Proxy voting options

Your vote is important!

Whether or not you expect to attend our shareholder’s meeting, we urge you to vote your shares. You may vote by phone, via the Internet, or by signing, dating, and returning the enclosed proxy card or voting instruction form at your earliest convenience. Your prompt vote will ensure the presence of a quorum at the meeting and will save us the expense and extra work of additional solicitation. If you vote now and later decide to change your vote or to vote your shares at the meeting, you may do so by following instructions found elsewhere in this proxy statement. Your vote by proxy is revocable at your option any time prior to the meeting.

The fastest and most convenient way to vote your shares is by the Internet or telephone, using the instructions on this page. Internet and telephone votes are immediately confirmed and tabulated, and reduce postage and proxy tabulation costs.

If you prefer to vote by mail, please return the enclosed proxy card or voting instruction form in the addressed, prepaid envelope we have provided. Do not return the paper ballot if you vote via the Internet or by telephone.

Vote by Internet

www.proxyvote.com

Internet voting is available 24 hours a day, 7 days a week.

Instructions:

Vote by telephone

1-800-690-6903 via touch tone phone

Telephonic voting is available toll-free 24 hours a day, 7 days a week.

Instructions:

Time, Place and Voting Matters

Meeting agenda

The board of directors recommends that you vote “For” each nominee listed in the table below, which provides summary information about each nominee. A full description of each nominee’s skills and qualifications begins on page 14. Each director is elected annually.

Current director, Gordon D. Harnett, who serves as Chairman of the Board of Directors and chairs the Nominating Committee, will be retiring from the board of directors at the annual meeting, at which time the size of the board of directors will be reduced from nine to eight.

AC —   Audit and Risk Management Committee

CC —   Compensation and Human Resources Committee

NC —   Nominating and Corporate Governance Committee

EC —   Executive Committee

C —  Chair

M —  Member

F —  Financial expert

Our board of directors and its Nominating and Corporate Governance Committee believe broad and diverse experience and varying lengths of tenure are critical elements of a highly functioning board. The board’s experience enables it to make sound decisions that

support shareholder value, while the varying tenures of its members provide a balance of institutional knowledge and fresh perspectives. The following charts reflect the tenure, experience and qualifications of the nominees for election as directors.

Our board of directors and management firmly embrace good and accountable corporate governance. We believe an attentive board, held to the highest standards of corporate governance, is a tangible advantage for our shareholders and for our businesses. Our board makes substantial efforts to meet such standards.

We elect all directors annually to one-year terms. Annual elections allow shareholders to review each director’s skills and experience and approve his or her nomination at each annual meeting.

Our directors must be elected by majority vote. Any nominee in an uncontested election who receives more “withhold” votes than votes “for” must promptly offer his or her resignation. The Nominating and Corporate Governance Committee will consider the resignation and recommend either accepting it or rejecting it to the board, which will act within 90 days after the shareholders’ meeting. The resigning director will not participate in these discussions.

The chairman of our board of directors is independent. The position of Chairman of the Board of Directors at EnPro Industries is a non-executive position. An independent director has held this position since the inception of our company in 2002.

Our CEO is the only EnPro employee on our board. Our Chief Executive Officer is normally the only employee

who serves as a director. No employee except the Chief Executive Officer has ever been a member of our board.

Our independent directors meet regularly in executive session. Our non-management directors meet regularly without members of management present. These sessions are presided over by the Chairman of the Board of Directors.

Our directors are required to own our company’s stock. Our directors are required to own shares in our company equal in value to five times the annual cash retainer they receive. New directors have five years from the time they join the board to accumulate these shares. All current directors who have served on the board for at least five years meet this requirement.

Board refreshment balances experience with fresh insights. We seek to balance directors who know and understand our company with those who bring fresh perspectives to governance and management. The average tenure of our independent directors is 4.6 years.

The board and each committee perform comprehensive annual evaluations. Evaluations allow our directors to assess their effectiveness at both the committee and the board level and include an individual director assessment component to permit each director to evaluate the contributions of each of the other directors.

Our board of directors recommends that you vote “For” our advisory proposal on executive compensation. The non-binding, advisory vote gives our shareholders the opportunity to approve the compensation paid to individuals identified as named executive officers in this proxy statement.

Our compensation practices

Our programs are designed to reward success

Our compensation programs enable us to align the interests of our executive officers with the interests of our shareholders and to reward our executives for superior performance. This practice allows us to attract and retain talented and highly motivated executive officers who are capable of driving our success and building value for our shareholders.

Our executive officers’ compensation:

In structuring annual and long-term incentive compensation opportunities, we select performance measures that we believe significantly drive the value of our company. For awards made in 2016, we selected a combination of incentive performance measures that focus on driving operating earnings and rewarding the appropriate use of capital, and include a relative shareholder return measure to evaluate our performance relative to a peer group. We set goals against these measures and make little or no payment for poor performance against our goals, though our executives can earn significant payment relative to their salary levels for superior performance against them. We make annual awards of restricted stock units which vest after three

years, both to encourage retention and to provide an incentive for performance to increase the value of our shares.

While we generally set measures based on company-wide performance (and for this purpose we include our de-consolidated Garlock Sealing Technologies LLC (“GST”) subsidiary in our results as if it were reconsolidated), for annual incentive awards to divisional personnel, 75% of the award is based on the respective division’s performance with the remaining 25% is based on company-wide performance. We believe that this weighting toward divisional performance not only improves the line-of-sight for the incentives to employees in our divisions, but appropriately recognizes and rewards collaboration of divisional personnel across the company.

We believe our compensation structure aligns with the interests of our shareholders and results in payment based on our performance.

We routinely engage with our shareholders and have addressed their concerns about our compensation programs

Through the course of each year, we have dialogues with numerous shareholders, including regular conversations with many of our largest shareholders. We cover a wide range of topics in these discussions, including executive compensation. In these conversations, our shareholders generally support our pay practices and strategic direction. We take their views into account as we seek to align our policies and practices with their interests.

We employ best practices in executive compensation

Changes in 2016

We made the following changes to our compensation program in 2016:

Compensation analysis

Our compensation program ties incentive compensation pay to the achievement of both annual and long-term goals for the performance of our company. We set these goals each year and tie both annual and three-year incentive awards to achieving them. We make little or no incentive compensation payment for poor performance against our goals, but our executives can earn significant

payment relative to their salary levels for superior performance against them.

When 2016 annual operating performance goals were set, we anticipated a continuation of economic trends that had adversely affected a number of the markets we serve, particularly oil and gas, trucking and metals and mining. The Committee established target corporate performance levels for 2016 that it considered aggressive in light of the circumstances. The extent of the adverse trends during 2016 was greater than we had expected. Nearly all of the markets that we serve saw negative year-over-year trends, and our sales have closely tracked those trends. As a result, the year did not progress as we had expected and payouts for corporate-level annual performance awards were only 80.8% of the target amount.

For the long-term incentive compensation awards for the 2014-2016 performance cycle, we established absolute goals for growth of equity value above targeted returns and calculated equity value based on a multiple of adjusted EBITDA. Our ability to grow adjusted EBITDA is dependent in part on economic conditions in the markets we serve, which, with limited exceptions, have been sluggish during the three-year measurement period for these awards. Principally as a result of these economic conditions, we were unable to achieve growth in adjusted EBITDA at a rate sufficient to trigger any payout for these awards.

As a result, the incentive award payouts to our CEO were 74% lower for 2016 than for 2015, and his total compensation, as reported in the Summary Compensation Table included on page 41, was 21% lower for 2016 compared to 2015.

Under the Dodd-Frank Act, we are required to provide shareholders with the opportunity, at least every six years, to cast a non-binding, advisory vote on whether future advisory votes on executive compensation should be held every one year, every two years or every three years. Shareholders last voted on such a proposal at the 2011 annual meeting, and more votes were cast at that meeting in favor of having advisory shareholder votes to approve executive compensation every one year than were cast in favor of any of the other alternatives. Since 2011, we have provided our shareholders an opportunity

at each annual meeting to cast votes on an advisory resolution to approve the compensation paid to our named executive officers as disclosed in our proxy statement for that meeting. Our board of directors continues to believe that the frequency of every “1 Year” for the advisory vote on executive compensation is the optimal interval for conducting and responding to such advisory votes and recommends that you vote for the option of every “1 Year” for the frequency of future advisory votes on executive compensation.

At the annual meeting, shareholders will be asked to consider and approve in separate votes our amended and restated Senior Executive Annual Performance Plan (the “Annual Plan”) and our amended and restated Long-Term Incentive Plan (the “LTIP”) which have been established by the Board of Directors for certain executive officers. Under Section 162(m) of the Internal

Revenue Code, as amended (the “Code”), periodic shareholder approval of the Annual Plan and of the LTIP is required to enable us to obtain a tax deduction for awards paid under the respective plan to certain of our executive officers whose compensation for the taxable year is in excess of $1 million. Our shareholders last approved a version of the Annual Plan and the LTIP in

2012. The provisions of Section 162(m) of the Code require that the Annual Plan and the LTIP be reapproved by shareholders at least every five years in order for us to continue excluding the amounts paid under the Annual

Plan and the LTIP from the $1 million deductibility limit. Therefore, shareholders are being requested to again approve the Annual Plan and the LTIP.

The enclosed proxy is solicited on behalf of the board of directors of EnPro Industries, Inc., in connection with our 2017 annual meeting of shareholders. The meeting will be held on Wednesday, April 26, 2017, at 11:30 a.m. at The Sanctuary at Kiawah Island, One Sanctuary Beach Drive, Kiawah Island, South Carolina 29455. You may use the enclosed proxy card to vote your shares whether or not you attend the meeting. Please vote by following the instructions on the card.

Because your vote is very important, we encourage you to cast it promptly by telephone or over the Internet, or by dating, signing and returning your proxy card in the enclosed envelope. Submitting your proxy in any of these manners means your shares of our common stock will be voted as you specify by the individuals named on the proxy card.

This proxy statement contains important information for you to consider when deciding how to vote on the matters brought before the meeting. Please read it carefully.

We are mailing our 2016 annual report, including financial statements, with this proxy statement to all shareholders who hold shares directly in their own names. We will begin mailing materials to these registered shareholders on or around March 23, 2017. If you are a beneficial owner whose shares are held in street name in an account at a bank, securities broker or other nominee, you should receive the annual report, proxy statement and a proxy card directly from the nominee.

Any shareholder may request additional copies of these materials from our shareholder relations department, which can be reached via email at investor@enproindustries.com or by calling 704-731-1522.

What is the purpose of the annual meeting?

At our annual meeting, shareholders will act on the following proposals:

Our board of directors has submitted these proposals. We are not aware of any other business to be addressed

at the meeting; however, other business may be addressed if it properly comes before the meeting.

Who is entitled to vote at the meeting?

You may vote if you owned EnPro common stock as of the close of business on the record date, March 9, 2017. Each share of common stock is entitled to one vote on each matter considered at the meeting. At the close of business on the record date, 21,414,881 shares of EnPro common stock were outstanding and eligible to vote. The amount does not include 193,699 shares held by an EnPro subsidiary.

Who can attend the meeting?

Anyone who owns shares as of the record date may attend. This includes all registered shareholders (or their duly appointed representatives) and beneficial owners presenting satisfactory evidence of ownership as of the record date. Our invited guests may also attend the meeting.

Are there any special instructions for attending the meeting?

At the security gate at the entrance of the Kiawah Island property you will be required to inform the security personnel that you plan to attend the EnPro Industries annual meeting of shareholders to be held at The Sanctuary. You will be given a vehicle pass to gain access to the Kiawah Island property that will permit you to park in the parking lots located adjacent to The Sanctuary facility. Signage at The Sanctuary will direct you to the room in which the meeting will be held.

How do I vote?

Registered shares: Registered shareholders have four voting options:

Even if you plan to attend the meeting, we encourage you to vote your shares by submitting your proxy. If you choose to vote your shares at the meeting, please bring proof of stock ownership and proof of your identity for entrance to the meeting.

