Proxy Statement Notice of Annual Meeting of Shareholders Friday, May 4, 2018

Letter from our Chairman and Chief Executive Officer

April 4, 2018

LETTER FROM OUR CHAIRMAN AND OUR CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER

Diversity, Inclusion and Social Responsibility

We continue to strive to deliver outstanding financial results for our stockholders, but we also recognize the importance of working to make a difference in the communities where we do business. With hotels located in 127 different countries and territories across 30 brands, diversity and inclusion are integral to how we do business, for both our associates and our guests. We are in the business of welcoming everyone, from all walks of life, wherever they are coming from and wherever they are going. The hospitality values we’ve embraced over the past nine decades make our Company great. We work to make the world a little bit more tolerant, peaceful, and welcoming.

We are committed to building a more sustainable future. In 2017, we launched Serve 360, our social impact and sustainability initiative designed to foster business growth and enhance our sustainability efforts while balancing the needs of associates, customers, owners, the environment and communities. Guided by the United Nations’ Sustainable Development Goals, Marriott’s Serve 360 guides the Company’s commitment and delivers positive results through four priority areas:

Incorporating these environmental and social initiatives has a direct impact on our profits. As a global corporate citizen, we have a responsibility and unique opportunity to be a force for good in all aspects of our business – from helping to reduce carbon and water use to providing our associates with human trafficking awareness training. We recognize that how we do business is as important as the business that we do.

Stockholder Engagement

Stockholder engagement is also a key focus for our Company. We emphasize transparency in our approach to stockholder communications and seek out engagement and feedback from current and prospective stockholders on corporate strategy, executive compensation, and corporate governance. We value an open dialog and exchange of ideas. In a survey of investors completed in 2017, respondents noted that Marriott provides clear and consistent

Letter from our Chairman and Chief Executive Officer

communications, is candid about the opportunities and potential risks to its business, effectively manages investor and analyst expectations, promptly responds to questions and requests for information, and is available at conferences, investor meetings, and Analyst Days. In 2017, we met with over 300 institutional investors.

Governance Practices

Our success is rooted in good governance. Members of our Board of Directors are committed, offer diverse experiences and skills, and provide valuable feedback and guidance that position us for success. The Board draws on the depth of experience of long time members while welcoming new skills and insights from new members. We have welcomed 6 new Board members in the past 5 years. Our Board is actively engaged in the company’s strategy, supports our approach to environmental and social initiatives, and embraces good governance.

Meeting Information

We hope you can join us at our upcoming Annual Stockholders Meeting. The meeting will be held at the JW Marriott Hotel, 1331 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20004 on Friday, May 4, 2018, beginning at 11:00 a.m. Doors to the meeting will open at 10:30 a.m.

There is a lot of excitement at Marriott today. We are embracing change as never before while remaining true to our culture and commitment to excellence, to the benefit of our guests, owners, associates, communities, and stockholders. Thank you for your support and joining us on this journey.

Sincerely,

J.W. “Bill” Marriott, Jr. Executive Chairman and Chairman of the Board		Arne M. Sorenson President and CEO

Corporate Headquarters and Mailing Address    v    10400 Fernwood Road    v    Bethesda, Maryland 20817

NOTICE OF ANNUAL MEETING OF STOCKHOLDERS

		How to Vote Your Shares (see pages 66 – 70 for details)
BY TELEPHONE		VIA THE INTERNET		BY MAIL

To Our Stockholders:

The 2018 annual meeting of stockholders of Marriott International, Inc. (“we,” “us,” “our,” “Marriott,” or the “Company”) will be held at the JW Marriott Hotel, 1331 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20004 on Friday, May 4, 2018, beginning at 11:00 a.m. Doors to the meeting will open at 10:30 a.m. At the meeting, stockholders will act on the following matters:

Record Date: Stockholders of record at the close of business on March 12, 2018, are entitled to notice of and to vote at this meeting.

Distribution Date: This proxy statement is first being made available to our stockholders on or about April 4, 2018.

For the convenience of our stockholders, proxies may be given either by telephone, electronically through the Internet, or by completing, signing, and returning the enclosed proxy card. In addition, stockholders may elect to receive future stockholder communications, including proxy materials, through the Internet. Instructions for each of these options can be found in the enclosed materials.

By order of the Board of Directors,

Bancroft S. Gordon

Secretary

April 4, 2018

PLEASE REFER TO THE LAST PAGE OF THIS PROXY STATEMENT FOR DIRECTIONS TO THE MEETING AND

INFORMATION ON PARKING, PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION AND LODGING.

Table of Contents

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Proxy Statement Summary

PROXY STATEMENT SUMMARY

This summary highlights information contained elsewhere in this Proxy Statement. This summary does not contain all information you should consider. Please read the entire Proxy Statement carefully before voting.

Voting matters and the recommendations of the Board of Directors (the ”Board”)

Proxy Statement Summary

Our director nominees

See “Corporate Governance – Nominees to Our Board of Directors” for more information.

The following table provides summary information about each director nominee. Each director is elected annually by a majority of votes cast.

Proxy Statement Summary

Corporate governance highlights

See “Corporate Governance” for more information.

		Independent Board and Board committees
		• Chairman and CEO positions separate since 2012; Lead Director appointed in 2013   • Eleven of 14 director nominees are independent   • Audit, Compensation Policy, and Nominating and Corporate Governance committee members are independent   • We conduct annual Board and committee evaluations   • We have a mandatory retirement age of 72 for all directors except for J.W. Marriott, Jr.   • We have robust director orientation and continuing education programs for directors   • All Audit Committee members are financially literate and are audit committee financial experts   • Our Compensation Policy Committee uses an independent compensation consultant

 

		Progressive stockholder rights
		• Directors are elected by majority vote in uncontested elections   • All directors are elected annually   • Our bylaws provide for proxy access by stockholders   • We have a confidential voting policy

 

		Strong stockholder support on say-on-pay
		At the Company’s 2017 Annual Meeting, stockholders again expressed substantial support for the compensation of our NEOs with approximately 98% voting for approval of the “Say-on-Pay” advisory proposal relating to our 2016 NEO compensation.

 

		Active stockholder engagement
		During fiscal year 2017, management met with over 300 institutional investors at conferences, investor meetings and at our Security Analyst Meeting.

Proxy Statement Summary

Executive compensation matters

2017 was an extraordinary year for Marriott as we made great progress on the integration of our recently acquired subsidiary, Starwood Hotels & Resorts WorldWide, LLC (“Starwood”), capturing significant property and corporate overhead cost synergies while also increasing our worldwide RevPAR Index, which measures performance against our competitors. We rapidly grew our combined loyalty programs which now exceed 110 million members and reached deals for co-branded credit cards that will produce valuable benefits for the Company, our guests, and our owners.

And our financial and operating performance was strong: EPS grew by 37%; we exceeded our target adjusted EPS performance measure under our annual cash incentive program; and we returned over $3.5 billion to stockholders in the form of share repurchases and dividends. Strong room growth continued with a new record of more than 460,000 rooms in our development pipeline and over 1.25 million rooms open in 127 countries and territories. We also entered into a joint venture with Alibaba that will help create true end-to-end travel services for Chinese customers. Finally, we achieved record-setting associate engagement compared to external benchmarks, and were recognized as one of the Fortune Best Companies to Work for in 2017 for the 20^th consecutive year.

How We Tie Pay to Performance

We believe that there should be a strong correlation between executive pay and Company performance. Our executive compensation program is designed to maintain this alignment, while also protecting the Company against inappropriate risk-taking and conflicts among the interests of the Company, its stockholders and its executives. With these goals in mind, the Compensation Policy Committee has implemented an executive compensation program that consists of the following key components:

Proxy Statement Summary

Focus on Performance-Based Awards

The following charts¹ show the percentage breakdown of target total direct compensation between performance-based (target annual incentive, PSUs and SARs) and other compensation (base salary, RSUs and other) for 2017.

Majority of Compensation is Equity

The following charts¹ show the percentage breakdown of target total direct compensation among base salary, target annual incentive, and target annual equity compensation.

Proxy Statement Summary

Alignment Between Company Performance and Annual Realizable Pay

The following graph shows the historical alignment between Company performance (measured as total stockholder return (“TSR”)) and average annual Realizable Pay (as defined below) of the CEO over 3-year rolling periods.

Proxy Statement Summary

Executive Compensation and Best Practices

Consistent with our commitment to executive compensation best practices, the Company continued the following NEO compensation practices for 2017:

Items to be Voted On

ITEMS TO BE VOTED ON

ITEM 1 – Election of Directors

All of our directors are standing for election at the 2018 annual meeting and, if elected, each director will hold office for a term expiring at the 2019 annual meeting of stockholders or until his or her successor is elected or appointed and qualified.

The following 14 current directors of the Company have been nominated for re-election as a director:

You can find information on the director nominees beginning on page 19.

Ability to Serve

Each of the director nominees has consented to being named in this proxy statement and to serve if elected. However, if before proxies are voted at the annual meeting any of the nominees should become unable to serve or will not serve as a director, the Board may designate a substitute nominee or reduce the size of the Board. If the Board designates a substitute nominee, the persons named as proxies will vote “FOR” that substitute nominee.

Voting Standard for Election

The Company’s Amended and Restated Bylaws (“Bylaws”) prescribe the voting standard for election of directors as a majority of the votes cast in an uncontested election, such as this one, where the number of nominees does not exceed the number of directors to be elected. Under this standard, a nominee must receive more “FOR” votes than “AGAINST” votes in order to be elected as a director.

In a contested election, where the number of nominees exceeds the number of directors to be elected (which is not the case at the 2018 annual meeting), the directors will be elected by a plurality of the shares present in person or by proxy and entitled to vote on the election of directors. Under the Company’s Governance Principles, if a nominee who already serves as a director is not elected, that nominee shall tender his or her resignation to the Board. The Nominating and Corporate Governance Committee will then recommend to the Board whether to accept or reject the resignation, or whether other action should be taken. Within 90 days of the certification of election results, the Board will determine whether to accept or reject the resignation and will publicly disclose its decision promptly thereafter.

ITEM 2 – Ratification of Appointment of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm

The Audit Committee of the Board has appointed Ernst & Young LLP as the Company’s independent registered public accounting firm for fiscal year 2018. Ernst & Young LLP, a registered public accounting firm, has served as the Company’s independent registered public accounting firm since May 3, 2002. Ernst & Young LLP will examine and report to stockholders on the consolidated financial statements and the effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting of the Company and its subsidiaries.

We expect that representatives of Ernst & Young LLP will be present at the annual meeting, have an opportunity to make a statement if they so desire, and be available to respond to appropriate questions. You can find information on pre-approval of independent auditor fees and Ernst & Young LLP’s fiscal years 2017 and 2016 fees beginning on page 31. Although the Audit Committee has discretionary authority to appoint the independent auditors, the Board is seeking stockholder ratification of the appointment of the independent auditors as a matter of good corporate governance. If the stockholders do not ratify the appointment of Ernst & Young LLP, the Audit Committee will take that into consideration when determining whether to continue the firm’s engagement.

Items to be Voted On

ITEM 3 – Advisory Resolution to Approve Executive Compensation

We are asking stockholders to approve a non-binding advisory resolution on the compensation of our Named Executive Officers (“NEOs”), as disclosed in this proxy statement.

Although the resolution, commonly referred to as a “say-on-pay” resolution, is non-binding, our Board of Directors and Compensation Policy Committee value your opinions and will consider the outcome of the vote when making future compensation decisions. After consideration of the vote of stockholders at the 2017 annual meeting of stockholders and consistent with the Board’s recommendation, the Board’s current policy is to hold an advisory vote on executive compensation on an annual basis, and accordingly, after the 2018 annual meeting, the next advisory vote on the compensation of our NEOs is expected to occur at our 2019 annual meeting of stockholders.

We urge you to read the Compensation Discussion and Analysis (“CD&A”) beginning on page 33 of this proxy statement, which describes in detail how our executive compensation policies and procedures operate and are designed to achieve our compensation objectives, as well as the Summary Compensation Table and other related compensation tables and narrative, appearing on pages 45 through 57 which provide detailed information on the compensation of our NEOs.

The Board believes that our current executive compensation program achieves an appropriate balance of long- and short-term performance incentives, reinforces the link between executive pay and the Company’s long-term performance and stock value, and thereby aligns the interests of our NEOs with those of stockholders.

In accordance with Section 14A of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the “Exchange Act”), and as a matter of good corporate governance, we are asking stockholders to approve the following advisory resolution at the 2018 annual meeting:

RESOLVED, that the stockholders of Marriott International, Inc. (the “Company”) approve, on an advisory basis, the compensation of the Company’s named executive officers disclosed in the Compensation Discussion and Analysis, the Summary Compensation Table and the related compensation tables, notes and narrative in the Proxy Statement for the Company’s 2018 Annual Meeting of Stockholders.

ITEM 4 – Approval of Proposed Amendments to our Restated Certificate of Incorporation and Bylaws Allowing Stockholders to Call Special Meetings of the Stockholders

Our Board of Directors has unanimously adopted, and recommends that our stockholders approve, amendments to our Restated Certificate of Incorporation (the “Certificate”) and Bylaws to allow one or more stockholders owning shares representing at least 25% of the voting power of all outstanding shares of Class A common stock of the Company who comply with all of the requirements set forth in our Bylaws to require the Company to call a special meeting of the stockholders (the “Company’s Special Meeting Proposal”). Stockholders do not presently have the right to call a special meeting of the stockholders. The relevant sections of the Certificate and the Bylaws, which are substantially similar to each other, are attached as Exhibit A. This summary of the proposed amendments to the Certificate and the Bylaws is qualified in its entirety by reference to Exhibit A.

The Company’s Special Meeting Proposal

If the Company’s Special Meeting Proposal is approved by stockholders and becomes effective (as described below), the Certificate and the Bylaws will be amended to provide that the Company is required to call a special meeting of the stockholders upon the written request of one or more stockholders who:

The Board unanimously recommends that you vote “FOR” the Company’s Special Meeting Proposal.

Items to be Voted On

Purpose and Effect of the Company’s Special Meeting Proposal

The Company’s Special Meeting Proposal is a result of the Board’s ongoing review of our Governance Principles and a review of the policies and preferences of certain of our significant stockholders, as well as a review of the stockholder proposal included in Item 5 below (the “Stockholder Special Meeting Proposal”). In developing the Company’s Special Meeting Proposal, the Board (including all members of the Nominating and Corporate Governance Committee) carefully considered the implications of amending our Certificate and Bylaws to grant stockholders the right to require the Company to call a special meeting.

The Board believes that the Company’s Special Meeting Proposal strikes an appropriate balance between enhancing stockholder rights and adequately protecting stockholder interests. The Board recognizes that providing stockholders the ability to call special meetings is viewed by some stockholders as an important corporate governance practice. However, special meetings of the stockholders can be potentially disruptive to business operations and to long-term stockholder interests and can cause the Company to incur substantial expenses. Accordingly, the Board believes that the proposed 25% threshold for calling special meetings of the stockholders will help provide that these meetings are extraordinary events. In addition, the Board believes that stockholder-called special meetings should not be held in close proximity to an annual meeting or when the matters to be addressed have been recently considered or are planned to be considered at another meeting. The Board would continue to have the ability to call special meetings of the stockholders in other instances when, in the exercise of their fiduciary obligations, they determine it is appropriate.

The Board determined to include a 25% threshold in the Company’s Special Meeting Proposal based on several factors. First, the Company maintains robust governance practices that promote Board accountability, including a market-standard proxy access right that permits stockholders to include their director nominees in the Company’s proxy statement and majority voting in uncontested director elections, with a resignation policy mandating that directors who fail to receive the required majority vote tender their resignation for consideration by the Board. Second, the Company considered benchmarking against other public companies and the Company’s direct peers, which indicated that the 25% threshold is lower than or the same as the most prevalent special meeting threshold adopted by those companies.

In light of these considerations, the Board, upon recommendation of the Nominating and Corporate Governance Committee, adopted resolutions declaring it advisable to amend the Certificate and Bylaws in accordance with this proposal and unanimously resolved to submit these amendments, which comprise the Company’s Special Meeting Proposal, to our stockholders for consideration and to recommend that stockholders vote “FOR” the Company’s Special Meeting Proposal.

Overview of Related Changes to the Bylaws

If the Company’s Special Meeting Proposal is approved by the stockholders and the Certificate is filed with the Secretary of State of the State of Delaware, the Board expects to further amend the Bylaws to specify the procedures for stockholder-called special meetings, substantially in the form attached as Exhibit B. Set forth below is a summary of the amendments the Board expects to adopt (the “Additional Special Meeting Bylaw Amendments”). This summary of the Additional Special Meeting Bylaw Amendments is qualified in its entirety by reference to Exhibit B.

Information Provisions

The Additional Special Meeting Bylaw Amendments would require any stockholder or beneficial owner seeking to require that the Company call the special meeting or soliciting other stockholders to support a call for the special meeting to provide information to the Company including, but not limited to (i) a description of the business (including the identity of nominees for election as a director, if any) proposed to be acted on at the meeting, (ii) the date of signature of each requesting stockholder (or duly authorized agent) submitting the special meeting request, (iii) the name and address of each stockholder submitting the special meeting request, as they appear on the Company’s books, (iv) information, representations and agreements required by the Bylaws with respect to any director nominations or other business proposed to be presented at the special meeting, and as to each stockholder or beneficial owner submitting the special meeting request, other than stockholders or beneficial owners who have provided such request solely in response to any form of public solicitation for such requests, and (v) documentary evidence of ownership of shares of Class A common stock of the Company as of the date the request was signed and any additional information reasonably requested by the Company. If the special meeting request relates to any director nominations, the Additional Special Meeting Bylaw Amendments would require the special meeting request to provide additional information that is required under existing Section 3.15 of the Bylaws.

Items to be Voted On

Ownership Provisions

The Additional Special Meeting Bylaw Amendments would clarify that the 25% ownership threshold is based on a “net long” ownership definition. Under the “net long” definition, a person would be deemed to “own” only those outstanding shares of Class A common stock of the Company as to which the person possesses both (i) the full voting and investment rights pertaining to the shares and (ii) the full economic interest in (including the opportunity for profit and risk of loss on) such shares, which terms may be further defined in the Bylaws from time to time. The Board believes a “net long” definition of ownership is appropriate so that only stockholders with full and continuing economic interest and voting rights in our Class A common stock should be entitled to require that the Company call a special meeting.

Additional Provisions

The Additional Special Meeting Bylaw Amendments would set forth certain procedural requirements that the Board believes are appropriate to avoid duplicative or unnecessary special meetings. Under these provisions, a special meeting request would not be valid if it:

The Additional Special Meeting Bylaw Amendments would state that, if stockholders who requested a special meeting revoke the request or cease to own at least 25% of the voting power of all outstanding shares of Class A common stock of the Company at all times between the date the special meeting request was received by the Company and the date of the applicable stockholder-requested special meeting, the Board would have the discretion to cancel the special meeting of the stockholders if there are no longer valid unrevoked written requests satisfying the 25% threshold.

The Additional Special Meeting Bylaw Amendments would specify that the business to be transacted at a stockholder-requested special meeting would be limited to the business stated in the valid special meeting request received by the Company and any additional business that the Board determines to include in the notice for such special meeting.

The Stockholder Proposal

As described below in Item 5, the Company has been notified that a stockholder intends to present a proposal for consideration at the Annual Meeting that also addresses stockholders’ ability to call special meetings of the stockholders. Although the Company’s Special Meeting Proposal and the Stockholder Special Meeting Proposal concern the same subject matter, the terms and effects of each proposal differ. Stockholders may vote on both the Company’s Special Meeting Proposal and the Stockholder Special Meeting Proposal, and approval of one proposal is not conditioned on approval or disapproval of the other proposal. Among the differences between the Company’s Special Meeting Proposal and the Stockholder Special Meeting Proposal are the following:

Items to be Voted On

Neither the Company’s Special Meeting Proposal nor the Stockholder Special Meeting Proposal affect the Board’s existing authority to call special meetings of stockholders.

You should carefully read the descriptions of each proposal, and the Company’s statement in opposition to the Stockholder Special Meeting Proposal, in considering both proposals.

Additional Information

The Company’s Special Meeting Proposal is binding. If stockholders approve the Company’s Special Meeting Proposal by the requisite vote, we will file the amended and restated Certificate with the Secretary of State of the State of Delaware shortly following the annual meeting to incorporate the approved amendments. The amended and restated Certificate and the corresponding Bylaw amendments will become effective upon acceptance of the filing by the Secretary of State of the State of Delaware. In connection with the approval of this proposal and the filing of the amended and restated Certificate, our Board expects to approve the Additional Special Meeting Bylaw Amendments described above.

If stockholders do not approve the Company’s Special Meeting Proposal by the requisite vote, then the amended and restated Certificate will not be filed with the Secretary of State of the State of Delaware, the Bylaws will not be amended, the Additional Special Meeting Bylaw Amendments will not be adopted by the Board and our stockholders will not have the ability to require the Company to call a special meeting of stockholders. Approval of the Company’s Special Meeting Proposal is not conditioned on approval or disapproval of the Stockholder Special Meeting Proposal, which means that the foregoing effects of approval or disapproval of the Company’s Special Meeting Proposal are not affected by approval or disapproval of the Stockholder Special Meeting Proposal.

ITEM 5 – Stockholder Resolution to Allow Holders of 15% of Company Stock to Call Special Meetings of the Stockholders

Myra K. Young (the “proponent”) of 9295 Yorkship Ct, Elk Grove, CA 95758 (the beneficial owner of 75 shares of our Class A common stock), has advised the Company that she plans to present the following proposal at the annual meeting. If properly presented at the annual meeting by or on behalf of the proponent, the Board of Directors unanimously recommends a vote “AGAINST” the following stockholder resolution. We have included the proponent’s proposal in this proxy statement pursuant to SEC rules, and the Board’s response to it follows.

The Proponent’s Proposal

ITEM 5 – Special Shareholder Meetings

RESOLVED:

The shareholders of Marriott International Inc. (‘MAR’ or ‘Company’) hereby request the Board of Directors take the steps necessary to amend our bylaws and each appropriate governing document to give holders with an aggregate of 15% net long of our outstanding common stock the power to call a special shareowner meeting. This proposal does not impact our Board’s current power to call a special meeting.

SUPPORTING STATEMENT:

Delaware law allows 10% of company shares to call a special meeting. A shareholder right to call a special meeting is a way to bring an important matter to the attention of both management and shareholders outside the annual meeting cycle. This is important because there could be 15-months between annual meetings.

Shareholder rights to act by written consent and to call special meetings are two complimentary ways to bring an important matter to the attention of both management and shareholders outside the annual meeting cycle. Both are

Items to be Voted On

associated with increased governance quality and shareholder value. Our Company provides no right for shareholders to act by written consent or to call a special meeting.

Currently, 64% of S&P 500 companies have adopted company bylaws, articles of incorporation, or charter provisions to allow shareholders to call a special meeting. More than half of all S&P 1500 companies allow shareholders this right.

This proposal topic won majority votes last year at CVS Health, Salesforce.com, NETGEAR, and United Rentals. It may be possible to adopt this proposal by simply incorporating this text into our governing documents:

“Special meetings of the stockholders, for any purpose or purposes, unless otherwise prescribed by statute, may be called by the Chairman of the Board or the President, and shall be called by the Chairman of the Board or President or Secretary upon the order in writing of a majority of or by resolution of the Board of Directors, or at the request in writing of stockholders owning 15% net long of the entire capital stock of the Corporation issued and outstanding and entitled to vote.”

We urge the Board to join in the mainstream of major U.S. companies and establish a right for shareholders owning 15% of our outstanding common stock to call a special meeting.

Please vote for: Special Shareowner Meetings – Item 5

Board Response

The Board will oppose this proposal if it is properly presented at the 2018 annual meeting and recommends a vote AGAINST this proposal for the following reasons:

The Board recommends that stockholders vote “AGAINST” this proposal because it is unnecessary and not in the best interests of the Company or its stockholders in light of the Company’s Special Meeting Proposal set forth in Item 4, which would amend the Certificate and Bylaws to allow one or more stockholders who own shares representing at least 25% of the voting power of all outstanding shares of Class A common stock of the Company to require the Company to call a special meeting of stockholders.

The Board believes that the stockholder proposal does not strike an appropriate balance between enhancing stockholder rights and adequately protecting stockholder interests. The Board recognizes that providing stockholders the ability to request special meetings is viewed by some stockholders as an important corporate governance practice. However, the Board believes that a small minority of stockholders should not be entitled to utilize the mechanism of special meetings for their own interests, which may not be shared more broadly by stockholders of the Company. For this reason, the Board believes that the 25% ownership threshold in the Company’s Special Meeting Proposal is more appropriate than the 15% threshold in this stockholder proposal. Based on benchmarking against other public companies and the Company’s direct peers, the 25% ownership threshold in the Company’s Special Meeting Proposal is lower than or the same as the most prevalent special meeting threshold adopted by those companies.

In addition, special meetings of the stockholders can be potentially disruptive to business operations and to long-term stockholder interests and can cause the Company to incur substantial expenses. Accordingly, the Board believes that special meetings of the stockholders should be extraordinary events. Likewise, the Board believes that stockholders should not be able to call special meetings in close proximity to an annual meeting or when the matters to be addressed have been recently considered or are planned to be considered at another meeting.

This stockholder proposal also is unnecessary given our commitment to strong and effective corporate governance principles and high ethical standards. The Company maintains robust governance practices that promote Board accountability, including:

Items to be Voted On

In light of these considerations, our Board believes that the Company’s Special Meeting Proposal strikes the appropriate balance between enhancing the rights of stockholders and adequately protecting long-term stockholder interests to provide that stockholders who satisfy the 25% ownership threshold and comply with certain additional procedures and limitations have the ability to require the Company to call a special meeting.

ITEM 6 – Stockholder Resolution Recommending Implementation of a Simple Majority Voting Standard in our Governance Documents

The AFL-CIO Reserve Fund (the “proponent”), 815 16^th Street, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20006 (owner of 188 shares of our Class A common stock), has advised the Company that it plans to present the following proposal at the annual meeting. If properly presented at the annual meeting by or on behalf of the proponent, the Board of Directors unanimously recommends a vote “AGAINST” the following stockholder resolution. We have included the proponent’s proposal in this proxy statement pursuant to SEC rules, and the Board’s response to it follows. The proponent’s proposal contains assertions about the Company or other statements that we believe are incorrect. We have not attempted to refute all inaccuracies.

The Proponent’s Proposal

ITEM 6 – Simple Majority Vote

RESOLVED, Shareowners of Marriott International, Inc. (the “Company”) urge the Company to take all steps necessary, in compliance with applicable law, to remove the supermajority vote requirements in its bylaws and Certificate of Incorporation.

Supporting Statement

Our Company historically has been a family-owned company with a high percentage of shares held by insiders. Then in September 2016, our Company merged with Starwood Hotels to form one of the world’s largest hotel companies. After this merger, the percentage of our Company’s shares held by public investors increased significantly. Accordingly, we believe that our Company should follow best practices in corporate governance for public companies.

Our Company’s bylaws and Certificate of Incorporation contain provisions that require the support of two-thirds of all outstanding shares to remove or amend. Because of abstentions and broker non-votes, achieving such a supermajority vote requirement can be difficult to obtain. Many of these corporate governance provisions affect important shareholder rights. For example, the following bylaw provisions can only be amended by a supermajority vote:

The Council of Institutional Investors, an association of corporate, public and union employee benefit funds and endowments with combined assets that exceed $3 trillion, opposes supermajority voting requirements. According to its policies, “A majority vote of common shares outstanding should be sufficient to amend company bylaws or take other action that requires or receives a shareowner vote. Supermajority votes should not be required.”

For these reasons, we urge shareholders to vote FOR this resolution.

Items to be Voted On

Board Response

The Board will oppose this proposal if it is properly presented at the 2018 annual meeting and recommends a vote AGAINST this proposal for the following reasons:

The Board recommends that stockholders vote “AGAINST” this proposal for a number of reasons, as discussed below. After careful consideration, the Board has determined that adopting this proposal would not serve to enhance stockholder value and, therefore, it is not in the best interests of the Company or its stockholders. The Board also notes that, at each of the 2014, 2015 and 2016 annual meetings, stockholders considered and rejected virtually identical stockholder proposals. The Board believes that the lack of majority support for the proposal reflects a strong sentiment among stockholders that the proposal is not appropriate for the Company.

Voting Thresholds.

A majority of votes cast is already the voting standard for electing the Company’s directors in uncontested director elections under the Company’s existing Certificate and Bylaws (collectively, the “Governance Documents”). The approval of 66 2/3% of outstanding shares is required under the Governance Documents only for certain fundamental changes to the Company’s corporate governance, including the removal of directors, certain amendments to the Governance Documents, certain transactions with “Interested Stockholders” (described below) and the approval of certain fundamental corporate changes such as a merger, consolidation, or sale of substantially all of the assets of the Company.

Benefit to Stockholders of Supermajority Provisions.

Delaware law permits companies to adopt supermajority voting requirements, and a number of publicly-traded companies have adopted these provisions to preserve and maximize long-term value for all stockholders. Supermajority voting requirements on fundamental corporate matters help to protect stockholders against self-interested and potentially abusive transactions proposed by certain stockholders who may seek to advance their interests over the interests of the majority of the Company’s stockholders. For example, if the stockholder proposal were implemented, certain transactions between the Company and “Interested Stockholders” (which include stockholders who beneficially own, and affiliates of the Company that at any time in the two years preceding such a transaction have beneficially owned, at least 25% of the voting power of the Company’s stock) could be approved by only a majority of votes cast. The Board believes that the current supermajority voting standard is preferable because it would encourage Interested Stockholders to negotiate transaction terms that take into account the interests of all of the Company’s stockholders and that do not sacrifice the long-term success of the Company for short-term benefits.

Marriott has an Excellent Corporate Governance Structure.

The Company’s Board is firmly committed to good corporate governance and has adopted a wide range of practices and procedures that promote effective Board oversight, and the Company has earned a reputation as being a leader in this area. The Board believes that the corporate governance concerns raised by the proponent are misplaced. Some of the Company’s progressive governance policies and practices include the following:

Items to be Voted On

In addition, the Company’s commitment to corporate governance has been recognized by independent third parties, including by Corporate Secretary Magazine, which named the Company a finalist in the category of “Governance Team of the Year (large cap)” in 2016, and by the Ethisphere Institute, which named Marriott among the “World’s Most Ethical Companies” in 2018, for the eleventh year.

Consistent with its current practice, the Board will continue to evaluate the future implementation of appropriate corporate governance changes. However, for the reasons discussed above, the Board does not believe it is in the best interests of stockholders or the Company to implement the stockholder proposal’s request for the lowest possible voting thresholds on all matters on which stockholders vote.

Corporate Governance

CORPORATE GOVERNANCE

Board Leadership Structure

While the Board has not mandated a particular leadership structure, effective March 31, 2012, the Board determined that the positions of Chairman of the Board and Chief Executive Officer should be held by separate individuals. The Board elected J.W. Marriott, Jr., who had served as the Chairman and CEO of the Company and its predecessors since 1985, to the position of Executive Chairman and Chairman of the Board, and Arne M. Sorenson, the former President and Chief Operating Officer, to the position of President and CEO. In his current role, Mr. Marriott continues to provide leadership to the Board by, among other things, working with the CEO, the independent Lead Director (discussed below), and the Corporate Secretary to set Board calendars, determine agendas for Board meetings, ensure proper flow of information to Board members, facilitate effective operation of the Board and its committees, help promote Board succession planning and the orientation of new directors, address issues of director performance, assist in consideration and Board adoption of the Company’s long-term and annual operating plans, and help promote senior management succession planning.

In 2013, the Board created the position of Lead Director and prescribed that he/she should be the independent Chairman of our Nominating and Corporate Governance Committee. Lawrence W. Kellner currently serves in those positions. The Lead Director’s responsibilities include chairing the executive sessions of the independent directors, coordinating the activities of the independent directors, having the authority to convene meetings of the independent directors, and serving as a liaison between the Chairman of the Board and the independent directors. The Lead Director also is a standing member of the Company’s Executive Committee. The Lead Director also reviews Board meeting agendas, coordinates the evaluation of Board and Committee performance, coordinates the assessment and evaluation of Board candidates, makes recommendations for changes to the Company’s governance practices, and is available for consultation and direct communication with major stockholders. We believe that the role played by the Lead Director provides strong, independent Board leadership.

Eleven of our 14 director nominees are independent, and the Audit, Compensation Policy, and Nominating and Corporate Governance committees are composed solely of independent directors. Consequently, the independent directors directly oversee such critical items as the Company’s financial statements, executive compensation, the selection and evaluation of directors and the development and implementation of our corporate governance programs.

The Board will continue to review our Board leadership structure as part of the succession planning process that is described in our Governance Principles. We believe that our leadership structure, in which the roles of Chairman and CEO are separate, together with an experienced and engaged Lead Director and independent key committees, is and will continue to be effective and is the optimal structure for our Company and our stockholders.

Selection of Director Nominees

The Nominating and Corporate Governance Committee will consider candidates for Board membership suggested by its members, other Board members, management, and stockholders. As a stockholder, you may recommend any person for consideration as a nominee for director by writing to the Nominating and Corporate Governance Committee of the Board of Directors, c/o Marriott International, Inc., Department 52/862, 10400 Fernwood Road, Bethesda, Maryland 20817. Recommendations must include the name and address of the stockholder making the recommendation, a representation that the stockholder is a holder of record of Class A common stock, biographical information about the individual recommended and any other information the stockholder believes would be helpful to the Nominating and Corporate Governance Committee in evaluating the individual recommended.

Once the Nominating and Corporate Governance Committee has identified a candidate, the Committee evaluates the candidate against the qualifications set out in the Company’s Governance Principles, including:

In addition, while the Committee does not maintain a formal diversity policy for Board membership, it may consider diversity in identifying candidates for the Board as one of several criteria that it uses as part of that process. The Committee assesses the effectiveness of its Board membership criteria in evaluating the composition of the Board. The

Corporate Governance

Committee makes a recommendation to the full Board as to any persons it believes should be nominated by the Board, and the Board determines the nominees after considering the recommendation and report of the Committee. The procedures for considering candidates recommended by a stockholder for Board membership are consistent with the procedures for candidates recommended by members of the Nominating and Corporate Governance Committee, other members of the Board or management.

The graphics below provide a snapshot of our Board composition, tenure, independence, and skills:

Corporate Governance

Nominees to Our Board of Directors

Each of the following director nominees presently serves on our Board and their term of office will expire at the 2018 annual meeting. The age shown below for each director nominee is as of May 4, 2018, which is the date of the annual meeting. Each director nominee has been nominated to serve until the 2019 annual meeting of stockholders and until his or her successor is elected and qualified, or until his or her earlier death, resignation or removal. Set forth below is each director nominee’s biography as well as the qualifications and experiences each director nominee brings to our Board, in addition to the general qualifications discussed above.

Professional Highlights:

As a result of his service as CEO of the Company for over 40 years, Mr. Marriott brings to the Board and our Executive Committee, which he chairs, extensive leadership experience with, and knowledge of, the Company’s business and strategy as well as a historical perspective on the Company’s growth and operations. Mr. Marriott’s iconic status in the hospitality industry provides a unique advantage to the Company.

Professional Highlights:

Ms. Bush brings to the Board, our Audit Committee and our Compensation Policy Committee extensive financial, international and U.S. government experience, her knowledge of corporate governance and financial oversight gained from her membership on the boards of other public companies, knowledge of public policy matters and capital markets and her significant experience in international arenas.

Corporate Governance

Professional Highlights:

As the Chairman and former Chief Executive Officer of First Industrial Realty and former Chief Executive Officer of EQR, Mr. Duncan brings to the Board and our Finance Committee extensive experience in real estate matters and investment strategy, as well as valuable experience as Chief Executive Officer of other publicly traded companies. He also brings a deep understanding of the hospitality industry as a result of his extensive tenure with Starwood, including as the interim Chief Executive Officer of Starwood.

Professional Highlights:

As the daughter of the Executive Chairman and the granddaughter of Marriott International’s founders, Mrs. Harrison brings to our Board, our Finance Committee and our Committee for Excellence an extensive knowledge of the Company, its history, its culture and its mission. Mrs. Harrison’s enthusiasm, judgment and deep experience with our Company and our culture provides the Board valuable insight and strategic focus.

Corporate Governance

Professional Highlights:

Mr. Henderson’s significant accounting skills, experience in leading the initial public offering of a subsidiary of a public company, and expertise in large organization management and emerging markets, make him a valuable member of the Board and our Audit Committee, which he chairs. During his tenure as President and CEO of GM, that company filed for reorganization under Chapter 11 of the U.S. Bankruptcy Code. The Nominating and Corporate Governance Committee does not believe that this proceeding is material to the evaluation of Mr. Henderson’s ability to serve as a director.

Professional Highlights:

As the Managing Partner of Lerer Hippeau, Mr. Hippeau brings to the Board and our Compensation Policy Committee extensive investment and venture capital expertise. In addition, Mr. Hippeau has significant governance experience as a director, a strong background in technology and modern media and a deep understanding of the hospitality industry as the result of his tenure with Starwood.

Corporate Governance

Professional Highlights:

Mr. Kellner is our Lead Director and brings to the Board, our Nominating and Corporate Governance Committee, which he chairs, our Finance Committee and our Executive Committee experience as CEO of one of the largest airline companies in the world with significant management, strategic and operational responsibilities in the travel and leisure industry. He also provides extensive knowledge in the fields of finance and accounting gained from his background as Chief Financial Officer at Continental and other companies.

Professional Highlights:

Ms. Lee provides our Board, our Committee for Excellence, which she chairs, and our Nominating and Corporate Governance Committee with proven leadership and business experience as the CEO of a major media and entertainment company, extensive management and corporate governance experience gained from that role as well as from her membership on the boards of other public companies, her legal experience, and insights gained from her extensive involvement in civic, community and charitable activities.

Corporate Governance

Professional Highlights:

As a result of his numerous senior management positions at Yum! Brands, Kmart, Sears and Potbelly Corporation, Mr. Lewis brings to the Board and our Audit Committee significant expertise in corporate branding, franchising and management of complex global businesses.

Mr. Muñoz provides our Board, our Audit Committee and our Committee for Excellence with extensive knowledge in the fields of finance and accounting, his knowledge of international markets, legal experience, corporate governance experience and audit oversight experience gained from his membership on the boards and audit committees of other public companies.

Corporate Governance

Professional Highlights:

As a result of his background as Chairman and CEO of PepsiCo, a Fortune 500 company, Mr. Reinemund brings to the Board, our Compensation Policy Committee, which he chairs, our Executive Committee, and our Nominating and Corporate Governance Committee demonstrated leadership capability and extensive knowledge of complex financial and operational issues facing large branded companies, as well as extensive management and corporate governance experience gained from that role and from membership on the boards of other public companies.

Professional Highlights:

Gov. Romney brings to our Board and our Finance Committee, which he chairs, his unique blend of management experience in both the corporate and government sectors, knowledge of public policy matters as a result of his service as the Governor of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts and financial services experience from his positions with Bain & Company and Bain Capital.

Corporate Governance

Professional Highlights:

Ambassador Schwab brings unique global and governmental perspectives to the Board’s deliberations. Her extensive experience leading large international trade negotiations positions her well to advise her fellow directors and our senior management on a wide range of key global issues facing the Company. Ambassador Schwab’s experience in the U.S. Government also allows her to advise the Company on the many challenges and opportunities that relate to government relations. As a result of Ambassador Schwab’s prior business experience and current service on other Fortune 100 corporate boards, she brings expertise to the Board, our Compensation Policy Committee and our Finance Committee on a wide range of strategic, operational, corporate governance and compensation matters.

Professional Highlights:

Mr. Sorenson brings to the Board, our Committee for Excellence and our Executive Committee extensive management experience with the Company, his prominent status in the hospitality industry and a wealth of knowledge in dealing with financial and accounting matters as a result of his prior service as the Company’s Chief Financial Officer.

Corporate Governance

Directors Emeriti:

Sterling D. Colton, a former director of the Company’s predecessors, and William J. Shaw, a former director and Vice Chairman of the Company, both hold the title of director emeritus, but do not vote at or attend Board meetings and are not nominees for election.

Board Meetings and Attendance

The Board met four times in fiscal year 2017. The Company encourages all directors to attend the annual meeting of stockholders. All 14 incumbent directors attended the Company’s 2017 annual meeting. During fiscal 2017, no director attended fewer than 75% of the total number of meetings of the Board and committees on which such director served.

Governance Principles

The Board has adopted Governance Principles that provide a framework for our governance processes. The portion of our Governance Principles addressing director independence appears below, and the full text of the Governance Principles can be found in the Investor Relations section of the Company’s website (www.marriott.com/investor) by clicking on “Governance” and then “Documents & Charters.” You also may request a copy from the Company’s Corporate Secretary. Our Governance Principles establish the limit on the number of board memberships for the Company’s directors at three, including Marriott, for directors who are chief executive officers of public companies, and five for other directors. Additionally, our Governance Principles provide that members of our Audit Committee should not serve on more than three audit committees of public companies, including Marriott’s Audit Committee.

Director Independence

Our Governance Principles include the following standards for director independence:

5. Independence of Directors. At least two-thirds of the directors shall be independent, provided that having fewer independent directors due to the departure, addition or change in independent status of one or more directors is permissible temporarily, so long as the two-thirds requirement is again satisfied by the later of the next annual meeting of stockholders or nine months. To be considered “independent,” the board must determine that a director has no relationship that would interfere with the exercise of independent judgment in carrying out the responsibilities of a director of Marriott. The board has established the guidelines set forth below to assist it in determining director independence. For the purpose of this section 5, references to “Marriott” include any of Marriott’s consolidated subsidiaries.

a. A director is not independent if (i) the director is, or has been within the preceding three years, employed by Marriott; (ii) the director or an immediate family member is a current partner or employee of Marriott’s independent auditor, or was a partner or employee of Marriott’s independent auditor and worked on the audit of Marriott at any time during the past three years; (iii) an immediate family member of the director is, or has been within the preceding three years, employed by Marriott as an executive officer; (iv) the director or an immediate family member is, or has been within the preceding three years, part of an interlocking directorate in which the director or an immediate family member is employed as an executive officer of another company where at any time during the last three years an executive officer of Marriott at the same time serves on the compensation committee of that other company; (v) the director has accepted, or an immediate family member has accepted, during any 12-month period within the preceding three years, more than $120,000 in direct compensation from Marriott, other than compensation for board or board committee service, compensation paid to an immediate family member who is an employee (other than an executive officer) of Marriott, or benefits under a tax-qualified retirement plan, or non-discretionary compensation; (vi) the director or an immediate family member is an executive officer of a charitable organization to which Marriott made discretionary charitable contributions in the current or any of the last three fiscal years that exceed five percent of that organization’s consolidated gross revenues for that year, or $200,000, whichever is more; or (vii) the director or an immediate family member is a partner in, or a controlling stockholder or current executive officer of, any organization to which Marriott made, or from which Marriott received, payments for property or services in the current or any of the last three fiscal years that exceed five percent of the recipient’s consolidated gross revenues for that year, or $200,000, whichever is more, other than payments arising solely from investments in Marriott securities or payments under non-discretionary charitable contribution matching programs.

Corporate Governance

b. The following commercial or charitable relationships are not relationships that would impair a Marriott director’s independence: (i) service as an executive officer of another company which is indebted to Marriott, or to which Marriott is indebted, where the total amount of either company’s indebtedness to the other is less than two percent of the total consolidated assets of the other company; and (ii) service by a Marriott director or his or her immediate family member as director or trustee of a charitable organization, where Marriott’s discretionary charitable contributions to that organization are in an amount equal to or less than the greater of $200,000 or five percent of that organization’s consolidated gross annual revenues. The board annually reviews all commercial and charitable relationships of directors, and publishes whether directors previously identified as independent continue to satisfy the foregoing tests.

c. For relationships not covered by the guidelines in paragraph (b) above, the determination of whether the relationship would interfere with the exercise of independent judgment in carrying out the responsibilities of a director of Marriott, and therefore whether the director would be independent, shall be made by the directors who satisfy the independence guidelines set forth in paragraphs (a) and (b) above.

The Board undertook its annual review of director independence in February 2018. As provided in the Governance Principles, the purpose of these reviews is to determine whether any relationships or transactions are inconsistent with a determination that the director or nominee is independent. During these reviews, the Board recognized the current employment of J.W. Marriott, Jr., Deborah M. Harrison, and Arne M. Sorenson and the family relationships of J.W. Marriott, Jr. and Deborah M. Harrison with other Company executives. The Board considered that Ms. Bush, Mr. Duncan, Mr. Henderson, Mr. Kellner, Ms. Lee, Mr. Lewis, Mr. Muñoz, Mr. Reinemund, and Ambassador Schwab each serve, or recently served, as directors or executive officers of companies that do business with Marriott and that, in each case, the payments to and from Marriott were significantly less than the thresholds in Marriott’s Governance Principles. The Board further considered that Ms. Bush, Ms. Lee, Gov. Romney and Ms. Schwab are affiliated with charitable organizations that received contributions from The J. Willard & Alice S. Marriott Foundation and that the contribution amounts were significantly below the charitable contribution threshold set forth in Marriott’s Governance Principles.

Based on the standards set forth in the Governance Principles and after reviewing the relationships described above, the Board affirmatively determined that Mary K. Bush, Bruce W. Duncan, Frederick A. Henderson, Eric Hippeau, Lawrence W. Kellner, Debra L. Lee, Aylwin B. Lewis, George Muñoz, Steven S Reinemund, W. Mitt Romney, and Susan C. Schwab are each independent of the Company and its management. J.W. Marriott, Jr., Deborah M. Harrison, and Arne M. Sorenson are considered not independent as a result of their employment with the Company and/or family relationships.

Committees of the Board

The Board has six standing committees: Audit, Compensation Policy, Finance, Nominating and Corporate Governance, Committee for Excellence, and Executive. The Board has adopted a written charter for each committee, and those charters are available on the Investor Relations section of our website (www.marriott.com/investor) by clicking on “Governance” and then “Documents & Charters.” You also may request copies of the committee charters from the Company’s Corporate Secretary.

Audit Committee

Members:      Frederick A. Henderson (Chair), Mary K. Bush, Aylwin B. Lewis and George Muñoz.

Responsibilities include:

Corporate Governance

Compensation Policy Committee

Responsibilities include:

The Compensation Policy Committee may delegate to one or more executive officers or directors the authority to grant stock awards to certain associates, subject to the terms of our stock plans.

Finance Committee

Responsibilities include:

Corporate Governance

Nominating and Corporate Governance Committee

Members:       Lawrence W. Kellner (Chair), Debra L. Lee and Steven S Reinemund.

Responsibilities include:

Committee for Excellence

Responsibilities include:

Executive Committee

Responsibilities include:

Corporate Governance

Compensation Committee Interlocks and Insider Participation

During fiscal year 2017, the Compensation Policy Committee consisted of Steven S Reinemund (Chair), Mary K. Bush, Eric Hippeau and Susan C. Schwab, and none of the members of the Compensation Policy Committee is or has been an officer or employee of the Company or had any relationship that is required to be disclosed as a transaction with a related party.

Meetings of Independent Directors

Company policy requires that the independent directors meet without management present at least twice a year. In 2017, the independent directors met five times without management present. The Lead Director, currently Mr.  Kellner, presides at the meetings of the independent directors.

Risk Oversight

The Board of Directors is responsible for overseeing the Company’s processes for assessing and managing risk. The Board considers our risk profile when reviewing our annual business plan and incorporates risk assessment into its decisions impacting the Company. In performing its oversight responsibilities, the Board receives an annual risk assessment report from the Chief Financial Officer and discusses the most significant risks facing the Company. As part of this annual review, the Board reviews the Company’s cybersecurity risk profile and is informed on the specifics of the cybersecurity risk program in a separate annual presentation by the Company’s Chief Information Officer. This program provides the Board with an overview of the cybersecurity risks and threats landscape as well as reviews the Company’s risk posture. The Board is further briefed on actions and changes taken by management to mitigate the Company’s risk profile and provided with an overview of the cybersecurity strategy along with key cybersecurity initiatives and incidents.

The Board also has delegated certain risk oversight functions to the Audit Committee. In accordance with its charter, the Audit Committee periodically reviews and discusses the Company’s business and financial risk management and risk assessment policies and procedures with senior management, the Company’s independent auditor, and the Chief Audit Executive. The Audit Committee incorporates its risk oversight function into its regular reports to the Board.

In addition, the Compensation Policy Committee reviewed a risk assessment to determine whether the amount and components of compensation for the Company’s associates and the design of compensation programs might create incentives for excessive risk-taking by the Company’s associates. As explained in the CD&A below, the Compensation Policy Committee believes that our compensation programs encourage associates, including our executives, to remain focused on a balance of the short- and long-term operational and financial goals of the Company, and thereby reduces the potential for actions that involve an excessive level of risk.

Stockholder Communications with the Board

Stockholders and others interested in communicating with the Lead Director, the Audit Committee, the non-employee directors, or any of the employee directors may do so by e-mail to business.ethics@marriott.com or in writing to the Business Ethics Department, Department 52/924.09, 10400 Fernwood Road, Bethesda, Maryland 20817. All communications are forwarded to the appropriate directors for their review, except that the Board has instructed the Company not to forward solicitations, bulk mail or communications that do not address Company-related issues. The Company reports to the directors on the status of all outstanding concerns addressed to the non-employee directors, the Chair of the Nominating and Corporate Governance Committee, or the Audit Committee on a quarterly basis. The non-employee directors, the Chair of the Nominating and Corporate Governance Committee, or the Audit Committee may direct special procedures, including the retention of outside advisors or counsel, for any concern addressed to them.

Code of Ethics and Business Conduct Guide

The Company has long maintained and enforced a Code of Ethics that applies to all Marriott associates, including our Chairman of the Board, Chief Executive Officer, Chief Financial Officer and Principal Accounting Officer and to each member of the Board. The Code of Ethics is encompassed in our Business Conduct Guide, which is available in the Investor Relations section of our website (www.marriott.com/investor) by clicking on “Corporate Governance” and then “Documents & Charters.” We will post on that website any future changes or amendments to our Code of Ethics, and any waiver of our Code of Ethics that applies to our Chairman of the Board, any of our executive officers, or a member of our Board within four business days following the date of the amendment or waiver.

Audit Committee Report and Independent Auditor Fees

AUDIT COMMITTEE REPORT AND INDEPENDENT AUDITOR FEES

Report of the Audit Committee

The Audit Committee reviews the Company’s financial reporting process on behalf of the Board of Directors. Management has the primary responsibility for the financial statements, the reporting process, and maintaining an effective system of internal controls over financial reporting. The Company’s independent auditor is engaged to audit and express opinions on the conformity of the Company’s financial statements to accounting principles generally accepted in the United States and the effectiveness of the Company’s internal control over financial reporting.

In this context, the Audit Committee has reviewed and discussed the audited financial statements together with the results of management’s assessment of internal controls over financial reporting with management and the Company’s independent auditor. The Audit Committee also discussed with the independent auditor those matters required to be discussed by the independent auditor with the Audit Committee under the rules adopted by the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (“PCAOB”). The Audit Committee has received the written disclosures along with the annual PCAOB Rule 3526 communication of independence including direct discussion with the independent auditor in accordance with the requirements of the PCAOB.

Relying on the reviews and discussions referred to above, the Audit Committee recommended to the Board of Directors, and the Board has approved, that the audited financial statements be included in the Company’s Annual Report on SEC Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2017, for filing with the SEC.

Members of the Audit Committee:

Frederick A. Henderson (Chair)

Mary K. Bush

Aylwin B. Lewis

George Muñoz

Pre-Approval of Independent Auditor Fees and Services Policy

The Audit Committee’s Pre-Approval of Independent Auditor Fees and Services Policy provides for pre-approval of all audit, audit-related, tax and other permissible non-audit services provided by our independent auditor on an annual basis and additional services as needed. The policy also requires additional approval of any engagements that were previously approved but are anticipated to exceed pre-approved fee levels. The policy permits the Audit Committee Chair to pre-approve independent auditor services with estimated fees up to $100,000 (provided that the Audit Committee Chair reports to the full Audit Committee at the next meeting on any pre-approval determinations).

Audit Committee Report and Independent Auditor Fees

Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm Fee Disclosure

The following table presents fees for professional services rendered by our independent registered public accounting firm for the audit of our annual financial statements for 2017 and 2016 and fees billed for audit-related services, tax services and all other services rendered by our independent registered public accounting firm for 2017 and 2016. The Audit Committee approved all of the fees presented in the table below.

Executive and Director Compensation

EXECUTIVE AND DIRECTOR COMPENSATION

Report of the Compensation Policy Committee

The Compensation Policy Committee (the “Committee”), which is composed solely of independent members of the Board, assists the Board in fulfilling its responsibilities relating to executive compensation. The Committee is responsible for overseeing compensation programs that enable the Company to attract, retain and motivate executives capable of establishing and implementing business plans in the best interests of the stockholders. The Committee, on behalf of and, in certain instances, subject to the approval of the Board, reviews and approves compensation programs for certain senior officer positions. In this context, the Committee reviewed and discussed with management the Company’s CD&A required by Item 402(b) of SEC Regulation S-K. Following the reviews and discussions referred to above, the Committee recommended to the Board that the CD&A be incorporated by reference in the Company’s annual report on Form 10-K and included in this proxy statement.

Members of the Compensation Policy Committee:

Steven S Reinemund (Chair)

Mary K. Bush

Eric Hippeau

Susan C. Schwab

Compensation Discussion and Analysis

This section explains the Company’s executive compensation program for the following NEOs for 2017:

Overview

Our executive compensation program continues to be designed to drive performance through a combination of near-term financial and operational objectives and long-term focus on our stock price performance. We believe that the consistency in how we manage our executive compensation program and our goals under that program has proven to be an important factor in the Company’s long-term success in the highly cyclical hospitality industry. Our philosophy continues to emphasize equity compensation, with increased use of performance-based share awards, as the most significant component of the NEOs’ total pay opportunity which supports our pay-for-performance objectives.

2017 Executive Compensation at a Glance

Executive and Director Compensation

Compensation Philosophy and Objectives

Marriott is consistently recognized as a global hospitality leader. The Company believes that strong and consistent leadership is the key to long-term success in the hospitality industry. Each of the NEOs is a long-standing member of our senior management team. For example, J.W. Marriott, Jr. and Arne M. Sorenson have over 85 years of combined hospitality experience with the Company. They have led Marriott’s long history of delivering results for stockholders by relying on talented, hard-working associates who uphold the Company’s ideals and unique culture. This culture is reflected in, and reinforced by, the design and implementation of the Company’s executive compensation program, which emphasizes the following principles:

Executive and Director Compensation

2017 Compensation in Detail

Base Salary

For 2017, the Human Resources Department presented to the Committee market data on base salary levels at the 50^th percentile for each position and recommended base salary increases of approximately 5% for Mr. Sorenson and 7% for Messrs. Capuano and Grissen. For Ms. Linnartz and Ms. Oberg, management recommended a salary increase of approximately 14% and 15%, respectively, after it completed a comprehensive review of market data in 2017 as described below, due to the transformational nature of the Starwood combination and resulting change in size, scope, and complexity of the business, and considered internal equity. The Company’s independent compensation consultant, Pearl Meyer (the “Compensation Consultant”) reviewed and supported the recommendations which were discussed in detail and approved by the Committee and, with respect to Messrs. Marriott and Sorenson, by the independent members of the Board.

Annual Incentives

To promote growth and profitability, the Company’s annual cash incentive program is based on actual performance measured against pre-established financial and business operational targets. The annual cash incentive design rewards executives for achieving annual corporate and individual performance objectives that support long-term financial and operational success.

The following graph illustrates how the aggregate annual incentives paid to the NEOs have changed relative to changes in the Company’s annual diluted earnings per share (“EPS”), over the past five years. EPS for 2016 and 2017 reflects $386 million and $159 million in merger-related costs attributable to the Starwood combination, respectively.

NEOs’ Aggregate Annual Incentive Value vs. Diluted EPS

Executive and Director Compensation

At its February 2017 meeting, the Committee approved specific performance objectives and targets under the annual cash incentive program for 2017. In February 2018, upon review of the 2017 fiscal year’s strategic integration achievements and financial results and taking into account the Company’s performance relative to lodging and other comparator companies, the Committee reviewed each NEO’s performance against the pre-established performance objectives to determine the actual cash incentive payments, as discussed below. All the Committee’s decisions regarding annual cash incentives for Mr. Sorenson were subject to and received Board approval.

As reflected in the following table, target awards under the annual cash incentive program were 150% of salary for Mr. Sorenson and 75% for the other NEOs. The Committee reviewed market data for each position and determined that the incentive amounts payable upon achievement of target performance levels would result in total cash compensation (base salary plus annual incentive) that would be at or near the 50^th percentile.

The annual cash incentive program performance factors are intended to establish high standards consistent with the Company’s quality goals, which are designed to be achievable, but not certain to be met. The Company believes that these factors are critical to achieving success within the hospitality and service industry. The weighting of each performance factor varies slightly among the NEOs by position due to differences in responsibility. The table below displays the respective weightings of the relevant performance measures and the aggregate actual performance for 2017 under the annual cash incentive program.

The performance factors for each NEO under the annual cash incentive program for 2017 are described following the Grants of Plan-Based Awards for Fiscal 2017 table on page 47.

Executive and Director Compensation

The graph below sets forth the Company’s performance, compared to target, for the Company-wide performance goals applicable to our NEOs under the annual cash incentive program for 2017 compared to 2016.

Special Supplemental Bonus

Taking into consideration the unique nature of the Starwood combination and the Company’s success in maintaining strong quality and brand control over our legacy Marriott operations while maintaining the brand reputation and managing the successful integration of the Starwood operations, and the management team’s success in building stockholder value through this transformative merger, the Committee approved a one-time supplemental cash bonus for 2017 in the amount of $500,000 to each of the NEOs and the Board approved a one-time supplemental cash bonus for 2017 in the amount of $1,000,000 for Mr. Sorenson. The purpose of the bonus is to reward senior management for its outstanding performance in 2017 regarding the ongoing seamless integration of Starwood while promoting strong performance in the Company’s legacy operations. In particular, the Board cited strong performance across a broad array of criteria, including high levels of associate engagement, human capital development, completion of co-branded credit card deals, successful asset sales, work toward linking and combining loyalty programs, and progress toward improved leverage in the competitive marketplace. Based on its review of the potential upside in Marriott’s ongoing compensation program and market data/practices, the Committee determined not to increase overall target or maximum compensation levels but instead to maintain the compensation program design and reward this unique value creation event through a supplemental cash bonus. The supplemental cash bonus amounts were determined by the Committee with the objective that the award would result in compensation for each of the NEOs that is well-aligned with the Company’s pay-for-performance philosophy and exceptionally strong 2017 performance.

Executive and Director Compensation

Long-Term Incentive Awards

Annual Stock Awards

The Company grants equity compensation awards to the NEOs under the Marriott International, Inc. Stock and Cash Incentive Plan (the “Stock Plan”) on an annual basis to help link NEO pay to long-term Company performance and to align the interests of NEOs with those of stockholders. The Committee approved 2017 annual equity awards based on the Committee’s review of external market data, individual performance, and internal pay equity considerations.

The NEOs’ stock awards for 2017 were granted on February 21, 2017, in a mix (based on the grant date fair value) of 50% PSUs, 25% SARs and 25% RSUs for Mr. Sorenson and 40% PSUs, 30% SARs and 30% RSUs for other NEOs vesting ratably over three years for SARs and RSUs and vesting after three years for PSUs. In addition, Mr. Capuano received a separate grant of RSUs which remain unvested until the third anniversary of the grant date, at which time they vest in full assuming Mr. Capuano remains continuously employed during that period. This separate RSU award had a grant value approximately the same as the annual cash incentive that Mr. Capuano earned for fiscal year 2016. The Committee established the separate RSU award based on Mr. Capuano’s most recent annual cash incentive in order to further the objective of compensating Mr. Capuano primarily in recognition of his development activities and performance. By also imposing three-year cliff vesting, this grant offers additional retention value and further links Mr. Capuano’s pay with the long-term interests of stockholders.

PSUs

PSUs are restricted stock units that may be earned after three years based on achievement of pre-established targets for RevPAR Index, gross room openings, and net administrative expenses over a three-year period, with one-third of the target number of shares subject to each performance measure. These three financial and operating metrics (the same measures that were selected for the 2016-2018 PSU performance period) were selected by the Committee because they reflect management efforts that are directly tied to the long-term strength of our brands, as opposed to other performance measures that are more prone to be impacted by economic or other factors beyond our executives’ control. We believe these are key drivers of long-term value creation. For the 2017-2019 PSU performance period, the performance measures are:

Executive and Director Compensation

For each of the three metrics, NEOs can receive 50% of the target PSU award level if performance is at least threshold and up to 150% of the target PSU award level if performance is above target. PSUs do not accrue dividend equivalents or pay dividends; NEOs only enjoy dividends and other rights of stockholders after the awards vest and shares are issued. The Committee approved the performance goals, which are competitively sensitive, at levels that are consistent with our strong historical performance and with internal forecasts at the time of grant so that target performance would be difficult, but attainable. It is also reasonably possible that awards could fall to zero or rise to maximum achievement levels.

In February 2018, the PSUs granted for the 2015-17 performance period were settled at an overall payout of 125% of target, based on performance over the three-year performance period against pre-established goals for Global Gross Room Openings (96% of target payout), Global RevPAR Index (150% of target payout) and Global Net Administrative Expenses (128% of target payout). The target and results for each component relative to target are shown in the graph below.

In February 2018, the supplemental PSUs granted to Mr. Sorenson for the 2015-17 performance period were settled at an overall target payout of 100%, based on performance over the three-year performance period against different pre-established goals for Global Gross Room Openings. Mr. Sorenson is required to hold the shares (net of tax withholdings) for two years following vesting of the shares.

Supplemental Stock Awards

Supplemental stock awards tend to be infrequent and may be presented for consideration at quarterly Board meetings in recognition of special performance, promotions or assumption of additional responsibilities, to retain key talent or as a sign-on employment inducement. None of the NEOs received a supplemental stock award in 2017.

In 2016, the NEOs were granted supplemental Business Integration PSUs (“BI-PSUs”) with vesting criteria tied to specific goals that we view as key drivers to realizing the benefits of the Starwood combination and creating long-term value: overall management synergies and cost savings, hotel RevPAR Index improvements, and hotel margin improvements. Performance under these BI-PSUs will be determined after the end of 2018.

Grant Timing and Pricing

The Company typically grants annual stock awards in February each year on the second trading day following the Company’s annual earnings conference call for the prior fiscal year. This timing is designed to avoid the possibility that the Company could grant stock awards prior to the release of material, non-public information that may result in an increase or decrease in its stock price. Similarly, supplemental stock awards may be granted throughout the year, but not during Company-imposed trading black-out periods in Company stock.

Executives derive value from their SARs based on the appreciation in the value of the underlying shares of Company stock. For purposes of measuring this appreciation, the Company sets the exercise or base price as the average of the high and low quoted prices of the Company stock on the date the awards are granted. This average price valuation is common practice and offers no inherent pricing advantage to the executive or the Company.