon both the Company’s and his individual performance, and the other Named Executive Officers had on average 66.0% of their target pay “at risk”.

 

As discussed in more detail under “—Elements of the Executive Compensation Program—Annual Incentive Program”, our Named Executive Officers are eligible to receive a cash incentive payment based upon the Company’s financial performance against pre-established goals. Based on our 2017 results, the Company achieved 70.7% of our established EBITDA goal. This resulted in an annual incentive award payout of 51.2% of target for our Named Executive Officers with respect to the EBITDA metric, reflecting our pay for performance philosophy.

As discussed in more detail under “—Elements of the Executive Compensation Program—Long Term Incentives,” our Named Executive Officers, as well as other Company employees, are eligible to receive equity awards that vest based upon the Company’s financial performance against pre-established goals. For the fiscal 2017 – fiscal 2019 performance period, our Named Executive Officers received a portion of their equity incentive compensation in the form of performance shares, which vest, if at all, based on the Company’s TSR compared to the TSR performance of a defined peer group. The performance period for these awards has yet to be completed, so no vesting has occurred.

Compensation Objectives and Core Elements

Our key executive compensation objectives are to align the long-term interests of our executives with those of our stockholders, reward current performance, drive future performance and attract and retain key leaders. In pursuing these objectives, the Compensation Committee uses certain guiding principles in designing the elements of the executive compensation program.

Consistent with these principles, the core elements of our executive compensation program in fiscal 2017 consisted of:

 

	2017 Proxy Statement	24

---

Back to Contents

Other benefits are provided to the Named Executive Officers that are generally consistent with those provided to other employees of the Company, including health plans and retirement benefits.

This CD&A is intended to help readers understand the detailed information in our executive compensation tables by analyzing the data in the tables in the context of our overall compensation program. To assist, this CD&A is organized in the following sections:

The Compensation Committee administers our executive compensation program. Consistent with NASDAQ corporate governance requirements, the Compensation Committee is composed entirely of independent, non-employee members of the Board. The Compensation Committee has overall responsibility for setting the compensation for our CEO and Named Executive Officers.

The Compensation Committee has retained Longnecker as its independent executive compensation consultant. Longnecker assists and advises the Compensation Committee on certain aspects of our executive compensation program, and it provides no other services to the Company. The services it provides include:

The Compensation Committee is also responsible for reviewing management succession plans and for recommending changes in director compensation to the Board. The Compensation Committee periodically reviews the organizational design, management development plans and managerial capabilities of the Company. The Compensation Committee also prepares and issues the Compensation & Talent Development Committee Report included in this proxy statement.

Our key compensation objectives are to align the long-term interests of our executives with those of our stockholders, reward current performance, drive future performance and attract and retain key leaders. While the individual compensation elements may differ, the design of the executive compensation program is generally based on the same objectives as the overall compensation program provided to all Company employees. The Compensation Committee has established the following principles, which are meant to accomplish these compensation objectives and guide the design and administration of specific plans, agreements and arrangements for our Named Executive Officers.

Compensation Should be Primarily Performance-Based

The Compensation Committee believes that a significant portion of our executives’ total compensation should be “at risk” based on how well the Company performs consistent with our business objectives and how well an executive performs individually. To accomplish this, the Compensation Committee uses a variety of targeted, performance-based compensation vehicles that promote our annual operating budget and long-term business strategy, build long-term stockholder value and avoid encouraging excessive risk-taking.

The Compensation Committee believes that there should be a strong correlation between executive pay and performance. So, in years when Company and individual performance exceeds established objectives, executive officers should be paid more than 100% of the established target award. Conversely, when Company and individual performance does not meet the established objectives, incentive award payments should be less than 100% of the established target level or eliminated altogether if performance is below threshold performance levels.

	2017 Proxy Statement	25

---

Back to Contents

The Compensation Committee also believes that how executive officers accomplish objectives is important to the Company’s culture and relevant to long-term performance. Purely formulaic incentive plans do not account for these qualitative assessments and can work against the Company’s and stockholders’ best interests. As such, the Compensation Committee believes that it should have an element of discretion to adjust executive compensation to reflect individual, qualitative performance.

Performance-Based Incentive Compensation Should Have External Benchmarks

The Compensation Committee believes that the use of internal performance metrics alone does not create a full picture of Company performance. Accordingly, the performance-based element of our executive compensation program also emphasizes and evaluates the Company’s performance relative to an external benchmark. For fiscal 2017 performance share awards, the external benchmark consisted of a group of specialty chemical and industrial manufacturers. The external benchmark serves as a means to evaluate, on a comparative basis, how well we deliver results that build long-term stockholder value, which in turn allows us to better establish the performance expectations of senior management in leading the Company.

Our external comparison group used for performance benchmarking purposes in fiscal 2017 consisted of the following companies:

The process for establishing this benchmark peer group began by identifying publicly traded manufacturing companies with a market capitalization of less than $2 billion. From this group of identified companies, the list was distilled by removing those companies that do not conduct business on a business-to-business basis. The list was then distilled further by removing those companies that do not manufacture and sell products falling into, or complimentary with, the Company’s industrial, specialty chemicals or coatings, sealants and adhesives products and markets. This process produced the list of companies identified above.

The Company was added to the Russell 2000 and 3000 Indexes in July 2016. In light of this, and as discussed above, beginning in fiscal 2018, the Compensation Committee has transitioned the performance benchmark for the performance shares granted under our LTIP to the Russell 2000 Index. The Compensation Committee believes the use of the Russell 2000 Index for TSR benchmarking purposes is appropriate due to the Company’s inclusion in the index, and is a more objective and transparent comparator group for the Company’s performance-based equity awards.

Compensation Levels Should be Market Competitive

The Compensation Committee reviews market compensation survey data to evaluate the market competitiveness of our executive compensation program. This furthers the goals of encouraging building long-term stockholder value and attracting and retaining executive talent. The Compensation Committee uses survey data gathered by Longnecker, which is comprised of compensation data for comparable executive positions within a group of comparable industrial products and specialty chemicals companies, as well as compensation data from the market generally. The Compensation Committee recognizes that potential candidates for qualified executives, as well as market opportunities for our current executives, are not limited to companies in our industry sectors.

The group of companies used by Longnecker for purposes of evaluating comparable executive compensation data consists of the following companies:

This comparator group of companies was selected using a two-step process using objective criteria and financial parameters. For the objective criteria, a list of potential comparator companies was identified by using: industrial classifications that include industrial machinery, manufacturing and/or specialty chemicals; public operating companies traded on all U.S. exchanges; and geographic locations in the U.S. with international operations. After this list of potential companies was identified, a financial metric filter was applied using revenues, assets, market capitalization, enterprise value, net income and EBITDA, along with gross and operating margin profiles. Companies that did not have at least a majority of these financial metrics falling within

	2017 Proxy Statement	26

---

Back to Contents

0.5x and 3.0x of the Company’s metrics were excluded. This process produced the list of companies identified above.

The Compensation Committee uses the survey data from Longnecker and the broader market to benchmark our executives’ base salary, annual bonus opportunities, total target cash compensation, long-term incentive compensation and total target compensation. Additionally, the Compensation Committee uses the survey data to evaluate how, for each executive position, the Compensation Committee’s actions are appropriate, reasonable and consistent with the Company’s philosophy, practices and policies.

To promote performance-weighted target compensation, base salaries for our executives are generally set between the 40^th and 50^th percentile of benchmarked compensation data to prudently manage fixed compensation costs. In turn, target annual incentive opportunities and long-term incentive compensation targets are both generally set at levels above the 50^th percentile opportunity of the benchmarked compensation data, with the objective of setting total target compensation at or slightly above the market median. In doing this, the Compensation Committee seeks to balance a heavier performance-focused structure with our interests in maintaining market competitive realized compensation. Actual realized compensation varies and is determined by performance against these pre-established measures and objectives.

Incentive Compensation Should Represent the Majority of Total Compensation

The Compensation Committee believes that the proportion of an executive’s total compensation that is “at risk” based on individual, business segment, function and/or corporate performance should increase in line with the scope and level of the executive’s business responsibilities. Accordingly, for fiscal 2017, on average 73.5% of the total target compensation of the Named Executive Officers was dependent upon our stock price, our financial performance or individual performance. The Compensation Committee believes that the CEO’s “at risk” compensation should be a higher percentage of total target compensation compared to the other Named Executive Officers in light of the position’s strategic focus and leadership responsibilities. The following table shows the percentage of each Named Executive Officer’s total target compensation for fiscal 2017 that was at risk under the existing program.

Incentive Compensation Should Balance Short-Term and Long-Term Performance

The Compensation Committee believes that executive compensation should be linked to building long-term stockholder value while remaining consistent with our business objectives. Our executive compensation program addresses this by including long-term incentives in the form of equity-based awards, such as performance shares and restricted stock, which ties realized compensation to the performance of the Company’s common stock. As discussed in further detail below, we have also established minimum stock ownership requirements for our executives. In fiscal 2017, our long-term incentive awards for the Named Executive Officers were equally weighted between:

The Compensation Committee believes that this long-term incentive mix appropriately encourages long-term equity ownership, promotes a balance between stock-based and financial-based achievements and aligns the interests of the Named Executive Officers with the Company’s risk profile and the interests of our stockholders. The Company does not currently grant stock options as part of its compensation program.

The Compensation Committee also recognizes that, while stock prices generally correlate to corporate performance over the long-term, other factors may significantly affect stock prices at any point in time. These factors include general economic conditions, industry business cycles and varying attitudes among investors toward the stock market in general and specific industries and/or companies in particular. The influence of these factors makes performance of the Company’s common stock alone an incomplete measure of the Company’s performance. Accordingly, the base salary and annual cash incentive opportunity compensation components emphasize current or short-term corporate performance, as well as the realization of defined business and financial objectives.

The Executive Compensation Program Should be Reviewed Annually for Effectiveness

At the first regular Compensation Committee meeting following our fiscal year end, the Compensation Committee conducts a comprehensive review of all components of our executive compensation program. This review is done with the input of Longnecker and in light of evolving market practices in the general industry, external regulatory requirements, the competitive market for executives, our business objectives and our executive compensation philosophy. In conducting its review, the Compensation Committee reviews information related to each executive officer’s income and benefits, including base salary, target incentives and retirement, health and welfare benefits.

	2017 Proxy Statement	27

---

Back to Contents

Overview

The primary elements of the Company’s executive compensation program in fiscal 2017 are shown in the following table and are discussed in detail below:

The Compensation Committee’s process of reviewing the executive compensation program and setting compensation levels for our Named Executive Officers involves several components. During the first quarter of each fiscal year, the Compensation Committee reviews each Named Executive Officer’s total compensation. The Compensation Committee members also meet regularly with the Named Executive Officers at various times during the year, both formally within Board meetings and informally outside of Board meetings, allowing the Compensation Committee to assess directly each Named Executive Officer’s performance.

In setting the CEO’s compensation, the Compensation Committee considers the results of the Board’s review of the CEO’s performance with all independent Board members. This process includes the independent Board members individually and collectively presenting their assessment, and the CEO providing his assessment, of his performance.

In addition, the CEO annually presents an evaluation of each other Named Executive Officer to the Compensation Committee, which includes a review of each officer’s contributions and performance over the past year, strengths, weaknesses, development plans and succession potential. The CEO also presents compensation recommendations for each Named Executive Officer for the Compensation Committee’s consideration. Following this presentation and a benchmarking review for pay, the Compensation Committee makes its own assessments and determines compensation amounts for each other Named Executive Officer with respect to each of the elements in the Company’s executive compensation program as described below.

Base Salary

During the first quarter of each fiscal year, the Compensation Committee reviews and establishes the base salaries of the Named Executive Officers. The Compensation Committee uses base salary market reference points for the Company’s various executive positions developed from the market compensation survey data compiled and prepared by Longnecker. For each Named Executive Officer, the Compensation Committee takes into account the scope of responsibilities, experience and individual performance and then balances these factors against competitive salary practices. The Compensation Committee also considers internal pay equity on an annual basis within the Company with respect to the other executives and references external benchmarks provided by Longnecker. The Compensation Committee does not assign any relative or specific weights to these factors. Because we are committed to a pay-for-performance philosophy, the Compensation Committee generally manages base salary levels between the 40^th and 50^th percentiles of benchmarked compensation.

 

	2017 Proxy Statement	28

---

Back to Contents

Based on the factors discussed above, the Named Executive Officers’ annual base salaries for fiscal 2017 were established as shown in the following table:

The annual base salaries for the Named Executive Officers were established by the Compensation Committee in June 2016. In light of the Company’s Spin-Off in October 2015 and base salaries having been determined around that time, Mr. Armes’ base salary was not adjusted. Mr. Branning and Mr. Alverson were not eligible for base salary adjustment due to their start dates with the Company in calendar 2016. Mr. Mudd’s salary was adjusted based on competitive pay analysis using survey data and to better align with our compensation philosophy, consistent with individual performance.

The base salaries paid to the Named Executive Officers during fiscal 2017 are shown in the “Summary Compensation Table” under the “Salary” column. Mr. Armes’s base salary and other compensation components in 2017 are discussed below in further detail under “—Additional Executive Compensation Information—Chief Executive Officer Compensation in 2017.”

Annual Incentive Program

During the first quarter of each year, the Compensation Committee establishes an annual cash incentive opportunity for each Named Executive Officer under the Company’s Annual Incentive Program (“AIP”). At that time, the Compensation Committee approves: (i) an AIP target opportunity for each Named Executive Officer; and (ii) the overall Company performance measures for the fiscal year.

Setting the AIP Target Opportunity

In June 2016, the Compensation Committee established annual cash incentive opportunities under the AIP for the Named Executive Officers. The Compensation Committee sets these targets in consultation with Longnecker and in adherence to our stated executive compensation objectives and principles. As discussed, since we generally seek to set base salaries below the 50^th percentile of benchmarked compensation, the Compensation Committee generally seeks to set AIP targets above the 50^th percentile to reach market levels for target total cash compensation. The target annual incentive opportunity for each Named Executive Officer in fiscal 2017 is set forth below:

For Mr. Armes and Mr. Mudd, no changes were made to target AIP opportunities. Mr. Alverson’s target AIP was increased from 40% to 50% based on competitive pay analysis and to begin transitioning to alignment with our compensation philosophy. Mr. Branning joined the Company in fiscal 2017, and his AIP opportunity was set at commencement of employment.

Setting Company Performance Measures

The Compensation Committee, working with management and Longnecker, evaluates and approves the Company’s AIP performance measures for each fiscal year. The Compensation Committee sets each Named Executive Officer’s AIP performance measures based on the financial performance of the Company as a whole. This helps ensure that the Named Executive Officers’ primary focus is on setting the overall strategic direction of the Company and achieving overall Company results aligned to support building stockholder value.

The Compensation Committee also believes that individual, non-financial performance metrics should be included in the AIP performance measures. This serves to restrain the influence of formulae and objective factors on incentive pay, which can have detrimental effects on the Company and stockholders when overused. Importantly, non-formulaic metrics provide the Compensation Committee with discretion to adjust compensation upward or downward depending on not only what objectives and goals an executive accomplished in a given year, but how those objectives and goals were met, to ensure behaviors are consistent with our business objectives and core values. As such, the Company’s AIP performance measures and targets, unadjusted for extraordinary events, established for 2017 were as follows:

The metrics presented in the table above were evaluated using pre-defined internal criteria. The Compensation Committee selected these performance metrics, with input from management, because they support the key strategies that we believe drive sustainable and profitable Company growth (as discussed under “—Executive Compensation Program Objectives and Principles” above).

	2017 Proxy Statement	29

---

Back to Contents

On the basis of the foregoing performance metrics, we used the following formula to calculate the AIP payment for fiscal 2017:

 

The elements of EBITDA used in calculating the amount coincide in all material respects with the Company’s financial results as reported in SEC filings. EBITDA is calculated by taking the Company’s reported net income and adding back interest charges on debt, taxes, depreciation and amortization, all as determined in accordance with U.S. GAAP. Additionally, the Compensation Committee may exercise its judgment, within parameters it establishes at the beginning of the year, whether to exclude the effect of certain specified developments that occur during the year in determining performance objectives achievement. Such developments may include unanticipated changes in accounting principles or extraordinary, unusual or unplanned events, such as restructurings, reorganizations and acquisitions or dispositions.

Concerning the individual performance metrics, at the beginning of the fiscal year, the Compensation Committee establishes specific, objective functional or personal goals for the Named Executive Officers. These goals become the basis for the Compensation Committee’s determination of whether and how the individual performance metrics were satisfied.

Where applicable, AIP awards are paid in the first quarter of each fiscal year for the prior year’s performance based upon the Compensation Committee’s assessment of actual performance against the pre-established AIP performance objectives. A more in-depth description of the Compensation Committee’s decisions with respect to the annual incentive awards paid to each Named Executive Officer for fiscal 2017 follows.

Measuring Performance and Determining Payout

At the same time that the Compensation Committee sets AIP performance metrics for a given year, it establishes a payout range for all AIP awards. The payout range ultimately determines the percentage of the target incentive to be paid, with an established maximum amount and a threshold below which no payment will be made. The Company’s achievement of the EBITDA performance metric is objective and calculated as appropriate. The payout percentages for the individual performance metrics are determined by the Compensation Committee’s annual performance assessment, as discussed above.

The 2017 payout range established for the EBITDA metric was 0% to 200% of the target award opportunity. The actual payout percentage is determined using a matrix that compares the Company’s actual EBITDA performance against the established performance targets for the year (referred to as “plan”). Payouts for the EBITDA objective are calculated on a straight line basis for performance between the applicable performance levels (threshold, target and maximum). The following table shows the percentage of target award that is paid at different levels of Company performance against plan, as well as actual performance and payout percentage for fiscal 2017.

After the end of fiscal 2017, the Compensation Committee reviewed the Company’s actual performance against plan. Additionally, the Company acquired Greco Aluminum Railings in February 2017. The Compensation Committee’s policy of excluding non-budgeted transaction and integration costs, as well as the EBITDA benefit, from acquisitions in the fiscal year resulted in a net increase in performance against the EBITDA metric of $0.6 million. The Compensation Committee calculated the AIP percentage payout for each Named Executive Officer in accordance with the EBITDA metric formula, resulting in a percentage payout of 51.2% for each Named Executive Officer’s target annual incentive opportunity for the EBITDA metric.

Concerning individual performance, for fiscal 2017, the percentage payouts for the quantitative individual performance metric, which comprised 20% of the total AIP target opportunity in fiscal 2017, were determined using the following standards:

For fiscal 2017, the Board assessed Mr. Armes as “Exceeds Expectations”, and the Compensation Committee approved a payout of 150% of target for the quantitative performance metric. However, Mr. Armes proposed, and the Compensation Committee agreed, to limit his payout under this metric to 100% of target, recognizing the Company’s performance in fiscal 2017. Additionally, with respect to the other Named Executive Officers, management recommended, and the Compensation Committee approved, limiting payouts on quantitative performance ratings to target (100%) payout.

	2017 Proxy Statement	30

---

Back to Contents

The subjective individual performance assessment, which comprises the final 20% of the total AIP target opportunity, is discretionary, and subject to the same 0% to 200% payout range for the EBITDA and quantitative individual metrics. The amounts awarded to the Named Executive Officers (if any) under the qualitative assessment are influenced by the Compensation Committee’s quantitative performance assessment and the Company’s performance, ensuring executives are appropriately compensated for demonstrating (or not demonstrating) behaviors consistent with our business objectives and core values.

For fiscal 2017, the Board evaluated each of the Named Executive Officers based on the objectives outlined below, which were established and communicated to the Named Executive Officers in the first quarter of fiscal 2017 or the commencement of employment, as applicable. None of these objectives are assigned individual weights, but are considered together. The Company has no policies or formula for allocating compensation among the various elements.

Based on the Compensation Committee’s review of the Named Executive Officers’ qualitative performance, the Compensation Committee approved awards at target (100%) concerning this metric for each Named Executive Officer. The total annual incentive award earned by each Named Executive Officer for fiscal 2017 are reported in the “Summary Compensation Table” under the “Non-Equity Incentive Plan Compensation” column.

Long-Term Incentives

Our long-term incentive program (“LTIP”) rewards the Named Executive Officers for the Company’s performance over a period of more than one fiscal year. Our LTIP consists of two components: (1) performance shares and (2) restricted stock. In fiscal 2017, all Named Executive Officers received their long-term incentive awards in these forms. The Compensation Committee may also award one-time grants of restricted stock in its discretion based on performance or other factors, which Mr. Branning received in connection with commencement of his employment in June 2016.

Determining the Structure of Awards

As discussed above, the Compensation Committee believes that long-term incentive compensation is essential to retaining and motivating executives. The Compensation Committee further believes that providing our executives with long-term incentives will encourage them to operate the Company’s business with a view towards building long-term stockholder value. Based on these considerations, the Compensation Committee determined that for fiscal 2017, an equity award combination generally consisting of one-half in value of restricted stock, which vests ratably over a three-year period, and one-half in value of performance shares, which cliff vests at the end of a three-year period, would best serve the goals that the Compensation Committee sought to achieve. The awards are granted subject to a pre-approved total target pool of restricted stock and performance share awards available to employees eligible to participate in the LTIP.

Setting the Target Opportunity

Each year, the Compensation Committee establishes a target long-term incentive opportunity for each Named Executive Officer, which is expressed as a percentage of the executive’s base salary. The LTIP opportunities are set after the Compensation Committee has evaluated the Company’s operating results for the prior year and at the same time that the Company is making its major compensation decisions for the current fiscal year.

In determining the aggregate amount of total awards available for our executives, the Compensation Committee considers both (1) the target dollar value of the long-term incentive package and (2) the package’s potential dilutive effect on the Company’s outstanding shares of common stock. In setting the target dollar value of the long-term incentive packages for each executive, the Compensation Committee considers comparator group and broader market data provided by Longnecker, as previously described. For reasons described above under “—Executive Compensation Program Objectives and Principles—Compensation Levels Should be Market Competitive”, we generally provide long-term incentive awards at target levels above the 50^th percentile of benchmarked compensation data to help achieve market levels of total target compensation.

Once the target dollar value is set, the Compensation Committee considers the potential dilutive effect of awards. The Compensation Committee evaluates stockholder dilution based on equity compensation “burn rates,” which refers to the annual rate at which shares are awarded under our equity compensation plan compared to the Company’s outstanding shares of common stock. Generally, the Compensation Committee targets a Company-wide “burn rate” of 1.0% or less for each annual grant of long-term incentive awards for all Company employees.

	2017 Proxy Statement	31

---

Back to Contents

Based on the criteria described above, the Compensation Committee approved the target LTI opportunities for the Named Executive Officers as set forth in the table below:

The Compensation Committee sets these targets in consultation with Longnecker and in adherence to our stated executive compensation objectives and principles. For Mr. Armes and Mr. Mudd, no changes were made to target LTI opportunities. Mr. Alverson’s target LTI was increased from 50% to 55% to begin transitioning to alignment with our compensation philosophy. Mr. Branning joined the Company in fiscal 2017, and his LTI opportunity was set at commencement of employment. The Compensation Committee has established the practice of annually approving and granting equity awards to LTIP participants at two points during the year: for restricted stock, on or about October 1 of the fiscal year; and for performance shares, on or about the beginning of the fiscal year.

The material terms and conditions of these equity awards are determined under the provisions of our existing equity compensation plan. This plan is included as Annex B to this proxy statement, and can also be found on the Company’s website at www.cswindustrials.com under the “Investors — SEC Filings” caption.

Performance Share Awards

Performance shares are restricted shares that vest, if at all, based on the Company’s achievement of pre-determined financial metrics, measured over a three-year performance period. Performance share awards in fiscal 2017 were based on TSR performance compared to that of the benchmark peer group, in order to support the Company’s strategic plan to emphasize growth in excess of market levels and align the interest of our executives with the Company’s stockholders. The Compensation Committee believes that these performance-based awards provide a strong incentive for our executives to achieve performance goals over the performance period that advance our business strategies, build long-term stockholder value and encourage executive retention.

These performance-based awards are subject to forfeiture if the executive’s employment is terminated by the Company with cause or by the executive without good reason before the end of the three-year performance period or if the performance goals are not reached. Until vesting, holders of performance shares do not have voting rights, but are entitled to receive dividend accruals, if any.

The performance shares granted in fiscal 2017 will vest, if at all, at the end of March 2019 based on the Company’s achievement of a three-year TSR performance relative to the external benchmark performance group’s TSR performance.

Prior to the granting of performance share awards, the Compensation Committee establishes a vesting percentage range around each executive’s target long-term incentive opportunity allocated to the performance shares. This vesting percentage range has an established upper limitation and a minimum below which no shares will vest. Similar to AIP awards, the percentage vesting range determines the amount of performance shares that vest relative to the original award amount.

For fiscal 2017, the vesting percentage range established was 0% to 100% of the executives’ respective target long-term incentive opportunity allocated to the performance shares. The vesting of these awards will be determined by (1) determining the Company’s TSR percentile quartile among the benchmark peer group and (2) multiplying the number of performance shares granted by the applicable percentage of shares earned as set forth in the following graduated vesting schedule:

Restricted Stock Awards

Our restricted stock awards vest ratably over a three-year period to deliver a meaningful long-term incentive that balances risk and potential reward. These awards help executives build ownership in the Company, aligning their interests with stockholders. These awards also serve as an effective retention incentive for our executive officers to remain with the Company and continue high levels of performance. Finally, the Compensation Committee considers these awards to be “at risk” compensation, as their current and future value are directly determined by the Company’s stock price.

Restricted stock awards are only earned if the individual continues to be employed by the Company until the applicable vesting date. During the restriction periods, the Named Executive Officers holding unvested restricted stock are entitled to vote the shares and to receive dividends on the shares, if any, on the same basis as the Company’s stockholders holding unrestricted stock.

The grant date fair value of the restricted stock awards granted to the Named Executive Officers during fiscal 2017, calculated in accordance with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States (“GAAP”) pursuant to Financial Accounting Standards Board (“FASB”) Accounting Standards Codification (“ASC”) 718, “Compensation – Stock Compensation,” are shown in the “Summary Compensation Table” under the “Stock Awards” column and the accompanying footnotes. Additional information on the awards granted in fiscal 2017 is shown in the “2017 Grants of Plan-Based Awards” table.

Stock Ownership Guidelines and Anti-Hedging

Our executive compensation program provides guidelines for executive ownership of Company common stock, expressed as a multiple of annual base salary. The Compensation Committee believes that this ownership guideline encourages the alignment of executive and stockholder interests by requiring executives to acquire and maintain a meaningful stake in the Company, which promotes the Company’s objective of building long-term stockholder value. Additionally, under the Company’s Insider Trading Policy, which is available on our website at www.cswindustrials.com under the “Investors — Corporate

	2017 Proxy Statement	32

---

Back to Contents

Governance” caption, executives are prohibited from pledging stock and engaging in transactions (such as trading in options) designed to hedge against the value of the Company’s common stock.

The stock ownership guidelines are designed to maintain stock ownership at levels high enough to indicate management’s commitment to share value appreciation to our stockholders while satisfying an individual executive’s prudent needs for personal asset diversification. The stock ownership requirements are set by the Compensation Committee as a result of a competitive analysis prepared by management, and the requirements are reviewed each year and updated as necessary. The requirements were last reviewed by the Compensation Committee in May 2017.

The Company’s current stock ownership guidelines for the Named Executive Officers and the number of shares needed to satisfy the guidelines are shown in the following table.

The stock ownership levels under the guidelines are expected to be achieved within the later of five years from the date the guidelines are first applicable or five years from the executive’s date of appointment. Recognizing the time required to achieve the ownership guidelines, the Compensation Committee approved the establishment of an interim retention requirement. Through this requirement, executives who do not meet the ownership requirement must retain at least 75% of the vested common stock received from any equity award granted from the time the ownership guidelines become applicable, net of any shares used or sold to pay applicable tax withholding. For fiscal 2017, all Named Executive Officers were in process of attaining their required ownership and compliant with the guidelines.

The Compensation Committee annually reviews these stock ownership requirements and periodically monitors the executives’ progress toward meeting their respective target ownership levels. Shares held directly by an executive count toward satisfying the requirements. The share equivalent of vested and unexercised stock options also count toward satisfying the stock ownership requirements. Unvested equity awards are not counted toward satisfying the stock ownership requirements.

Recoupment of Incentive Compensation Policy

In fiscal 2017, our Board adopted a Recoupment of Incentive Compensation Policy (the “Recoupment Policy”), which reinforces our commitment to our business objectives and core values. Under the Recoupment Policy, the Compensation Committee has the ability to recoup certain incentive compensation from an executive, within three years prior, if the Company is required to restate its financial statements. If a restatement occurs, the Compensation Committee can require an executive to reimburse the Company for all incentive compensation where the amount of compensation received was greater than the amount the Compensation Committee believes was actually earned based on the restated financial results.

Legacy Pension Plans

In connection with our Spin-Off from CSWC in October 2015, the Company assumed administrative responsibility and liability for CSWC’s pension plans and the benefits payable to employees participating under these plans. The legacy pension plans include a qualified defined benefit, non-contributory retirement plan, as well as a restoration plan that provides benefits to the plan participants in the qualified plan to fulfill the intent of the qualified plan without regard to limitations under the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended (the “Code”). The retirement benefits payable under the legacy pension plans depend on the participant’s years of service under the plans and their final average monthly compensation determined by averaging the five consecutive years of highest compensation prior to retirement.

On January 1, 2015, CSWC closed the legacy pension plans to new participants. At the Spin-Off, the Company froze the legacy pension plans, and future benefits to plan participants ceased to accrue as of that date. Mr. Armes and Ms. Tacke accrued benefits under the legacy plans as part of their prior employment with CSWC. The amount of legacy pension plan benefits attributable to applicable Named Executive Officers as of March 31, 2017 is shown in the “Pension Benefits” table below.

Other Benefits

As previously discussed, the Compensation Committee strives to make our executive compensation program primarily performance-based and, as such, does not provide perquisites for our executive officers other than benefits generally provided to all employees. Our executive compensation program from time to time may provide limited other benefits, which the Compensation Committee determines to be competitive with the level of benefits offered by the companies with which we compete for executive talent, and as such would serve to meet our stated objective of attracting and retaining executive talent. In addition, some of benefits may, in the Compensation Committee’s view, be provided for the Company’s benefit notwithstanding any personal benefit an executive may derive. No such other benefits were provided in fiscal 2017.

	2017 Proxy Statement	33

---

Back to Contents

Executive Change in Control and Severance Benefit Plan

In fiscal 2017, the Compensation Committee adopted an Executive Change in Control and Severance Benefit Plan. In adopting this plan, the Compensation Committee terminated existing individual severance agreements with the Company’s executive officers, bringing all executives into a consistent severance framework. The features of this plan are described more fully under “―Potential Payments upon Termination or Change-In-Control―CSW Industrials, Inc. Executive Change in Control and Severance Benefit Plan” below. The Compensation Committee believes that this plan benefits stockholders in providing consistency and transparency in severance benefits if an executive officer’s employment is terminated, and also supports alignment between executive officer and stockholder interests should a transformative transaction arise that is in stockholders’ best interests.

Review and Assessment of Compensation Under Termination Scenarios

The Compensation Committee reviews each Named Executive Officer’s total compensation under several scenarios including a change-in-control of the Company, termination of employment by management and resignation or retirement by the executive. Tally sheets setting forth all of the listed scenarios are prepared by management and reviewed by the Compensation Committee with input from Longnecker. Based on the Compensation Committee’s review of the tally sheets, the Compensation Committee determined that the potential payments that would be provided to the Named Executive Officers were consistent with our executive compensation objectives and principles.

Chief Executive Officer Compensation in Fiscal 2017

The compensation of the CEO was set in a manner consistent with our compensation philosophy and the general compensation objectives and principles discussed above. In the interest of providing stockholders with a better understanding of Mr. Armes’ compensation for fiscal 2017, we are providing the following discussion and analysis.

Employment Agreement

On October 1, 2015, the Company entered into an employment agreement with Mr. Armes regarding his role as the Company’s Chief Executive Officer.

The employment agreement has an initial term of two years. The term is automatically extended for an additional one-year period unless Mr. Armes’ employment is terminated pursuant to the terms of the employment agreement.

The employment agreement provides that Mr. Armes will serve as Chief Executive Officer of the Company and, for at least the initial term of the employment agreement, serve as Chairman of the Board. Additionally, the Board will nominate Mr. Armes for election to the Board during the term of the employment agreement.

Base Salary and Incentive Opportunities

Mr. Armes’ employment agreement provides for an annual base salary of not less than $500,000 and an annual incentive award opportunity with a target value equal to 150% of his base salary and a maximum payout at 200% of the target amount. Mr. Armes is also eligible to participate in the Company’s equity-based incentive plans and employee benefits plans, though no specific benefit or amount is provided.

Mr. Armes’ incentive opportunity under the LTIP was established by the Compensation Committee on October 1, 2015, in connection with the Spin-Off as discussed above. His total LTIP incentive opportunity of 280% of his base salary was determined by the Compensation Committee consistent with our compensation programs and principles described above. During fiscal 2017, no changes were made to Mr. Armes’ base salary, target AIP opportunity or target LTIP opportunity.

Benefits upon Termination

Under Mr. Armes’ employment agreement, if his employment is terminated due to death or disability, Mr. Armes will receive (1) his base salary and any unpaid benefits (including death benefits) through the date of termination, (2) if the date of termination is after the end of a fiscal year but before the Company pays cash bonuses, the cash bonus payment related to the previous year and (3) if the date of termination is before the end of a fiscal year, a prorated cash bonus payment related to the then-current fiscal year. Additionally, all of Mr. Armes’ unvested equity-based awards will immediately vest in full, except for performance-based awards, which will vest upon and to the extent that the performance conditions have been satisfied, and all options will remain exercisable for one year following the date of termination.

If Mr. Armes’ employment is terminated by the Company without “cause” or by Mr. Armes for “good reason”, Mr. Armes will receive (1) his base salary and any unpaid benefits through the date of termination, (2) a lump sum payment equal to two times the sum of (a) his then-current base salary or such higher base salary that was in effect during the 12 months prior to the date of termination and (b) the greater of his annual bonus for the prior fiscal year or his target bonus for the current year, (3) if the date of termination is after the end of a fiscal year but before the Company pays cash bonuses, the cash bonus payment related to the previous year, (4) if the date of termination is before the end of a fiscal year, a prorated cash bonus payment related to the then-current fiscal year and (5) continued medical and dental insurance for him and his dependents for 24 months following the date of termination. Additionally, all of Mr. Armes’ unvested equity-based awards will immediately vest in full, except for performance-based awards, which will vest upon and to the extent that the performance conditions have been satisfied, and all options will remain exercisable for one year following the date of termination.

	2017 Proxy Statement	34

---

Back to Contents

If Mr. Armes’ employment is terminated by the Company for “cause” or by Mr. Armes without “good reason”, Mr. Armes will receive only his base salary and any unpaid benefits through the date of termination.

Additionally, Mr. Armes participates in the Change in Control and Severance Benefit Plan. To the extent the provisions of the Change in Control and Severance Benefit Plan are more beneficial to Mr. Armes, such provisions would apply in the applicable termination scenario.

The employment agreement also provides that Mr. Armes will not engage in activities that are competitive with the Company’s business or solicit any key employees of the Company to leave or accept employment with another company for 24 months following the date of termination.

	2017 Proxy Statement	35

---

Back to Contents

Annual Executive Compensation Program Review and Compensation Risk

It is the Compensation Committee’s policy to regularly monitor and annually review our executive compensation program to determine, in consultation with Longnecker, whether the elements of the program are consistent with our stated executive compensation objectives and principles. Within this determination is an evaluation of whether the Company’s risk management objectives are being met with respect to the executive compensation program and our compensation programs as a whole. If the elements of the program are determined to be inconsistent with our objectives and principles, or if any incentives are determined to encourage risks that are reasonably likely to have a material adverse effect on us, the elements are adjusted as necessary.

The Compensation Committee, in consultation with Longnecker, has concluded that no risks arising from our compensation policies and practices are reasonably likely to have a material adverse effect on the Company. In reaching this conclusion, the Compensation Committee noted that:

Compensation & Talent Development Committee Report

The Compensation Committee of the Board of Directors of the Company is currently comprised of three independent directors, Linda Livingstone (Chair), William Quinn and Kent Sweezey.

The Compensation Committee has reviewed and discussed the Compensation Discussion and Analysis, set forth above in this proxy statement, with management. Based on this review and discussion, the Compensation Committee recommended to the Board of Directors that this Compensation Discussion and Analysis be included in this proxy statement and incorporated by reference in the Company’s Annual Report on Form 10-K filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended March 31, 2017.

Linda Livingstone, Chair
William Quinn
Kent Sweezey

	2017 Proxy Statement	36

---

Back to Contents

Summary Compensation Table

The following table sets forth compensation information for our Named Executive Officers — the individuals who served during fiscal 2017 as principal executive officer and principal financial officer of the Company and the three other most highly compensated executive officers of the Company serving at the end of fiscal 2017 (as of the end of fiscal 2017, the Company only had four executive officers). Compensation amounts for years prior to fiscal 2016 are not shown, as the Company did not commence operations until September 2015.

 

	2017 Proxy Statement	37

---

Back to Contents

	2017 Proxy Statement	38

---

Back to Contents

2017 Grants of Plan-Based Awards

The following table sets forth certain information with respect to 2017 plan-based awards granted to the Named Executive Officers for the year ended March 31, 2017.

	2017 Proxy Statement	39

---

Back to Contents

Outstanding Equity Awards at Year-End 2017

The following table sets forth certain information with respect to outstanding equity awards as of March 31, 2017 with respect to the Named Executive Officers.

	2017 Proxy Statement	40

---

Back to Contents

2017 Option Exercises and Stock Vested

The following table sets forth certain information with respect to stock option exercises and restricted stock vesting during the fiscal year ended March 31, 2017 with respect to the Named Executive Officers.

2017 Pension Benefits

The following table sets forth certain information as of March 31, 2017 with respect to pension benefits attributable to our Named Executive Officers. Please refer to “—Elements of the Executive Compensation Program—Legacy Pension Plans” above for a narrative description of our pension plans.

Potential Payments upon Termination or Change-In-Control

The information below describes compensation that would have been paid under existing plans and contractual arrangements to the Named Executive Officers in the event of a termination of the executive’s employment with the Company or change-in-control of the Company, assuming these events occurred on March 31, 2017. Amounts shown therefore include amounts earned through such time and are estimates of the amounts that would have been paid out to the executives upon their termination or a change-in-control (based upon the executive’s compensation and service levels as of such date and the closing price of the Company’s common stock on March 31, 2017 of $36.70). The actual amounts to be paid can only be determined at the time of a change-in-control or the executive’s termination of employment with the Company. Upon any termination of employment, each of the Named Executive Officers would also be entitled to the vested amounts, if any, shown in the “2017 Pension Benefits” table above.

	2017 Proxy Statement	41

---

Back to Contents

All of the Named Executive Officers participated in the Company’s Change in Control and Severance Benefit Plan (the “CIC and Severance Plan”) as of March 31, 2017, as described under “―Additional Executive Compensation Information” above. The CIC and Severance Plan provides benefits for termination of employment under three scenarios: by the Company without cause or by the executive for good reason; following a qualifying change in control; and upon death or disability. In any scenario, the receipt of benefits following a termination is contingent upon the executive (or the executive’s estate) executing a release in favor of the Company.

The CIC and Severance Plan provides benefits based on two participant levels: Level One and Level Two. Currently, Mr. Armes is the only Level One participant, and all other Named Executive Officers are Level Two participants.

Termination Without Cause by the Company or For Good Reason by the Executive

Upon an executive’s termination by the Company without cause or by the executive for good reason, the executive is provided with the following severance benefits:

As used in the CIC and Severance Plan, “cause” generally means: (a) the commission of an act of personal dishonesty intended to result in substantial personal enrichment to the detriment of the Company; (b) the conviction or please of nolo contendere to a misdemeanor involving moral turpitude or a felony; (c) the failure to perform work responsibilities; (d) violation of any of the Company’s material policies or procedures; or (e) any material breach of any material agreement with the Company, and in the cases of (c), (d) and (e), such failure, violation or breach has continued for more than 30 days following written notice to the executive.

As used in the CIC and Severance Plan, “good reason” generally means, without the express written consent of the executive: (a) a material reduction in base compensation; (b) a material diminution in authority, duties or responsibilities; (c) a permanent relocation more than 50 miles from where services were normally performed; (d) a material reduction in the authority, duties or responsibilities of the person to whom the executive reports; or (e) any other action or inaction that constitutes a material breach by the Company of its obligations under the CIC and Severance Plan or any other material agreement to which the Company and the executive are parties.

Termination Following a Change in Control

Upon the occurrence of a Change in Control (as defined in the Company’s 2015 Equity and Incentive Compensation Plan) and without a requirement that the executive’s employment be terminated, all then-outstanding unvested equity awards (including restricted stock and performance share awards) will fully vest, in accordance with the terms of the applicable award agreements.

If an executive’s employment is terminated without cause by the Company or for good reason by the executive, in either case within two years following a Change in Control, then the executive is provided with the following severance benefits:

In addition to the above, an executive would be entitled to any unpaid base salary through the date of termination, any unpaid AIP earned for a completed fiscal year but not yet paid, any unreimbursed business or other expenses through the date of termination, and any employee benefits to which the executive is entitled pursuant to the terms of the plans governing the benefits.

Additionally, the CIC and Severance Plan does not contemplate tax “gross up” payments. Instead, under a “best of net” provision in the CIC and Severance Plan, if any payments or benefits to which an executive is entitled are likely subject to the tax imposed by Section 4999 of the Code, the payment will (1) be reduced such that Section 4999 does not apply or (2) be paid in full, whichever produces the better net after tax position, as determined by the Board in good faith.

A Change in Control, as defined in the 2015 Equity and Incentive Compensation Plan, generally includes the occurrence of the following events:

	2017 Proxy Statement	42

---

Back to Contents

Termination Due to Death or Disability

Upon an executive’s death or disability, an executive (or his or her estate) would be entitled to receive: (1) a pro-rata bonus for the year in which termination occurs, calculated using the greater of the actual AIP award earned in the preceding fiscal year or the target AIP award for the current fiscal year; and (2) continued medical and dental insurance coverage for 12 months following termination, at a cost equal to the cost for an active employee for similar coverage. Additionally, all then-outstanding unvested equity awards will fully vest, in accordance with the terms of the applicable award agreements.

The following table sets forth the estimated value of the potential payments to each of the Named Executive Officers, assuming the executive’s employment had terminated on March 31, 2017. Ms. Tacke is not shown in the table below because she transitioned from her role with the Company before March 31, 2017. For the events of termination involving a change-in-control, we assumed that the change-in-control also occurred on that date. In addition to the payments set forth in the following table, Mr. Armes may receive certain payments upon his termination or a change-in-control pursuant to the legacy pension plans. Previously vested benefits under those plans for Mr. Armes are disclosed in the “2017 Pension Benefits” table.

	2017 Proxy Statement	43

---

Back to Contents

	2017 Proxy Statement	44

---

Back to Contents

The Board is providing stockholders the opportunity to cast an advisory vote on the compensation of our Named Executive Officers pursuant to Section 14A of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Exchange Act”). This proposal, commonly known as a “Say on Pay” proposal, gives our stockholders the opportunity to endorse or not endorse our executive compensation programs and policies and the compensation paid to our Named Executive Officers.

The Board values the opinions of the Company’s stockholders as expressed through their votes and other communications. This Say on Pay vote is advisory, meaning that it is not binding on the Compensation Committee or Board. This vote will not affect any compensation already paid or awarded to any Named Executive Officer, nor will it overrule any decisions the Board has made. Nonetheless, the Compensation Committee and the Board will review and carefully consider the outcome of the advisory vote on executive compensation when making future decisions regarding our executive compensation programs and policies.

We design our executive compensation programs to implement our core objectives of attracting and retaining key leaders, rewarding current performance, driving future performance and aligning the long-term interests of our executives with those of our stockholders. Stockholders are encouraged to read the CD&A section of this proxy statement, including the “Executive Summary”. In the CD&A, we have provided stockholders with a description of our compensation programs, including the philosophy and strategy of the programs, the individual elements of the compensation programs and how our compensation plans are administered. We have also described how the Compensation Committee continues to evolve our executive compensation program based on stockholder feedback.

We believe stockholders should consider the following financial performance data and compensation design elements when voting on this proposal:

The Board believes that the Company’s executive compensation programs use appropriate structures and sound pay practices to promote achieving our core objectives. Further, the Board and Compensation Committee took into account the results of the 2016 say on pay vote and other stockholder feedback and made changes to the Company’s compensation practices for fiscal 2018. For additional details, see page 22. Accordingly, the Board recommends that you vote in favor of the following resolution:

“RESOLVED, that the CSW Industrials, Inc. stockholders approve, on an advisory basis, the compensation of the Company’s named executive officers as described in the section of this Proxy Statement entitled ‘Executive Compensation’.”

Required Vote and Recommendation

Approval of this proposal will require the affirmative vote of a majority of the votes cast in person or represented by proxy. Abstentions will not count as votes cast on this proposal. Therefore, abstentions will have no effect on the proposal. Additionally, broker non-votes will not be considered to have voted on this proposal, and therefore will have no effect on the proposal. The individuals named as proxies on the enclosed proxy card will vote your proxy “FOR” this proposal unless you instruct otherwise on the proxy or you withhold authority to vote.

	2017 Proxy Statement	45

---

Back to Contents

The advisory vote on executive compensation is non-binding, meaning that our Board will not be obligated to take any compensation actions, or to adjust our executive compensation programs or policies, as a result of the vote. Notwithstanding the advisory nature of the vote, the resolution will be considered passed with the affirmative vote of a majority of the votes cast at the Annual Meeting.

The Board recommends that you vote “FOR” the approval of this advisory vote on Executive Compensation.

	2017 Proxy Statement	46

---

Back to Contents

The Company has adopted a written policy for approval of transactions between the Company and its directors, director nominees, executive officers, greater-than-5% beneficial owners and their respective immediate family members, where the amount involved in the transaction exceeds or is expected to exceed $120,000 in a single calendar year.

The policy provides that the N&CG Committee reviews transactions subject to the policy and determines whether or not to approve or ratify those transactions. In doing so, the N&CG Committee takes into account, among other factors it deems appropriate, whether the transaction is on terms that are no less favorable to the Company than terms generally available to an unaffiliated third-party under the same or similar circumstances and the extent of the related person’s interest in the transaction. In addition, the Board has delegated authority to the Chairman of the N&CG Committee to pre-approve or ratify transactions where the aggregate amount involved is expected to be less than $1 million. A summary of any new transactions pre-approved by the Chairman is provided to the full N&CG Committee for its review in connection with each regularly scheduled N&CG Committee meeting.

The N&CG Committee has considered and adopted standing pre-approvals under the policy for limited transactions with related persons. Pre-approved transactions include:

The N&CG Committee was not requested to and did not approve any transactions required to be reported under applicable SEC rules in fiscal 2017.

	2017 Proxy Statement	47

---

Back to Contents

The following table sets forth as of May 31, 2017 ownership of Company common stock by members of the Board, each Named Executive Officer of the Company listed in the “Summary Compensation Table” individually and all members of the Board and all executive officers as a group. Except pursuant to applicable community property laws and except as otherwise indicated, each stockholder identified possesses sole voting and investment power with respect to his or her shares.

	2017 Proxy Statement	48

---

Back to Contents

The following stockholders reported to the SEC that they beneficially own more than 5% of the Company’s common stock. The information is presented as of March 31, 2017 and is based on stock ownership reports on Schedule 13G filed with the SEC and subsequently provided to us. We know of no other stockholder holding 5% or more of the Company’s common stock.

	2017 Proxy Statement	49

---

Back to Contents

Section 16(a) of the Exchange Act requires the Company’s directors, executive officers and any person beneficially owning more than 10% of the Company’s common stock to file reports of ownership and any changes in ownership with the SEC. Based solely on the Company’s review of reports furnished to the Company and representations provided to the Company by persons required to file reports under Section 16 of the Exchange Act, the Company’s directors, executive officers and greater than 10% beneficial owners properly and timely complied with their Section 16(a) filing requirements during the fiscal year ended March 31, 2017.

	2017 Proxy Statement	50

---

Back to Contents

At the Annual Meeting, our stockholders will be asked to consider an amendment to our Charter to provide that, beginning in 2018, all directors will be elected on an annual basis for a term of one year (the “Declassification Amendment”). Our Charter currently requires that the Board be divided into three classes of approximately equal size (Class I, Class II and Class III), each with a three-year term. The terms of the classes are staggered, meaning that only one of the three classes stands for re-election at each annual meeting of stockholders. Declassifying the Board will allow our stockholders to vote on the election of our entire Board each year, rather than on a staggered basis.

If the proposed Declassification Amendment is adopted and becomes effective, declassification of the Board would commence with the 2018 annual meeting and would result in the classified board being fully-phased out (and all directors standing for annual elections) at our 2020 annual meeting. All directors elected by stockholders at or after the 2018 annual meeting will serve for terms expiring at the next annual meeting of stockholders. Directors elected to three-year terms of office prior to the 2018 annual meeting will complete their existing terms. The Board will be declassified as follows:

The Declassification Amendment also provides that any director elected to fill a vacancy will hold office for the term that remains for that director, and any director elected to fill a vacancy that resulted from an increase in the size of the Board will be elected to serve until the next annual meeting.

Sections 1, 3 and 4 of Article VII of our Charter contain the provisions that will be amended if this Proposal Three is approved by our stockholders at the Annual Meeting. Annex A to this proxy statement shows the changes contemplated by the proposed Declassification Amendment. If approved by our stockholders, the amendment to our Charter will become effective upon the filing of an Amended and Restated Certificate of Incorporation with the Secretary of State of the State of Delaware, which would occur promptly following the approval of this Proposal Three at the Annual Meeting. The description of the proposed Declassification Amendment above is only a summary and is qualified in its entirety by reference to the actual text of the proposed Declassification Amendment included in Annex A to this proxy statement. If the Declassification Amendment becomes effective, the Board will also approve conforming changes to our Bylaws to eliminate the classified structure of the Board.

Reasons for Declassification

In determining whether to submit the Declassification Amendment to our stockholders, the Board considered factors both in favor of and against continuing the existing classified Board structure. As a result, the Board determined that declassification of the Board would be in the best interests of the Company and our stockholders.

The Board recognizes that a classified structure offers some advantages, particularly for newly-public companies, such as promoting board continuity and stability, encouraging directors to focus on the long-term productivity of the Company and ensuring that a majority of the Board will always have prior experience with the Company. Additionally, classified boards provide some protection against unwanted takeovers and proxy contests that may not be in stockholders’ best interests, as they make it more difficult for a substantial stockholder to gain control of the Board.

However, the Board also recognizes that a classified structure may appear to reduce director accountability to stockholders, since stockholders are not able to express a view on each director’s performance through an annual vote. Moreover, some institutional investors believe that the election of directors is the primary means for stockholders to influence corporate governance policies and to hold management accountable for implementing those policies.

	2017 Proxy Statement	51

---

Back to Contents

Required Vote and Recommendation

Approval of this Proposal Three requires the affirmative vote of two-thirds of the outstanding shares of our common stock. Abstentions and broker-non votes will have the same effect as votes against this Proposal Three. If this Proposal Three is not approved, the Board will remain classified.

The Board recommends that you vote “FOR” approving the amendment to the Charter of the Company to eliminate the classified structure of the Board.

	2017 Proxy Statement	52

---

Back to Contents

At the Annual Meeting, our stockholders will be asked to consider a proposal to approve an amendment to our Charter to implement a majority voting standard in uncontested elections of directors (the “Majority Voting Amendment”).

The proposed amendment would provide that, in an uncontested election of directors, a director nominee would be elected only if the votes cast for the director nominee exceed the votes against the director nominee. Abstentions and broker non-votes would not be counted as votes cast for or against a candidate. If, however, the Board were to determine that an election of directors is “contested,” a plurality voting standard would apply and the director nominees receiving the greatest number of votes would be elected. A “contested” election is an election in which the number of director nominees exceeds the number of directors to be elected.

Our Charter will be amended by adding Section 1(b) to Article VII of our Charter if this Proposal Four is approved. Annex A to this proxy statement shows the changes contemplated by the proposed Majority Voting Amendment.

Additionally, if our stockholders approve this Proposal Four, the Board will adopt a policy requiring any director that does not receive the affirmative vote of the majority of stockholder votes cast in an uncontested director election to submit his or her resignation to the Chairman of the Board. The policy will further require the Nominating and Corporate Governance Committee of the Board to consider the tendered resignation and make a recommendation to the Board as to whether to accept or reject the tendered resignation. Within 90 days after the certification of election results, the Company will publicly disclose the Board’s decision in such a circumstance, and if the Board decides to reject a resignation, additionally disclose the rationale behind the decision.

The description of the proposed Majority Voting Amendment above is only a summary and is qualified in its entirety by reference to the actual text of the proposed Majority Voting Amendment included in Annex A to this proxy statement. If adopted, the amendment to our Charter to implement a majority voting standard in uncontested elections of directors will become effective upon the filing of an Amended and Restated Certificate of Incorporation with the Secretary of State of the State of Delaware, which would occur immediately following the approval of this Proposal Four at the Annual Meeting. If the Majority Voting Amendment becomes effective, our Bylaws would be amended to implement majority voting in uncontested director elections.

Reasons for Implementing Majority Voting

We believe that the adoption of a majority voting standard in uncontested director elections will give our stockholders a greater voice in determining the composition of our Board. In addition, the proposed majority voting standard is consistent with the belief of the Board that it is accountable to the interests of a majority of our stockholders.

We also believe that a plurality voting standard should continue to apply in circumstances in which the number of director nominees exceeds the number of directors to be elected. If a majority voting standard is used in that circumstance, it is possible that not all of the director positions up for election would be filled, since it is possible that no director nominee would receive a majority of the votes cast in his or her election.

Required Vote and Recommendation

Approval of this Proposal Four requires the affirmative vote of two-thirds of the outstanding shares of our common stock. Abstentions and broker-non votes will have the same effect as votes against this Proposal Four. If this Proposal Four is not approved, the directors will continue to be elected by a plurality of the votes cast.

The Board recommends that you vote “FOR” approving the amendment to the Charter of the Company to implement majority voting in uncontested director elections.

	2017 Proxy Statement	53

---

Back to Contents

We are asking stockholders to approve the material terms for qualified performance goals under the CSW Industrials, Inc. 2015 Equity and Incentive Plan (as amended, the “Incentive Plan”), as required by the performance-based compensation rules under Section 162(m) (“Section 162(m)”) of the Internal Revenue Code, as amended (the “Code”).

In September 2015, the Incentive Plan was approved by our Board and our sole stockholder at the time, Capital Southwest Corporation (“CSWC”), in anticipation of our spin-off from CSWC (the “Spin-Off”). In December 2016, and in connection with the Company’s adoption of a Change in Control and Severance Benefit Plan, the Board amended the Incentive Plan to revise the definition of “Change in Control” included in the Incentive Plan. The Incentive Plan affords the Board and the Compensation Committee the flexibility to design equity-based compensatory awards that are responsive to the Company’s business needs and authorizes a variety of awards designed to advance the interests and long-term success of the Company.

This Proposal Five is only seeking approval of the material terms for qualified performance goals under the Incentive Plan, as required by Section 162(m) of the Code. It does not seek to increase the number of shares of common stock that may be issued under the Incentive Plan or to amend any performance objective or other provision of the Incentive Plan.

A copy of the Incentive Plan is attached to this proxy statement as Annex B. The following summary of the material terms of the Incentive Plan does not purport to be a complete description of the Incentive Plan and is qualified in its entirety by reference to the complete text of the Incentive Plan.

Primary Purpose of the Proposal

Stockholders are not being asked to approve the Incentive Plan. Our only reason for submitting the Incentive Plan to stockholders at the Annual Meeting is to obtain stockholder approval of the material terms of the performance goals for qualified performance-based compensation under the Incentive Plan to satisfy the stockholder approval requirements under Section 162(m) of the Code. The material terms of the performance goals are described in more detail below and include:

Approval of this Proposal Five is intended to provide us with the ability to structure certain awards so that they may constitute “qualified performance-based compensation” under Section 162(m) of the Code.

Section 162(m) of the Code generally disallows a tax deduction for certain compensation paid to our Chief Executive Officer and to each of our other three most highly compensated executive officers, other than our Chief Financial Officer, in a taxable year to the extent that compensation to such covered employee exceeds $1.0 million for that year. However, some types of compensation, including “qualified performance-based compensation” under Section 162(m) of the Code, are not subject to the deduction limit if the compensation satisfies the requirements of Section 162(m) of the Code. The deduction limit does not apply to compensation paid under a stockholder-approved plan that meets certain requirements for “qualified performance-based compensation” under Section 162(m) of the Code.

While we believe it is in the best interests of the Company and our stockholders to have the ability to potentially grant “qualified performance-based compensation” under the Incentive Plan, we may decide to grant compensation to covered employees that will not qualify as “qualified performance-based compensation” for purposes of Section 162(m) of the Code. Moreover, even if we intend to grant compensation that qualifies as “qualified performance-based compensation” for purposes of Section 162(m) of the Code under the Incentive Plan, we cannot guarantee that such compensation will so qualify or will ultimately be deductible by us.

Generally, compensation attributable to options, appreciation rights and other performance-based awards may be deemed to

	2017 Proxy Statement	54

---

Back to Contents

qualify as “qualified performance-based compensation” under Section 162(m) of the Code if certain requirements are met, including but not limited to if:

Stockholder approval of this Proposal Five is intended to satisfy the stockholder approval requirements of Section 162(m) of the Code.

Performance Measures

The Incentive Plan includes a list of performance measures that the Compensation Committee must use to condition the grant or vesting of a Qualified Performance-Based Award pursuant to the Incentive Plan. The Incentive Plan’s performance measures are as follows (including relative or growth achievement regarding such metrics):

Certain other requirements in the Incentive Plan regarding the use of these performance measures are described below in “Summary of the Incentive Plan—Management Objectives; Qualified Performance-Based Awards.”

In addition to the performance measures, the Incentive Plan also includes certain individual grant limits for equity or incentive awards that can be granted pursuant to the Incentive Plan, as further described below.

Summary of the Incentive Plan

Purpose. The purpose of the Incentive Plan is to attract and retain officers, non-employee directors and other key employees of the Company and its subsidiaries and to provide such persons incentives and rewards for performance.

Administration. The Incentive Plan will be administered by the Compensation Committee or any other committee of the Board that the Board designates to administer the Incentive Plan. The Compensation Committee may from time to time delegate all or any part of its authority under the Incentive Plan to a subcommittee. The Compensation Committee’s interpretation or construction of any Incentive Plan provision will be final and conclusive, including any agreement, certificate, resolution or other evidence that sets forth the terms and conditions of Incentive Plan awards. To the extent permitted by applicable law, the Compensation Committee may delegate administrative duties or powers as it deems advisable to one or more of its members, one or more Company officers, or to one or more agents or advisors.

In addition, and subject to certain restrictions set forth in the Incentive Plan, the Compensation Committee may by resolution authorize one or more officers of the Company to: (1) designate employees to be recipients of Incentive Plan awards; (2) designate current or former employees, officers or directors of CSWC or any of its subsidiaries or any other person who held an equity award granted and outstanding under one of CSWC’s equity compensation plans prior to the Spin-Off (a “CSWC Award

	2017 Proxy Statement	55

---

Back to Contents

Recipient”) to be recipients of Incentive Plan awards (in accordance with the terms of our Employee Matters Agreement with CSWC) in substitution of, or in accordance with, a CSWC equity compensation plan award and the applicable terms of such awards (“replacement awards”); and (3) determine the size of such awards. However, the Compensation Committee may not delegate such responsibilities to officers for awards granted to persons who are officers, non-employee directors or certain employees who are subject to the reporting requirements of Section 16 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Exchange Act”) or subject to Section 162(m) of the Code.

Eligibility. Any person who is selected by the Compensation Committee to receive benefits under the Incentive Plan, and who is at that time an officer or other key employee of the Company or any of its subsidiaries, is eligible to participate in the Incentive Plan. In addition, persons who provide services to the Company or any of its subsidiaries that are equivalent to those typically provided by an employee (provided that such persons satisfy the Form S-8 definition of “employee”), and non-employee directors of the Company, may also be selected by the Compensation Committee to participate in the Incentive Plan. As of July 5, 2017, there were approximately 35 employees and six non-employee directors of the Company expected to participate in the Incentive Plan.

Shares Available for Incentive Plan Awards. Subject to adjustments provided in the Incentive Plan, the maximum number of shares of our common stock that may be issued or transferred in connection with Incentive Plan awards is limited to 1,230,000 shares in the aggregate. These shares may be of original issuance, treasury shares or a combination of both. Shares subject to an Incentive Plan award that are later canceled or forfeited, expire or are settled in cash (in whole or in part) will be added back to the aggregate share limit and again be available for issuance or transfer under the Incentive Plan. Shares of our common stock subject to “replacement awards” as described above did not reduce or count against the aggregate limit of our shares of common stock available under the Incentive Plan.

Individual Limitations. The Incentive Plan also provides for the following individual limitations, subject to adjustment provided in the Incentive Plan:

Share Counting. The aggregate number of shares of common stock available under the Incentive Plan will be reduced by one Common Share for every one Common Share subject to an Incentive Plan award. Subject to certain exceptions described in the Incentive Plan, if any Incentive Plan award is canceled or forfeited, expires or is settled for cash (in whole or in part), the shares of common stock issued or transferred pursuant to, or subject to, the award (as applicable) will again be available for issuance or transfer under the Incentive Plan.

The Incentive Plan further provides that the following shares of common stock will not be added (or added back, as applicable) to the aggregate number of shares of common stock available under the Incentive Plan:

Further, if an Incentive Plan participant has elected to give up the right to receive compensation in exchange for shares of common stock based on fair market value, such shares of common stock will not count against the aggregate number of shares of common stock available under the Incentive Plan.

Shares of common stock issued or transferred pursuant to Incentive Plan awards in substitution for or in conversion of, or in connection with the assumption of, awards held by awardees of an entity engaging in a corporate acquisition or merger with us or any of our subsidiaries may be available for certain Incentive Plan awards. The same would apply for shares available under certain plans that we or our subsidiaries may assume from another entity in connection with corporate transactions. In either case, such shares will not reduce the number of shares available for issuance under the Incentive Plan or be added to the share limits under the Incentive Plan if such award is canceled or forfeited, expires or is settled for cash (in whole or in part).

Types of Incentive Plan Awards. Under the Incentive Plan, we may grant stock options (including “incentive stock options” as defined in Section 422 of the Code), stock appreciation rights (“SARs”), restricted shares, restricted stock units (“RSUs”), cash incentive awards, performance shares, performance units and certain other awards based on or related to our common stock. The Incentive Plan will permit the Compensation Committee to grant awards that both are and are not intended to qualify as “qualified performance-based compensation” under Section 162(m) of the Code. The Incentive Plan also provides that awards may be granted subject to certain terms and provisions, including the

	2017 Proxy Statement	56

---

Back to Contents

achievement of certain specified management objectives. Additionally, such terms and provisions may include required periods of continuous service by the participant and may provide for the earlier exercise or vesting, including in the case of retirement, death or disability of the participant or in the event of a Change in Control.

In connection with the Spin-Off, the Board authorized “replacement awards” of Company stock options and restricted shares under the Incentive Plan to replace like awards granted to CSWC Award Recipients prior to the Spin-Off.

	2017 Proxy Statement	57

---

Back to Contents