Beneficial shares: If you hold your EnPro shares in street name, your ability to vote by Internet or telephone depends on the voting process of the bank, broker or other nominee through which you hold the shares. Please follow their directions carefully. If you want to vote at the meeting, you must request a legal proxy from your bank, broker or other nominee and present that proxy, together with proof of your identity, for entrance to the meeting.

Every vote is important! Please vote your shares promptly.

How do I vote my 401(k) shares?

If you hold EnPro shares in the company’s 401(k) plan, the plan’s trustee will vote your shares according to the instructions you provide when you complete and submit the proxy instructions you receive from the plan manager.

If you hold EnPro shares in both an EnPro 401(k) plan and in a registered account outside the plan, and if your plan information matches the information we have on your registered account, you will receive one proxy card representing all shares you own.

If you hold EnPro shares outside the plan in street name, or if your registered account information is different from your plan account information, you will receive separate proxies, one for shares you hold in the plan and one for shares you hold outside the plan.

What can I do if I change my mind after I vote my shares?

Even if you have submitted your vote, you may revoke your proxy and change your vote at any time before voting begins at the annual meeting.

Registered shareholders: Registered holders may change their votes in one of two ways:

Beneficial shareholders: If you hold your shares in street name, you should contact your bank, broker or other nominee to find out how to revoke your proxy.

Is there a minimum quorum necessary to hold the meeting?

A quorum is established when the majority of EnPro shares entitled to vote are present at the meeting in person or by proxy. Abstentions and broker “non-votes” are counted as present and entitled to vote for purposes of establishing a quorum. If you return valid proxy instructions or vote in person at the meeting, you will be considered part of the quorum.

How will my vote be counted?

If you return your proxy card with specific voting instructions or submit your proxy by telephone or the Internet, your EnPro shares will be voted as you have instructed.

If you are a registered shareholder and submit a proxy by mail, telephone or the Internet without specific voting instructions, your shares will be voted according to our board of directors’ recommendations. If you do not submit valid proxy instructions or vote in person at the meeting, your shares will not be voted.

If you are a beneficial shareholder and do not give your bank, broker or other nominee instructions for voting your

shares, your shares will be considered to be “uninstructed.” Your nominee generally has the authority to vote “uninstructed” shares at its discretion only on matters that are “routine” under the rules of the New York Stock Exchange (NYSE). For our 2017 meeting, only the ratification of our independent accounting firm (Proposal 6) is considered routine by the NYSE. The election of directors and matters related to executive compensation are not considered routine. Without your instruction, your shares will not be voted in these matters (Proposals 1 through 5).

What vote is required to approve each item?

Proposal 1: Election of directors. Directors are elected by a plurality of the votes cast in person or by proxy at the meeting. “Plurality” means that the director nominees who receive the largest number of votes cast are elected, up to the eight directors to be elected at the meeting. Un-voted shares will have no impact on the election of directors. Unless a proxy includes proper instructions to “Withhold” a vote for any or all nominees, the proxy will be voted “For” each of the nominees.

In an uncontested election, any nominee who receives more “Withhold” votes than votes “For” must promptly offer his or her resignation. The Nominating and Corporate Governance Committee will review the resignation and recommend a course of action to the board. The full board, excluding the resigning director, will act within 90 days after the shareholders meeting to accept or reject the resignation. The board’s decision and an explanation of the process used to reach it will be disclosed publicly on Form 8-K.

Proposal 2: Advisory vote to approve executive compensation. The advisory resolution to approve the compensation paid to our named executive officers will be approved if more votes are cast “For” the resolution than are cast “Against” it. Although this advisory vote is not binding under applicable law, our board will review the results and take them, and the views expressed by our shareholders, into account in determining our executive compensation practices.

Proposal 3. Selection of frequency of future shareholder advisory votes to approve executive compensation. The frequency of the advisory vote on executive compensation receiving the greatest number of votes (every one year, every two years or every three years) will be considered the preference selected by the shareholders. Although this advisory vote is non-binding, as provided by law, our board will review the results of the vote and, consistent with our record of shareholder engagement, will take it into account in making determinations concerning the frequency of future advisory votes on executive compensation.

Proposal 4: Approval of the Annual Plan. The Annual Plan will be approved if more votes are cast “For” the proposal than are cast “Against” it.

Proposal 5: Approval of the LTIP. The LTIP will be approved if more votes are cast “For” the proposal than are cast “Against” it.

Proposal 6: Ratification of PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP as our independent registered public accounting firm for 2017. The ratification of the appointment of our independent accounting firm will be approved if more votes are cast “For” the proposal than are cast “Against” it.

Other business. Any other business that properly comes before the meeting, or any adjournment of the meeting, will be approved if more votes are cast “For” the proposal than “Against” the proposal.

How do broker non-votes and abstentions count for voting purposes?

“Broker non-votes” arise when beneficial shareholders do not give their banks, brokers or other nominees instructions for voting their shares and the banks, brokers or other nominees do not have authority to vote the shares on a matter because the matter is not routine. Abstentions and broker non-votes will count for determining whether a quorum is present for the meeting. Because directors are elected by a plurality of the votes cast, broker non-votes and abstentions will not count in determining the outcome of the election of directors. For all other proposals on the agenda for the annual meeting and with respect to any other business as may properly come before the meeting or any adjournment of the meeting, only votes “For” or “Against” the proposal count—accordingly, broker non-votes, if any, and abstentions will not be counted in determining the outcome of the votes on those proposals.

Is there a list of shareholders entitled to vote at the annual meeting?

You may examine a list of the shareholders entitled to vote at the meeting. The list will be available at our offices at 5605 Carnegie Boulevard, Suite 500, Charlotte, North Carolina, from March 23, 2017 through the end of the meeting.

What are the board’s recommendations?

Your board of directors recommends that you vote:

If you return a valid proxy card or respond to our proxy by telephone or Internet and do not include instructions on how you want to vote, your shares will be voted in accordance with the board’s recommendations.

How can I find out the results of the vote?

We will publish final voting results in a report on Form 8-K to be filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) within four business days after the meeting. We will also post the voting results on our website, www.enproindustries.com.

What is “householding” and how does it affect me?

When two or more shareholders are in the same household and receive mail at the same address, SEC rules allow us to deliver only one proxy statement and annual report to that address, reducing our cost for preparing and delivering proxy materials. If you fall into this category and would like separate mailings of our proxy statement and annual report, you may request them at no cost to you by contacting us at investor@enproindustries.com or by calling 704-731-1522. Registered shareholders who would like separate mailings in the future (or who would like to consolidate future mailings) may request them using the contact information above. Investors whose shares are held in street name by a bank, broker or other nominee should request separate mailings (or consolidation of mailings) from the nominee.

Can I access these proxy materials on the Internet?

This proxy statement and our 2016 annual report to shareholders, which includes our 2016 annual report on Form 10-K, are available at http://www.enproindustries.com/shareholder-meeting.

Registered shareholders can choose to receive these documents over the Internet in the future by accessing www.proxyvote.com and following the instructions provided on that website. Choosing to receive your materials over the Internet gives you full access to all materials and saves us printing and mailing expenses. If you make this choice, you will receive an e-mail prior to next year’s meeting notifying you that our proxy materials and annual report are available for online review. The e-mail will also include instructions for electronic voting. Should you desire to end electronic delivery and again receive paper copies of the materials, please notify us by letter to 5605 Carnegie Boulevard, Suite 500, Charlotte, North Carolina 28209, Attention: Shareholder Relations.

Beneficial owners should request instructions for receiving future proxy statements and annual reports over the Internet from their bank, broker or other nominee.

Who will solicit votes and pay for the costs of this proxy solicitation?

We will pay the costs of the solicitation. Although our officers, directors and employees may personally solicit proxies, they will not receive any additional compensation for doing so. We may also solicit proxies by issuing press releases, posting information on our website, www.enproindustries.com, and placing advertisements in periodicals or on websites. D.F. King & Co. is assisting us in the solicitation of proxies and provides us with advice and support related to solicitation. We do not expect the total costs to us for D.F. King’s services to exceed $20,000.

In addition, if banks, brokers and other nominees representing beneficial owners of shares make the request, we will reimburse them for their expenses in forwarding voting materials and obtaining voting instructions from beneficial owners of our shares.

Who will count the votes?

Broadridge Financial Solutions will act as the master tabulator and count the votes.

Section 16(a) of the Exchange Act requires our directors and officers and people who own more than 10% of our common stock to file with the Securities and Exchange Commission initial reports of ownership and reports of changes in ownership of our common stock. The SEC requires these people to give us copies of all Section 16(a) reports they file.

We have reviewed the copies of all reports furnished to us. Based solely on this review, we believe that no director, officer, or 10% shareholder failed to timely file in 2016 any report required by Section 16(a), other than one Form 5 to report three small acquisitions (each of less than four shares pursuant to the re-investment of dividends) was filed late by David L. Hauser.

At our annual meeting, shareholders are asked to elect eight directors who will hold office until our 2017 annual meeting or until their respective successors are elected and qualified. Our board of directors presently consists of nine directors, all of whom were elected at the 2016 annual meeting of shareholders. All of the nominees are incumbent directors whose terms would otherwise expire upon the election of directors at the meeting. Gordon D. Harnett, a current director, has not been nominated for re-election at the 2017 annual meeting and will retire from the board of directors at that time pursuant to the age provisions of our Corporate Governance Guidelines. The board of directors has adopted a resolution to reduce the size of the board to eight directors effective upon the commencement of the annual meeting.

Since December 2011 and upon Mr. Harnett’s retirement from the board of directors at the annual meeting, five directors will have retired from service and five new directors have joined the board. This has been due in

part to the retirement and replacement of directors who had joined our board in 2002 in connection with our spinout from Goodrich Corporation. As a result, the average tenure of the independent directors nominated for election at the annual meeting is 4.6 years.

All nominees have indicated that they are willing to serve as directors if elected. Properly executed proxies that do not contain voting instructions will be voted for the election of each of these nominees. If any nominee should become unable or unwilling to serve, the proxies will be voted for the election of a person designated by the board of directors to replace the nominee. Under our bylaws no person less than 18 years of age is eligible to be elected as a director.

The board of directors unanimously recommends that you vote “FOR” the election of each of the nominees for director named on the following pages.

Nominees for election

Stephen E. Macadam

Chief Executive Officer and President

Age 56

Director since 2008

Experience:

Mr. Macadam has served as our Chief Executive Officer and President since April 2008. Previously, he was Chief Executive Officer of BlueLinx Holdings Inc. Before joining BlueLinx in October 2005, Mr. Macadam had been the President and Chief Executive Officer of Consolidated Container Company LLC since August 2001.

He served previously with Georgia-Pacific Corp. where he was Executive Vice President, Pulp & Paperboard from July 2000 until August 2001, and Senior Vice President, Containerboard & Packaging from March 1998 until July 2000. Mr. Macadam held positions of increasing responsibility with McKinsey and Company, Inc. from 1988 until 1998, culminating in the role of principal in charge of McKinsey’s Charlotte, North Carolina operation.

He received a B.S. in mechanical engineering from the University of Kentucky, an M.S. in finance from Boston College and an M.B.A. from Harvard University, where he was a Baker Scholar.

Mr. Macadam’s employment agreement provides that during the term of his employment with EnPro he will be included in the slate nominated by the board of directors for election as a member of the board.

Current public company directorships:

Public company directorships in the last five years:

Qualifications:

Thomas M. Botts

Age 62

Director since 2012

Experience:

Mr. Botts retired from Royal Dutch Shell on December 31, 2012 as executive vice president, global manufacturing, Shell Downstream Inc. He was responsible for Shell’s global manufacturing business, including all refineries and chemical complexes.

He joined Shell in 1977 as a production engineer and served in a number of corporate and operating roles including executive vice president for exploration and production (E&P) in Europe, leading Shell’s largest E&P unit. He held those responsibilities from 2003 to 2009.

He has been a member of the board of directors of the National Association of Manufacturers, a member of the American Petroleum Institute Downstream Committee, and a member of the council of overseers for the Jones Graduate School of Business at Rice University.

He currently is a non-Executive Director for John Wood Group PLC, an international energy services company based in the United Kingdom, a member of the board of directors of the University of Wyoming Foundation, Chairman of the Governor’s Tier 1 Task Force at the University of Wyoming, a member of the Energy Resources Council, University of Wyoming, and a member of the Society of Petroleum Engineers.

Mr. Botts received a B.S. in Civil Engineering from the University of Wyoming.

Current public company directorships:

Qualifications:

Felix M. Brueck

Age 61

Director since 2014

Experience:

Mr. Brueck is a Director Emeritus of McKinsey & Company, Inc., a global consulting firm. He was a Director at McKinsey prior to his retirement in 2012. During his almost 30-year career with McKinsey, Mr. Brueck specialized in counseling clients in operational and organizational transformations of entire companies, major functions or business units in technologically complex industries. He was based in offices in Munich, Tokyo and Cleveland.

While at McKinsey, Mr. Brueck led the Firm’s Manufacturing Practice in the Americas and its Organizational Effectiveness Practice in the Americas. He was a founder of McKinsey’s Performance Transformation Practice.

Prior to joining McKinsey, Mr. Brueck worked as an engineer for Robert Bosch GmbH.

Mr. Brueck received a Dipl. Ing. (the equivalent of a Master’s Degree in Mechanical Engineering) from RWTH Aachen University in Germany and a Master’s Degree in International Management from Thunderbird School of Global Management.

Qualifications:

B. Bernard Burns, Jr.

Age 68

Director since 2011

Experience:

Mr. Burns’ career has focused on corporate law, industrial manufacturing, mergers and acquisitions, and service on the boards of companies engaged in a variety of businesses.

Mr. Burns is currently counsel to the law firm McGuireWoods LLP, and was a partner of that firm from 2001 to 2011, and of a predecessor firm from 1979 to 1989. He also serves as the Managing Director of McGuireWoods Capital Group, a merger-and-acquisition advisory business, which he co-founded in 2001. Prior to 2001, Mr. Burns served in various executive capacities with United Dominion Industries Limited, a diversified industrial manufacturer. At United Dominion, he was Senior Vice President and General Counsel from 1993 to 1996, and president of several of its operating segments and divisions from 1996 to 2001.

Mr. Burns earned a B.A. from Furman University and a J.D. from the Duke University School of Law and completed the Advanced Management Program at Duke University’s Fuqua School of Business.

Qualifications:

Diane C. Creel

Age 68

Director since 2009

Experience:

Ms. Creel served as Chairman, Chief Executive Officer and President of Ecovation, Inc., a waste-to-energy systems company, from May 2003 until her retirement in September 2008. Before joining Ecovation, Ms. Creel was Chief Executive Officer and President of Earth Tech, Inc., an international consulting engineering firm, a position she held from January 1991 to May 2003. She joined Earth Tech as Vice President in 1984 and served there as Chief Operating Officer from 1987 to 1991.

Ms. Creel was director of business development and communications for CH2M Hill from 1978 to 1984, manager of communications for Caudill Rowlett Scott from 1976 to 1978, and director of public relations for LBC&W, Architects-Engineers-Planners from 1971 to 1976.

Ms. Creel has a B.A. and M.A. from the University of South Carolina.

Current public company directorships:

Public company directorships in the last five years:

Qualifications:

David L. Hauser

Age 65

Director since 2007

Experience:

Mr. Hauser was affiliated with FairPoint Communications, Inc., a communications services company, from July 2009 until March 2011. He joined FairPoint as Chairman of the Board and Chief Executive Officer and served as a consultant to the company from August 2010 until March 2011. In October 2009, FairPoint Communications and all of its direct and indirect subsidiaries filed voluntary petitions for relief under Chapter 11 of Title 11 of the United States Code in the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York. The Nominating and Corporate Governance Committee has evaluated this event with respect to Mr. Hauser’s nomination for reelection to the board of directors. Considering the well-publicized challenges facing FairPoint Communications at the time Mr. Hauser joined the company, his awareness of those challenges and his commitment to FairPoint Communications in the face of those challenges, the committee and the full board support his nomination for re-election to the board in 2017.

Prior to joining FairPoint, Mr. Hauser had a 35-year career with Duke Energy Corporation, one of the largest electric power companies in the United States. He was Group Executive and Chief Financial Officer of Duke Energy from April 2006 until June 30, 2009, and was Chief Financial Officer and Group Vice President from February 2004 to April 2006. He was named acting Chief Financial Officer in November 2003. He was Senior Vice President and Treasurer from June 1998 to November 2003. During his first 20 years with Duke Energy, Mr. Hauser served in various accounting positions, including controller.

Mr. Hauser is a member of the board of trustees of the University of North Carolina at Charlotte and a past member of the board of trustees of Furman University. He has retired as a member of the North Carolina Association of Certified Public Accountants.

Mr. Hauser received a B.A. from Furman University and an M.B.A. from the University of North Carolina at Charlotte.

Current public company directorships:

Qualifications:

John Humphrey

Age 51

Director since 2015

Experience

Mr. Humphrey has served, since 2011, as Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of Roper Technologies, Inc., a Fortune 1000 company that designs and develops software and engineered products and solutions for healthcare, transportation, food, energy, water, education and other niche markets worldwide. Mr. Humphrey has announced his intention to retire from Roper, transitioning from his role as Chief Financial Officer on May 15, 2017 and assisting with the transition of his other responsibilities during the remainder of the year. From 2006 to 2011, he served as Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of Roper. Prior to joining Roper, Mr. Humphrey served as Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of Honeywell Aerospace, the aviation segment of Honeywell International Inc., after serving in several financial positions with Honeywell International and its predecessor AlliedSignal. Mr. Humphrey’s earlier career included 6 years with Detroit Diesel Corporation, a manufacturer of heavy-duty engines, in a variety of engineering and manufacturing management positions.

Mr. Humphrey is a member of the Board of Advisors of the Elon University Love School of Business.

Mr. Humphrey received a B.S. in Industrial Engineering from Purdue University and an M.B.A. in Finance from the University of Michigan.

Qualifications:

Kees van der Graaf

Age 66

Director since 2012

Experience

Mr. van der Graaf is owner and chairman of FSHD Unlimited, a biotechnology company he founded in October 2014. Mr. van der Graaf was an Executive-in-Residence at IMD International, an international business school based in Lausanne, Switzerland between 2008 and 2011 and was Co-director of the IMD Global Center in 2011.

Prior to joining IMD, Mr. van der Graaf enjoyed a 32-year career with Unilever NV and Unilever PLC, which operate the Unilever Group, a multinational supplier of fast-moving consumer goods. At Unilever, Mr. van der Graaf served as President of Ice Cream and Frozen Foods — Europe from 2001 to 2004 and as a member of the Board and Executive Committee of Unilever NV and Unilever PLC from 2004 to 2008. During that period, he had responsibilities for the Global Foods division and later for the European Business group.

Until February 2015, Mr. van der Graaf served as a member of the board of directors of Ben & Jerry’s, a wholly owned subsidiary of Unilever, which is charged with preserving and expanding Ben & Jerry’s social mission, brand integrity and product quality.

He has also served as a member of the supervisory boards of several privately held European-based companies and served as chairman of the supervisory board of the University of Twente in The Netherlands.

Mr. van der Graaf received a degree in mechanical engineering and an M.B.A. from the University of Twente.

Current public company directorships:

Public company directorships in the last five years:

Qualifications:

The primary responsibility of our board of directors is to oversee and direct management in its conduct of our business. Members of the board are kept informed about our business through discussions with the Chairman and our officers, by reviewing materials provided to them, and by participating in board and committee meetings. In addition, non-management directors meet periodically in executive session without members of management present. These sessions are presided over by the Chairman of the Board of Directors, presently Mr. Harnett.

We believe that the positions of Chairman of the Board of Directors and Chief Executive Officer should be held by separate individuals, and they have been since the

inception of our company. The role of Chairman is a non-executive position currently filled by Mr. Harnett, an independent director. Mr. Macadam, our Chief Executive Officer and the principal executive officer of our company, is the only member of our board who is employed by the company. This structure continues to be appropriate for our company given the individuals serving in those positions. Mr. Harnett is a former chief executive officer of a publicly held company and an independent director of other public companies. This experience, coupled with his knowledge of and familiarity with our company and its businesses through his service on our board of directors, gives him the ability to serve as a valued sounding board for our Chief Executive Officer.

Our board of directors has four committees:

To maximize the efficiency of our board, all of our independent directors serve on each committee other than the Executive Committee. For a list of our independent directors, see “Corporate Governance Policies and Practices — Director Independence.”

Each board committee operates under a written charter approved by the board. Copies of these charters are available on our website at www.enproindustries.com. Click on “For Investors” and then “Corporate Governance” and then “Committees” and look under “Committee Charters.” Copies of the charters are also available in print to any shareholder who requests them.

Executive Committee. The committee is chaired by Mr. Macadam and includes Mr. Harnett. Its primary function is to exercise the powers of the board as and when directed by the board or when the board is not in session, excluding powers which may not be delegated to a committee of directors under North Carolina law. The committee did not meet in 2016.

Audit and Risk Management Committee. The Audit and Risk Management Committee assists the board in monitoring the integrity of our financial statements, our compliance with legal and regulatory requirements, our management of areas of significant risk (including insurance, pension, asbestos, cybersecurity, environmental and litigation) and the qualifications, independence and performance of our internal auditors and independent registered public accounting firm. This

committee has the sole authority to appoint or replace our independent registered public accounting firm and to approve all related fees. It met four times in 2016. Mr. Hauser is the chairman.

Compensation and Human Resources Committee. The Compensation and Human Resources Committee assists the board and management in overseeing the appropriateness and cost of our compensation and benefit programs, particularly for executives. The committee sets the salaries and annual bonus and long-term award opportunities for our senior executives, assesses the performance of our Chief Executive Officer, and oversees succession planning. Responsibility for the design, administration, asset management and funding policies of our qualified and non-qualified benefit plans is delegated to a benefits committee consisting of members of management. However, the Compensation Committee has expressly retained the authority to approve amendments to benefit plans (except those resulting from collective bargaining agreements) that would materially affect the cost, basic nature or financing of these plans. In addition, the committee approves all formal policies established by the benefits committee and reviews the benefits committee’s activities at least once a year. The committee met four times in 2016. Mr. Botts is the chairman.

Nominating and Corporate Governance Committee. The Nominating and Corporate Governance Committee assists the board and management in exercising sound corporate governance. This committee identifies and nominates individuals who are qualified to become members of the board, assesses the effectiveness of the board and its committees, and recommends board committee assignments. It also reviews various corporate governance issues, including those items discussed under “Corporate Governance Policies and Practices.” The committee met four times in 2016. Mr. Harnett is the chairman.

As described above, the Audit and Risk Management Committee assists the board in monitoring our compliance with legal and regulatory requirements and the way we manage areas of significant risk. The company’s internal audit group periodically analyzes risks to our company and reports the results of its

analysis to the Audit and Risk Management Committee. The head of the internal audit group reports directly to the Audit and Risk Management Committee and customarily attends meetings of that committee. Our General Counsel also customarily attends the committee’s meetings.

The board met seven times in 2016. Board and committee meetings are typically held on successive days, with meetings typically covering two days. The board conducts periodic visits to our facilities as part of its regularly scheduled meetings. All directors attended at

least 75% of the meetings of the full board and of the board committees on which they serve.

All directors are encouraged by policy to attend our annual meeting of shareholders and all of our directors attended our 2016 annual meeting.

The board regularly reviews our Corporate Governance Guidelines, taking into account recent trends in corporate governance and any new rules adopted by the NYSE and the SEC. Among other things, these guidelines specify that:

Our Corporate Governance Guidelines also:

Our Code of Business Conduct (the “Code”) applies to our directors and all EnPro employees, including our

principal executive, financial and accounting officers. The Code covers conflicts of interest, corporate opportunities, confidentiality, protection and proper use of company assets, fair dealing, compliance with laws (including insider trading laws), the accuracy and reliability of our books and records, and the reporting of illegal or unethical behavior.

The Code requires all transactions by directors or employees that would create a conflict of interest, including related party transactions that require disclosure in our proxy statement, to be reviewed by a member of our internal Corporate Compliance Committee or an attorney in our legal department. The Code also requires the transaction to be presented to our Chief Executive Officer and the Audit and Risk Management Committee. The Code does not include specific procedures for dealing with these transactions, but allows them to be dealt with case-by-case as they arise. All members of the board and all officers must annually certify their compliance with the Code. Each member of the board and each officer certified compliance without exception in the first quarter of 2017.

Copies of the Code and our Corporate Governance Guidelines are available on our website at www.enproindustries.com. From our home page, click on the “For Investors” tab, then on “Corporate Governance” and then, for the Code, click “Code of Conduct” and, for the Corporate Governance Guidelines, click on “Board of Directors” and then “Corporate Governance Guidelines.”

The EnPro board believes a substantial majority of directors should be independent. At its February 2017 meeting, the board considered the independence of each person nominated for election as a director at the 2017 annual meeting and determined that Mr. Botts, Mr. Brueck, Mr. Burns, Ms. Creel, Mr. Hauser, Mr. Humphrey and Mr. van der Graaf are independent. Mr. Macadam, the remaining member of our board, is an employee and is not considered independent.

To determine independence, the board used the definition of an “independent director” in the NYSE listing standards and our Corporate Governance Guidelines, which categorize a director as independent only if the board affirms the director has no outside material relationship with our company (either directly or as a director, partner, shareholder or officer of an organization that has a relationship with us).

Under our Corporate Governance Guidelines, a director may be deemed independent even though we have a relationship with an organization with which the director is affiliated as a director, partner, shareholder or officer. In such situations, the director is deemed independent so long as:

Under the guidelines, a director cannot be independent if he or she falls into one of the following categories:

Each director nominated for election at the 2017 annual meeting completed a questionnaire to identify any relationships the director may have with us or with any of our executive officers or other directors. After discussing all relationships disclosed in the responses to these questionnaires, the board determined that no director except Mr. Macadam has a material relationship with the company other than as a director and all except him are independent.

The board of directors and the Audit and Risk Management, Compensation and Human Resources, and Nominating and Corporate Governance committees each assess their performances with yearly self-evaluations. The evaluations are completed by means of a questionnaire submitted to the directors inviting written comments on all aspects of the board’s and each committee’s process. In addition, the evaluations include

an individual director assessment component to permit each director to evaluate the contributions of each of the other directors. The evaluations are summarized, reviewed by the Chairman of the Board and become the basis for discussions of board, committee and director performances and recommendations for improvements in the ways the board and committees function and directors perform their duties.

The board of directors has determined that Mr. Humphrey, a member of the Audit and Risk Management Committee, is an “audit committee financial expert” as defined in Item 401(h) of the SEC’s Regulation S-K. At its February 2017 meeting, the board determined that Mr. Humphrey, through his education and experience, including his experience as the Chief Financial Officer of Roper Technologies, Inc., has all of the following attributes:

When considering candidates for director, the Nominating and Corporate Governance Committee takes into account a number of factors, including whether the candidate is independent from management and the company, whether the candidate has relevant business experience, the composition of the existing board, matters of diversity (including diversity in professional experience and industry background), and the candidate’s existing commitments to other businesses. In addition, all candidates must meet the requirements of our Corporate Governance Guidelines. Those requirements include:

The Nominating and Corporate Governance Committee will consider candidates for director who are recommended by shareholders. Shareholders who wish to suggest a candidate for nomination should send a written statement addressed to our Secretary at 5605 Carnegie Boulevard, Suite 500, Charlotte, North Carolina 28209. See “Shareholder Proposals” on page 67 for a description of the requirements to be followed under our bylaws in submitting a candidate and the content of the required statements.

The Nominating and Corporate Governance Committee annually reviews a matrix, similar to the matrix appearing on page 3, which compares the skills of our current directors with all of the skills we have identified as necessary to maintain an attentive, high-functioning board. When the Nominating and Governance Committee identifies desirable skills that are lacking among incumbent directors, the Committee searches to identify candidates who would add the missing skills. The search includes soliciting suggestions from incumbent directors, management or others and evaluating suggestions submitted by shareholders. The Committee may also engage a third party to identify and evaluate candidates.

The Committee evaluates the candidates and if it agrees on the suitability of a candidate, the candidate is interviewed by each member of the board of directors, generally in separate meetings. The Committee may also ask the candidate to meet with management.

If the Committee concludes a candidate has skills which would add value to the board and if the candidate meets all of the requirements for membership, the Committee will recommend the candidate to the full board for nomination for election or appointment (if the purpose of the search was to fill a vacancy).

Before recommending a sitting director for re-election, the Nominating and Corporate Governance Committee considers whether the director’s re-election would be consistent with the criteria for board membership in our Corporate Governance Guidelines (as described above), the skills identified in the matrix used by the Committee (as described above) and applicable rules and requirements of the SEC and NYSE. This process includes a review by the Nominating and Corporate Governance Committee of the responses to the annual director questionnaires.

Our directors share certain characteristics that we believe are critical to effective board membership. They include sound and mature business judgment essential to intelligent decision-making, experience in policy-making, integrity and honesty, and the ability to collaborate effectively. These characteristics, and the specific experiences and qualifications noted in the biographies found in the section headed “Nominees for Election” support the board’s nomination for election of each of these individuals.

Shareholders and other interested parties can communicate with our board in various ways. They may write the board at 5605 Carnegie Boulevard, Suite 500, Charlotte, NC 28209; they may contact the board anonymously and confidentially through our EnTegrity Assistance Line; and they may attend our annual shareholders meeting, where they will have the opportunity to talk directly to members of our board.

Letters to the board should be addressed in care of our Secretary, who the board has authorized to receive and process written correspondence. He will direct correspondence about issues within the board’s scope of responsibility directly to the Chairman and to the chairman of any committee to which the correspondence relates. Customer complaints and other correspondence about ordinary business matters are sent directly to the applicable business. Correspondence of other types is not forwarded to the board but held by the Secretary and made available to any director who wishes to see it.

Shareholders and other interested parties who wish to send anonymous and confidential correspondence to the board may do so through our EnTegrity Assistance Line. The line is staffed by an independent third party who is responsible for receiving and forwarding messages on the line. Instructions for using the line are available under the “Corporate Governance” link accessed from the “For Investors” link on our website at www.enproindustries.com. Items addressed to the board of directors are forwarded to the Chairman of the Audit and Risk Management Committee, a non-management director. Items not addressed specifically to the board of directors are forwarded to our Director of Internal Audit, who reports directly to the Audit and Risk Management Committee and is a member of our internal Corporate Compliance Committee. The Director of Internal Audit periodically updates the Audit and Risk Management Committee about the investigation and resolution of all reports alleging financial and other types of misconduct.

In 2016, our non-employee directors received the following compensation:

Additional cash compensation is paid to:

In addition, each director may be granted phantom shares upon his or her initial election to the board. The amount of such an award is determined by the Nominating and Corporate Governance Committee and has generally been based on the number of days remaining in the year that the director is elected.

Employee directors receive no compensation for serving on our board.

Non-employee directors are generally granted phantom shares at the first meeting of the Compensation Committee each year. Phantom shares are fully vested when awarded and are paid in shares of common stock when a director ceases his or her service on the board.

Board members are required to own the company’s stock. Each director has five years from the date he or she joins the board to accumulate EnPro shares equal in value to at least five times the annual cash retainer paid to directors. Phantom shares count toward this requirement. We examine compliance with this policy each February. As of February 13, 2017, all directors who have served on the board for at least five years complied with the requirements.

A Deferred Compensation Plan allows non-employee directors to defer receipt of all or part of the cash portion of their annual retainer fees. The deferred portions of the fees can be directed to a cash account or a stock account. Fees deferred into a cash account are credited with a return based on an investment option chosen by the director from those available under our Retirement Savings Plan for Salaried Employees (excluding our

common stock). Fees deferred into a stock account are credited with stock units, each equal in value to the fair market value of one share of our common stock on a given date. All amounts deferred are payable when a director ceases his or her service on the board. As of December 31, 2016, the following directors had deferred compensation balances under the plan: Mr. Botts, 2,666

stock units; Mr. Brueck, 3,960 stock units; Mr. Harnett, $223,266 and 6,683 stock units; and Mr. Hauser, $605,938 and 7,707 stock units.

The following table presents the compensation we paid to all non-employee directors for their service in 2016.

At its February 2017 meeting, the board of directors approved increasing each of the annual cash retainer and annual grant of phantom shares paid to all directors by $5,000, the cash retainer paid to the Chairman of the Board by $10,000, and the annual cash retainers paid to

the chairs of the Compensation and Human Resources Committee, Audit and Risk Management Committee and Nominating and Corporate Governance Committee by $3,000, $5,000 and $2,500, respectively.

The Audit Committee oversees the quality and integrity of our financial reporting processes and our internal accounting controls. Management prepares our financial statements and establishes and maintains adequate internal control over financial reporting. The independent registered public accounting firm performs an independent integrated audit of those financial statements and the effectiveness of our internal control over financial reporting.

The Audit Committee has met and discussed with management and PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP, our independent registered public accounting firm, our audited 2016 consolidated financial statements and our internal control over financial reporting. In meeting with the Audit Committee, management informed the committee that our consolidated financial statements were prepared in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles and that our internal control over financial reporting was effective as of December 31, 2016. The Audit Committee reviewed and discussed the consolidated financial statements and our system of internal control over financial reporting with management and PricewaterhouseCoopers.

In addition, the Audit Committee:

The Audit Committee also discussed with our internal auditors and PricewaterhouseCoopers the overall scope and plans for their respective 2016 audits. With and without the presence of management, the Audit Committee met with the internal auditors and PricewaterhouseCoopers to discuss the results of their examinations, the evaluations of our internal control over financial reporting, and the overall quality of our financial reporting.

Relying on its discussions with management and PricewaterhouseCoopers and its review of management’s representation and the report of PricewaterhouseCoopers to it, the Audit Committee recommended that the board of directors include our audited consolidated financial statements in our Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2016 to be filed with the SEC.

The Compensation and Human Resources Committee develops and oversees the implementation of our compensation philosophy and strategy. The committee assists the board of directors by monitoring the appropriateness and cost of our compensation and benefit programs, particularly for the CEO and the other senior executives.

The section entitled “Compensation Discussion and Analysis” explains the material elements of our

compensation program and provides an analysis of the material factors underlying the committee’s compensation policies and decisions. The committee has reviewed and discussed the section with management, and recommended to our board of directors that it be included in this proxy statement and in our annual report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2016.

This compensation discussion and analysis provides information about our 2016 compensation program for our named executive officers or NEOs. For 2016, those officers are:

The objectives of our executive officer compensation programs are to attract, motivate and retain key executives who will drive our success. Our pay practices reward these executives for superior performance and align their interests with the long-term interests of our shareholders.

We achieve our objectives through compensation that:

In structuring annual and long-term incentive compensation opportunities, we select performance measures that we believe significantly drive the value of our company. For 2016, we selected a combination of incentive performance measures that focus on driving operating earnings and rewarding the appropriate use of capital, and include a relative shareholder return measure to evaluate our performance relative to a peer

group. We set goals against these measures and make little or no payment for poor performance against our goals, though our executives can earn significant payment relative to their salary levels for superior performance against them. We make annual awards of restricted stock units which vest after three years, both to encourage retention and to provide an incentive for performance to increase the value of our shares.

While we generally set measures based on company-wide performance (and for this purpose we include GST in our results as if it were reconsolidated), for annual incentive awards to divisional personnel, 75% of the award is based on the respective division’s performance with the remaining 25% based on company-wide performance. We believe that this weighting toward divisional performance not only improves the line-of-sight for the incentives for employees in our divisions, but appropriately recognizes and rewards collaboration of divisional personnel across the company.

We believe our compensation structure aligns with the interests of our shareholders and results in payment based on our performance.

The following charts show the relative portion of our CEO’s total 2016 target in-service compensation and the average target in-service compensation of the other NEOs serving as executive officers as of the date of this proxy statement. Target in-service compensation consists of base salary paid in 2016, target annual performance-based cash compensation awards made in 2016, target long-term incentive performance-based cash and equity compensation awarded in 2016, other long-term equity compensation in the form of restricted stock units awarded in 2016 and other compensation not related to retirement benefits.

CEO Target In-service Compensation

Other NEOs Average Target

In-service Compensation

In addition to establishing incentives for superior performance, our executive compensation program enables us to retain talented and motivated executive officers and to replace them with other high-caliber individuals should the need arise. A competitive pay package is vitally important to retaining and attracting these individuals, and we establish salaries and benefits, including post-employment benefits, at competitive levels.

Our Compensation and Human Resources Committee (which we refer to in this “Compensation Discussion and Analysis” section as the “Committee”) and our board of directors determine executive compensation based on a comprehensive view of factors designed to produce long-term business success.

In 2016, we achieved significant milestones in the asbestos claims resolution process (the “ACRP”) of our de-consolidated Garlock Sealing Technologies, LLC (“GST”) subsidiary pending in the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Western District of North Carolina (the “Bankruptcy Court”), made operational improvements and investments which will support our long-term objectives for profitable growth, and continued to return value to our shareholders through our on-going share repurchases and increase to our quarterly dividend. In 2016 we were challenged by economic headwinds in many of our end markets and the impact of a sustained period of a stronger U.S. dollar. In response to these conditions, we completed a significant restructuring effort in our Engineered Products segments and initiated a company-wide cost reduction program.

Asbestos claims resolution process. In March 2016, we reached a comprehensive settlement to resolve current and future asbestos claims. The settlement contemplates a joint plan of reorganization which would permanently resolve all current and future asbestos claims against GST and our subsidiary then known as Coltec Industries Inc (“Coltec”) and would protect all of EnPro from those claims. This was a major milestone in our efforts to cleanse our company and its subsidiaries of the legacy asbestos claims that have plagued us since our spinoff from Goodrich Corporation in 2002. In November 2016, we announced that we entered into a definitive settlement agreement with the workers’ compensation boards for each of the ten Canadian Provinces (the “Provincial Boards”) to resolve current and future claims against us and certain subsidiaries for recovery of a portion of amounts the Provincial Boards have paid and will pay in the future under asbestos-injury recovery statutes in Canada for claims relating to asbestos-containing products. An agreement for the resolution of these Canadian claims was a condition to our obligations to proceed with the March 2016 comprehensive settlement. In December 2016, we reported that our subsidiaries, GST and Coltec, obtained the asbestos claimant votes necessary for approval of the joint plan of reorganization, which remains subject to approval by the Bankruptcy Court and the U.S. District Court for the Western District of North Carolina. Finally,

as contemplated by the joint plan, in December 2016 we completed the corporate restructuring of Coltec to permit its corporate successor to commence proceedings with the Bankruptcy Court, which it did in January 2017. These significant accomplishments in 2016 have placed us on track to resolve these matters, and formally reconsolidate GST’s financial results with ours, in the third quarter of 2017.

Performance in continued challenging economic conditions. Similar to 2015, activity levels in most of our markets remained depressed in 2016, as we faced economic headwinds and muted demand levels. We also continued to experience the adverse impact of the further strengthening U.S. dollar. While we took a variety of actions to mitigate the negative market trends, including exiting eight facilities, consolidating two facilities into existing sites, moving two facilities from leased to owned locations, and undertaking a company-wide effort to reduce costs by $18 million annually, we were not able to fully offset the pressure on earnings.

The segment profit margin of our Sealing Products segment was 11.6%, a decline of 30 basis points compared to 2015 largely driven by headwinds across nearly all markets. In our Power Systems segment, segment profit margin was 8.2% in 2016, a decline of 500 basis points compared to 2015 driven by lower aftermarket parts and services revenue, losses related to the EDF contract that were primarily related to foreign exchange, and the payment of a legal settlement, partially offset by price increases.

At the GGB division of our Engineered Products segment, we completed the move of our Chicago operations into other existing GGB facilities, moved into and began production in a new, owned facility in China, and moved from a leased facility into a new, owned facility in Thorofare, New Jersey. At our CPI division of the segment, we completed our comprehensive restructuring plan that we initiated in 2015, which included the exit from eight service centers and light manufacturing facilities plus the consolidation of one facility into an existing site that in total resulted in a reduction of about 15% of CPI’s workforce. These restructuring activities, along with the company-wide cost

reduction plan initiated in the second quarter of 2016, resulted in segment profit margins of 4.5% in 2016, which represented an increase of 240 basis points compared to 2015. We believe that these efforts position our Engineered Products segment for further improved performance in the future, especially as the industrial markets begin to recover.

Acquisitions. In April 2016, we acquired Rubber Fab Gasket & Molding (“Rubber Fab”), a company that designs, markets and manufactures a full range of high performance sanitary gaskets, hoses and fittings for the hygienic process industries. Rubber Fab supplies critical process consumables for the pharmaceutical, bio-processing and food and beverage sectors. The majority of Rubber Fab’s sales are consumable products that require regular replacement due to scheduled maintenance and cleaning cycles. The acquisition of Rubber Fab expands our presence and scale in the hygienic market space and complements our existing sealing solutions to provide a comprehensive product portfolio. Over the course of 2016, we completed

integration activities related to the Rubber Fab acquisition. We continue to pursue acquisition opportunities in a number of markets like the hygienic market space that we have identified as being strategically important.

Dividends and share repurchases. In the first quarter of 2016, we increased our quarterly dividend by 5% to $0.21 per share. Additionally, throughout the course of 2016, we continued our efforts to return capital to our shareholders by repurchasing shares under our $50 million share repurchase program that was authorized by our board of directors in the fourth quarter of 2015. In 2016, we repurchased approximately 600,000 shares for $29.7 million. As we start 2017, we have approximately $14 million remaining of our previously authorized $50 million share repurchase program. We regularly evaluate our capital allocation strategy based on company performance and anticipated capital requirements for growth, and we will continue this practice in 2017.

Throughout the course of each year, we have dialogues with numerous shareholders, including frequent conversations with many of our largest shareholders. These conversations cover a wide range of topics, including our strategic direction, financial performance, future growth opportunities, capital allocation strategy, and management practices. During these conversations in 2016, no shareholder or group of shareholders raised significant concerns about our practices or policies.

As part of our continuing efforts to consider and adopt best compensation governance practices as they evolve, the Committee made several minor adjustments to our compensation program for 2017. These changes are described below in “— Changes to compensation program in 2017.”

At our 2016 annual meeting, we asked our shareholders to support a non-binding resolution to approve the compensation paid to our named executive officers as reported in our proxy statement for that meeting. Of the shares voted “for” or “against” that proposal, 90% of the shares were voted “for” approval of that resolution. The Committee typically establishes incentive compensation opportunities each February. Accordingly, the 2016 compensation program and incentive compensation awards were set in February 2016, before the shareholder advisory vote on compensation at the 2016 annual meeting in May 2016. While the May 2016 shareholder vote occurred after the structure for the 2016 compensation awards had been set by the Committee, the 2016 shareholder vote was considered by the Committee in determining the compensation program for 2017.

The Committee changed the compensation program for 2016, as follows:

Redesigned our long-term incentive compensation awards. For 2016, we changed the design of our long-term incentive awards. We granted awards using different performance measures for awards that are payable in cash and awards payable in stock. Payments under 2016 awards payable in cash are based on our adjusted return on invested capital over the three-year (2016-2018) performance period against threshold, target and maximum levels established when the awards were granted. In contrast to our use of adjusted return on invested capital under our annual incentive plans, for these awards this return on invested capital measure includes goodwill and other intangible assets to hold management accountable for the quality of acquisitions made.

The number of shares to be issued under the awards payable in stock is based on our total shareholder return (or TSR) over the same three-year period relative to TSR of the S&P SmallCap 600 Capital Goods (Industry Group) Index over that period. EnPro is one of the companies included in this index. Payment at the threshold level of these awards will occur if our TSR relative to the TSR of the index is at the 35^th percentile, with target payments at the 50^th percentile and maximum payments at the 75^th percentile. The awards limit the payout to the target level in the event that absolute TSR is negative and require recipients to hold the net after-tax shares issued at the end of the three-year performance period for an additional year.

Payments on the long-term incentive compensation awards made in the prior three years are based on the company’s calculated growth in equity value per share

over the three-year performance period of the plan to a defined target return. The Committee concluded that the absolute measure used for those awards was significantly affected by general economic conditions, which are difficult to predict at the beginning of the three-year measurement cycle. The Committee selected separate measures for the 2016 long-term incentive awards payable in cash and in stock to include one metric (TSR) based on our performance relative to others during the three-year measurement period. The Committee, upon the recommendation of its independent advisor, selected the S&P SmallCap 600 Capital Goods (Industry Group) Index for this comparison after considering several alternative indices and groups because of its belief that the companies included in this index (a total of 57 companies, including EnPro) are of similar size and scope and would likely experience the same overall effects as EnPro from changes in general economic conditions.

The Committee selected adjusted return on invested capital for LTIP awards payable in cash to hold management to an absolute yardstick in measuring return on investment capital. Given the company’s acquisition activity, the Committee believed this measure should reflect as invested capital assets (intangible assets and goodwill) which arise from acquisition activity to hold management accountable for the long-term impact of acquisition decisions (the Committee does not include these assets in measuring the return on invested capital under annual incentive plans, because inclusion of these assets, and the short measurement period to reflect the contributions from the acquisitions giving rise to the assets, could skew incentives for management away from completing otherwise attractive acquisition opportunities).

Reduced the maximum payout on long-term incentive compensation awards. The Committee set the maximum payout for long-term incentive compensation awards made in 2016 at 200% of the target level. The maximum payout for long-term incentive compensation awards granted in the prior three years was 300% of the target level. The Committee believed that, with the change in the measures used to evaluate performance of the awards from the calculated growth in equity value per share used in the past three years, it was more appropriate to set the maximum payout at 200%, which level is consistent with its practice prior to 2013.

Reduced the portion of long-term compensation awarded as restricted stock units from 40% to 33 1/3%. For 2016, the Committee returned to its practice prior to 2015 and split target long-term compensation grants equally among awards of restricted stock units, incentive cash awards and incentive share awards. For long-term compensation awards made in 2015, the Committee’s grants were weighted more heavily toward restricted stock units: 40% of the 2015 grant was payable in restricted stock units, 30% in incentive awards payable in cash and 30% in incentive awards payable in shares.

Provided for “double triggers” for change-in-control vesting for new long-term incentive and equity awards. Our equity and long-term incentive compensation plans had required vesting of certain equity and long-term incentive awards upon a change in control of our company. In contemplation of awards to be made in 2016, and at the recommendation of the Committee, the board of directors amended these plans to permit the Committee the flexibility to require additional events following a change in control to trigger the vesting of new equity and long-term incentive awards. The long-term incentive compensation awards and restricted stock units awards granted to employees in February 2016 provide that, if the resulting entity in the change in control assumes the awards, the awards will vest early in connection with a change in control only if within two years after the change in control the employee is terminated without “cause” or the employee resigns for “good reason,” as such terms are defined in the awards.

Increased the weighting of divisional performance for annual incentive awards to divisional personnel. For 2016, the Committee increased divisional performance measures to 75% of the weighting for annual incentive awards to divisional personnel. The remaining 25% is based on company-wide performance measures. In recent years, awards made to divisional personnel were equally weighted between measures applicable to divisional performance and corporate-wide performance measures. The Committee believes that the increased weighting toward divisional performance will improve the line-of-sight for the incentives for employees in those divisions, as they can most significantly affect the performance of their respective division, but appropriately recognizes and rewards collaboration of divisional personnel across the company.

All of our non-management directors sit on our Compensation and Human Resources Committee. The primary function delegated to the Committee by our board is overseeing the appropriateness and cost of our compensation programs, particularly the program for executive officers.

The role of the executive officers

The compensation of our CEO and other executive officers is set by the Committee based on the advice of its independent executive compensation consultant and

our human resources staff. However, our CEO and other executive officers are involved in certain aspects of our compensation practices. At the request of the Committee, our CEO proposes salary levels and incentive award opportunities for all executive officers other than himself, and the Committee considers his proposals in setting compensation for those officers. The Committee itself sets our CEO’s compensation without regard to the compensation of other executive officers. In this way, any increase in compensation that our CEO proposes for those officers does not form the basis for a corresponding increase in his compensation.

The performance measures and levels for our annual and long-term incentive plans are set by the Committee based on proposals made by our executive officers. The executives’ proposals are based on the forecasts for the performance of each of our operating divisions, key economic indicators affecting our businesses, historical performance of our businesses, recent trends in our industries, and our strategic plans. The executive team presents the Committee with the performance measures it believes to be most important and meaningful to achieving our strategic goals. The team also proposes the weighting it believes appropriate for each factor in the calculation of the overall incentive awards, and the threshold, target and maximum payout levels appropriate for each of the performance measures.

Each December, the Committee reviews the executive team’s proposals and seeks its independent executive compensation consultant’s advice on those proposals. At a meeting during the following February, the Committee reviews and approves threshold, target and maximum payout levels and makes the final determination of performance measures, weightings and payout levels to be used for each incentive award. The Committee often directs members of management to provide information and otherwise help the consultant complete his analyses, but does not delegate any decision-making authority to executive officers or other members of management.

The role of the executive compensation consultant

The Committee has engaged Pearl Meyer & Partners (Pearl Meyer) to serve as its independent executive compensation consultant. At the Committee’s request, Pearl Meyer provides no services to our company other than its assistance to the Committee.

Pearl Meyer reports directly to the Committee on all work assigned by the Committee. Pearl Meyer also interacts with management when necessary and appropriate to carry out its assignments, but only with the Committee’s approval. Specifically, our General Counsel, who is

responsible for the human resources function of our company, provided compensation and performance data to Pearl Meyer. In addition, Pearl Meyer, in its discretion, from time to time seeks confirmation from our CEO and our Chief Financial Officer of the accuracy of its presentation of our strategy that it includes in materials presented to the Committee.

Pearl Meyer’s work for the Committee with respect to 2016 compensation decisions included:

The independence of the executive compensation consultant

The Committee has concluded that Pearl Meyer is independent and has no conflict of interest in its engagement by the Committee. In reaching this conclusion, the Committee considered a number of factors, including that Pearl Meyer provides no services to EnPro other than advice to the Committee on executive and director compensation and that, outside of the engagement, no individual on the Pearl Meyer team assigned to the engagement has any business or personal relationship with members of the Committee or with any of our executive officers.

To design an executive compensation program that is in line with the policies described below, the Committee considered:

The following table highlights key features of our executive compensation program. We also identify certain compensation practices that the Committee has not implemented because it does not believe they would serve our shareholders’ long-term interests.

Policies regarding executive compensation

Under the Committee’s policy, a significant component of each executive officer’s total compensation is variable, and that component increases as a percentage of total compensation as an executive’s responsibilities increase. This variable compensation depends on performance —disappointing performance results in little or no variable compensation while superior performance leads to superior payouts. The Committee seeks to design variable compensation programs and establish performance criteria that incentivize continuous improvement in measures important to both our annual and long-term business plans.

Linking a significant portion of our key executives’ total pay to the successful execution of our strategies provides an incentive to achieve our objectives for increasing shareholder value. In addition to achieving operating improvements throughout our businesses, our variable compensation programs are also designed to incentivize achievement of other corporate objectives to increase shareholder value. Over the past several years, the successful resolution of the ACRP has been a key objective for increasing shareholder value.

The Committee believes management’s interests must be aligned with our shareholders’ interests, and it sets policies accordingly. These policies include the systematic grant of equity or potential equity to our executives and a requirement for their personal ownership of our shares. When the shares of our common stock that our executives are required to own and have the potential to own create significant personal value for them, we believe they are more likely to act to maximize long-term shareholder value over short-term gain.

When setting targeted in-service compensation for each of our executive officers, the Committee considers individual performance, experience and tenure. In

evaluating the reasonableness and competitiveness of targeted in-service compensation, the Committee reviews compensation data for a broad survey group and for a peer group prepared by its independent executive compensation consultant. These groups are discussed below.

Stock ownership and retention requirements

Each executive officer is required by policy to hold shares of our common stock with a market value at least equal to a specific multiple of the officer’s base salary. The multiple increases with the officer’s level of responsibility. The minimum ownership required for our CEO is 5.0 times base salary; for all other NEOs, the minimum is 2.5 times base salary. Minimum levels for the other executive officers range from 0.75 times to 1.5 times base salary. In light of this policy, the Committee believes it is appropriate to provide officers with an opportunity to earn shares as part of their long-term incentive awards.

Once named an executive officer, an individual has five years to reach the minimum stock ownership requirement for his or her position. Individuals who were officers in 2012, when we increased the multiples, have five years from the increase to reach the new level. An executive officer who fails to maintain the required level of ownership must retain 50% of any shares received under any company equity award plan until he or she satisfies the requirement. Restricted shares of our common stock and restricted stock units count toward minimum ownership only after the restrictions lapse.

We check for compliance with this policy in connection with our board of directors meeting held each February. As of February 13, 2017, the date of the Committee’s February 2017 meeting, all of our current named executive officers who have been executive officers for at least five years held at least the minimum number of shares.

Anti-hedging policy

Our policies prohibit employees, officers and directors from using the company’s securities in any hedging or monetization transactions. The prohibition includes but is not limited to, the use of financial instruments such as exchange funds, prepaid variable forwards, equity swaps, puts, calls, collars, forwards and other derivative instruments, or through the establishment of a short position in the company’s securities.

Pledging policy

Our policies prohibit executive officers from pledging EnPro shares that they own as collateral, including holding EnPro shares in a margin account, unless the officer holds unpledged shares at least equal to the amount required under our stock ownership and retention policy and receives pre-approval of the pledge from our General Counsel. Under our policies, a pledge may not be approved unless the officer clearly demonstrates the financial capacity to repay the loan or obligation secured by the pledge without resorting to the pledged shares. Mr. Macadam has pledged 100,000 shares to secure a managed trading program with respect to a broad securities index that does not include any EnPro securities. This pledge transaction was approved in advance in accordance with our policy.

Clawback policy

Our clawback policy allows the company to recover performance-based compensation from any executive officer who engages in fraud or willful misconduct that requires us to restate our financial results. Under the policy, we are entitled to recover cash awards made under our annual incentive performance plan and cash or equity-based incentive awards made under our long-term incentive performance plan. If the Committee determines the compensation would have been lower if it had been based on the restated results, it will, to the extent permitted by law, seek to recover from the executive officer all performance-based compensation it deems appropriate after a review of all relevant facts and circumstances.

Market competitiveness analyses

In evaluating target compensation levels, the Committee has requested its independent executive compensation consultant, Pearl Meyer, to prepare benchmarking studies. These studies have been prepared and presented to the Committee every two years. The most recent study presented to the Committee prior to the compensation decisions it made in February 2016 was prepared in October 2014. The study compared our executive officers’ salaries, target annual incentive plan awards and target long-term incentive awards to those granted to officers in the same positions at other similarly sized diversified manufacturing companies. The study used compensation data from a nationally recognized published survey for a broad group of companies and for a peer group consisting of 14 manufacturing companies within the industrials sector. Annual revenues of the peer companies ranged from $850 million to $4.4 billion, with median revenues of $1.5 billion. The market capitalization of the peer companies at the time of the

study ranged from $1.2 billion to $6.0 billion, with median market capitalization of $3.2 billion. This peer group is the same as the group used for the previous benchmarking study prepared by Pearl Meyer for the Committee, other than the elimination of two companies that were acquired after the date of the earlier study.

To determine our size relative to the compensation peer group, we include the third-party sales of our deconsolidated subsidiary, GST. Those sales were $195.7 million for the year ended December 31, 2016. GST has been excluded from our consolidated results since June 5, 2010, when it filed a voluntary petition for reorganization under Chapter 11 of the United States Bankruptcy Code as the initial step in a process to resolve all current and future asbestos claims. However, its oversight has remained and will continue to be a responsibility of our executive officers. For this reason, for relative compensation comparisons we include GST’s net sales to third parties in the calculation of the revenues we use to compare ourselves to the peer group.

The peer group of companies for the 2014 study was as follows:

For executive compensation purposes, we believe a comparison of the relative size and complexity of a company is more important than a comparison of specific products manufactured. These are the types of companies with whom we compete for management personnel and therefore we believe it is appropriate for us to compare our compensation practices with theirs.

Pearl Meyer prepared a new benchmarking study in October 2016. At the direction of the Committee, Pearl Meyer screened and reviewed companies included in Standard & Poor’s Global Industry Classification Standard Capital Goods industry classification, reviewed the peer groups included in the 2016 reports of certain principal proxy advisory firms, and conducted an analysis to identify potential peer companies, evaluating comparability in terms of sales, business mix alignment, and market value. The peer group selected by the Committee for the 2016 study, consistent with Pearl Meyer’s recommendation following its analysis, was the same group of companies included in the 2014 study, other than Colfax Corporation. Based on the recommendation of Pearl Meyer, the Committee approved the exclusion of Colfax Corporation from the peer group based on its significantly larger size compared to EnPro and other members of the peer group. This 2016 study was used by the committee in connection with evaluating target compensation levels set for 2017.

In its benchmarking studies, Pearl Meyer compared the specific compensation elements we awarded to each of our executive officers to those awarded to executive officers with similar responsibilities of each member of the peer group and the broader survey group and to the relevant medians of the peer group and survey group. Based on its analysis, Pearl Meyer advised the Committee on adjustments to base salary, annual incentive award and long-term incentive awards for each named executive officer. Peer and survey compensation data allow the Committee to determine whether our compensation programs and target compensation levels for executive officers are reasonable and competitive.

Evaluation of incentives for excessive risk

To discourage excessive risk, the Committee seeks to balance:

The Committee has specifically evaluated the company’s compensation structure and practices and concluded that they do not establish incentives for unnecessary or excessive risk.

The following section discusses and analyzes each element of our executive compensation program, including long-term incentive plan, or LTIP, awards made in 2014 for the 2014-2016 performance cycle, and LTIP awards made in 2016 for which scheduled payouts would not occur until 2019.

Base salary

Base salaries give our officers a relatively secure level of compensation. Adjustments to base salary rates typically are made in February of each year and are effective on April 1, though mid-year adjustments may be made in the event of promotion or other special circumstance. In 2016, the Committee did not adjust Mr. Macadam’s base salary rate. Mr. Macadam’s base salary rate has been increased only once (by 3% in 2014) since he was hired in March 2008. The Committee adjusted the base salary rates of the other named executive officers in 2016 from the levels paid in 2015. For 2016, base salary rates of all NEOs increased by an average of 2.5% over the prior year, with individual increases ranging from 0% to 4%.

Annual performance incentive plan awards

The plans used by the Committee to make annual incentive compensation awards are designed to give executive officers a personal financial incentive to help us reach annual business goals. We refer to these plans as the annual performance plans or annual plans.

Mr. Macadam’s annual performance incentive awards were made under our senior executive annual performance plan, most recently approved by our shareholders in 2012. Mr. Childress, Mr. Walker, Mr. McLean and Mr. Cox received annual performance incentive awards under a plan in which other corporate officers participate. It uses identical measures and target levels but permits adjustments for unusual items which are not permitted under our senior executive annual performance plan.

Mr. Riley received an annual performance incentive award under a similar plan for division personnel. One quarter of his award was based on the same corporate-

wide performance measures and weightings applied to the other NEOs. The remaining three quarters of the award was based on performance measures applicable to the Fairbanks Morse division.

The amount of awards paid under our annual plans is based on performance. We establish threshold, target and maximum performance levels for our company and each of our businesses. When performance falls below the threshold, executives receive no payout. The Committee administers the annual performance plans to provide for payouts at a threshold level of performance at 50% of the target payout, payouts at a target level of performance at 100% of the target payout, and payouts at a maximum level of performance at 200% of the target payout. Performance between any of the established levels yields a proportional payout. Because Mr. Cox ceased to be an employee before December 31, 2016, he was not entitled to a payout with respect to his 2016 annual incentive plan award.

For 2016, the performance measures and weightings for the senior executive annual performance plan were:

For 2016, the performance measures and weighting for the divisional component of the annual performance plan in which Mr. Riley participated were:

Why we use adjusted operating income and adjusted return on invested capital to measure performance

The Committee selected these performance measures because they are the critical measures we use internally in managing our businesses and are measures of our profitability and the performance of our assets relative to our investment. The Committee believes that performance against these measures significantly drive the value of our company. The Committee believes that the adjustments to operating income and return on

invested capital permit a more accurate measure of the operating performance of our businesses. In selecting these performance measures, setting the performance goals and awarding the corresponding incentive opportunities, the Committee took into account management’s recommendations.

Because oversight of our GST subsidiary and its financial results continues to be a responsibility of our executive officers, we include its results with ours when we establish and measure our financial performance under the annual plans.

Adjusted operating income eliminates the effect of asbestos expense, LIFO adjustments and certain selected expenses and income that do not reflect normal operating conditions. Adjustments to operating income in 2016 included the exclusion of restructuring expense, acquisition-related costs and certain litigation costs and reserves, as well as the impact of foreign currency translation. An adjustment was also made with respect to the loss incurred on a multi-year, Euro-denominated contract in our Power Systems segment to reflect only the portion of the loss related to the percentage of project completion.

The Committee believes adjusted return on invested capital comprehensively measures the performance of our assets relative to our investment and fairly measures our ability to generate earnings in relation to the investment required to generate those earnings.

Financial goals for 2016

The following table presents the financial goals set for the 2016 senior executive annual performance plan. The table shows goals for threshold, target and maximum performance levels, actual 2016 performance and weighted payout percentages for each goal.

We do not include the specific division financial goals of the annual plan in which Mr. Riley participated or the specific performance of the Fairbanks Morse division in this proxy statement because we believe this information is confidential information and public disclosure would cause competitive harm to that business. At the time the division goals were set, the Committee deemed the target performance levels set for each of the division metrics to be reasonable “stretch” goals, with a maximum payout possible only in the event of superior performance.

The plan payouts at the target performance level, as a percentage of base salary, and the actual payout as a percentage of salary for the named executive officers were as follows:

Mr. Macadam’s employment agreement sets the target level for his annual incentive award at 100% of his salary. Beginning in 2013, the Committee increased the target award level for his annual incentive to 105% of his salary. Target award levels set by the Committee for the other named executive officers were based on historical award levels, a review of the Pearl Meyer market studies and management recommendations.

To set 2016 performance levels, the Committee reviewed a top-down estimate of our performance for the year based on management’s expectations for each of our markets and a bottom-up review of each division’s

strategy and forecast for its performance. The Committee evaluated these internal estimates against external expectations for the performance of our markets and then set our goals for the year. For the past several years, actual corporate performance has been below target-level goals.

When 2016 operating performance goals were set, we anticipated a continuation of economic trends that had adversely affected a number of the markets we serve, particularly oil and gas, trucking and metals and mining. In addition, the goals reflected an anticipated zero-profit impact from the multi-year contractual arrangement with Electricite de France, greater research and development spending and lower after-market sales due to maintenance cycles in the Power Systems segment, and that corporate expenses in 2016 would be greater than 2015 due principally to the non-recurrence of the reversal in 2015 for accruals of long-term incentive compensation, principally for the 2014-2016 performance cycle. The Committee established target corporate performance levels for 2016, which, though slightly below the levels achieved in 2015, it considered aggressive in light of these circumstances. The 2016 target corporate performance levels, after excluding the Power Systems segment and corporate expenses, reflected growth in

segment earnings of approximately 5% over 2015.

The extent of the adverse trends during 2016 was greater than we had expected. Nearly all of the markets that we serve saw negative year-over-year trends, and our sales have closely tracked those trends. Commodity prices in general remained depressed, which had a greater than anticipated ripple effect through the oil and gas, metals and mining, and refining markets. In addition to those markets, sales remained depressed in gas turbine equipment and general industrial markets, with heavy duty trucking also showing weakness. Improvements in other markets, principally in the semiconductor and food and pharmaceutical sectors, and significant cost savings arising from restructuring efforts that commenced in 2015 and cost-saving initiatives implemented in 2016 were not sufficient to offset the impact of these negative economic trends.

As a result, the year did not progress as we had expected. Our overall adjusted operating income was $129.9 million (between the threshold and target levels) and our overall adjusted return on invested capital was 14.8% (between the threshold and target levels). The adjusted operating income and adjusted return on invested capital of the division for which Mr. Riley is responsible performed between, respectively, the target and maximum levels and the threshold and target levels.

Accordingly, based on the payout levels established by the Committee for the annual performance plans, Messrs. Macadam, Childress, Walker and McLean received payouts of 80.8% of the target level, and Mr. Riley received a payout of 95.7% of target level. As noted above, because Mr. Cox was not an employee at December 31, 2016, he did not receive a payout with respect to his 2016 annual performance plan award.

The dollar amount of these payouts under the annual performance plans to each of the named executive officers is included in column (g) (see footnote 2) of the summary compensation table.

Long-term compensation

Awards made for 2014-2016 cycle

Long-term compensation grants to our executive officers provide them with personal financial motivation and a stake in our long-term success. The Committee believes these awards also help us retain executives who are committed to achieving our corporate goals.

In 2014, the target level of our long-term compensation awards was split equally among long-term incentive compensation awards payable in shares (or, “performance shares”), long-term incentive cash compensation awards and restricted stock units with time-based vesting. The performance shares and long-term incentive cash compensation awards were granted under our long-term incentive plan (or LTIP) most recently approved by our shareholders in 2012. In addition, in 2014, the Committee authorized special grants of restricted stock units awarded to executive officers and other key personnel in recognition of their efforts related to the strategy, planning and management of the ACRP which resulted in the favorable estimation order issued by the bankruptcy court in January 2014. In addition, restricted stock unit awards were made to

executive officers who elected to participate in our management stock purchase deferral plan described below (see “— Retirement and other post-termination compensation — Deferred compensation and management stock plans”).

The Committee believes that both LTIP awards payable in cash and performance shares serve to align our officers’ long-term interests with those of our shareholders. The award of a substantial portion of long-term compensation in the form of time-vested restricted stock units helps to ensure retention of these executives.

The LTIP awards made by the Committee in 2014 were based on a long-term performance measure that the Committee first used in 2013 and which we refer to as the Equity Value Plan. That plan compares the company’s calculated growth in equity value per share over the three-year performance period to a defined target return. It was designed to align management’s interests with those of shareholders by rewarding performance that correlates over time with factors that should affect share price appreciation. The Equity Value Plan was designed to hold management accountable not only for earnings growth, but also for the quality of investments.

The Equity Value Plan focused on calculated growth in equity value (based on a multiple of adjusted EBITDA) per fully diluted share and is in some ways similar to a total shareholder return measure. Unlike a formula based solely on total shareholder return, payouts under the Equity Value Plan are not subject to broader movements in the stock market, which are outside of management’s control.

The calculated equity value is based in part on a multiple (8x for awards made in 2014) of the company’s adjusted earnings before interest, depreciation, amortization and asbestos-related expenses less adjusted net debt. The calculation includes GST on a pro forma basis for all relevant periods as if that subsidiary were included in our consolidated financial results, but such pro forma calculation does not include effects arising from a resolution of the ACRP. The target return for these awards is determined by adding a 5.5% risk premium to the average 10-year Treasury bond yield for the three-year period. The Committee set the premium for the target return at the same rate used for awards made in 2013.

Adjustments to earnings before interest, depreciation, amortization and asbestos-related expenses include restructuring charges; asset impairments; all expenses and charges related to discontinued operations, including environmental reserve adjustments; fair value adjustments to inventory related to acquisitions and other non-recurring items in connection with acquisitions and dispositions; extraordinary items; and pension expense.

The calculated equity value is subject to adjustments for acquisitions and dispositions that occur during the performance period based on when the acquisition or disposition is completed. It is also based on equitable adjustments where necessary (i) in response to changes in applicable laws or regulations, (ii) to account for changes in accounting principles that were not anticipated at the time the awards were made, (iii) to account for adjustments in expense due to

re-measurement of pension benefits, (iv) to account for restructurings, discontinued operations, and any other items deemed by the Committee to be non-recurring in nature or otherwise not reflective of operating performance that were not anticipated at the time the awards were made, and (v) to reflect other unusual, non-recurring, or unexpected items similar in nature to the foregoing, in each case as determined in good faith by the Committee consistent with the principles set forth in section 162(m) of the Internal Revenue Code and the regulations thereunder.

Adjusted net debt subtracts cash and marketable securities and the amount of any cash dividends paid during the three-year period from the sum of third-party debt and pension liabilities. Because the calculations for the LTIP awards made in 2014 include GST on a pro forma basis for all relevant periods as if GST’s plan of reorganization had been consummated, adjusted net debt excludes any asbestos-related assets and liabilities.

The growth in equity value per share is measured over the period by comparing (a) the quotient of (i) the difference between the multiple of the company’s adjusted earnings before interest, depreciation, amortization and asbestos-related expenses for the year ended December 31, 2013 minus adjusted net debt as of December 31, 2013 (ii) divided by the fully diluted

common shares at December 31, 2013 (b) to the quotient determined for those same items for the year ending December 31, 2016.

The target return is determined by adding a risk premium (5.5%) to the average 10-year Treasury bond yield for the three-year period.

The compound annual growth rate (or “CAGR”) of the growth in the calculated equity value over the three-year period divided by the target return determines the amount of the LTIP payout, as shown in the following chart:

Actual performance that falls between the established levels yields a proportional payout. No payment is made if the ratio of the CAGR of the calculated equity value to the target return is less than 0.50.

The following graphical presentation illustrates the calculation under the Equity Value Plan for the 2014 LTIP awards:

The following table sets forth for each named executive officer (except Mr. Cox who, because of his departure, was not entitled to receive a payout of the LTIP awards granted in 2014), the payout amount at target performance level for the LTIP award payable in cash and the LTIP award made in the form of performance shares:

The ratio of the CAGR of the calculated equity value to the target return for the 2014 LTIP awards was (0.4)%, resulting in no payout with respect to these awards. Under the Equity Value Plan, growth in adjusted EBITDA over the three-year plan period is a primary determinant of calculated equity value. Our ability to grow EBITDA

over the three-year period ended December 31, 2016 was affected by the economic conditions in the markets we serve, which, with limited exceptions, were sluggish over this period. Principally as a result of these economic conditions, we were unable to achieve earnings growth sufficient to trigger any payout for the 2014 LTIP awards.

The dollar amount of the cash LTIP payout to each of the named executive officers is included in column (g) (see footnote 2) of the summary compensation table for the respective year. As noted above, the amount of the cash LTIP payout for 2016 was $0. The value at

December 31, 2016 of the restricted stock units that were awarded in 2014 and vested in 2016 is included in the table in “Executive compensation — Outstanding equity awards at fiscal year end.”

Awards granted in 2016

The target level of our long-term compensation awards made in 2016 was split equally among LTIP awards payable in shares, LTIP awards payable in cash and restricted stock units with time-based vesting. The Committee believes that both LTIP awards payable in cash and LTIP awards payable in shares align officers’ long-term interests with those of our shareholders. The award of a substantial portion of long-term compensation in the form of time-vested restricted stock units helps to ensure retention of these executives.

The amount of cash for a cash LTIP award payable, and the number of shares for an LTIP award of performance shares deliverable, are based on our performance against selected financial goals over a three-year period. For our LTIP award opportunities, the Committee set threshold, target and maximum levels. Performance below the threshold level results in no payout, performance at the threshold level results in a payout at one-half of the amount at the target level, and performance at the maximum level or above results in a payout of twice the amount set for the target level. We extrapolate to determine the payout for performance between these levels. Pursuant to our long-term incentive compensation plan, performance levels are adjusted to account for dispositions, acquisitions and other corporate restructuring transactions.

In 2016, the Committee decided to use different performance measures for LTIP awards that are payable in cash and awards payable in stock. Payments under 2016 awards payable in cash are based on our adjusted return on invested capital over the three-year (2016-2018) performance period against threshold, target and maximum levels established when the awards were granted. In contrast to our use of adjusted return on invested capital under our annual plans, for these awards this return on invested capital measure includes goodwill and other intangible assets to hold management accountable for the quality of acquisitions made.

The number of shares to be issued under the LTIP awards payable in stock is based on our total shareholder return (or TSR) over the same three-year

period relative to TSR of the S&P SmallCap 600 Capital Goods (Industry Group) Index over that period. EnPro is one of the companies included in this index. Payment at the threshold level of these awards will occur if our TSR relative to the TSR of the index is at the 35th percentile, with target payments at the 50th percentile and maximum payments at the 75th percentile. The LTIP awards limit the payout to the target level in the event that absolute TSR is negative and require recipients to hold the net after-tax shares issued at the end of the three-year performance period for an additional year.

Restricted stock units further our goals of aligning officers’ long-term interests with those of our shareholders and increasing management’s ownership stake in our company. They vest three years after the date of grant subject to the executive’s continued employment during that period. In the event of death, disability or a change in control of the company, they vest earlier. In the event of an executive’s retirement, the restricted stock units vest pro rata based on the number of months he or she was employed after the grant date through the retirement date compared to the scheduled 36-month period.

In contemplation of awards to be made in 2016, and at the recommendation of the Committee, the board of directors amended the plans governing equity and LTIP awards to permit the Committee the flexibility to require additional events following a change in control to trigger the vesting of new equity and long-term incentive awards. The LTIP awards and restricted stock units awards granted to employees in February 2016 provide that, if the resulting entity in the change in control assumes the awards, the awards will vest early in connection with a change in control only if within two years after the change in control the employee is terminated without “cause” or the employee resigns for “good reason,” as such terms are defined in the awards.

The following table sets forth for each named executive officer, the payout amount at target level of performance for the LTIP award payable in cash and the LTIP award made in the form of performance shares, along with the number of restricted stock units awarded in 2016. The restricted stock units listed in the table below include awards made in connection with our management stock purchase deferral plan described below (see “— Retirement and other post-termination compensation — Deferred compensation and management stock plans”):

The grant date fair value of the target level payout of performance shares for LTIP share opportunities awarded in 2016 and the grant date fair value of the restricted stock units awarded in 2016, in each case as determined under FASB ASC Topic 718, are included in column (e) (see footnote 1) of the summary compensation table and in column (l) of the table in “Executive compensation — Grants of plan-based awards.”

Perquisites

Since February 2006, we have provided only minimal perks, which include an umbrella liability policy, to our executive officers.

Other in-service benefits

Our executive officers also receive the following benefits, which we provide to all salaried employees as compensation for their services to us:

We provide these insurance benefits because we believe they are standard parts of the compensation package available to salaried employees at companies of our size.

Retirement and other post-termination compensation

401(k) Plan

Our executive officers participate in our 401(k) plan on the same basis as other salaried employees. Under this plan, a portion of each participant’s compensation eligible for the plan (generally base-salary and annual incentive compensation) can be deferred into a 401(k) account, up to the annual limit set by the IRS. Each participant directs investments in the account. We match 100% of deferrals under this plan (other than catch-up contributions) up to the first 6% of the aggregate of annual salary and annual incentive compensation contributed by the participant. Our matching contributions are fully vested.

Deferred compensation and management stock plans

Our non-qualified, deferred compensation plan permits our executive officers to save for retirement on a tax-deferred basis beyond what is permitted under the 401(k) plan because of either federal tax code limits or the design of the 401(k) plan. In addition, the deferred compensation plan allows for matching contributions that cannot be made in the 401(k) plan because of federal tax code limits. These contributions are made at the same rate and are subject to the same aggregate limit as the 401(k) plan. The Committee believes this type of additional deferral and matching opportunity is an appropriate and customary component of a competitive compensation package for public company executive officers.

In 2012, we adopted a management stock purchase deferral plan which permits officers and other senior personnel to defer, for five years or more, up to 50% of annual incentive compensation. Deferred amounts are credited to these individual’s accounts based on the value of our common stock. Participants are eligible to receive awards of restricted stock units equal to 25% of the amount of compensation deferred. The units have a three-year vesting period and are payable in shares of common stock at the same time the related annual incentive deferrals are payable. For deferrals of annual incentive compensation earned for performance in 2015, restricted stock unit awards were granted in 2016. The amount of annual incentive compensation deferred under this plan is included in Non-Equity Incentive Plan Compensation in column (g) (see footnote 2) of the summary compensation table. The grant date fair value of the restricted stock units awarded for incentive compensation deferrals, as determined under FASB ASC Topic 718, is included in column (e) (see footnote 1) of the summary compensation table and in column (l) of the table in “Executive compensation — Grants of plan-based awards.”

The officers who participate in these plans have voluntarily placed their deferred compensation at risk because the plans are unsecured and amounts in them would be available to satisfy our creditors in the event of our insolvency. In addition, amounts deferred into the stock purchase plan are subject to the risk posed by changes in the value of our common stock.

Pension and defined benefit restoration plans

In 2006, we closed our defined benefit pension plan to new participants and froze the benefits of employees who had not reached 40 years of age. Employees who were age 40 or older were eligible to continue to accrue benefits under the defined benefit plan, which provides them a retirement benefit based on their years of service with the company and their final average compensation (base salary plus annual incentive compensation). Of the named executive officers, only Mr. Childress continues to accrue benefits under the defined benefit pension plan. Mr. Walker’s benefits under this plan were frozen in 2006 since he was not age 40 at that time, and accordingly after that date he ceased to accrue further benefits under the defined benefit pension plan. The other NEOs were hired after 2006. For salaried employees, including Messrs. Macadam, Walker, Riley and McLean, who are not eligible to accrue benefits under the defined benefit plan either because they were hired after 2006 or they were too young when the plan was frozen, we make a contribution equal to 2% of salary and annual incentive compensation to the employee’s account in our 401(k) plan. Any amount exceeding permitted 401(k) contributions is made to the deferred compensation plan.

We also provide our executive officers and others who participate in the defined benefit pension plan with a defined benefit restoration plan. The restoration plan gives them the benefits they would have received under our pension plan were it not for limitations under the pension plan. The federal tax code caps both the amount of annual compensation that the pension plan can take into account and the amount of annual benefits that the

pension plan can provide. We include these caps in our pension plan in order to maintain its tax-qualified status. In addition, the pension plan does not take into account amounts deferred under our non-qualified deferred compensation plan. The defined benefit restoration plan permits participants to receive retirement pension benefits that take into account their full salaries and annual incentive compensation. Of the named executive officers, only Mr. Childress participates in the defined benefit restoration plan.

Management continuity agreements

In a situation involving a change in control of our company, our executive officers would face a far greater risk of termination than other salaried employees. To attract qualified executives who might find other job opportunities with less risk to continued employment, we have entered into a management continuity agreement with each of our executive officers. These agreements incentivize our executives to stay with us in the event of an actual or potential change in control, and are an important part of a competitive executive compensation package.

In establishing the terms of these agreements, we looked at similar arrangements established by peer companies with whom we believe we compete for talent and by our former corporate parent. Particular terms in these agreements, including the applicable continuation period and provisions increasing the amount payable to account for excise taxes for agreements entered into prior to 2009, reflect our subjective judgment regarding the terms offered in comparable agreements by peer companies and our desire to offer competitive arrangements for executive employment.

Each continuity agreement provides for continued employment of the individual for a specified period after a change in control, with the same responsibilities and authorities and generally the same benefits and compensation as the individual had immediately prior to the change in control (including average annual increases). The period covered by the agreement is based on the relative responsibilities of the executive officer. For Mr. Macadam, the period is three years; for other executive officers, the period is two years. Under the agreements, the employee would be entitled to certain payments and other benefits if, during the continued employment period, we or our successor were to terminate the individual’s employment for reasons other than “cause,” or the individual voluntarily terminated his employment for a “good reason.” These terms are defined in the agreements.

For an executive to receive payments and benefits under these agreements, two events, or triggers, must occur. First, there must be a change in control of the company, and second, the executive’s employment must be terminated, either by the company, other than for “cause”, or by the executive for “good reason.” The second trigger incentivizes the executive to stay with the company and perform at a high level in the event of a change in control.

For more information about these payments and other benefits, see “Executive compensation — Potential

payments upon termination or change in control.” The Committee has reviewed the amounts that are potentially payable under these agreements and believes that they are reasonable.

Severance policy

Our severance policies provide benefits to all full-time employees at our corporate office, including our executive officers. Under these policies, an executive officer whom we terminate without cause is entitled to continue receiving his or her base salary for a specific period. The terminated officer is also entitled to receive a pro rata portion of the annual incentive compensation payable for the year in which the officer is terminated, along with a pro rata payout of all LTIP awards based on the number of months the officer was employed in each performance cycle.

The period for which an executive officer is entitled to continue receiving his or her base salary depends on the officer’s level of responsibility. The CEO is entitled to a period of 24 months. Other executive officers are entitled to 12 months. An executive officer who is entitled to receive payments under the change-in-control continuity agreements described above is not entitled to severance benefits.

We believe that our severance policy is consistent with compensation packages for executive officers at other companies similar to ours and therefore is an important component of a competitive compensation package.

Section 162(m) considerations

Under Section 162(m) of the Internal Revenue Code, a public company is limited to a $1 million deduction for compensation paid to its chief executive officer or any of its three other most highly compensated executive officers (other than the chief financial officer) who are employed at year-end. This limitation does not apply to compensation that qualifies under Section 162(m) as “performance-based compensation.” Some compensation received by our named executive officers may exceed the applicable Section 162(m) deduction limit and not otherwise qualify as “performance-based compensation.” While the Committee retains discretion to make compensation decisions in light of a variety of considerations, compensation decisions for our named executive officers are made after consideration of Section 162(m) implications. The Committee administers the senior executive annual performance plan in a manner designed to permit compensation paid under that plan to qualify as performance-based compensation under Section 162(m), by establishing a formulaic maximum award equal to 200% of the target award if the threshold level of performance is achieved. The actual award payout, however, is determined based on the threshold, target and maximum performance goals, and the degree of actual achievement relative to those goals, as described under “Annual performance incentive plan awards” above, which in no event may exceed the formulaic maximum award. The Committee believes that this approach to addressing Section 162(m) serves our shareholders by preserving the tax deductibility of annual incentive awards that might otherwise be limited by Section 162(m).

The Committee granted awards under our annual plan for 2017 with performance measures and weightings similar to awards granted in 2016, except that it replaced the relevant adjusted operating income performance measure with a performance measure based on adjusted EBITDA. The difference between these two performance measures is the exclusion of the impact of depreciation and amortization expense from adjusted EBITDA. For the 2017 annual plan awards, the Committee selected adjusted EBITDA as a performance measure instead of adjusted operating income because it felt that adjusted EBITDA was an earnings metric of primary interest to our investors and that the exclusion of depreciation and amortization expense from the measure eliminated variability due to these expenses, which are not as reflective of the annual operating performance of our businesses, and was consistent with the methodology used in the adjusted return on invested capital performance measures for 2016 and 2017 annual plan awards and 2016 and 2017 LTIP awards payable in cash.

In addition, the Committee amended the management stock purchase deferral plan to terminate any further participation in that plan. This plan permitted officers and other senior personnel to defer up to 50% of annual incentive compensation, with deferred amounts credited to these individual’s accounts based on the value of our common stock and participants being eligible to receive awards of restricted stock units equal to 25% of the amount of compensation deferred. The Committee decided to terminate this plan going forward based on the cost and complexity of administering this plan, coupled with lower than anticipated participation rates. Although further participation in the plan has been terminated, participants who elected in 2015 to defer a portion of their payouts under 2016 annual plan awards continued to participate in the plan with respect to such deferrals and in February 2017 received awards of restricted stock units as contemplated by the plan.

The following information relates to compensation paid or payable for 2016 to:

We have also included information relating to compensation for 2015 and 2014 for the named executive officers who were also named executive officers in those years.

The following table sets forth for the named executive officers: