Important Notice Regarding the Availability of Proxy Materials for Annual Meeting of Stockholders

To Be Held on June 8, 2016:

The Notice of 2016 Annual Meeting of Stockholders, Proxy Statement, and 2015 Annual Report on Form 10-K are

available at the following website: www.proxyvote.com.

Corporate Governance Practices

We strive to maintain effective corporate governance practices to ensure that our company is managed for the long-term benefit of our stockholders. We review our corporate governance principles and practices on a regular basis. A description of our corporate governance highlights is set forth in the “Proxy Statement Summary”.

We believe part of effective corporate governance includes active engagement with our stockholders. We value the views of our stockholders and other stakeholders, and we communicate with them regularly and solicit input on a number of topics such as business strategy, capital allocation, corporate governance, executive compensation, sustainability and corporate social responsibility initiatives.

Director Independence

Board of Directors. All of our directors and nominees for director, other than Dr. Scangos, our Chief Executive Officer, satisfy the independence requirements of The NASDAQ Stock Market (NASDAQ). In determining that Dr. Papadopoulos is independent, our Board of Directors considered that

Dr. Papadopoulos is a director or advisor to certain companies with which we collaborate.

Committees.

Leadership Structure. We currently separate the roles of Chairman of the Board of Directors and Chief Executive Officer. Stelios Papadopoulos, an independent director, is Chairman of our Board. Among other responsibilities, our Chairman:

We believe that having an independent Chairman promotes a greater role for the independent directors in the oversight of the Company, including oversight of material risks facing the Company, encourages active participation by the independent directors in the work of our Board of Directors, enhances our Board of Directors’ role of representing stockholders’ interests, and improves our Board of Directors’ ability to supervise and evaluate our Chief Executive Officer and other executive officers.

Nominating Processes

The Corporate Governance Committee is responsible for identifying individuals qualified to become members of our Board of Directors and reviewing candidates recommended by stockholders. Stockholders may recommend nominees for consideration by the Corporate Governance Committee by submitting the names and supporting information to the Secretary, Biogen Inc., 225 Binney Street, Cambridge, Massachusetts 02142. Any such recommendation should include at a minimum the name(s) and address(es) of the stockholder(s) making the recommendation and appropriate biographical information for the proposed nominee(s). Candidates who are recommended by stockholders will be considered in the same manner as candidates from other sources. For all potential candidates, the Corporate Governance Committee will consider all factors it deems relevant, including at a minimum those listed below in the subsection titled “Director Qualifications, Standards and Diversity.” Director nominations are recommended by the Corporate Governance Committee to our Board of Directors and must be approved by a majority of independent directors.

In addition, our Bylaws contain provisions that address the process by which a stockholder may nominate an individual to stand for election to our Board of Directors at an annual meeting of stockholders.

The number of stockholder-nominated candidates appearing in any annual meeting proxy statement cannot exceed 25% of the number of directors then serving on the Board. If 25% is not a whole number, the maximum number of stockholder-nominated candidates would be the closest whole number below 25%, subject to a minimum of one. A nominee will be counted in determining whether the 25% maximum has been reached if the nominee was submitted under the proxy access procedures and later withdrawn, the nominee was included in the proxy materials as a Board-nominated candidate or the nominee was nominated in any of the Company’s three preceding annual meetings and is being recommended by the Board for reelection.

The nominating stockholder or group of stockholders also must deliver the information required by our Bylaws, and each nominee must meet the qualifications required by our Bylaws.

Requests to include stockholder-nominated candidates in our proxy materials for next year’s annual meeting must be received by our Secretary no earlier than 150 days and no later than 120 days before the anniversary of the date that we issued our proxy statement for the previous year’s annual meeting of stockholders.

Annual Elections and Majority Voting

Our directors are elected annually to serve until the next annual meeting of stockholders and until their successors are duly elected and qualified. Our directors must be elected by a majority of votes cast in uncontested elections (meaning any election for which the number of directors nominated does not exceed the number of directors to be elected at such meeting), and by a plurality of votes cast in contested elections (meaning any election for which the number of directors nominated exceeds the number of directors to be elected at such meeting, regardless of whether such nominees were proposed by the Company or by stockholders). In addition, following their appointment or election by stockholders to our Board of Directors, directors must submit an irrevocable resignation that will be effective upon (1) the failure to receive the required number of votes for reelection at the next annual meeting of stockholders at which they face reelection and (2) acceptance of such resignation by our Board of Directors. If an incumbent director fails to receive the number of votes required for reelection, our Board of Directors (excluding the director in question) will, within 90

days after certification of the election results, decide whether to accept the director’s resignation taking into account such factors as it deems relevant. Such factors may include the stated reasons why stockholders voted against such director’s reelection, the qualifications of the director and whether accepting the resignation would cause us to fail to meet any applicable listing standards or would violate state law. Our Board of Directors will promptly disclose its decision in a filing with the SEC.

Director Qualifications, Standards and Diversity

OUR BOARD OF DIRECTORS RECOMMENDS THAT STOCKHOLDERS VOTE FOR THE ELECTION OF EACH DIRECTOR NOMINEE NAMED ABOVE.

Our non-employee directors are also eligible to be paid a fee of $1,000 for each full day of service to the Company other than in connection with meetings of our Board of Directors or its committees.

Our non-employee directors may defer all or part of their cash compensation under our Voluntary Board of Directors Savings Plan, which is similar to our Supplemental Savings Plan described in the narrative preceding the 2015 Non-Qualified Deferred Compensation Table in Part 5 – Executive Compensation Matters of this Proxy Statement, but without any Company matching features. If non-employee directors choose to defer compensation, the plan periodically will credit their accounts with amounts of deemed investment earnings as if their deferred compensation was

invested in notional investments selected by the director or a default investment if the director does not make a selection. These notional investment options include the mutual funds available under our 401(k) plan as well as a fixed rate option which earns a rate of return determined each year by the Company’s retirement committee. For non-employee director contributions to the fixed rate option in 2015, this rate of return was set at 6.00%. Contributions to the fixed rate option continue to be credited with the rate of return that was in effect during the year of contribution.

Non-employee directors are also reimbursed for actual expenses incurred in attending meetings of our Board of Directors and its committees, as well as service to our Board of Directors unrelated to such meetings.

Equity Awards

Awards Under Our Non-Employee Directors Equity Plan

Our non-employee directors receive awards under our 2006 Non-Employee Directors Equity Plan (the Non-Employee Directors Equity Plan). The Non-Employee Directors Equity Plan was initially approved by stockholders at our 2006 Annual Meeting of Stockholders. In 2015, our stockholders approved an amendment to extend the term of the plan until June 10, 2025.

General Provisions of the Non-Employee Directors Equity Plan

Non-employee directors receive grants under the Non-Employee Directors Equity Plan effective on the date of each annual meeting of stockholders (or a pro rata grant upon election other than at an annual meeting of stockholders). Under the Non-Employee Directors Equity Plan, a maximum of 17,500 shares of our common stock (or 30,000 shares for the independent Chairman of the Board) may be granted to a non-employee director each calendar year. Annual grants vest on the one-year anniversary of the date of grant or over a longer period in the discretion of the Compensation Committee.

Grants to non-employee directors are recommended by the Compensation Committee and approved by our Board of Directors, with the independent Chairman recused from discussion and voting upon his awards.

Awards granted under the Non-Employee Directors Equity Plan are subject to accelerated vesting upon termination of the directors’ service by reason of death, disability, retirement and upon a change in control (as such terms are defined in the plan). In addition, non-employee director awards will become fully vested upon an involuntary termination of a director’s service within two years following certain mergers or other corporate transactions, as defined in the plan.

Grants During 2015

In June 2015, the Compensation Committee recommended, and our Board of Directors approved, annual grants to non-employee directors with a grant date fair value of approximately $270,000 for each director and an additional grant of approximately $135,000 for the independent Chairman. These amounts were consistent with those approved in 2014 and below the limits set forth in the Non-Employee Directors

Equity Plan noted above. The June 2015 annual grants were awarded in the form of restricted stock units vesting in full on the first anniversary of the grant date, generally subject to the director’s continued service.

Periodically we review our compensation program for our non-employee directors in relation to those of the peer group used for compensation purposes (as described below in our Compensation Discussion and Analysis) to assess its competitiveness and appropriateness. While the grant date fair values of the equity awards granted in 2015 were above the median of our peer group, our annual cash retainer for directors is below the median of that same peer group. The Compensation Committee and our Board of Directors believes that a somewhat heavier reliance on equity awards than that of our peer group companies will further align the interests of our directors with those of our stockholders.

10b5-1 Trading Plans

Our directors must use pre-established trading plans to sell shares of our common stock. Trading plans may only be entered into during an open trading window and when the director is not in possession of material non-public information about the Company. We require a waiting period following the establishment of a trading plan before any trades may be executed. Our policy is designed to provide safeguards that will allow our directors to have an opportunity to realize the value intended by the Company in granting equity-based awards.

Non-Employee Director Share Ownership Guidelines

We maintain share ownership guidelines for our non-employee directors. A summary of our share ownership guidelines for our non-employee directors is set forth below.

Our Audit Committee is directly responsible for the appointment, compensation, retention and oversight of the independent registered public accounting firm retained to audit our consolidated financial statements. The Audit Committee has selected PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP (PwC) as our independent registered public accounting firm for the fiscal year ending December 31, 2016. PwC has served as our independent registered public accounting firm since 2003.

In order to assure continuing auditor independence, the Audit Committee periodically considers whether there should be a rotation of the independent registered public accounting firm. Further, in conjunction with the rotation of the auditing firm’s lead engagement partner required by applicable SEC rules, the Audit Committee and its chairperson has in the past been and in the future will be directly involved in the selection of PwC’s new lead engagement partner.

The Audit Committee believes at this time that the continued retention of PwC to serve as our independent registered public accounting is in the best interest of Biogen and its stockholders.

Although stockholder approval of the Audit Committee’s selection of PwC is not required, our Board of Directors believes that it is a matter of good corporate practice to solicit stockholder ratification of this selection. If our stockholders do not ratify the selection of PwC as our independent registered public accounting firm, the Audit Committee will reconsider its selection. Even if the selection is ratified, the Audit Committee always has the ability to change the engagement of PwC if it considers that a change is in Biogen’s best interest. Representatives of PwC will participate in the Annual Meeting, have the opportunity to make a statement if they so desire, and be available to respond to appropriate questions.

OUR BOARD OF DIRECTORS RECOMMENDS THAT STOCKHOLDERS VOTE FOR THE RATIFICATION OF

THE SELECTION OF PRICEWATERHOUSECOOPERS LLP AS OUR INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC

ACCOUNTING FIRM FOR THE FISCAL YEAR ENDING DECEMBER 31, 2016.

The Audit Committee’s role is to act on behalf of our Board of Directors in the oversight of Biogen’s financial reporting, internal control and audit functions. The roles and responsibilities of the Audit Committee are set forth in the written charter adopted by our Board of Directors, which is posted on our website, www.biogen.com, under the “Corporate Governance” subsection of the “About Us” section of the site. Management has primary responsibility for the financial statements and the reporting process, including the systems of internal controls.

In fulfilling its oversight responsibilities, the Audit Committee, among other things:

In reliance on these reviews and discussions, the Audit Committee recommended to our Board of Directors that the audited consolidated financial statements be included in Biogen’s Annual Report on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2015 for filing with the SEC.

The Audit Committee of our Board of Directors:

Caroline D. Dorsa (Chair)

Nancy L. Leaming

Stelios Papadopoulos

Brian S. Posner

The following table shows fees for professional audit services billed to us by PwC for the audit of our annual consolidated financial statements for the years ended December 31, 2015 and December 31, 2014, and fees billed to us by PwC for other services provided during 2015 and 2014:

Audit fees are fees for the audit of our 2015 and 2014 consolidated financial statements included in our Annual Reports on Form 10-K, reviews of our condensed consolidated financial statements included in our Quarterly Reports on Form 10-Q, review of the consolidated financial statements incorporated by reference into our outstanding registration statements, and statutory audit fees in overseas jurisdictions.

Audit-related fees are fees that principally relate to assurance and related services that are also performed by our independent registered public accounting firm. More specifically, these services include audits of employee benefit plan information, accounting consultations, due diligence and audits in connection with business development activity, internal control reviews, and attest services related to financial reporting that are not required by statute or regulation. The increase in fees from 2014 to 2015 was primarily due to increased services associated with business development activity.

Tax fees are fees for tax compliance and planning services.

All other fees in 2015 and 2014 include $6,077 and $11,061, respectively, of fees incurred for services provided in assessing the technical structure and format of reports submitted to government authorities to ensure compliance with applicable regulations. All other fees also include license fees for a web-based accounting research tool, which totaled $7,470 and $7,100 in 2015 and 2014, respectively.

The Audit Committee has the sole authority to approve the scope of the audit and any audit-related services as well as all audit fees and terms. The Audit Committee must pre-approve any audit and non-audit services provided by our independent registered public accounting firm. The Audit Committee will not approve the engagement of the independent registered public accounting firm to perform any services that the independent registered public accounting firm would be prohibited from providing under applicable securities laws, NASDAQ requirements or Public Company Accounting Oversight Board rules. In assessing whether to approve the use of our independent registered public accounting firm to provide permitted non-audit services, the Audit Committee tries to minimize relationships that could appear to impair the objectivity of our independent registered public accounting firm. The Audit Committee will approve permitted non-audit services by our independent registered public accounting firm only when it will be more effective or economical to have such services provided by our independent registered public accounting firm than by another firm.

The Audit Committee annually reviews and pre-approves the audit, audit-related, tax, and other permissible non-audit services that can be provided by the independent registered public accounting firm. After the annual review, any proposed services exceeding pre-set levels or amounts or additional services not previously approved requires separate pre-approval by the Audit Committee or the Chair of the Audit Committee. Any pre-approval decision made by the Chair of the Audit Committee is reported to the Audit Committee at the next regularly scheduled Audit Committee meeting. Our Chief Accounting Officer and Chief Financial Officer can approve up to an additional $50,000 in the aggregate per calendar year for categories of services that the Audit Committee (or the Chair through its delegated authority) has pre-approved.

All of the services provided by PwC during 2015 and 2014 were pre-approved in accordance with this policy, except for $6,077 and $11,061, respectively, of fees incurred for technical compliance services described under the caption “All other fees”, which were subsequently ratified by the Audit Committee.

Our Compensation Discussion and Analysis, which appears below, describes our executive compensation program and the compensation decisions that the Compensation Committee and our Board of Directors made with respect to the 2015 compensation of our named executive officers (listed in the Summary Compensation Table). As required pursuant to Section 14A of the Securities Exchange Act, our Board of Directors is asking that stockholders cast a non-binding, advisory vote FOR the following resolution:

“RESOLVED, that the compensation paid to the Company’s named executive officers, as disclosed pursuant to Item 402 of Regulation S-K, including the Compensation Discussion and Analysis, compensation tables and narrative discussion, is hereby APPROVED.”

Our Board of Directors is asking that our stockholders support this proposal. Although the vote you are being asked to cast is non-binding, we value the views of our stockholders, and the Compensation Committee and our Board of Directors will consider the outcome of the vote when making future compensation decisions for our named executive officers.

As we describe in our Compensation Discussion and Analysis, our executive compensation program embodies a pay-for-performance philosophy that supports our business strategy and aligns the interests of our executives with those of our stockholders. In particular, our compensation programs reward financial, strategic and operational performance and the goals set for each performance category support our long-range plans. In addition, to discourage excessive risk taking, we maintain policies for share ownership and recoupment of compensation, we cap payments under our annual bonus plan, and we require multi-year vesting of long-term incentive awards.

We will hold a non-binding, advisory vote of our stockholders on the compensation of our named executive officers every year until the next required stockholder vote on the frequency of such advisory vote. The next stockholder vote on the frequency of such advisory vote is expected to be held at the 2017 annual meeting of stockholders.

OUR BOARD OF DIRECTORS RECOMMENDS THAT STOCKHOLDERS VOTE FOR THE ADVISORY VOTE ON EXECUTIVE COMPENSATION.

2015 Highlights

In 2015, we saw solid performance across our portfolio of multiple sclerosis and hemophilia therapies, and we made significant progress in building and advancing our pipeline.

We provided value to our stockholders through the return of approximately $5.0 billion in capital, and we continued our leading efforts in environmental, sustainability and diversity matters.

Our executive compensation program for 2015 was similar to our 2014 compensation program, remaining closely

linked to the achievement of our strategic and financial objectives and aligned with stockholder interests.

Despite a number of very positive strategic and financial achievements in 2015, we did not achieve all of the aggressive target goals that we set in the beginning of the year and, accordingly, the payouts under our incentive compensation plans for 2015 were below their target payments.

A brief summary of our 2015 business, financial and executive compensation highlights follow:

Roles & Responsibilities

Role of the Compensation Committee

The Compensation Committee oversees and administers our executive compensation programs. The roles and responsibilities of the Compensation Committee are set forth in its written charter adopted by our Board of Directors, which can be found on our website, www.biogen.com, under the “Corporate Governance” subsection of the “About Us” section of the site.

Role of the Independent Compensation Consultant

The Compensation Committee believes that independent advice is important in developing Biogen’s executive compensation programs. Frederic W. Cook & Co., Inc. (FWC) is currently engaged as the Compensation Committee’s independent compensation consultant. FWC does not provide any other services to Biogen.

Reporting directly to the Compensation Committee, FWC provides guidance on trends in CEO, executive and non-employee director compensation, the development of specific executive compensation programs, and the composition of the Company’s compensation peer group. Additionally, FWC prepares a report on CEO pay that compares each element of compensation to chief executive officers in comparable positions at companies in our peer group. Using this and other similar information, the Compensation Committee recommends, and our Board of Directors approves, the elements and target levels of our CEO’s compensation. FWC also engages in other matters as needed and as directed solely by the Compensation Committee.

During 2015, the Company paid FWC approximately $161,110 in consulting fees directly related to these services. The Compensation Committee assesses FWC’s independence annually and, in accordance with applicable SEC and NASDAQ rules, confirmed in December 2015 that FWC’s work did not raise any conflicts of interest and that FWC remains independent under applicable rules.

Role of our CEO

Each year our CEO provides an assessment of performance of each executive officer, other than himself, during the prior year and recommends to the Compensation Committee the compensation to be awarded to each executive. Our CEO’s recommendations are based on numerous factors including:

To understand external market competitiveness of the compensation for our executive officers, our CEO and the Compensation Committee review a report analyzing publicly available information and surveys prepared by our internal compensation group and reviewed by FWC. The report compares the compensation of each executive officer, other than our CEO, relative to data for comparable positions at companies in our peer group, by compensation element (see “External Market Competitiveness and Peer Group” below for further details). The Compensation Committee considers all of the information presented, discusses the recommendations with our CEO and with FWC, and applies its judgment to determine the elements of compensation and target compensation levels for each executive officer other than the CEO.

Our CEO also provides a self-assessment of his achievements for the prior year. The Compensation Committee reviews and considers this in determining the CEO’s performance, and in recommending for approval by the Board of Directors, the compensation of our CEO. Our CEO does not participate in the deliberations regarding his own compensation.

Executive Compensation Philosophy and Objectives

Our executive compensation programs are designed to drive the creation of long-term stockholder value by delivering performance-based compensation that is competitive with our peer group in order to attract and retain extraordinary leaders who can perform at high levels and succeed in a demanding business environment. We aim to achieve this by designing programs that are:

External Market Competitiveness and Peer Group

Market practices are one of our considerations when determining executive compensation levels and program designs at Biogen. We do not target a specific market percentile or simply replicate the market practice. Instead, we review external market practices as a reference point to assist us in providing programs designed to attract, retain and inspire extraordinary talent. The Compensation Committee also uses a peer group to provide context for its executive compensation decision-making. Each year our compensation consultant reviews the external market landscape and evaluates the composition of our peer group for appropriateness.

The Compensation Committee reviews the information provided from internal sources as well as the information pro-

vided by our compensation consultant to select our peer group based on comparable companies that approximate (1) our scope of business, including revenue and market capitalization, (2) our global geographical reach, (3) our research-based business with multiple marketed products, and (4) a comparable pool of talent for which we compete.

Our peer group for 2015 primarily consisted of biotechnology and pharmaceutical companies, as we compete with companies in both of these sectors for executive talent.

The companies included in the peer group used in connection with our compensation decisions in February 2015, including base salary increases and annual long-term incentive grants, were the following:

For each of the companies in our peer group, where available we analyze the company’s Compensation Discussion and Analysis and other data publicly filed during the prior year to identify the executives at such companies whose positions are comparable to those held by our executive officers. We then compile and analyze the data for each comparable position. Our competitive analysis includes the structure and design of the compensation programs as well as the targeted value of the compensation.

For our NEOs other than our CEO, we may supplement the data for our peer group with published compensation surveys where appropriate. For 2015, consistent with past years, we used the Towers Watson U.S. CDB Pharmaceutical Executive Compensation Database survey (Towers Watson). We chose this survey because of the number of

companies in our peer group that participate in it, the number of positions reported by the survey that continue to be comparable to our executive positions, and the high standards under which we understand the survey is conducted (including data collection and analysis methodologies). All of the companies in our peer group are represented in a special cross-section of the survey focused on our peer group.

Compensation Elements

The Compensation Committee determines the elements of compensation we provide to our executive officers. The elements of our executive compensation programs and their objectives are as follows:

Compensation Pay Mix

The Compensation Committee determines the general mix of the elements of our executive compensation programs. It does not target a specific mix of value for our compensation elements in either the program design or pay decisions. Rather, the Compensation Committee reviews the pay mix to ensure an appropriate level of performance-based compensation is apportioned to the short-term and even more to the long-term to ensure alignment with our business goals and performance.

Additionally, the Compensation Committee believes the greater the leadership responsibilities, the greater the potential impact an individual will have on Biogen’s future strategic direction. Therefore, for our executive officers, including our NEOs, additional emphasis is placed on performance-based compensation, with a particular emphasis on long-term incentives.

The 2015 pay mix for our CEO and our other NEOs was highly performance-based and at-risk; 91% performance-based compensation for our CEO and 84% performance-based compensation for our other NEOs serving at the end of 2015.

2015 Base Salary

In 2015, in determining Dr. Scangos’ base salary, which was not increased in 2014, the Board of Directors reviewed the base salaries of comparable chief executive officers in our peer group and considered Dr. Scangos’ pay mix, capabilities, performance and future expected contributions. Based on its review, Dr. Scangos’ base salary was increased by 9.1%, which positioned him at the market median when compared to the chief executive officers of our peer group.

The Compensation Committee undertook a similar review when approving the base salaries for the other NEOs which positioned them, on average, at approximately the median compared to persons with comparable jobs within our peer group.

The base salary of each of our NEOs in 2015 compared to 2014 was as follows:

2015 Performance-Based Plans and Goal Setting

Our executive compensation programs place a heavy emphasis on performance-based rewards.

We maintain a short-term incentive plan, known as our annual bonus plan, as well as a long-term incentive plan.

Awards to our NEOs under our annual bonus plan are made under our 2008 Performance-Based Management Incentive Plan, and awards under our long-term incentive plan are granted under our 2008 Omnibus Equity Plan.

Awards under our annual bonus plan are directly tied to the achievement of our annual operating goals, which are aligned with the Company’s short- and long-term strategic plans. Our long-term incentives are directly tied to the performance of the price of shares of our common stock, which align our executives’ long-term interests with the interests of our stockholders. Some of our long-term incentives are tied to the Company’s financial performance, as described below.

In setting our annual goals, in addition to our internal forecasts, we consider analysts’ projections for our performance and the performance of companies in our peer group, as well as broad economic and industry trends. We establish challenging targets that result in payouts at target levels only when Company performance warrants it. The Compensation Committee is responsible for reviewing and approving our annual Company goals, targets and levels of payout (e.g., threshold, target and maximum) and for reviewing and determining actual performance results at the end of the performance period.

In setting and approving the performance goals for our executive officers and for the Company under both the short- and long-term plans, the Compensation Committee considers the alignment of such goals to our business plan and the degree of difficulty of attainment and the potential for the goals to encourage inappropriate risk-taking. The Compensation Committee has determined that the structures of our executive compensation programs do not put our patients, investors or the Company at any material risk.

Annual Bonus Plan

Our annual bonus plan is a cash incentive plan that rewards near-term financial, strategic and operational performance. The Compensation Committee reviews our annual target bonus opportunities by job level each year to ensure they are competitive.

Based on the results of a competitive market review conducted in 2014, the target annual bonus opportunities for our NEOs were substantially below peer comparators. In the beginning of fiscal 2015, the Compensation Committee approved the increases of the target annual bonus opportunity as a percent of year-end base salary for our NEOs other than our CEO, based on both external market information and internal considerations.

The target annual bonus opportunity as a percent of year-end base salary for each of our NEOs in 2015 compared to 2014 was follows:

The approved annual target bonus opportunities for 2015 were below the median target amounts provided by companies in our peer group as our compensation programs place a greater emphasis on long-term incentives. Our CEO’s total target cash bonus was slightly above the median of our peer group.

2015 Annual Bonus Plan Design

Awards for our NEOs under our 2015 annual bonus plan were based solely on the achievement of Company goals. Similar to the past two years, each NEO’s individual goals were identical to the Company goals, which we believe further reinforces the importance of working to achieve the Company’s goals as an integrated leadership team.

The 2015 annual bonus plan provided for a payout multiplier ranging from 0% to 150% for each Company goal based on the determination of the level of achievement of each goal and application of the weighting previously assigned to each goal which determined the Company performance multiplier applied to the bonus calculation. Because the 2015 annual bonus plan design provided that individual goals would be identical to Company goals, the individual performance multiplier applied to the bonus calculation is the same as the Company performance multiplier.

The Company performance multiplier and correspondingly, the individual performance multiplier, ranged from 0% to 150% as follows:

We determined the individual annual bonus payments for 2015 using the following calculation:

The 2015 annual bonus plan provided that if the Company performance multiplier was less than 50%, there would be no payout. Further, because the individual performance multiplier was the same as the Company performance multiplier for 2015, the combined multiplier for each NEO, could not exceed 225%.

2015 Company Performance Goals and Results

Company goals were established at the start of 2015 with assigned weightings that reflected the Company’s focus on the following priorities: