Edgar Filing: MCDONALDS CORP

Committee

Current members

Primary responsibilities

Number of
2011 meetings

Enrique Hernandez, Jr.

(Chairman)

Walter E. Massey

Cary D. McMillan

Sheila A. Penrose

Roger W. Stone

>  Oversees financial reporting, accounting, control and compliance matters.

>  Appoints and evaluates the independent auditor.

>  Reviews with the internal and independent auditors the scope and results of their audits and the adequacy and effectiveness of internal controls.

>  Reviews material financial disclosures.

>  Pre-approves all audit and permitted non-audit services.

>  Annually reviews the Company’s compliance programs and receives regular updates about compliance matters.

>  Annually reviews the Company’s disclosure controls and procedures.

>  Reviews, and makes recommendations to the Board about, related person transactions.

Compensation

Robert A. Eckert

(Chairman)

Susan E. Arnold Richard H. Lenny

John W. Rogers, Jr.
Miles D. White

>  Approves the CEO’s compensation based upon an evaluation of his performance by the independent Directors.

>  Reviews and approves senior management’s compensation and approves compensation guidelines for all other officers.

>  Administers incentive and equity compensation plans and, in consultation with senior management, approves compensation policies.

>  Reviews executive compensation disclosure.

Definitive Proxy Statement

UNITED STATES

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

Washington, D.C. 20549

SCHEDULE 14A

(Rule 14a-101)

INFORMATION REQUIRED IN PROXY STATEMENT

SCHEDULE 14A INFORMATION

Proxy Statement Pursuant to Section 14(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (Amendment No. )

Filed by the Registrant x

Filed by a Party other than the Registrant ¨

Check the appropriate box:

¨	Preliminary Proxy Statement

¨	Confidential, for use of the Commission Only (as permitted by Rule 14a-6(e)(2))

x	Definitive Proxy Statement

¨	Definitive Additional Materials

¨	Soliciting Material Pursuant to Section 240.14a-12

McDonald’s Corporation

(Name of Registrant as Specified In Its Charter)

(Name of Person(s) Filing Proxy Statement, if other than the Registrant)

Payment of Filing Fee (Check the appropriate box):

x	No fee required.

¨	Fee computed on table below per Exchange Act Rules 14a-6(i)(1) and 0-11.

(1)

Title of each class of securities to which transaction applies:

(2)

Aggregate number of securities to which transaction applies:

(3)

Per unit price or other underlying value of transaction computed pursuant to Exchange Act Rule 0-11 (set forth the amount on which the filing fee is calculated and state how it was determined):

(4)

Proposed maximum aggregate value of transaction:

(5)

Total fee paid:

¨	Fee paid previously with preliminary materials.

¨	Check box if any part of the fee is offset as provided by Exchange Act Rule 0-11(a)(2) and identify the filing for which the offsetting fee was paid previously. Identify the previous filing by registration statement number, or the Form or Schedule and the date of its filing.

(1)

Amount Previously Paid:

(2)

Form, Schedule or Registration Statement No.:

(3)

Filing Party:

(4)

Date Filed:

LOGO

PROXY SUMMARY

This summary contains highlights about our Company and the upcoming 2012 Annual Shareholders’ Meeting. This summary does not contain all of the information that you should consider in advance of the meeting, and we encourage you to read the entire Proxy Statement carefully before voting.

GOVERNANCE HIGHLIGHTS

McDonald’s governance is guided by values that have been part of our business for more than 50 years—integrity, fairness, respect and ethical behavior. The strength of our governance is key to our success, and we continually review our practices to ensure effective collaboration of management and our Board to yield value for shareholders. Highlights of our governance include:

Board of Directors

>	Independent Chairman

>	14 Directors; 12 are independent

>	50% of Directors are women or minorities

>	Committee members (except Executive Committee) are independent

>	60% of Audit Committee members are “financial experts”

>	Executive sessions at each regularly-scheduled meeting

>	All Directors attended over 90% of all Board and Committee meetings in 2011

>	Limited membership on other public company boards

>	Regular succession planning

>	Regular Board self-assessments and Director peer review

>	Management proposal to declassify our Board (see pages 36-37)

>	No former employees serve as Directors

Shareholder Interests

>	Majority voting standard for uncontested Director elections

>	No super-majority voting requirements

>	No shareholder rights plan

>	No exclusive forum selection clause

>	Annual advisory vote to approve executive compensation (see page 31)

>	Annual advisory vote to ratify independent auditor (see page 37)

>	Management proposal to allow shareholders to call special meetings (see page 37)

>	Confidential voting policy

>	Publicly disclose corporate political contributions under Board’s policy

FINANCIAL HIGHLIGHTS

McDonald’s continues its strong performance. We were the number-one performing company in the Dow Jones Industrial Average for the one- and five-year periods ending in 2011. McDonald’s cumulative five-year total shareholder return was 263%. The charts below illustrate elements of our strong success:

LOGO

McDonald’s Corporation 2012 i

EXECUTIVE COMPENSATION PROGRAM HIGHLIGHTS

We believe our compensation program provides an appropriate mix of elements to incentivize our executives to drive the business forward. Currently, approximately 85% of our CEO’s direct compensation opportunity is performance-based.

Below is a chart that summarizes the significant elements of our executive compensation program:


Direct compensation elements	Performance- based	Primary metric(s)	Terms
Salary		n/a	— Evaluated annually, based on such factors as competitive benchmarks and individual performance
Annual Cash Incentive (TIP)	X	— Operating income	— Based primarily upon financial performance measures — Includes an individual qualitative factor
Three-Year Cash Incentive (CPUP)	X	— Operating income — Return on Total Assets (ROTA)	— Based solely upon financial performance measures — Non-overlapping three-year cycles
Restricted Stock Units (RSUs)	X	— Earnings per share (EPS) — Stock price	— Cliff vesting at end of three-year service period — Vesting subject to financial performance measures
Stock options	X	— Stock price	— Vest 25% per year — Ten-year term

•	Indirect compensation elements include retirement programs with matching contributions and other limited, personal benefits.

Best practices associated with our executive compensation program include:

>	Strong pay-for-performance connection; variety of quantitative metrics, including total shareholder return relative to S&P 500 Index in our long-term plan, CPUP

>	Significant stock ownership requirements; CEO is required to own six times his salary

>	Incentive plans require growth in operating income to yield payments

>	Capped incentive payments

>	Clawback provisions

>	No employment agreements

>	No intention to enter into new change in control agreements; existing agreements are double-trigger

ii McDonald’s Corporation 2012

VOTING MATTERS


	Board vote recommendation	Page reference (for more detail)
Management proposals:

Election of five Directors, each for a three-year term expiring in 2015	FOR EACH DIRECTOR NOMINEE	2

Advisory vote to approve executive compensation	FOR	31

Vote to approve the 2012 Omnibus Stock Ownership Plan	FOR	32

Vote to approve declassification of the Board of Directors	FOR	36

Vote to approve shareholders’ right to call special meetings	FOR	37

Advisory vote to approve the appointment of Ernst & Young LLP as independent auditor for 2012	FOR	37

Shareholder proposal:

Advisory vote requesting a nutrition report, if presented	AGAINST	40

ELECTION OF DIRECTORS (PROPOSAL NO. 1)

The following table provides summary information about our nominees for election to the Board of Directors. Additional information for all of our Directors, including the nominees, may be found beginning on page 2.


Name	Director since	Occupation	Independent	Other company boards
Robert A. Eckert	2003	• Chairman, Mattel	X	• Mattel • Levi Strauss
Enrique Hernandez, Jr.	1996	• President & CEO, Inter-Con Security Systems	X	• Chevron • Nordstrom • Wells Fargo
Jeanne P. Jackson	1999	• President of Direct to Consumer, Nike	X	• Motorola Mobility Holdings
Andrew J. McKenna	1991	• Chairman, McDonald’s • Chairman, Schwarz Supply Source	X	• Aon • Skyline
Donald Thompson	2011	• President & COO, McDonald’s • President & CEO, McDonald’s (effective July 1, 2012)		• Exelon

ADVISORY VOTE TO APPROVE EXECUTIVE COMPENSATION (PROPOSAL NO. 2)

We are asking shareholders to cast an advisory, nonbinding vote to approve compensation awarded to our named executive officers. The key objectives of our executive compensation program are to motivate our executives to increase profitability and shareholder returns, to pay compensation that varies based on performance and to compete for and retain managerial talent. Additional information regarding our executive compensation may be found elsewhere in this Proxy Statement.

McDonald’s Corporation 2012 iii

VOTE TO APPROVE THE 2012 OMNIBUS STOCK OWNERSHIP PLAN (PROPOSAL NO. 3)

We are asking shareholders to approve the proposed 2012 Omnibus Stock Ownership Plan, which the Compensation Committee has adopted, subject to shareholder approval, to enable the Company to continue making equity awards to executives and other employees. The 2012 Plan is an important part of our pay-for-performance philosophy as it allows the Company to award compensation that is tied to performance and aligned with the interests of our shareholders.

VOTE TO APPROVE DECLASSIFICATION OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS (PROPOSAL NO. 4)

We are asking shareholders to approve amendments to our Restated Certificate of Incorporation to eliminate the classification of the Board of Directors. If the amendments are approved by shareholders, then Directors would be subject to annual election for one-year terms once their current terms expire, beginning at the 2013 Annual Shareholders’ Meeting.

VOTE TO APPROVE SHAREHOLDERS’ RIGHT TO CALL SPECIAL MEETINGS (PROPOSAL NO. 5)

We are asking shareholders to approve amendments to our Restated Certificate of Incorporation to enable shareholders of at least 25% of our outstanding shares of common stock (excluding derivatives) to call a special meeting of shareholders. Currently, only our Board may call a special meeting of shareholders.

ADVISORY VOTE TO APPROVE THE APPOINTMENT OF ERNST & YOUNG LLP AS INDEPENDENT AUDITOR FOR 2012 (PROPOSAL NO. 6)

We are asking shareholders to approve the appointment of Ernst & Young LLP as independent auditor for 2012.

ADVISORY VOTE REQUESTING A NUTRITION REPORT (PROPOSAL NO. 7)

Shareholders will be asked to vote on an advisory shareholder proposal requesting the Board to issue a nutrition report, if presented at the meeting. We do not support this request and ask shareholders to vote against this proposal.

MEETING INFORMATION


Date and time		May 24, 2012, 9:00 a.m. Central Time

Place		McDonald’s Office Campus, The Lodge, Prairie Ballroom
		2815 Jorie Boulevard
		Oak Brook, Illinois 60523

Record date		March 27, 2012

Voting		Shareholders at the close of business on the record date may vote at the Annual Shareholders’ Meeting. Each share is entitled to one vote on each matter to be voted upon.

Attendance		We encourage shareholders to listen to the meeting via live webcast as seating in the Prairie Ballroom is limited. If you decide to attend in person, please follow the pre-registration instructions on page 56.

iv McDonald’s Corporation 2012

Contents



	1			Notice of the Annual Shareholders’ Meeting

	2			Election of Directors

	2			*Proposal No. 1.* Election of Directors

	2			Director qualifications and biographical information

	8			Executive compensation

	8			Compensation Committee Report

	8			Compensation discussion and analysis

	18			Compensation tables

	31			*Proposal No. 2.* Advisory vote to approve executive compensation

	32			Other management proposals

	32			*Proposal No. 3.* Vote to approve the 2012 Omnibus Stock Ownership Plan

	36			*Proposal No. 4.* Vote to approve declassification of the Board of Directors

	37			*Proposal No. 5.* Vote to approve shareholders’ right to call special meetings

	37			*Proposal No. 6.* Advisory vote to approve the appointment of Ernst & Young LLP as independent auditor for 2012

	38			Audit Committee matters

	38			Audit Committee Report

	39			Policy for pre-approval of audit and permitted non-audit services

	40			Auditor fees and services

	40			Shareholder proposal

	40			*Proposal No. 7.* Advisory vote on a shareholder proposal requesting a nutrition report

	43			Board and governance matters

	43			Leadership structure

	43			Director selection process

	43			Board diversity

	43			Succession planning

	44			Director independence

	44			Board Committees

	45			Board and Committee meetings

	46			Board and Committee evaluations

	46			Risk oversight

	46			Code of Conduct for the Board of Directors

	46			Director compensation



	48			Stock ownership

	48			Stock ownership guidelines

	48			Security ownership of certain beneficial owners

	49			Security ownership of management

	50			Compliance with Section 16(a) of the Exchange Act

	50			Transactions with related persons, promoters and certain control persons

	50			Policies and procedures for related person transactions

	51			Related person transactions

	51			Communications

	51			Communications with the Board of Directors and non-management Directors

	51			Consideration of Director nominations for the 2013 Annual Shareholders’ Meeting

	52			Shareholder proposals for inclusion in next year’s Proxy Statement

	52			Other shareholder proposals for presentation at the 2013 Annual Shareholders’ Meeting

	53			Solicitation of proxies and voting

	53			Notice and access

	53			Record date

	53			Voting prior to the Annual Shareholders’ Meeting

	53			Voting at the Annual Shareholders’ Meeting

	53			Quorum

	53			Voting tabulation

	54			Registered shareholders

	54			Beneficial holders

	54			Proxy solicitation

	54			Confidential voting

	55			Additional information

	55			Executive officers

	55			McDonald’s Corporation Annual Report on Form 10-K, other reports and policies

	55			Householding of Annual Shareholders’ Meeting materials

	56			Information about registering for and attending the Annual Shareholders’ Meeting

	56			Pre-registration and admission policy

	57			Exhibits

	57			Exhibit A

	58			Exhibit B

McDonald’s Corporation 2012

Notice of the Annual Shareholders’ Meeting

To McDonald’s Corporation Shareholders:

McDonald’s Corporation will hold its 2012 Annual Shareholders’ Meeting on Thursday, May 24, 2012, at 9:00 a.m. Central Time in the Prairie Ballroom at The Lodge at McDonald’s Office Campus, Oak Brook, Illinois. The registration desk will open at 7:30 a.m. At the meeting, shareholders will be asked to:

1.	Elect five Directors, each for a three-year term expiring in 2015;

2.	Cast an advisory vote to approve executive compensation;

3.	Cast a vote to approve the 2012 Omnibus Stock Ownership Plan;

4.	Cast a vote to approve declassification of the Board of Directors;

5.	Cast a vote to approve shareholders’ right to call special meetings;

6.	Cast an advisory vote to approve the appointment of Ernst & Young LLP as independent auditor for 2012;

7.	Cast an advisory vote on a shareholder proposal requesting a nutrition report, if presented; and

8.	Transact other business properly presented at the meeting, including any adjournment or postponement thereof, by or at the direction of the Board of Directors.

Your Board of Directors recommends that you vote FOR the Board’s nominees for Director, FOR the approval of our executive compensation, FOR the approval of the 2012 Omnibus Stock Ownership Plan, FOR the declassification of the Board of Directors, FOR the approval of shareholders’ right to call special meetings, FOR the approval of the independent auditor and AGAINST the shareholder proposal.

Your vote is important. Please consider the issues presented in this Proxy Statement and vote your shares as promptly as possible.

If you plan to attend the meeting in person, please be aware that you must pre-register with McDonald’s Shareholder Services prior to the meeting. See page 56 for information about how to pre-register.

As an alternative to attending the meeting in person, you may listen to a live webcast by going to www.investor.mcdonalds.com and selecting the “Webcasts and Podcasts” icon and clicking on the appropriate link. The Annual Shareholders’ Meeting webcast will be available for a limited time after the meeting.

Thank you.

By order of the Board of Directors,

LOGO

Gloria Santona

Corporate Secretary

Oak Brook, Illinois

April 13, 2012

McDonald’s Corporation 2012 1

Election of Directors

PROPOSAL NO. 1.

ELECTION OF DIRECTORS

The nominees for Director are: Robert A. Eckert, Enrique Hernandez, Jr., Jeanne P. Jackson, Andrew J. McKenna and Donald Thompson.

The Board is currently divided into three classes, each having three-year terms that expire in successive years. The five nominees are standing for election as Directors to hold office for three-year terms expiring in 2015.

Information about the voting standard for this proposal appears on page 53. Each of the incumbent Directors who is nominated for re-election tendered an irrevocable resignation for the 2012 Annual Shareholders’ Meeting that will be effective if (i) the nominee is not re-elected; and (ii) the Board accepts the resignation following the meeting. The Governance Committee will determine whether to recommend that the Board accept the resignation.

The Board of Directors expects all five nominees to be available for election. If any of them should become unavailable to serve as a Director for any reason prior to the Annual Shareholders’ Meeting, the Board may substitute another person as a nominee. In that case, your shares will be voted for that other person.

The Board of Directors recommends that shareholders vote FOR all five nominees.

DIRECTOR QUALIFICATIONS AND BIOGRAPHICAL INFORMATION

Our Board of Directors currently consists of 14 Directors, 12 of whom are independent. Mr. Skinner will retire from the Company and the Board on June 30, 2012 and, as a result of his retirement, the Board reduced the size of the Board to a total of 13 Directors. Our Directors have qualifications, skills and experience relevant to our business as the leading branded global quick service restaurant retailer. Each Director has senior executive experience in large organizations, many of which have significant global operations, and has held directorships at other U.S. public companies and at not-for-profit organizations. In these positions, our Directors have demonstrated leadership, intellectual and analytical skills and gained deep experience in management and corporate governance.

For information about our Director selection process, please see page 43.

Biographical information for our Directors is set forth below, including the qualifications, skills and experiences considered by the Governance Committee when recommending them for election.

Susan E. Arnold, 58

Director since 2008

Class 2014

Other current directorships: The Walt Disney Company

Career highlights

—	The Procter & Gamble Company, a manufacturer and marketer of consumer goods

Special assignment reporting to Chief Executive Officer (2009)

President–Global Business Units (2007–2009)

Vice Chair, P&G Beauty and Health (2006–2007)

Vice Chair, P&G Beauty (2004–2006)

Experience and qualifications: Ms. Arnold was a senior executive responsible for major consumer brands in a large, global brand management company. She has knowledge of product development, strategy and business development, finance, marketing and consumer insights and sustainability.

2 McDonald’s Corporation 2012

LOGO

Robert A. Eckert, 57

Director since 2003

Class 2012(Nominee)

Other current directorships: Mattel, Inc. and Levi Strauss & Co.

Career highlights

—	Mattel, Inc., a designer, manufacturer and marketer of toy products

Chairman of the Board (2000–Present)

Chief Executive Officer (2000–2011)

Experience and qualifications: Having served as chief executive officer of large, global branded companies (consumer branded and food products), Mr. Eckert has knowledge of product development, marketing and consumer insights, corporate governance, leadership development and succession planning, finance, risk assessment, supply chain management and distribution, and strategy and business development.

Enrique Hernandez, Jr., 56

Director since 1996

Class 2012 (Nominee)

Other current directorships: Chevron Corporation, Nordstrom, Inc. and Wells Fargo & Company

Former directorships (within past five years): Tribune Company

Career highlights

—	Inter-Con Security Systems, Inc., a provider of high-end security and facility support services to government, utilities and industrial customers

President and Chief Executive Officer (1986–Present)

—	Nordstrom, Inc.

Non-executive Chairman (2006–Present)

Experience and qualifications: Mr. Hernandez is the chief executive officer of a global security company and has been a director of several large public companies in various industries. He has knowledge of strategy and business development, corporate governance, finance, risk assessment, and leadership development and succession planning.


		Jeanne P. Jackson, 60 Director since 1999 Class 2012 (Nominee) Other current directorships: Motorola Mobility Holdings, Inc. Former directorships (within past five years): Harrah’s Entertainment, Inc., NIKE, Inc., Nordstrom, Inc. and Williams Sonoma, Inc.

Career highlights

—	NIKE, Inc., a designer, marketer and distributor of athletic footwear, equipment and accessories

President, Direct to Consumer (2009–Present)

—	MSP Capital, a private investment company

Chief Executive Officer (2002–2009)

Experience and qualifications: Ms. Jackson is a senior executive for a major consumer retailer and has experience as a senior executive in global brand management with several other major consumer retailers. She also has been a director of several large, public companies, primarily involved in consumer goods and services. She has knowledge of product development, strategy and business development, leadership development and succession planning, finance, and marketing and consumer insights.

McDonald’s Corporation 2012 3

Richard H. Lenny, 60

Director since 2005

Class 2014

Other current directorships: ConAgra Foods, Inc. and Discover Financial Services

Former directorships (within past five years): The Hershey Company

Career highlights

—	Friedman, Fleischer & Lowe, LLC, a private equity firm

Operating partner (2011–Present)

—	The Hershey Company, a manufacturer, distributor and marketer of candy, snacks and candy-related grocery products

Chairman, President and Chief Executive Officer (2002–2007)

Experience and qualifications: Mr. Lenny has experience as a chief executive officer for a global retail food company that is a major consumer brand. He has knowledge of strategy and business development, finance, marketing and consumer insights, supply chain management and distribution, risk assessment and sustainability.

Walter E. Massey, 74

Director since 1998

Class 2013

Former directorships (within past five years): Bank of America Corporation, BP p.l.c. and Delta Airlines, Inc.

Career highlights

—	School of the Art Institute of Chicago

President (2010–Present)

—	Morehouse College

President Emeritus

President (1995–2007)

Experience and qualifications: Dr. Massey has experience in chief executive roles of several large academic organizations and as a director of multiple large, global public companies in various industries. He has knowledge of strategy, policy and government relations matters, sustainability, leadership development and succession planning, risk assessment, finance and shareholder relations.

Andrew J. McKenna, 82

Director since 1991

Non-Executive Chairman Since 2004

Class 2012 (Nominee)

Other current directorships: Skyline Corporation

Former directorships (within past five years): Aon Corporation

Career highlights

—	Schwarz Supply Source, a printer, converter, producer and distributor of packaging and promotional material

Chairman (1992–Present)

Experience and qualifications: Mr. McKenna has experience as the chief executive officer of a large global provider of paper-based goods. He has knowledge of strategy and business development, corporate governance, risk assessment, leadership development and succession planning, shareholder relations and finance. He also has experience as a director of multiple large public companies, charities and civic organizations.

4 McDonald’s Corporation 2012

Cary D. McMillan, 54

Director since 2003

Class 2014

Other current directorships: American Eagle Outfitters, Inc.

Former directorships (within past five years): Hewitt Associates, Inc.

Career highlights

—	True Partners Consulting LLC, a professional services firm providing tax and other financial services

Chief Executive Officer (2005–Present)

—	Sara Lee Branded Apparel, a branded apparel company

Chief Executive Officer (2001–2004)

—	Sara Lee Corporation, a branded packaged goods company

Executive Vice President (2000–2004)

Experience and qualifications: In addition to serving as chief executive officer of a professional services firm, Mr. McMillan has experience as a senior executive of a large, globally branded consumer and food products company. He is also a certified public accountant. He has knowledge of strategy and business development, finance and accounting, risk assessment, product development, leadership development and succession planning, and supply chain management and distribution.

Sheila Penrose, 66

Director since 2006

Class 2014

Other current directorships: Jones Lang LaSalle Incorporated

Former directorships (within past five years): eFunds

Career highlights

—	Jones Lang LaSalle Incorporated, a global real estate services and investment management firm

Non-executive Chairman (2005–Present)

—	Penrose Group, a provider of strategic advisory services on financial and organizational strategies

President (2000–2007)

—	Boston Consulting Group, a global management consulting firm

Executive Advisor (2001–2008)

Experience and qualifications: Ms. Penrose has experience as a senior executive of a large investment services and banking company, as executive advisor to a leading global consulting firm, and as a Chairman of a large, global real estate services and investment management firm. She has knowledge of strategy and business development, finance, risk assessment, real estate, leadership development and succession planning, and sustainability.

John W. Rogers, Jr., 54

Director since 2003

Class 2013

Other current directorships: Aon Corporation, Ariel Investment Trust and Exelon Corporation

Former directorships (within past five years): Commonwealth Edison Company

Career highlights

—	Ariel Investments, LLC, a privately held institutional money management firm

Founder, Chairman of the Board and Chief Executive Officer (1983–Present)

—	Ariel Investment Trust

Trustee (1986–1993; 2000–Present)

Mr. Rogers’ biography is continued on next page

McDonald’s Corporation 2012 5

Mr. Rogers’ biography continued

Experience and qualifications: Mr. Rogers is the chief executive officer of an institutional money management firm. He has knowledge of finance, shareholder relations, risk assessment, leadership development and succession planning, corporate responsibility, and strategy and business development. He also has experience as a director of multiple public companies, charities and civic organizations.

James A. Skinner, 67

Director since 2004

Class 2014 (retiring as a Director on June 30, 2012)

Other current directorships: Illinois Tool Works Inc. and Walgreen Co.

Career highlights

—	McDonald’s Corporation

Vice Chairman and Chief Executive Officer (2004–June 30, 2012)

Vice Chairman (2003–2004)

Experience and qualifications: Mr. Skinner provides a Company perspective in Board discussions about the business, relationships with key constituencies and stakeholders, competitive landscape, finance, senior leadership and strategic opportunities and challenges for the Company. In addition, as an independent director of two other public companies, Mr. Skinner has gained additional perspectives, including on governance and operational matters relevant to the Company.

Roger W. Stone, 77

Director since 1989

Class 2013

Other current directorships: KapStone Paper and Packaging Corporation

Career highlights

—	KapStone Paper and Packaging Corporation, formerly Stone Arcade Acquisition Corporation, a producer of paper, packaging and forest products

Chairman and Chief Executive Officer (2005–Present)

—	Stone Tan China Holding Corporation, an investment holding company

Chairman (2010–Present)

—	Stone Tan China Acquisition (Hong Kong) Co. Ltd.

Chairman (2010–Present)

—	Stone-Kaplan Investment, LLC

Manager (2004–2008)

Experience and qualifications: Mr. Stone is the chief executive officer of a large, global paper and packaging business. He has experience in the sourcing and sale of product packaging and related commodities, supply chain management and distribution, sustainability, strategy and business development, finance, leadership development and succession planning, and risk assessment.

6 McDonald’s Corporation 2012

Donald Thompson, 49

Director since 2011

Class 2012 (Nominee)

Other current directorships: Exelon Corporation

Career highlights

—	McDonald’s Corporation

President and Chief Executive Officer (effective July 1, 2012)

President and Chief Operating Officer (2010–Present)

President, McDonald’s USA (2006–2010)

Executive Vice President and Chief Operations Officer, McDonald’s USA (2005–2006)

Experience and qualifications: Mr. Thompson provides a Company perspective in Board discussions about the business, particularly with respect to worldwide operations, competitive landscape, senior leadership and strategic opportunities and challenges for the Company. In addition, as an independent director of another public company, Mr. Thompson has gained additional perspectives, including on governance and operational matters relevant to the Company.

Miles D. White, 57

Director since 2009

Class 2013

Other current directorships: Abbott Laboratories and Caterpillar, Inc.

Former directorships (within past five years): Motorola, Inc. and Tribune Company

Career highlights

—	Abbott Laboratories, a global pharmaceuticals and biotechnology company

Chairman and Chief Executive Officer (1999–Present)

Experience and qualifications: Mr. White is the chief executive officer of a large pharmaceutical, biotechnology and nutritional health products company. He has knowledge of strategy and business development, risk assessment, finance, leadership development and succession planning, and corporate governance.

McDonald’s Corporation 2012 7

Executive compensation

COMPENSATION COMMITTEE REPORT

Dear Fellow Shareholders:

The Compensation Committee reviewed and discussed the Company’s Compensation Discussion and Analysis with McDonald’s management. Based on this review and discussion, the Compensation Committee recommended to the Board of Directors that the Compensation Discussion and Analysis be included in this Proxy Statement and the Company’s Annual Report on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2011.

Respectfully submitted,

The Compensation Committee

Robert A. Eckert, Chairman

Susan E. Arnold

Richard H. Lenny

John W. Rogers, Jr.

Miles D. White

COMPENSATION DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS

Executive summary

McDonald’s executive compensation program supports our long-term business plan, the Plan to Win, which is customer-focused and concentrates on being better, not just bigger. The key objectives of our executive compensation program are to motivate our executives to increase profitability and shareholder returns, to pay compensation that varies based on performance and to compete for and retain managerial talent.

PERFORMANCE HIGHLIGHTS

McDonald’s 2011 performance was very strong both on an absolute basis and in comparison to our peers’ performance. Our total return to shareholders for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2011 was 35%, which was the highest among the 30 companies that comprise the Dow Jones Industrial Average (DJIA) and the second highest among our peer group. The following graph shows McDonald’s TSR against our peer group’s average TSR; against the TSR for the Standard & Poor’s 500 Stock Index and against the TSR for the DJIA for the period from December 31, 2006–December 31, 2011 (based on $100 investment and reinvestment of all dividends).

LOGO

Source: S&P Capital IQ

8 McDonald’s Corporation 2012

We performed well in the performance measures that we use to determine executive compensation, including:

>	Operating income increased by 14% (10% in constant currencies)* to $8.5 billion.

>	Earnings per share was $5.27, an increase of 15% (11% in constant currencies).*

See page 14 of 2011 Annual Report on Form 10-K for reconciliation.

Further highlights of our 2011 performance:

>	2011 was McDonald’s eighth consecutive year of positive comparable sales growth in every geographic segment, with a global increase of 5.6% over 2010.

>	We returned $6 billion to our shareholders through share repurchases and dividends paid in 2011.

Over the last five years, we have produced consistent year-over-year growth in operating income (excluding one-time charges in 2007 associated with the sale of our Latin American business) despite an exceptionally challenging global economic and operating environment. During this period, our operating income increased significantly each year for a total increase of more than $4 billion. For the five-year period ending December 31, 2011, our total return to shareholders was 263%.

PAY FOR PERFORMANCE

Our total direct compensation package includes salary, our annual bonus plan, which we refer to as TIP, our long-term cash incentive plan, which we refer to as CPUP, stock options and restricted stock units, each as described below. The following table lists the quantitative performance measures the Company uses in its executive compensation program. The rationale for the use of each primary measure is explained below in the detailed discussions of each element of compensation.

TIP

CPUP

Stock options

RSUs

Primary performance measure

Operating income

ROTA

EPS

Share price

Secondary performance measure

TSR

Comparable Guest Counts

Customer Satisfaction Opportunity

G&A Expense Control

We believe that our executive compensation program has been effective at incentivizing strong results by appropriately aligning pay and performance. We seek to utilize metrics and a mix of incentives under our compensation program that further our main objective of long-term sustainable growth and that are designed to mitigate risk.

In addition to the quantitative factors, determinations of TIP payouts and the grants of annual equity-based compensation take into account qualitative aspects of individual performance as well as potential for future performance. For example, Mr. Skinner’s individual performance results were focused on delivering long-term sustainable growth, talent management and leadership development, and encouraging innovation around balanced active lifestyles. For TIP, a multiplier based on the assessment of individual performance is used in calculating final awards, as described on page 21.

McDonald’s Corporation 2012 9

The pie chart below illustrates the composition of Mr. Skinner’s 2011 total direct compensation opportunity, using his target TIP award and annualized target CPUP award (one-third of three-year opportunity). This chart highlights that 85% of his total direct compensation opportunity is directly influenced by Company performance.

LOGO

BEST PRACTICES

In 2011, we provided shareholders with an advisory vote on executive compensation (Say on Pay vote). Our executive compensation program was approved by over 95% of the votes. These results demonstrate strong shareholder support for our executive compensation program. In addition, we continued our shareholder outreach program, which provides our principal shareholders an opportunity to engage in dialogue with us about aspects of our executive compensation program.

We evaluate our executive compensation program at least annually, and this year, we have taken into account the outcome of our 2011 Say on Pay vote when considering 2012’s executive compensation program. Based on our evaluation and shareholder feedback, we have not made any significant changes to our executive compensation program for 2012.

The following policies and practices are important elements of our executive compensation program:

>	Pay for Performance. The vast majority of total direct compensation is tied to performance.

>	Stock Ownership. We have stock ownership requirements for our senior management, including requiring our CEO to own stock equal in value to at least six times his annual salary.

>	Bonuses. TIP and CPUP both require growth in operating income to yield a payout and utilize caps on potential payments.

>	Clawbacks. TIP and CPUP contain clawback provisions.

>	Change in Control. We do not intend to enter into any new change in control agreements and our current agreements are double-trigger.

>	Independent Consultant. The Committee benefits from its utilization of an independent compensation consultant and the compensation consultant acts at the sole direction of the Board or Committee.

Key terms

We use the following terms in describing our compensation plans, measures of Company performance and other aspects of our executive compensation program.

COMPANY COMPENSATION PLANS

>	TIP. Target Incentive Plan. Our annual cash incentive plan.

>	CPUP. Cash Performance Unit Plan. Our long-term cash incentive plan which operates on three-year non-overlapping cycles.

>	RSUs. Restricted stock units. An RSU provides the right to receive a share of McDonald’s stock. RSUs granted to executives generally have both service and performance-based vesting requirements.

10 McDonald’s Corporation 2012

QUANTITATIVE MEASURES OF COMPANY PERFORMANCE

Operating income, ROTA and EPS are based on the corresponding measures reported in our financial statements and are adjusted for purposes of our compensation program. For more information about adjustments in measuring performance, see page 14.

>	Operating income. Profit attributed to the operations.

>	ROTA. Return on total assets (operating income divided by average assets).

>	EPS. Earnings per share (net income divided by diluted weighted-average shares). Diluted weighted-average shares include weighted-average shares outstanding plus the dilutive effect of share-based compensation.

>	Comparable guest counts. Represents the percent change in transactions from the same period for the prior year for all restaurants in operation at least 13 months.

>	Customer satisfaction opportunity. Represents the percentage of times that Quality, Service or Cleanliness critical drivers are missed in a customer visit.

>	G&A expense control. Represents a way that the corporate function can contribute to operating income. If spending is at or below plan, this modifier has no impact on the Corporate TIP team factor, but if spending is above plan, it will have a negative impact on the Corporate TIP team factor.

>	TSR. Total shareholder return. The total return on our shares over a specified period, assuming reinvestment of dividends.

GROUPS OF COMPANY EMPLOYEES

>	Staff. Company employees, including home office, divisional office and regional office employees.

>	Senior management. Employees at the level of senior vice president and above; about 52 employees.

>	Executives. The 11 most senior executives of the Company.

>	Named executive officers (NEOs). The following five executives whose compensation is described in this Proxy Statement, pursuant to requirements of the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC).

—

James A. Skinner, Vice Chairman and Chief Executive Officer or CEO (retiring, effective June 30, 2012)

—

Peter J. Bensen, Chief Financial Officer or CFO

—

Donald Thompson, President and Chief Operating Officer or President/COO (appointed President and CEO, effective July 1, 2012)

—

Timothy J. Fenton, President of McDonald’s Asia/Pacific, Middle East and Africa, or APMEA

—

Janice L. Fields, President of McDonald’s USA

OTHER

>	Total direct compensation. The aggregate value of salary, TIP, CPUP, stock options and RSUs.

>	Total direct compensation opportunity for 2011. The targeted value of total direct compensation that the NEOs had an opportunity to earn in 2011 for target performance.

>	Committee. The Compensation Committee of the Company’s Board of Directors.

>	AOWs. The Company’s geographic business units, namely the U.S., Europe and APMEA.

McDonald’s Executive Compensation Program

ELEMENTS OF McDONALD’S EXECUTIVE COMPENSATION

ALLOCATION OF TOTAL DIRECT COMPENSATION AMONG THE ELEMENTS

Approximately 81% of the NEOs’ total direct compensation opportunity for 2011 was allocated to variable compensation that is at-risk based on performance, including short-term and long-term incentive compensation.

Short-term incentive compensation is provided under our TIP program and long-term incentive compensation is allocated approximately two thirds to equity-based compensation (stock options and RSUs) and one-third to long-term cash incentive compensation under the CPUP.

McDonald’s Corporation 2012 11

DETAILED INFORMATION ABOUT ELEMENTS OF COMPENSATION

>	Annual salary

In setting annual salary levels, we take into account competitive considerations, individual performance, tenure in position, internal pay equity, and the effect on our general and administrative expenses. For 2011, decisions regarding executive salaries were initially informed by a review of external salary information at our stated objective of the 50th percentile of our peer group. However, executives’ salaries vary based on individual circumstances and may be above or below the 50th percentile. For example, in 2011, our CEO’s salary was at approximately the 70th percentile due to his long tenure and strong contributions to the success of the Company. In 2011, NEOs’ salaries were increased by between 2.8% and 4.4% over 2010 levels.

TIP

Our TIP is designed primarily to reward growth in annual operating income, which measures the success of the most important elements of our business strategy. If there is no growth in operating income, the TIP formula results in no payouts. Operating income growth requires the Company to balance increases in revenue with financial discipline to produce strong margins and a high level of cash flow. The individual performance of our executives is also an important factor in determining their TIP award.

For purposes of determining an executive’s TIP payout, operating income growth is measured on a consolidated (referred to as Corporate) basis or an AOW basis, or a combination of the two, depending on the executive’s responsibilities. In addition to operating income growth, final TIP payouts take into account pre-established “modifiers” reflecting other measures of Corporate and/or AOW performance (for example, for 2011, comparable guest count increases, customer service improvements and G&A expense control). In addition to Company performance, TIP payouts are adjusted based on the application of an individual performance factor (IPF) (from 0 up to 150% in 2011) which acts as a multiplier and can have a significant effect, whether positive or negative, in determining the final payout. Final payouts are capped at 250% of target. Additional details on how each element of performance affects actual 2011 TIP payouts can be found in the description following the Grants of Plan Based Awards table on pages 21 and 22.

Our executives’ 2011 target awards were set at approximately the 60-65th percentile of our peer group.

In 2011, operating income growth exceeded the targets under the TIP for each AOW as well as Corporate. Further, TIP results for each AOW and Corporate benefitted by the cumulative performance against the pre-established targets for the modifiers.

The operating income targets and results under the 2011 TIP are shown in the following table:


(Dollars in millions)	Target 2011 operating income*		2011 operating income*		Target 2011 operating income growth over 2010*			2011 operating income growth over 2010*
Corporate		$8,140		$8,229		8.5	%		9.7	%
U.S.		3,625		3,666		5.2			6.4
Europe		3,010		3,070		7.6			9.7
APMEA		1,398		1,415		12.0			13.3

*	Adjusted for compensation purposes as described on page 14.

In addition (as reflected in the table on page 22), the IPF for each NEO was above 100%.

Consistent with our 2011 results and our executives’ individual performance, TIP awards were above target.

The target awards and final TIP payouts for the NEOs are shown in the following table:


Named executive officer	2011 target TIP award		2011 TIP final payout		TIP final payment as percentage of target
James A. Skinner		$2,220,000		$3,300,000		149	%
Peter J. Bensen		675,000		987,000		146
Donald Thompson		1,043,750		1,526,000		146
Timothy J. Fenton		514,250		667,000		130
Janice L. Fields		507,450		679,000		134

Additional detail about the NEOs’ 2011 TIP awards begins on page 21.

12 McDonald’s Corporation 2012

CPUP

We believe it is important to have a long-term component based on measures that are not limited to stock price. As operating income focuses on the key elements associated with driving our business and ROTA measures the efficiency of our capital investments, we believe these strike an appropriate balance as the primary measures for our long-term cash incentive plan. CPUP also incorporates a TSR multiplier that rewards strong shareholder returns relative to the S&P 500 Index, while holding senior management accountable for below-market performance.

Every three years, senior management is eligible for a long-term cash incentive award under CPUP, which provides for a cumulative payout at the end of the three-year cycle. CPUP awards do not overlap and were granted most recently in 2010. These awards are scheduled to be paid (if performance targets are met) in 2013 following completion of the current three-year performance cycle ending on December 31, 2012. The maximum award allowed under the 2010–2012 CPUP is 230% of the target award. Based upon performance through 2011, we currently expect the 2010–2012 CPUP payout factor to be in the range of 170%–190% of target awards. As a result of these awards, we expect 2012 compensation for all members of senior management to be significantly higher than 2011.

Final payouts will be determined based on the following three quantitative measures over the 2010–2012 performance period: (i) consolidated compound annual growth in operating income, (ii) average ROTA and (iii) TSR relative to the S&P 500 Index which functions as a multiplier (either positive or negative). Detailed information about the calculation of the 2010–2012 CPUP awards was included in our 2011 proxy statement.

>	Stock options

Options align executives’ compensation to the return earned by shareholders, thereby incentivizing executives to increase shareholder value. Options, including those granted in 2011, have an exercise price equal to the closing price of our common stock on the grant date, a term of ten years and vest ratably over four years. The Company’s policies and practices regarding option grants, including the timing of grants and the determination of the exercise price, are described on page 17.

RSUs

The value of RSUs is linked to our stock price. The performance-based vesting conditions based upon EPS growth require the executives to achieve the Company’s strategic objectives in order to vest in the awards. The Company believes that EPS growth is a strong indicator of profitability.

The RSUs granted to executives in 2011 are scheduled to vest in full at the end of a three-year service period, subject to the Company’s achievement of EPS growth targets over that period. The target performance level for the RSUs granted to executives in 2011 is 6% compounded annual growth in EPS on a cumulative basis over baseline 2010 EPS of $4.60. If target performance is achieved (cumulative EPS of $15.53), the full number of RSUs covered by the 2011 awards will vest. Achievement of below target performance reduces the number of RSUs that will vest, but above target performance does not increase the number of RSUs earned.

All of the RSUs granted to the NEOs in 2008 vested in 2011 based on the achievement of 16.6% compounded annual EPS growth over the performance period, which exceeded the target of 7%.

>	Retirement savings plans

The NEOs participate in our tax-qualified defined contribution retirement savings plan and a supplemental non-qualified deferred compensation retirement plan. We believe a competitive retirement program aligns with market practices, and thereby contributes to the recruitment and retention of top executive talent.

>	Retirement of Mr. Skinner

Mr. Skinner participates in the Executive Retention Replacement Plan or ERRP. In connection with his June 30, 2012 retirement, Mr. Skinner qualifies for certain benefits, including a cash payment, under the ERRP as he has satisfied the applicable retention period and the retirement age under that plan. The amount of this cash payment will be calculated upon his retirement and paid on December 31, 2012. We expect this cash payment will be approximately $10 million. Following his retirement, all of his outstanding options will continue to become exercisable on their originally scheduled dates and his outstanding RSUs will be paid out on the originally scheduled dates, based on the Company’s achievement of the applicable performance goals. Mr. Skinner’s receipt of these benefits under the ERRP is subject to the execution of an agreement that includes covenants not to compete and not to solicit employees, nondisparagement and nondisclosure covenants as well as a release of claims.

In addition, pursuant to the terms of TIP and CPUP (including the respective clawback provisions), Mr. Skinner will be entitled to a prorated award under each such plan for the current performance cycles. These prorated awards will be based upon actual performance for the full applicable performance cycle and will be payable in early 2013. Please refer to page 29 for more details on the payments Mr. Skinner will receive following his retirement.

McDonald’s Corporation 2012 13

>	Severance and change in control arrangements

Severance plan. Messrs. Bensen, Fenton and Thompson and Ms. Fields participate in our broad-based U.S. severance plan. Benefits under the severance plan are described under “Potential Payments Upon Termination of Employment or Change in Control” beginning on page 26.

Change in control employment agreements. The Company has change in control employment agreements with its NEOs. Benefits under the change in control employment agreements are described under “Potential Payments Upon Termination of Employment or Change in Control” beginning on page 26. The Company does not intend to enter into new change in control agreements.

>	Perquisites and other fringe benefits

McDonald’s provides the following perquisites to executives: company-provided cars or a car allowance, financial planning, annual physical examinations (which are also available for the executives’ spouses), executive security, matching charitable donations, limited personal items and, generally in the case of the CEO only, personal use of the Company’s aircraft. The Company does not provide any tax gross-ups with respect to perquisites. See footnote 5 to the Summary Compensation Table on page 19 for a discussion of perquisites received by NEOs in 2011. Executives also participate in all of the broad-based benefit and welfare plans and perquisites available to McDonald’s staff in general.

CERTAIN ADJUSTMENTS IN MEASURING PERFORMANCE

In measuring financial performance the Committee focuses on the fundamentals of the underlying business performance and adjusts for items that are not indicative of ongoing results. For example, operating income and EPS are expressed in constant currencies (i.e., excluding the effects of foreign currency translation), since we believe that period-to-period changes in foreign exchange rates can cause our reported results to appear more or less favorable than business fundamentals indicate. The Committee’s approach to other types of adjustments is subject to pre-established guidelines, including materiality, to provide clarity and consistency on how it views the business when evaluating performance. Charges/credits that may be excluded from operating income include: “strategic” items (such as restructurings, acquisitions and divestitures); “regulatory” items (changes in tax or accounting rules); and “external” items (extraordinary, non-recurring events such as natural disasters). Similar principles apply to exclusions from EPS and when calculating ROTA.

There were no significant items excluded in calculating adjusted operating income for 2011 TIP except for adjustments resulting from certain natural disasters in APMEA that only impacted APMEA TIP results.

Significant items excluded from base EPS (2010 EPS) for the RSUs granted to the executives in 2011 were:

>	impairment charges, net of taxes.

Significant items excluded from base EPS (2007 EPS) for RSUs that were granted in 2008 and vested in 2011 were:

>	impairment charges, net of taxes;

>	the net tax benefit from an IRS audit settlement; and

>	income from discontinued operations.

THE PROCESS FOR SETTING COMPENSATION

The Committee is responsible for reviewing and approving senior management’s compensation. The Chairmen of the Governance and Compensation Committees lead the Board’s independent Directors in the evaluation of the CEO’s performance. Based upon the results of this performance evaluation, the Committee determines the CEO’s compensation.

THE ROLE OF MANAGEMENT

Management recommends compensation for executives other than the CEO to the Committee. The CEO recommends compensation packages for the NEOs who report directly to him: Messrs. Bensen and Thompson. The President/COO does the same for the NEOs who report directly to him: Mr. Fenton and Ms. Fields. The head of human resources also provides input on compensation for each of the executives. In 2011, prior to each Committee meeting, the CEO and the CFO provided input on the materials prepared by management and presented to the Committee (except with respect to their own compensation).

14 McDonald’s Corporation 2012

THE ROLE OF COMPENSATION CONSULTANTS

The Committee has adopted a policy under which it has the sole authority to select, evaluate, retain and dismiss an independent compensation consultant. Management may not engage the consultant.

Frederic W. Cook & Co., Inc. (Fred Cook) is the Committee’s independent compensation consultant. Fred Cook advises the Committee regarding (i) trends in executive compensation; (ii) specific compensation recommendations for the CEO, CFO and COO; (iii) applicable legislative developments; and (iv) other matters as requested by the Committee from time to time. Fred Cook also provided assistance to the Board in carrying out certain routine functions (compiling and summarizing the results of certain Board and Director evaluations) and advice on Director fees.

Management considers survey data and similar information about compensation programs that it obtains from various sources, including Aon Hewitt, which also provides significant benefit plan administration services to McDonald’s, and Towers Watson & Co. and Equilar. From time to time, data obtained from these other sources is provided to the Committee to provide information about compensation trends and practices generally.

COMPANIES IN OUR PEER GROUP IN 2011

Consistent with our goal of providing competitive compensation, we benchmark our executives’ compensation compared to executive compensation at a peer group of companies. The companies in the peer group are companies with which we compete for talent, including our direct competitors, major retailers, producers of consumer branded goods and companies with a significant global presence.

The Committee reviews our peer group annually. The peer group was selected based on the following criteria: industry, comparable size based on revenue and market capitalization; global presence; high performing companies that compete with us for talent; and availability of data. The table below shows market capitalization and revenues for each of our peer group companies for 2011 (except for Burger King, Nestlé and Unilever, for which such information is not available). McDonald’s market capitalization as of the end of 2011 was $102.5 billion (at the 78th percentile of our comparator group) and revenue was $27.0 billion (at the 35th percentile of our comparator group).

McDONALD’S 2011 PEER GROUP COMPANIES

(Dollars In billions)


Peer	Market capitalization ($)(1)		Revenues (2)

Branded Consumer Products:
3M Company		$57.3		$29.6
The Coca-Cola Company		159.0		46.5
Colgate-Palmolive Company		44.7		16.7
The Walt Disney Company		67.4		40.9
General Mills, Inc.		26.1		14.9
Johnson & Johnson		179.1		65.0
Kellogg Company		18.2		13.2
Kraft Foods, Inc.		66.0		54.4
Nestlé (United States) (3)		–		–
NIKE, Inc.		44.7		20.9
PepsiCo, Inc.		103.7		66.5
The Procter & Gamble Company		183.5		82.6
Sara Lee		11.2		8.7
Unilever (United States) (3)		–		–

Table continued on next page

McDonald’s Corporation 2012 15

Table continued from previous page


Peer	Market capitalization ($)		Revenues

Major Retailers/Services:
Best Buy Co., Inc.		$8.5		$50.3
Costco Wholesale Corporation		36.2		87.0
The Home Depot, Inc.		64.8		68.0
Lowe’s Companies Inc.		31.8		48.8
Sears Holding Corporation		3.4		43.3
Target Corporation		34.4		67.4
Walgreen Co.		29.8		72.2
Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.		204.7		419.0

Key Competitors:
Burger King Holdings, Inc.		–		–
Starbucks Corporation		34.3		11.7
Wendy’s Company		2.1		2.4
Yum! Brands, Inc.		27.2		12.6

(1)	Source for market capitalization: Bloomberg.com. Data as of December 31, 2011.

(2)	Reflects revenues, sales or comparable data as publicly disclosed by the applicable company in its annual report filed with the SEC for its most recently completed fiscal year.

(3)	Unlisted U.S. division of non-U.S. company.

Compensation Policies And Practices

POLICY REGARDING STOCK OWNERSHIP OF MANAGEMENT

The Company has adopted stock ownership requirements for senior management because we believe they will more effectively pursue the long-term interests of shareholders if they are shareholders themselves. The following table provides our current stock ownership requirements, by level.


Level	Stock ownership requirements (multiple of salary)
Vice Chairman & CEO		6 X
President/COO		5 X
CFO		4 X
President U.S./Europe/APMEA		4 X
Executive Management (EVP)		4 X
Division President — U.S. paid		4 X
Division President — non-U.S. paid		3 X
Senior Management (SVP) — U.S. paid		3 X
Senior Management (SVP) — non-U.S. paid		2 X

The Committee reviews share ownership requirements and where members of senior management stand against their respective requirements annually. Once a member of senior management becomes subject to the stock ownership requirements, he/she has five years to satisfy the requirements. Currently, all executives meet or are on track to meet their respective stock ownership requirements.

Further, the Company has adopted restrictions that prohibit certain employees, including all of senior management, from engaging in derivative transactions to hedge the risk associated with their stock ownership. These restrictions also require approval in order to hold Company shares in a margin account.

16 McDonald’s Corporation 2012

CLAWBACK

The Company’s compensation plans contain clawback provisions that apply to senior management.

Senior management may be required to repay compensation previously awarded under TIP and CPUP in certain circumstances (for example, the commission of fraud) and to the extent permitted under applicable law.

Payments under the ERRP, including some stock option gains and RSU payouts, are also subject to forfeiture and repayment in certain circumstances, such as violation of an applicable restrictive covenant or the commission of an act that would have resulted in termination for “cause.”

Under our severance plan, the Company may cease payment of any future benefits and require repayment of any previously paid severance amounts upon violation of an applicable restrictive covenant or commission of an act that would have resulted in termination for “cause.”

Unexercised stock options and unpaid RSUs are subject to forfeiture if the Company determines that any employee committed an act or acts involving dishonesty, fraud, illegality or moral turpitude. Further, if an executive violates a restrictive covenant, the Company has the right to cancel outstanding awards.

POLICY REGARDING FUTURE SEVERANCE PAYMENTS

The Company has a policy under which we will seek shareholder approval for severance payments to a NEO if such payments would exceed 2.99 times the sum of (i) the NEO’s annual base salary as in effect immediately prior to termination of employment; and (ii) the highest annual bonus awarded to the NEO by the Company in any of the three full fiscal years immediately preceding the fiscal year in which termination of employment occurs. Certain types of payments are excluded from this policy, such as amounts payable under arrangements that apply to classes of employees other than the NEOs or that predate the implementation of the policy, as well as any payment that the Committee determines is a reasonable settlement of a claim that could be made by the NEO.

RISK AND COMPENSATION PROGRAMS

In considering the risks to the Company and its business that may be implied by our compensation plans and programs, the Committee focuses primarily on senior management, but also considers the design, operation and mix of the plans and programs at all levels of the Company. Our compensation program is designed to mitigate the potential to reward risk-taking that may produce short-term results that appear in isolation to be favorable, but that may undermine the successful execution of our long-term business strategy and erode shareholder value.

INTERNAL PAY EQUITY

Compensation opportunities reflect our executives’ positions, responsibilities and tenure in a given position and are generally similar for executives who have comparable levels of responsibility (although actual compensation delivered may differ depending on relative performance). Mr. Skinner has ultimate responsibility for the strategic direction of the Company, and therefore is the most highly paid.

POLICY WITH RESPECT TO DEDUCTIBILITY OF COMPENSATION

We generally design our compensation programs to allow the Company to deduct compensation expense under Section 162(m) of the Internal Revenue Code (Code), which limits to $1 million the tax deductibility of annual compensation paid to NEOs unless the compensation is performance-based. However, the Company reserves the discretion to pay compensation that does not qualify as performance-based compensation under Section 162(m) of the Code.

POLICIES AND PRACTICES REGARDING EQUITY AWARDS

Equity awards cannot be granted when the Company possesses material non-public information. The Company generally makes broad-based equity grants at approximately the same time each year following our release of financial information; however, the Company may choose to make equity awards outside of the annual broad-based grant (i.e., for new hires). Stock options may be granted only with an exercise price at or above the closing market price of the Company’s stock on the date of grant.

McDonald’s Corporation 2012 17

COMPENSATION TABLES

Summary Compensation Table

The table below summarizes the total compensation earned by or paid to our NEOs in 2009, 2010 and 2011.


Name and principal position (a)	Year (b)		Salary (1) ($)(c)		Stock awards (2) ($)(e)		Option awards (3) ($)(f)		Non-equity incentive plan compensation (4) ($)(g)			All other compensation (5) ($)(i)		Total ($)(j)
James A. Skinner		2011	$	1,473,333	$	1,429,035	$	1,796,501	Annual:	$	3,300,000	$	752,024	$	8,750,893
Vice Chairman and									Long-term:		0
Chief Executive									Total:		3,300,000
Officer
(retiring, effective		2010		1,433,333		1,415,255		1,752,389	Annual:		4,500,000		631,641		9,732,618
June 30, 2012)									Long-term:		0
									Total:		4,500,000

		2009		1,391,667		1,670,500		2,238,608	Annual:		3,250,000		743,350		17,574,125
									Long-term:		8,280,000
									Total:		11,530,000


Peter J. Bensen		2011		670,833		446,730		561,559	Annual:		987,000		226,504		2,892,626
Corporate Executive									Long-term:		0
Vice President and									Total:		987,000
Chief Financial
Officer		2010		641,667		398,084		492,891	Annual:		1,296,000		198,800		3,027,441
									Long-term:		0
									Total:		1,296,000

		2009		554,167		291,702		390,873	Annual:		956,000		177,514		4,981,715
									Long-term:		2,611,459
									Total:		3,567,459


Donald Thompson		2011		829,167		625,165		785,902	Annual:		1,526,000		307,514		4,073,748
President and									Long-term:		0
Chief Operating									Total:		1,526,000
Officer
(President and		2010		794,952		583,838		722,908	Annual:		1,855,000		174,662		4,131,360
Chief Executive									Long-term:		0
Officer, effective									Total:		1,855,000
July 1, 2012)
		2009		570,833		344,725		715,758	Annual:		581,000		166,077		5,138,393
									Long-term:		2,760,000
									Total:		3,341,000


Timothy J. Fenton		2011		601,500		401,969		505,299	Annual:		667,000		302,468		2,478,236
President,									Long-term:		0
McDonald’s Asia/									Total:		667,000
Pacific, Middle East and Africa		2010		581,083		371,564		460,033	Annual:		961,000		385,411		2,759,091
									Long-term:		0
									Total:		961,000

		2009		563,750		344,725		461,941	Annual:		834,000		1,164,702		6,129,118
									Long-term:		2,760,000
									Total:		3,594,000


Janice L. Fields		2011		593,333		321,602		404,242	Annual:		679,000		155,854		2,154,031
President,									Long-term:		0
McDonald’s USA (6)									Total:		679,000

		2010		573,351		291,947		361,459	Annual:		780,000		146,659		2,153,416
									Long-term:		0
									Total:		780,000

18 McDonald’s Corporation 2012

(1)	Reflects annual increases in salary that took effect March 1, 2011. Annual base salaries as of December 31, 2011 were as follows:


James A. Skinner			$1,480,000
Peter J. Bensen			675,000
Donald Thompson			835,000
Timothy J. Fenton			605,000
Janice L. Fields			597,000

(2)

Represents the aggregate grant date fair value, as computed in accordance with FASB ASC Topic 718, based on the probable outcome of the applicable performance conditions and excluding the effect of estimated forfeitures during the applicable vesting periods, of RSUs granted under the McDonald’s Corporation Amended and Restated 2001 Omnibus Stock Ownership Plan, as amended (Equity Plan). Values are based on the closing price of the Company’s common stock on the grant date, less the present value of expected dividends over the vesting period. Generally, RSUs vest on the third anniversary of the grant date and are subject to performance-based vesting conditions linked to the achievement of target levels of diluted EPS growth. Additional information is disclosed in the Grants of Plan-Based Awards table on page 20 and the Outstanding Equity Awards at 2011 Year-end table on pages 23 and 24. A more detailed discussion of the assumptions used in the valuation of RSU awards may be found in the Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements under “Share-based Compensation” on pages 41 and 42 of the Company’s Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2011.

(3)

Represents the aggregate grant date fair value, as computed in accordance with FASB ASC Topic 718, excluding the effect of estimated forfeitures during the applicable vesting periods of options. Options have an exercise price equal to the closing price of the Company’s common stock on the grant date, vest in equal installments over a four-year period and are subject to the Equity Plan. Values for options granted in 2011 are determined using a closed-form pricing model based on the following assumptions, as described in the footnotes to the consolidated financial statements: expected volatility based on historical experience of 21.5%; an expected annual dividend yield of 3.2%; a risk-free return of 2.8%; and expected option life based on historical experience of 6.3 years. Additional information about options is disclosed in the Grants of Plan-Based Awards table on page 20 and the Outstanding Equity Awards at 2011 Year-end table on pages 23 and 24. A more detailed discussion of the assumptions used in the valuation of option awards may be found in the Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements under “Share-based Compensation” on page 31 of the Company’s Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2011.

(4)	Our annual cash incentive plan is referred to as TIP and our long-term cash incentive plan is referred to as CPUP. CPUP operates on non-overlapping three-year cycles.

(5)	“All other compensation” for 2011 includes the Company’s contributions to the Profit Sharing and Savings Plan and Excess Benefit and Deferred Bonus Plan as follows:


James A. Skinner			$597,333
Peter J. Bensen			196,684
Donald Thompson			268,417
Timothy J. Fenton			156,250
Janice L. Fields			137,333

Also included are the following categories of perquisites: personal use of Company-provided cars or an allowance; life insurance (at a cost of $28,428 for Mr. Skinner); financial counseling; annual physical examinations for the executives and spouses; executive security; matching charitable donations; limited personal items; and personal use (which includes travel for service on boards of directors other than our Board) of the Company’s aircraft (with a net cost to the Company in 2011 of $108,851 for Mr. Skinner). In general, the CEO is the only executive permitted to use the aircraft for personal travel. However, in certain circumstances the CEO may at his discretion permit other executives to use the aircraft for personal travel. In 2011, Mr. Thompson used the aircraft for one personal trip. In addition, at the discretion of the CEO, other executives may be joined by their spouses on the aircraft. The Company does not provide any tax gross-ups on the perquisites described above.

Mr. Fenton previously performed an international assignment in Hong Kong. As a result, he received certain tax-related benefits in connection with his international assignment. In particular, Mr. Fenton participated in the Company’s tax equalization program, which reimburses an executive’s tax obligations arising solely as a result of an international assignment, to the extent that those tax obligations are in excess of taxes that would have been due had the executive not performed the international assignment. Although Mr. Fenton returned to the U.S. in April of 2010, he continued to have tax liability in Hong Kong in 2011 arising from his international assignment. In 2011, the Company made a Hong Kong tax payment in the amount of $86,195 on Mr. Fenton’s behalf. Consistent with Company policy, the Company also provided Mr. Fenton with tax preparation services at a cost of $29,514.

McDonald’s Corporation 2012 19

The incremental cost of perquisites is included in the amount provided in the table and based on actual charges to the Company, except as follows: (i) Company-provided cars includes a pro rata portion of the purchase price, fuel and maintenance, based on personal use, and (ii) corporate aircraft includes fuel, on-board catering, landing/handling fees and crew costs and excludes fixed costs, such as pilot salaries and the cost of the aircraft. In accordance with Company policy, the CEO must reimburse the Company for a portion of personal use of the corporate aircraft, calculated as the lower of (i) amount determined under the Code based on four times the Standard Industry Fare Level (SIFL) rate per person or (ii) 200% of the actual fuel cost.

(6)	Ms. Fields was not an executive officer in 2009.

Grants of Plan-based Awards–Fiscal 2011

In 2011, the NEOs received annual cash awards under TIP. The formula for determining payouts under the TIP is described following the footnotes to the table. Columns (d) and (e) below show the target and maximum awards they could have earned. Actual payouts are in column (g) of the Summary Compensation Table. In 2011, the NEOs also received two types of equity awards: RSUs subject to performance-based vesting criteria (see columns (f), (g), (h) and (l)) and stock options (see columns (j), (k) and (l)).


			Estimated future payouts under non-equity incentive plan awards						Estimated future payouts under equity incentive plan awards (1)						All other option awards: number of securities underlying		Exercise or base price of option		Grant date fair value of stock and options
Name (a)	Plan	Grant date (b)	Threshold ($)(c)		Target ($)(d)		Maximum ($)(e)		Threshold (#)(f)		Target (#)(g)		Maximum (#)(h)		option (2) (#)(j)		awards ($/Sh)(k)		awards (3) ($)(l)

James A.	TIP			0	$	2,220,000	$	5,550,000
Skinner	Equity
	Plan	2/9/11								5,268		21,071		21,071					$	1,429,035
	Equity
	Plan	2/9/11														147,496	$	75.93		1,796,501



Peter J.	TIP			0		675,000		1,687,500
Bensen	Equity
	Plan	2/9/11								1,647		6,587		6,587						446,730
	Equity
	Plan	2/9/11														46,105		75.93		561,559



Donald	TIP			0		1,043,750		2,609,375
Thompson	Equity
	Plan	2/9/11								2,305		9,218		9,218						625,165
	Equity
	Plan	2/9/11														64,524		75.93		785,902



Timothy J.	TIP			0		514,250		1,285,625
Fenton	Equity
	Plan	2/9/11								1,482		5,927		5,927						401,969
	Equity
	Plan	2/9/11														41,486		75.93		505,299



Janice L.	TIP			0		507,450		1,268,625
Fields	Equity
	Plan	2/9/11								1,186		4,742		4,742						321,602
	Equity
	Plan	2/9/11														33,189		75.93		404,242

(1)

Reflects grants of RSUs subject to performance-based vesting conditions under the Equity Plan. The RSUs vest on February 9, 2014, subject to achievement of a specified EPS growth target during the performance period ending on December 31, 2013. The performance target for all RSU awards granted to the NEOs in 2011 is compounded annual EPS growth of 6% on a cumulative basis, adjusted to exclude certain items as described on page 14. If target is achieved, 100% of the RSUs will vest. If no compounded EPS growth is achieved, no RSUs will vest. If compounded EPS growth is achieved, but below target, the awards will vest proportionally.

20 McDonald’s Corporation 2012

(2)	Reflects grants of options in 2011. For details regarding options, please refer to footnote 3 to the Summary Compensation Table on page 19.

(3)	The values in this column for RSUs and options were determined based on the assumptions described in footnotes 2 and 3, respectively, to the Summary Compensation Table on page 19.

TIP AWARDS

Target TIP awards for 2011 were equal to a percentage of salary. The final payouts (shown in column (g) to the Summary Compensation Table) were determined based on the following principles:

TIP measures performance using a “team factor” that is initially determined based on growth in operating income. The team factor increases with growth in operating income up to 100% at the target level of growth and to higher percentages at higher levels of growth, up to the maximum (175% in 2011). The team factor can then be adjusted up or down, within specified limits, based on “modifiers” reflecting other measures of Corporate and/or AOW performance. The target amount is multiplied by the team factor, which includes the modifiers. The product is the “adjusted target award.”

>	Each participant is assigned an individual performance factor determined based on a combination of both subjective and objective factors. The adjusted target award is multiplied by the individual performance factor, and the product is the final payout.

The flowchart below illustrates this process:

LOGO

McDonald’s Corporation 2012 21

The table below shows how increases in operating income determined the team factor for each business segment in 2011, before the application of modifiers. The table shows the target and maximum levels of growth in operating income. Operating income at the Corporate level was included in the TIP team factor calculation for all of our executives. In addition, the results for the U.S. were included in the calculation for Ms. Fields and the results for APMEA were included in the calculation for Mr. Fenton.

TIP team factor and growth in operating income for 2011


Team factor as % of target	0%			100% (Target)			175% (Maximum)


Growth in operating income over 2010:
Corporate factor		0	%		8.5	%		13.7	%
U.S. factor		0			5.2			9.4
APMEA factor		0			12.0			20.9
Europe factor		0			7.6			13.5

Operating income growth in 2011 was 9.7% (Corporate), 6.4% (U.S.), 13.3% (APMEA) and 9.7% (Europe). The resulting Corporate, U.S., APMEA and Europe team factors were 115.1%, 119.7%, 110.1% and 125.2%, respectively, before the application of modifiers.

The target TIP awards, the team factors (including the modifiers), the individual performance factors and the final payouts as a percentage of target awards for the NEOs in 2011 are summarized below.


				Team factors (Corporate factor; AOW factor; blend)
Named executive officer	Target TIP award (% of salary)			Applicable team factor(s)		Team factor(s) before application of modifiers (% of target award)			Impact of modifiers (% added or subtracted)			Final team factor applied to determine TIP payout (% of target award)			Personal factor (%)			Final TIP payout (% of target award)
James A. Skinner		150	%		Corporate		115.1	%		6.7	%		121.8	%		122	%		148.6	%


Peter J. Bensen		100			Corporate		115.1			6.7			121.8			120			146.2


Donald Thompson		125			Corporate		115.1			6.7			121.8			120			146.2


Timothy J. Fenton		85			Corporate		115.1			6.7			121.8			107			129.7
					(weighted 25%)
					APMEA		110.1			10.9			121.0
					(weighted 75%)


Janice L. Fields		85			Corporate		115.1			6.7			121.8			107			133.8
					(weighted 25%)
					U.S.
					(weighted 75%)		119.7			6.3			126.0

The applicable modifiers are described in the following table:


Team factor	Modifiers	Potential weight of each modifier (range)	Potential overall adjustment of team factor by modifiers (range)


Corporate factor	> Comparable Guest Counts Growth	Up to +7.5 or -5	Up to +/-15
	> Customer Satisfaction Opportunity	percentage points	percentage points
	> G&A Expense Control


AOW factor	> Comparable Guest Counts Growth	Up to +/-10	Up to +/-25
	> Customer Satisfaction Opportunity	percentage points	percentage points
	> Improvements in Employee Commitment

22 McDonald’s Corporation 2012

Outstanding Equity Awards at 2011 Year-end


	Option awards								Stock awards
	Number of securities underlying unexercised options exercisable (1)		Number of securities underlying unexercised options unexercisable (1)		Option exercise price		Option expiration date		Number of shares or units of stock that have not vested (2)	Market value of shares or units of stock that have not vested (2)(3)	Equity incentive plan awards: number of unearned shares, units or other rights that have not vested (4)		Equity incentive plan awards: market or payout value of unearned shares, units or other rights that have not vested (3)(4)
Name (a)	(#)(b)		(#)(c)		($)(e)		(f)		(#)(g)	($)(h)	(#)(i)		($)(j)


James A. Skinner		40,000		0	$	14.31000		03/18/2013
		106,193		0		35.25000		03/21/2013
		62,500		0		26.63000		02/16/2014
		62,500		0		25.31000		05/20/2014
		250,000		0		31.21000		12/01/2014
		151,910		0		34.54000		03/23/2016
		116,589		0		45.02000		02/14/2017
		278,073		92,690		56.64000		02/13/2018
		115,870		115,870		57.08000		02/11/2019
		44,253		132,756		63.25000		02/10/2020
		0		147,496		75.93000		02/09/2021
												79,478		$7,974,028


Peter J. Bensen		12,000		0		26.63000		02/16/2014
		6,000		0		25.31000		05/20/2014
		15,971		0		32.60000		02/16/2015
		15,870		0		36.37000		02/14/2016
		15,157		0		45.02000		02/14/2017
		18,075		6,025		56.64000		02/13/2018
		20,233		20,230		57.08000		02/11/2019
		12,449		37,338		63.25000		02/10/2020
		0		46,105		75.93000		02/09/2021
												19,484		1,954,830


Donald Thompson		500		0		39.50000		01/24/2013
		41,800		0		35.25000		03/21/2013
		30,000		0		26.63000		02/16/2014
		30,000		0		25.31000		05/20/2014
		25,299		0		32.60000		02/16/2015
		20,611		0		36.37000		02/14/2016
		24,984		0		45.02000		02/14/2017
		33,369		11,123		56.64000		02/13/2018
		37,049		37,046		57.08000		02/11/2019
		18,256		54,765		63.25000		02/10/2020
		0		64,524		75.93000		02/09/2021
												26,486		$2,657,340


Timothy J. Fenton		28,315		0		45.02000		02/14/2017
		33,369		11,123		56.64000		02/13/2018
		23,910		23,910		57.08000		02/11/2019
		11,617		34,851		63.25000		02/10/2020
		0		41,486		75.93000		02/09/2021
												19,401		$1,946,502

Table continued on next page

McDonald’s Corporation 2012 23

Table continued from previous page


	Option awards								Stock awards
	Number of securities underlying unexercised options exercisable (1)		Number of securities underlying unexercised options unexercisable (1)		Option exercise price		Option expiration date		Number of shares or units of stock that have not vested (2)		Market value of shares or units of stock that have not vested (2)(3)		Equity incentive plan awards: number of unearned shares, units or other rights that have not vested (4)		Equity incentive plan awards: market or payout value of unearned shares, units or other rights that have not vested (3)(4)
Name (a)	(#)(b)		(#)(c)		($)(e)		(f)		(#)(g)		($)(h)		(#)(i)		($)(j)

Janice L. Fields		26,400		0	$	35.25000		03/21/2013
		7,500		0		26.63000		02/16/2014
		2,000		0		25.31000		05/20/2014
		23,460		0		32.60000		02/16/2015
		19,580		0		36.37000		02/14/2016
		19,987		0		45.02000		02/14/2017
		18,075		6,025		56.64000		02/13/2018
		12,875		12,874		57.08000		02/11/2019
		9,130		27,381		63.25000		02/10/2020
		0		33,189		75.93000		02/09/2021
										3,680	$	369,214		9,960		$999,287

(1)

In general, options expire on the tenth anniversary of grant. However, the options due to expire on March 21, 2013 were granted on March 21, 2000. Options generally vest and become exercisable in equal installments over a four-year period. For details regarding equity treatment upon termination, see page 30.

(2)	These RSUs vested on February 11, 2012 and were not subject to performance-based vesting conditions as they were granted to Ms. Fields prior to serving as President of McDonald’s USA.

(3)	Calculated by multiplying the number of shares covered by the award by $100.33, the closing price of Company stock on the New York Stock Exchange on December 30, 2011.

(4)	Reflects unvested performance-based RSUs that are scheduled to be paid out as follows if the targets are met (or were paid out, in the case of awards that vested in 2012).


Named executive officer	Vesting date		Number of RSUs

James A. Skinner		02/11/12		33,112
		02/10/13		25,295
		02/09/14		21,071


Peter J. Bensen		02/11/12		5,782
		02/10/13		7,115
		02/09/14		6,587


Donald Thompson		02/11/12		6,833
		02/10/13		10,435
		02/09/14		9,218


Timothy J. Fenton		02/11/12		6,833
		02/10/13		6,641
		02/09/14		5,927


Janice L. Fields		02/10/13		5,218
		02/09/14		4,742

24 McDonald’s Corporation 2012

Option Exercises and Stock Vested–Fiscal 2011


	Option awards				Stock awards
	Number of shares acquired on exercise		Value realized on exercise		Number of shares acquired on vesting		Value realized on vesting
Name (a)	(#)(b)		($)(c)		(#)(d)		($)(e)

James A. Skinner		100,000	$	3,623,510		52,967	$	4,032,907
Peter J. Bensen		13,826		812,825		7,857		598,232
Donald Thompson		30,000		1,618,317		6,356		483,946
Timothy J. Fenton		0		0		6,356		483,946
Janice L. Fields		63,250		3,114,340		3,443		262,150

Non-qualified Deferred Compensation–Fiscal 2011


	Executive		Registrant		Aggregate		Aggregate		Aggregate
	contributions		contributions		earnings		withdrawals/		balance at
	in last FY (1)		in last FY (1)		in last FY		distributions		last FYE (2)
Name (a)	($)(b)		($)(c)		($)(d)		($)(e)		($)(f)

James A. Skinner	$	4,699,000		$579,717	$	2,006,917		0	$	38,471,994
Peter J. Bensen		298,193		182,115		512,250		0		4,717,035
Donald Thompson		250,972		243,917		356,447		0		2,246,397
Timothy J. Fenton		1,119,450		143,767		664,926		0		7,027,459
Janice L. Fields		449,067		112,833		234,413		0		3,902,619

(1)

Represents salary deferrals which are also reported as compensation for 2011 in the Summary Compensation Table on page 18: $199,000 for Mr. Skinner; $90,833 for Mr. Bensen; $41,750 for Mr. Thompson; $158,450 for Mr. Fenton; and $39,800 for Ms. Fields. The remaining amounts represent bonus deferrals under TIP, which were previously reported in the Summary Compensation Table for 2010. The amounts reported in column (c) are included in “All other compensation” in column (i) of the Summary Compensation Table.

(2)	Includes amounts previously reported in the Summary Compensation Table, in the aggregate, as follows:


James A. Skinner	$	14,998,733
Peter J. Bensen		2,873,894
Donald Thompson		627,881
Timothy J. Fenton		3,572,004
Janice L. Fields		1,000,440

EXCESS BENEFIT AND DEFERRED BONUS PLAN (EXCESS PLAN)

The Company’s Excess Plan is a successor plan to the Supplemental Plan described below. The Excess Plan is a non-tax-qualified, unfunded plan that allows certain management and highly compensated employees to (i) make tax-deferred contributions from their salary, TIP and CPUP awards; and (ii) receive matching contributions (on deferrals of salary and TIP awards only), in excess of the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) limits under the Profit Sharing and Savings Plan.

At the time of deferral, participants may elect to receive distributions either in a lump-sum or in regular installments over a period of up to 15 years following separation from service. Distributions are delayed for six months following separation from service.

Deferrals are nominally invested in investment funds selected by participants and are credited with a rate of return based on the investment option(s) selected. The investment options are currently based on the Profit Sharing and Savings Plan’s McDonald’s common stock fund; a stable value fund; and an S&P 500 Index fund.

McDonald’s Corporation 2012 25

SUPPLEMENTAL PROFIT SHARING AND SAVINGS PLAN (SUPPLEMENTAL PLAN)

Prior to the Excess Plan, the Company’s Supplemental Plan allowed participants to defer compensation in excess of the IRS limits that applied to the Profit Sharing and Savings Plan. In 2004, the Company froze the Supplemental Plan. Prior to 2005, the Supplemental Plan allowed deferrals of salary and all or a portion of cash incentives as well as Company contributions on deferrals of salary and TIP. The investment options for existing accounts under the Supplemental Plan are identical to those under the Excess Plan. A participant may elect to have distributions commence in the year following termination in a single lump-sum, in installments commencing on a date of the participant’s choice or in an initial lump-sum payment with subsequent installment payments, all of which must be completed within 25 years. If the participant does not file a distribution election in the year of termination, the participant’s entire Supplemental Plan balance is paid out in cash in the year following termination. In-service and hardship withdrawals are permitted subject to certain conditions.

Potential Payments Upon Termination or Change in Control

Our NEOs would become entitled to certain payments and benefits in connection with a change in control and/or if their employment with the Company were to terminate as described below.

POTENTIAL PAYMENTS UPON OR IN CONNECTION WITH A CHANGE IN CONTROL

A “change in control” is generally defined as either (i) the acquisition of 20% or more of our common stock or voting securities by a single purchaser or a group of purchasers acting together; (ii) the incumbent members of the Board cease to constitute at least a majority of the Board as a result of an actual or threatened election contest; (iii) a significant merger or other business combination involving the Company; or (iv) a complete liquidation or dissolution of the Company.

>	Change in control employment agreements (CIC Agreements)

The Company has CIC Agreements with some of its senior management, including all of the NEOs. The Company does not intend to enter into any new CIC agreements. An executive who also participates in the ERRP would be entitled to receive the greater of the benefits under the ERRP or the benefits under the CIC Agreement, but not both. A minimum of two years’ notice is required to terminate a CIC Agreement.

The CIC Agreements provide that, during the three-year period following a change in control, referred to as the “protected period,” the executive’s (i) position and authority may not be reduced; (ii) place of work may not be relocated by more than 30 miles; (iii) salary may not be reduced; (iv) annual bonus opportunity may not be reduced; and (v) participation in benefit plans will continue on terms not less favorable than before the change in control. In addition, within 30 days after a change in control, if it is also a change in control under Code Section 409A, the Company will pay a prorated portion of (i) the target annual bonus and (ii) the target long-term incentive bonus, both for the partial performance period in which the change in control occurs. If it is not a change in control under Code Section 409A, the Company will pay (i) a prorated portion of the executive’s annual bonus, based on the Company’s actual performance, and (ii) a prorated portion of the executive’s long-term incentive bonus based on target performances, both on the date on which such bonuses are paid to Company employees generally. The treatment of outstanding equity awards is described under “Equity awards” on page 27. If the Company fails to comply with these provisions, the executive may terminate employment for “good reason” during the protected period.

If the executive terminates employment for good reason or is terminated by the Company without “cause” during the protected period, then, in addition to receiving accrued but unpaid salary, bonus, deferred compensation and other benefit amounts due on termination, the executive will be entitled to: (i) a lump-sum cash payment equal to three times the sum of the executive’s salary, target annual bonus and contribution received under the Company’s deferred compensation plan; (ii) a pro rata portion of the target annual bonus, reduced (but not below zero) by the amount of annual bonus paid for that year; (iii) a lump-sum payment equal to continued medical, life insurance, fringe and other benefits for three years after the termination; and (iv) a lump-sum cash payment for any accrued sabbatical leave. In addition, for purposes of determining eligibility for any post-retirement medical benefits, the executive will be treated as having three additional years of age and service. The executive will be eligible for these benefits subject to execution of an agreement that includes restrictive covenants and a release of claims. Payment of these benefits will be delayed for six months.

The Company will reimburse an executive on an after-tax basis for excise tax payments that are considered to be contingent upon a change in control. If the aggregate after-tax amount of benefits is not more than 110% of what the executive would receive if benefits were reduced to a level that would not be subject to excise taxes, the executive will not be entitled to receive a reimbursement and the aggregate amount of benefits to which he/she is entitled will be reduced to the greatest amount that can be paid without triggering excise taxes.

26 McDonald’s Corporation 2012

In the case of the death or disability of an executive during the protected period, the executive or his/her estate will be entitled to receive accrued salary, bonus, deferred compensation and other benefit amounts due at levels provided to peers and at least as favorable as those immediately preceding the change in control.

If (i) the Company terminates an executive for cause following a change in control; (ii) an executive voluntarily terminates employment without good reason following a change in control; or (iii) an executive who is otherwise eligible to receive severance benefits fails to execute the requisite agreements, then that executive will receive only a lump-sum payment of accrued salary, bonus, deferred compensation and other benefit amounts.

The following table sets forth the benefits that would have been payable under the CIC agreements, assuming that on December 31, 2011 they had been terminated without cause or resigned with good reason in the protected period following a change in control. Pro rata 2011 TIP payments are not included because if the NEOs had terminated employment on December 31, 2011, they would have earned these awards in full under the 2011 TIP and the pro rata payout they would have been entitled to would be zero. Pro rata CPUP payments are not included because the NEOs would be entitled to these awards pursuant to the 2010–2012 CPUP following a change in control, as described below, and there is no incremental benefit upon termination.


	Severance payment (3x salary, bonus and Company contribution to deferred compensation plan) ($)		Benefit continuation ($)		Sabbatical ($)		Tax gross-up payments ($)		Total ($)
James A. Skinner		$12,869,174		$110,033		$227,692		$11,157,824		$24,364,723
Peter J. Bensen		4,614,532		121,595		0		4,986,114		9,722,241
Donald Thompson		6,282,179		119,787		128,462		5,716,141		12,246,569
Timothy J. Fenton		3,837,280		121,117		0		0		3,958,397
Janice L. Fields		3,704,797		109,564		91,846		0		3,906,207

CPUP

Under the 2010–2012 CPUP, all of the NEOs would be entitled to accelerated vesting and, in certain circumstances, payment of CPUP awards on a change in control. If a change in control were to occur before December 31, 2012, notwithstanding the terms of the CIC agreements, each NEO would be entitled to receive a pro rata portion of the award based on performance prior to the CIC event. If the change in control also qualified as a change in control under Section 409A, we intend to pay this amount immediately. Otherwise, the prorated award would be paid out as originally scheduled.

The table below sets forth the payments that the NEOs would have been entitled to receive under the 2010–2012 CPUP if a change in control had occurred on December 31, 2011, based on performance through that date:


James A. Skinner					$10,885,333
Peter J. Bensen					3,809,867
Donald Thompson					5,170,533
Timothy J. Fenton					2,245,100
Janice L. Fields					2,245,100

>	Equity awards

Under the Equity Plan, upon a change in control, outstanding unvested options and RSUs will be replaced by equivalent awards based on publicly-traded stock of the successor entity. The replacement awards will vest and become exercisable (in the case of options) or be paid out (in the case of service-based RSUs) if the grantee’s employment is terminated for any reason other than “cause” within two years following the change in control. In addition, if employment is terminated other than for “cause” within two years following the change in control, all options will remain outstanding for not less than two years following termination or until the end of the original term, if sooner.

If the awards cannot be replaced (e.g., because the acquirer does not have publicly-traded securities) or if the Committee so determines, vesting will be accelerated. RSUs would vest (performance-based RSUs at target) and be paid out upon a Code Section 409A change in control; otherwise, the RSUs would be paid out on the originally scheduled payment date or, if earlier, on the executive’s death, disability or termination of employment, subject to any required delay under Code Section 409A.

Terminations initiated by the employee will not result in accelerated vesting of replacement awards.

McDonald’s Corporation 2012 27

If a change in control had occurred on December 31, 2011 and either (i) if the outstanding options and RSUs held by the NEOs could not be replaced or (ii) if the Committee so determined, assuming that the transaction met the applicable definition of a change in control under the Equity Plan and Section 409A: (i) options would have vested and (ii) RSUs would have vested and been paid out immediately (performance-based RSUs at target). The awards held by the NEOs as of December 31, 2011 are set forth in the Outstanding Equity Awards at 2011 Year-end table on pages 23 and 24.

The table below summarizes the value of the change in control payouts that the NEOs could have received based on (i) in the case of options, the “spread” between the exercise price and the closing price of the Company’s common stock on December 30, 2011 and (ii) in the case of RSUs, the target number of shares, multiplied by the closing price of the Company’s common stock on December 30, 2011. The table sets forth the hypothetical value that the NEOs could have realized as a result of the accelerated equity awards, based on these assumptions. If there were no change in control, the amounts shown would have vested over time, subject to continued employment and with respect to the RSUs, performance-based vesting conditions, except in the case of Mr. Skinner due to the ERRP. As a result, the values shown are greater than the benefit attributable solely to acceleration of the awards.


Named executive officer	Stock options (closing price on 12/30/11 minus exercise price) ($)		RSUs (number of shares/target number of shares multiplied by closing price on 12/30/11) ($)		Total ($)
James A. Skinner		$17,582,498		$7,974,028		$25,556,526
Peter J. Bensen		3,647,635		1,954,830		5,602,465
Donald Thompson		5,693,275		2,657,340		8,350,615
Timothy J. Fenton		3,824,605		1,946,502		5,771,107
Janice L. Fields		2,645,132		1,368,501		4,013,633

POTENTIAL PAYMENTS UPON TERMINATION OF EMPLOYMENT

(OTHER THAN FOLLOWING A CHANGE IN CONTROL)

> McDonald’s Corporation Severance Plan (Severance Plan)

Under the Severance Plan, Messrs. Bensen, Fenton and Thompson and Ms. Fields would receive severance benefits if they were terminated by the Company without “cause,” due to a reduction in work force or job elimination; however, the Severance Plan excludes terminations for performance reasons. Applicable benefits consist of a lump-sum payment with respect to severance pay, based on final salary; and the continuation of medical and dental benefits. Amounts are based on position and length of service. In addition, in a covered termination, each eligible NEO would receive prorated TIP and CPUP payments based on actual performance and paid at the same time payments are made to other participants; accrued sabbatical leave; and outplacement assistance. Payments would be delayed for six months following termination of employment to the extent required under Section 409A.

The value of the benefits that would be payable under the Severance Plan on December 31, 2011 are as set forth below. Pro rata 2011 TIP payments are not included because they would have earned these awards in full under the 2011 TIP. The pro rata CPUP payment shown under the 2010–2012 CPUP is estimated based on performance through 2011. Any pro rata CPUP payment would be based on actual performance for the full performance period and would be paid after the completion of the 2012 fiscal year at the same time as payments are made to other CPUP participants.


	Salary continuation		Benefit continuation		Other (sabbatical and out-placement)		Pro rata CPUP awards		Total
Peter J. Bensen		$389,423		$34,187		$12,000		$3,809,867		$4,245,477
Donald Thompson		674,423		43,634		140,462		5,170,533		6,029,052
Timothy J. Fenton		605,000		37,531		12,000		2,245,100		2,899,631
Janice L. Fields		597,000		32,945		103,846		2,245,100		2,978,891

BENEFITS UNDER THE EXECUTIVE RETENTION REPLACEMENT PLAN

Under the ERRP, Mr. Skinner is entitled to certain benefits if his employment is terminated for any reason other than death, disability or “cause” or if Mr. Skinner retired or resigned for “good reason.” In connection with his June 30, 2012 retirement, he will receive the benefits described in (i) through (v) below, plus the equivalent of Company matching

28 McDonald’s Corporation 2012

contributions under deferred compensation plans for 6.5 years, as well as secretarial services for two years and $135,000 in lieu of fringe benefits and provision of an office. In addition, a pro rata portion of his outstanding TIP and CPUP awards will vest and will be paid at the end of each award’s respective performance period, based on the Company’s achievement of the applicable performance goals for the full performance periods. All of Mr. Skinner’s outstanding RSUs will vest and will be paid out on the originally scheduled payment dates, subject to the Company’s achievement of the applicable performance goals. In addition, all of Mr. Skinner’s outstanding options will become exercisable in accordance with their original vesting schedule and remain outstanding for 9.5 years following his retirement (or until the expiration of the option’s original term, if sooner).

If Mr. Skinner were to be terminated without “cause,” he would be entitled to receive a cash lump-sum equal to the present value of (i) final salary for 18 months; (ii) 50% of final salary for five years; (iii) prorated TIP, based on actual performance, for the year of termination; (iv) target TIP for 18 months; and (v) the estimated value of continued participation in Company health and welfare plans for 6.5 years. In addition, his options that would have vested within five years following termination would vest and become exercisable, and all vested options would remain outstanding until five years following termination or until the expiration of the option’s original term, if sooner. RSUs would vest on a pro rata basis, based on the number of months employed during the vesting period, and would be paid out in accordance with actual performance results achieved during the vesting period. A pro rata portion (based on the portion of the performance period prior to termination) of any outstanding CPUP award would vest and would be paid at the end of the performance period, based on the achievement of the applicable performance goals.

Payments under the ERRP will be delayed for six months following the termination of his employment. Receipt of benefits is subject to the execution of an agreement that includes restrictive covenants, including a non-compete agreement and a release of claims.

The benefits that would have been payable if Mr. Skinner’s employment had terminated on December 31, 2011 under the ERRP and CPUP are as follows:


	Lump-sum ERRP payment ($)		Pro rata CPUP payment ($)(2)		Other (3)		Total ($)
Termination without cause		$8,779,384		10,885,333		N/A		$19,664,717
Retirement (1)		9,714,124		10,885,333		$135,000		20,734,457

(1)

Pursuant to SEC rules, this table reflects benefits which Mr. Skinner would have been entitled to if he had terminated on December 31, 2011. In connection with his June 30, 2012 retirement, he will be entitled to a pro rata portion of his 2012 TIP and 2010-2012 CPUP awards. The awards will be subject to actual performance for the full performance period, prorated based on his retirement date, and paid in early 2013.

(2)	As noted in footnote 1, Mr. Skinner will be entitled to receive a pro rata CPUP award based upon his retirement date and actual performance against the specific metrics. This number represents the pro rata CPUP payment based on actual performance through 2011.

(3)	Payments in lieu of fringe benefits and provision of an office, plus secretarial services, as described above.

The table below shows the effect on outstanding equity awards if Mr. Skinner’s employment had terminated on December 31, 2011 under the ERRP based on: (i) in the case of options, the “spread” between the exercise price and the closing price of the Company’s stock on December 30, 2011; and (ii) in the case of RSUs, the number of prorated shares in which he would vest, multiplied by the closing price of the Company’s stock on December 30, 2011.

Amount of outstanding
equity upon termination
without cause ($)

Effect of retirement

Effect of termination without cause

James A.

Skinner

$23,079,880

No acceleration of vesting; outstanding options will be exercisable in accordance with original vesting schedule and remain outstanding for 9.5 years or until expiration of the original term if sooner. RSUs will vest in accordance with the original vesting schedule and will be paid out in accordance with actual performance results achieved.

All options that would have vested within five years following termination would vest and become exercisable, and all vested stock options would remain outstanding until five years following termination or until the expiration of the option’s original term, if sooner. RSUs would vest on a pro rata basis based on the number of months employed during the vesting period and would be paid out in accordance with actual performance results achieved.

McDonald’s Corporation 2012 29

If Mr. Skinner’s employment were to terminate due to death or disability, under the ERRP, he or his estate would be entitled to receive: (i) accrued salary and annual incentive awards; and (ii) payment or provision of death or disability benefits, as applicable, equal to the benefits provided by the Company to the estates and beneficiaries of his peers. Upon termination for “cause,” he would be entitled to receive accrued salary and annual incentive awards and no other benefits.

Participation in this program was previously frozen, and following Mr. Skinner’s retirement, there will only be one remaining participant.

EFFECT OF TERMINATION OF EMPLOYMENT UNDER EQUITY INCENTIVE PLANS

>	Stock Options

Unvested options are generally forfeited on termination of employment, with vested options remaining outstanding and exercisable for 90 days, except on termination for “cause.” For grants prior to 2010, executives (and all other employees) may be entitled to accelerated exercisability and an extended post-termination exercise period (generally one to three years) upon certain termination events (including retirement and termination by the Company without “cause”).

Beginning with awards granted to executives in 2010, options no longer provide for accelerated exercisability. Instead, the options continue to become exercisable on the originally scheduled dates and remain exercisable for the extended post-termination exercise period, as applicable. If an executive violates a restrictive covenant following termination, the Company may cancel any outstanding options. Further, beginning in 2011, except for participants in the ERRP, if an executive terminates employment for any reason other than death or disability, all options granted in the last 12 months are immediately forfeited.

The table below summarizes the value of the payouts on termination of employment in circumstances that would result in acceleration of the option awards (i.e., retirement or “special circumstances,” which includes termination by the Company without “cause,” death or disability), if termination had occurred on December 31, 2011.

The values shown are based on the “spread” between the exercise price and the closing price of the Company’s common stock on December 30, 2011. The table sets forth the total hypothetical value that a NEO could have realized as a result of acceleration of awards. The values shown are greater than the incremental benefit attributable solely to acceleration of the awards.


Named executive officer	Type of termination	Stock options (closing price on 12/30/11 minus exercise price) ($)
James A. Skinner	Retirement		n/a	(1)
	Special circumstances		$17,582,498
	Death/disability		17,582,498
Peter J. Bensen	Retirement		0	(2)
	Special circumstances		2,061,175
	Death/disability		3,647,635
Donald Thompson	Retirement		4,118,890
	Special circumstances		4,118,890
	Death/disability		5,693,275
Timothy J. Fenton	Retirement		2,812,346
	Special circumstances		2,812,346
	Death/disability		3,824,605
Janice L. Fields	Retirement		1,835,320
	Special circumstances		1,835,320
	Death/disability		2,645,132

(1)	Please refer to the table on page 29 for a description of Mr. Skinner’s treatment upon retirement under the ERRP.

(2)	Mr. Bensen is not eligible to receive favorable treatment upon retirement under the Equity Plan.

30 McDonald’s Corporation 2012

RSUs

Unvested RSUs are generally forfeited on termination of employment. In the case of certain termination events (including retirement and termination by the Company without “cause”), executives (and all other employees) are entitled to accelerated vesting of RSUs, prorated based upon the number of months worked during the vesting period. However, RSUs subject to performance-based vesting conditions are not accelerated on termination of employment; instead any pro rata vesting is subject to the satisfaction of the applicable performance conditions, determined following completion of the performance period. As discussed on page 13, the Company’s practice is to grant executives RSUs with performance-based vesting conditions. Further, beginning in 2011, except for participants in the ERRP, if an executive (or any other employee) terminates employment for any reason other than death or disability, all RSUs granted in the last 12 months are immediately forfeited upon termination.

DEFERRED COMPENSATION

Following separation from service for any reason, the NEOs would receive distributions from their accounts under the Supplemental Plan and the Excess Plan in accordance with their elected distribution schedules, as described on pages 25 and 26.

PROPOSAL NO. 2.

ADVISORY VOTE TO APPROVE EXECUTIVE COMPENSATION

We are asking our shareholders to provide an advisory, nonbinding vote to approve the compensation awarded to our named executive officers for 2011, as described in the “Executive Compensation” section, beginning on page 8, which includes the Compensation Discussion and Analysis, the compensation tables and related material.

As described in the Compensation Discussion and Analysis section, the Compensation Committee oversees our executive compensation program in light of McDonald’s circumstances and to promote the objectives of the program. These objectives include: to motivate our executives to increase profitability and shareholder returns, to tie pay to performance effectively, and to compete effectively for and retain managerial talent.

We are asking our shareholders to indicate their support for our named executive officer compensation.

We believe that the information we have provided in this Proxy Statement demonstrates that our executive compensation program was designed appropriately and is working to ensure that management’s interests are aligned with our shareholders’ interests to support long-term value creation.

This vote is not intended to address any specific item of compensation, but rather the overall compensation of our named executive officers and the philosophy, policies and procedures described in this Proxy Statement.

Information about the voting standard for this proposal appears on page 53. While this vote is advisory and not binding, the Board and the Compensation Committee will consider the outcome of the vote, along with other relevant factors, when considering future executive compensation decisions.

The Board of Directors recommends that shareholders vote FOR the approval of the compensation awarded to McDonald’s named executive officers for 2011, as disclosed under SEC rules, including the Compensation Discussion and Analysis, the compensation tables and related material included in this Proxy Statement.

McDonald’s Corporation 2012 31

Other management proposals

PROPOSAL NO. 3.

VOTE TO APPROVE THE 2012 OMNIBUS STOCK OWNERSHIP PLAN

On February 8, 2012, the Compensation Committee of the Board adopted the McDonald’s Corporation 2012 Omnibus Stock Ownership Plan (2012 Plan) and recommended that the Board submit the 2012 Plan for shareholder approval so that the Company may continue to grant equity awards and that payments made under it qualify for deductibility by the Company for federal income tax purposes. The 2012 Plan will replace the Amended and Restated 2001 Omnibus Stock Ownership Plan (2001 Plan) and will apply to awards granted on or after June 1, 2012.

The material features of the 2012 Plan are summarized below, which summary is qualified in its entirety by reference to the text of the 2012 Plan. A copy of the 2012 Plan is available on our website at www.governance.mcdonalds.com and the SEC website at www.sec.gov, where it is an appendix to the electronic version of this Proxy Statement. We will provide you with a copy without charge if you call Shareholder Services at 1.630.623.7428, or write to us at McDonald’s Corporation, Shareholder Services, Department 720, One McDonald’s Plaza, Oak Brook IL 60523. Copies will also be available at the Annual Shareholders’ Meeting.

PURPOSE

The 2012 Plan is an important part of our pay-for-performance compensation strategy. The Compensation Committee and management continually evaluate ways to attract, retain and motivate highly qualified individuals and to ensure compensation is tied to performance and aligns the interests of employees and directors with those of shareholders. Except as otherwise specified below, the terms of the 2012 Plan are generally consistent with the terms of the 2001 Plan.

GENERAL INFORMATION

The 2012 Plan provides for the granting of non-qualified stock options, restricted stock units, stock bonuses, dividend equivalents and other stock-based awards (collectively, Awards). The Committee expects to grant non-qualified stock options and restricted stock units under the 2012 Plan, and may consider the grant of other types of Awards. Awards may be granted under the 2012 Plan to any employee (including officers), as well as non-employee directors of the Company or any of its subsidiaries.

COMMON STOCK AVAILABLE

Under the 2001 Plan, approximately 27.6 million shares were available for grant as of December 31, 2011. If the 2012 Plan is approved, no further grants will be made under the 2001 Plan after June 1, 2012, and those shares (including the portion of those shares subject to awards that have been granted since December 31, 2011, as hereinafter described, and that may be subject to awards granted prior to June 1, 2012) and any shares returned to the pool of shares available under the 2001 Plan will become available for grant under the 2012 Plan. We are also asking shareholders to authorize an additional 27.5 million shares for grant under the 2012 Plan. Approximately 5 million shares have been granted under the 2001 Plan from December 31, 2011 through March 1, 2012. Therefore, total shares available under the 2012 Plan would be approximately 55.1 million shares, and would in no event exceed 56 million shares. As under the 2001 Plan, common stock issued under the 2012 Plan may be treasury shares or newly issued shares. The Company intends to use treasury shares purchased through its share repurchase program for Awards. As of December 31, 2011, 639.2 million shares of common stock were held in treasury, and approximately $3.5 billion in additional share repurchases remained authorized.

The closing price for the common stock on the New York Stock Exchange Composite Tape on March 1, 2012 was $99.25.

To meet the performance exception under Internal Revenue Code Section 162(m), the 2012 Plan provides that the maximum number of shares of common stock for which Awards may be granted to any single participant during any one-year period is two million for options, and 500,000 for restricted stock units that are intended to qualify for the performance exception, subject to adjustments as described below.

AWARDS UNDER THE 2012 PLAN

Stock options. The 2012 Plan provides that the per-share option price cannot be less than 100% of the fair market value of a share of the common stock on the grant date. The Committee expects to continue to grant this type of Award under the 2012 Plan. Payment of the option price may be made in cash, through the exchange of common stock or through a broker-assisted exercise.

32 McDonald’s Corporation 2012

The Committee determines when and how an option may be exercised, and establishes its maximum term, which may not be greater than 10 years. Generally, an option may not be exercisable within one year after its grant date.

Restricted stock units (RSUs). The 2012 Plan provides for the grant of RSUs. The Committee expects to continue to grant this type of Award under the 2012 Plan. RSUs are generally similar to restricted stock awards, except that instead of issuing actual shares at the time of grant, the units are settled at or after the time they vest by the delivery of the appropriate number of shares of common stock, or of cash equal to the then-value of those shares, depending upon the terms of the Award. Unless and until RSUs are settled with actual shares, the participant does not have the rights of a shareholder, although he or she may, if the Award so provides, be entitled to dividend equivalents.

Stock bonuses. As under the 2001 Plan, the Committee may grant stock bonuses or incentives to eligible employees other than executive officers under the 2012 Plan. The maximum number of shares available for this form of Award is one million over the life of the 2012 Plan.

Other stock-based awards. As under the 2001 Plan, the 2012 Plan provides that the Committee may grant other stock-based awards, that is, Awards other than options, SARs, RSUs or restricted stock, the value of which is based on or otherwise related to the common stock, on terms and conditions specified by the Committee.

Dividend equivalents. The 2012 Plan provides for dividend equivalents, a form of stock-based award representing the right to receive cash or shares of common stock measured by the dividends payable with respect to specific shares of common stock or a number of shares. Dividend equivalents may only be granted as part of another Award. The 2012 Plan specifies that if the value of another stock-based award is based on the excess of the fair market value of a share of common stock on the date the value is determined over the Award’s exercise or grant price, the per-share exercise or grant price for such an Award may not be less than 100% of the fair market value of a share of common stock on the date of grant.

The 2012 Plan provides that RSUs and other stock-based awards, the value of which is based on the full value of a share of stock, will be subject to a minimum vesting requirement of one year if the award vests based solely on continued employment (subject to accelerated vesting upon certain terminations of employment and upon a change in control, as described below). The Committee cannot waive this requirement.

PLAN ADMINISTRATION

The 2012 Plan will be administered by the Committee, in conformity with the SEC’s short-swing trading requirements and the requirements for the performance exception described below. Committee members must also be independent under applicable listing standards. The Committee may delegate certain of its administrative responsibilities, and its powers may also be exercised by the full Board.

Subject to the 2012 Plan, the Committee has the authority to administer the 2012 Plan, including the right to: approve the persons to whom, and the times when, Awards are to be granted, as well as the type, size and terms of such Awards and to modify such grants; interpret the 2012 Plan; accelerate the exercisability of, and waive the restrictions and conditions applicable to, Awards; and extend the time during which Awards may be exercised (but not beyond 10 years). The Committee’s powers are identical to those under the 2001 Plan, except that the Committee also has authority to make all other determinations required or that it deems appropriate for the administration of the 2012 Plan.

AMENDMENT AND TERMINATION

The 2001 Plan terminates on March 14, 2014. If shareholders approve the 2012 Plan, the 2001 Plan will be terminated on June 1, 2012. In either case, the 2001 Plan may be terminated by the Board before its scheduled termination date. Termination will not affect outstanding Awards under the 2001 Plan.

The 2012 Plan and Awards may be amended by the Board or the Committee, subject to shareholder approval if required by applicable listing requirements. The 2012 Plan provides that shareholder approval is required for any amendment that would result in the reduction of the option price of any option, except for the adjustments described below. The 2012 Plan provides that amendments may not adversely affect outstanding Awards without the consent of the affected grantees, unless the amendment does not materially decrease the value of the Award or is made to comply with applicable law, stock exchange rules or accounting rules. Moreover, no amendment may be made that would cause the loss of Section 162(m) performance exception for any outstanding Qualified Performance-Based Awards (as defined below under “Certain Federal income tax consequences”).

McDonald’s Corporation 2012 33

In addition, Awards may not be amended in a way that is inconsistent with the requirements of the 2012 Plan. For example, an Award that is subject to the minimum vesting schedule for service-vesting restricted stock, RSUs and other full-value stock-based Awards may not be amended to eliminate that minimum vesting schedule.

ESTIMATE OF BENEFITS

Because the grant of Awards pursuant to the 2012 Plan will be within the discretion of the Committee, it is not possible to determine the Awards that will be made to executive officers. Information about Awards made under the 2001 Plan to our NEOs in 2011 is provided on page 20. In 2011, no options were granted to non-employee Directors, options covering 469,706 shares of common stock were granted to all current executive officers as a group, and options covering over 3,416,122 shares of common stock were granted to approximately 3,520 employees, including all current officers who are not executive officers. In addition, in 2011, 67,106 RSUs were granted to all current executive officers as a group, and 559,297 RSUs were granted to 3,706 employees, including all current officers who are not executive officers.

OTHER TERMS AND CONDITIONS

Transferability. Awards granted under the 2012 Plan are non-transferable other than by will or the laws of descent and distribution and may be exercised, during a grantee’s lifetime, only by the grantee.

Termination of employment. The 2012 Plan provides that treatment of Awards upon termination of employment or directorship shall be determined by the Committee in the applicable grant agreement or thereafter. Absent a determination otherwise, unvested Awards are forfeited upon termination and vested options will remain exercisable for 90 days following termination.

Tax withholding. The Company may make such provisions as it deems appropriate to withhold any taxes due in connection with any Award, and may require the grantee to satisfy relevant tax withholding requirements before authorizing any issuance of shares to a grantee. This requirement may be satisfied by the grantee’s payment of cash or delivery of shares of common stock, or by having shares of common stock otherwise issuable to the grantee withheld.

CHANGE IN CONTROL

The 2012 Plan provides for a “double-trigger” approach. In the event of a “Change in Control” of the Company (defined in the 2012 Plan identically as under the 2001 Plan), all options and other service-vesting awards will be replaced with a “Replacement Award” (as defined in the 2012 Plan). If a Replacement Award cannot be issued or upon determination by the Committee prior to the Change in Control, the “Replaced Awards” (as defined in the 2012 Plan) will instead vest and become fully exercisable upon the Change in Control. In addition, if a grantee’s employment or status as a director, as applicable, terminates other than for cause and other than upon a termination initiated by the grantee, within two years after a Change in Control, all Replacement Awards become fully vested and exercisable and all stock options held by the grantee immediately before the “Termination of Employment” (as defined in the 2012 Plan) and that were held by such grantee as of the date of the Change in Control, or which are Replacement Awards, remain outstanding for the shorter of (i) two years following such Termination of Employment and (ii) the expiration of the term of the option or stock appreciation right, unless otherwise provided in the applicable grant agreement.

The Committee will have the ability to vary these general rules for particular Awards at the time of grant in the grant agreements. The consequences of a Change in Control for performance-vesting Awards, other than options, will be specified in the grant agreements.

ADJUSTMENTS FOR CHANGES IN CAPITALIZATION AND CORPORATE TRANSACTIONS

The 2012 Plan authorizes the Committee to adjust the limitations on shares available for Awards, and to adjust outstanding Awards, as appropriate in connection with stock dividends, stock splits, reverse stock splits, share combinations, recapitalizations, mergers, consolidations, acquisitions of property or shares, separations, spinoffs, reorganizations, stock rights offerings, liquidations, sales or spinoffs of subsidiaries, and similar events. These may include canceling Awards in exchange for payments of cash and/or property, substituting other equity (including equity of another entity that agrees to the substitution) for the common stock available under the 2012 Plan and subject to then-outstanding Awards, or in the case of a sale or spinoff of a subsidiary, arranging for the buyer or the subsidiary to assume the Awards held by subsidiary employees.

34 McDonald’s Corporation 2012

CERTAIN FEDERAL INCOME TAX CONSEQUENCES

The following describes the principal United States federal income tax consequences related to options granted under the 2012 Plan.

Non-qualified Options. A grantee will not be subject to tax at the time a non-qualified option is granted, and no tax deduction is then available to the Company. Upon the exercise of a non-qualified option, an amount equal to the difference between the option price and the fair market value of the shares acquired on the date of exercise will be included in the grantee’s ordinary income and the Company will generally be entitled to deduct the same amount. Upon disposition of shares acquired upon exercise, appreciation or depreciation after the date of exercise will be treated by the grantee or transferee of the non-qualified option as either capital gain or capital loss.

Incentive Stock Options. A grantee will not be subject to tax at the time an incentive stock option is granted or exercised, and no tax deduction is available to the Company; however, the grantee may be subject to the alternative minimum tax on the excess of the fair market value of the shares received upon exercise of the incentive stock option over the option price. Upon disposition of the shares acquired upon exercise of an incentive stock option, capital gain or capital loss will generally be recognized in an amount equal to the difference between the sale price and the option price, as long as the grantee has not disposed of the shares within two years of the date of grant or within one year from the date of exercise and has been employed by the Company at all times from the grant date until the date three months before the date of exercise (one year in the case of permanent disability). If the grantee disposes of the shares without satisfying both the holding period and employment requirements (a disqualifying disposition), the grantee will recognize ordinary income at the time of the disqualifying disposition to the extent of the difference between the option price and the amount realized on such disqualifying disposition or, if the disqualifying disposition resulted from a failure to satisfy the holding period requirement, the fair market value of the shares on the date the incentive stock option is exercised (if less). Any remaining gain or loss is treated as a capital gain or capital loss.

If the grantee pays the option price, in whole or in part, with previously acquired shares, the exchange will not affect the tax treatment of the exercise. Upon such exchange, and except for disqualifying dispositions, no gain or loss is recognized upon the delivery of the previously acquired shares to the Company, and the shares received by the grantee equal in number to the previously acquired shares exchanged therefor will have the same basis and holding period for capital gain or capital loss purposes as the previously acquired shares. Shares received by the grantee in excess of the number of previously acquired shares will have a basis of zero and a holding period which commences as of the date the shares are issued to the grantee upon exercise of the incentive stock option. If such an exercise is effected using shares previously acquired through the exercise of an incentive stock option, the exchange of the previously acquired shares will be considered a disposition of such shares for the purpose of determining whether a disqualifying disposition has occurred.

The Company is not entitled to a tax deduction upon either the exercise of an incentive stock option or upon disposition of the shares acquired pursuant to such exercise, except to the extent that the grantee recognized ordinary income in a disqualifying disposition.

Limits on Company’s deductions. Code Section 162(m) generally places a $1 million annual limit on a company’s tax deduction for compensation paid to a “covered employee.” A “covered employee” is defined as the chief executive officer and the other three highest paid officers named in the company’s proxy statement. This limit does not apply to compensation that satisfies the requirements for the “performance-based compensation” exception, including shareholder approval of the material terms of the compensation. Approval of the 2012 Plan at the Annual Shareholders’ Meeting will satisfy this requirement.

The 2012 Plan incorporates the provisions required to satisfy the performance exception for options, in addition to shareholder approval. These include limiting the maximum number of shares of common stock for which options and SARs may be granted to any single participant during any one-year period to 2 million (subject to adjustments as described above), allowing such Awards to only be granted by the Committee, which must be comprised of “outside directors” as defined under Code Section 162(m), and requiring that the option price of such Awards be not less than the fair market value of the underlying stock on the date of grant. Therefore, all options granted to covered employees under the 2012 Plan are intended to qualify for the performance exception.

In addition, the 2012 Plan gives the Committee the ability to grant RSUs and other stock-based awards designed to qualify for the performance exception (Qualified Performance-Based Awards). As explained earlier, the 2012 Plan provides that the number of shares subject to Qualified Performance-Based Awards of this type that may be granted to any single participant during any one-year period may not exceed 500,000 shares, subject to adjustments as described above.

McDonald’s Corporation 2012 35

Qualified Performance-Based Awards (other than options) also must be subject to the achievement of performance goals based upon the attainment of specified levels of one or more of the following measures, applied to the Company as a whole or to any subsidiary, division or other unit of the Company: revenue, operating income, net income, basic or diluted earnings per share, return on revenue, return on assets, return on equity, return on total capital or total shareholder return. The 2012 Plan permits the use of any other measure of financial performance that can be determined under U.S. generally accepted accounting principles.

Performance goals may be absolute or relative to the performance of one or more other companies or of an index. The Committee may specify that there be excluded the effect of restructuring charges, discontinued operations, extraordinary items, cumulative effects of accounting changes, and other unusual or nonrecurring items, as well as asset impairment and the effects of foreign currency fluctuations determined under generally accepted accounting principles, so long as they are objectively determinable by reference to the Company’s financial statements (including the notes) and/or management’s discussion and analysis.

If the Committee makes Awards other than options and SARs subject to the achievement of performance goals, and complies with the other procedures required by the performance exception, the Awards should qualify for the performance exception. These procedures require that the Committee establish objective performance goals based upon one or more of the above measures within the time allowed by the performance exception and at a time when achievement of the goals is not substantially certain, and that it certify the achievement of those goals before the vesting or payment of the Awards. In addition, the 2012 Plan, like the 2001 Plan, provides that except in the event of death, disability or Change in Control, the achievement of the performance goals associated with Qualified Performance-Based Awards may not be waived, nor may the amounts of such Awards be increased after they have been granted.

The Committee expects, in general, to administer the 2012 Plan so as to avoid loss of the Company’s tax deduction because of Code Section 162(m), but it is possible that some Awards may not qualify for the performance exception. Further, if Awards vest or are paid on an accelerated basis upon a Change in Control or a subsequent termination of employment, some or all of the value of that acceleration may be considered an “excess parachute payment” under Section 280G of the Code. This would result in the imposition of a 20% federal excise tax on the recipients of the excess parachute payments and a loss of the Company’s deduction for the excess parachute payments.

RECOMMENDATION

The Board believes that the approval of the 2012 Plan will enable us to continue its pay-for-performance compensation strategy and motivate our employees. If shareholders do not approve the 2012 Plan, management and the Compensation Committee will examine available alternatives, including continuing to use the 2001 Plan as in effect before the amendments made after shareholder approval of that plan on March 14, 2004.

The Board of Directors recommends that shareholders vote FOR the approval of the 2012 Omnibus Stock Ownership Plan.

PROPOSAL NO. 4.

VOTE TO APPROVE DECLASSIFICATION OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS

At the 2011 Annual Shareholders’ Meeting, shareholders approved an advisory proposal that requested the Board of Directors to take the steps necessary to eliminate the classification of the Board of Directors. After careful consideration, the Board has adopted proposed amendments to our Restated Certificate of Incorporation to eliminate the classification of the Board of Directors.

Article TWELFTH of our Restated Certificate of Incorporation currently provides that our Directors are divided into three classes, with the term of office of one class expiring each year and the Directors in each class serving three-year terms. If the proposed amendments are adopted and become effective, Directors elected at or before this Annual Shareholders’ Meeting will serve out their three-year terms, but Directors elected by shareholders after this Annual Shareholders’ Meeting will be elected to one-year terms. Beginning at the 2015 Annual Shareholders’ Meeting, all Directors would be subject to annual election for one-year terms.

In addition, because Delaware law specifies that directors serving on an unclassified board must be removable by shareholders either with or without cause, Article TWELFTH would be amended to specify that Directors may be removed with or without cause, but amended Article TWELFTH will provide that Directors serving the remainder of a three-year term will be removable only for cause.

36 McDonald’s Corporation 2012

Article TWELFTH would be further amended to provide that, following the termination of the classified Board structure in 2015, a Director appointed to a vacancy or new directorship would serve for a term expiring at the next Annual Shareholders’ Meeting following his or her appointment.

Finally, Section (d) of Article TWELFTH sets forth the standard to modify Article TWELFTH (i.e., the affirmative vote of the holders of a majority of the voting power of the outstanding capital stock). This is the same standard as would be required to amend any other Article in our Restated Certificate of Incorporation; therefore, Section (d) of Article TWELFTH would be repealed to remove this language that is duplicative of applicable law.

The proposed changes to Article TWELFTH are set forth in their entirety in Exhibit A.

In accordance with Delaware law, the Board of Directors has adopted resolutions approving and declaring advisable these proposed amendments and is recommending them to shareholders for approval.

Information about the voting standard for this proposal appears on page 54. If the proposed amendments are adopted and become effective, the Board will adopt conforming amendments to our Amended and Restated By-Laws.

The Board of Directors recommends that shareholders vote FOR declassification of the Board of Directors.

PROPOSAL NO. 5.

VOTE TO APPROVE SHAREHOLDERS’ RIGHT TO CALL SPECIAL MEETINGS

The Board of Directors is requesting that shareholders approve amendments to our Restated Certificate of Incorporation that would enable holders of at least 25% of our outstanding shares of common stock (excluding derivatives) to request the Secretary of the Company to call a special meeting of shareholders.

Currently, Article THIRTEENTH of our Restated Certificate of Incorporation specifies that only the Board of Directors may call special meetings of shareholders. The Board frequently reviews corporate governance best practices and, after due consideration, has determined that our shareholders should be permitted to call special meetings. The proposed 25% threshold to exercise this right balances competing interests. It ensures that shareholders with substantial holdings in our Company could convene a meeting to address significant strategic concerns prior to the next annual meeting, but special interest groups with views not shared by shareholders with substantial holdings cannot damage the interests of shareholders by causing our Company to incur unnecessary costs and diversion of key personnel.

Additionally, the exclusion of derivative securities from the determination of satisfaction of the prescribed ownership threshold will ensure that the shareholders seeking to call a special meeting have a true economic interest in the Company.

The proposed changes to Article THIRTEENTH are set forth in their entirety in Exhibit B.

In accordance with Delaware law, the Board of Directors has adopted resolutions approving and declaring advisable these proposed amendments and is recommending them to shareholders for approval.

Information about the voting standard for this proposal appears on page 54. If the proposed amendments are adopted and become effective, the Board of Directors will consider amendments to our Amended and Restated By-Laws to adopt provisions, including notice and timing restrictions, relating to the shareholders’ right to call special meetings.

The Board of Directors recommends that shareholders vote FOR shareholders’ right to call special meetings.

PROPOSAL NO. 6.

ADVISORY VOTE TO APPROVE THE APPOINTMENT OF ERNST & YOUNG LLP AS INDEPENDENT AUDITOR FOR 2012

The Audit Committee is responsible for the appointment of the independent auditor engaged by the Company. The Audit Committee has appointed Ernst & Young LLP as independent auditor for 2012. The Board is asking shareholders to approve this appointment. Ernst & Young LLP audited the Company’s financial statements and internal control over financial reporting for 2011. A representative of that firm will attend the Annual Shareholders’ Meeting and will have an opportunity to make a statement and answer questions. Information about the voting standard for this proposal appears on page 53.

The Board of Directors recommends that shareholders vote FOR the appointment of Ernst & Young LLP as independent auditor for 2012.

McDonald’s Corporation 2012 37

Audit Committee matters

AUDIT COMMITTEE REPORT

Dear Fellow Shareholders:

The Audit Committee is composed of five Directors, each of whom meets the independence and other requirements of the New York Stock Exchange. Enrique Hernandez, Jr., Cary D. McMillan, and Roger W. Stone qualify as “audit committee financial experts.” The Committee has the responsibilities set out in its charter, which has been adopted by the Board of Directors and is reviewed annually.

Management is primarily responsible for the Company’s financial statements, including the Company’s internal control over financial reporting. Ernst & Young LLP (Ernst & Young), the Company’s independent auditor, is responsible for performing an audit of the Company’s annual consolidated financial statements in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles (GAAP) and for issuing a report on those statements. Ernst & Young also reviews the Company’s interim financial statements in accordance with Statement on Auditing Standards No. 100 (interim financial information). The Committee oversees the Company’s financial reporting process and internal control structure on behalf of the Board of Directors. The Committee met nine times during 2011, including meeting regularly with Ernst & Young and the internal auditor, both privately and with management present.

In fulfilling its oversight responsibilities, the Committee reviewed and discussed with management and Ernst & Young the audited and interim financial statements, including Management’s Discussion and Analysis, included in the Company’s Reports on Form 10-K and Form 10-Q. These reviews included a discussion of:

>	critical accounting policies of the Company;

>	the reasonableness of significant financial reporting judgments made in connection with the financial statements, including the quality (and not just the acceptability) of the Company’s accounting principles;

>	the clarity and completeness of financial disclosures;

>	the effectiveness of the Company’s internal control over financial reporting, including management’s and Ernst & Young’s reports thereon, the basis for the conclusions expressed in those reports and significant changes made to the Company’s internal control over financial reporting during 2011;

>	items that could be accounted for using alternative treatments within GAAP, the ramifications thereof and the treatment preferred by Ernst & Young;

>	the annual management letter issued by Ernst & Young, management’s response thereto and other material written communications between management and Ernst & Young;

>	unadjusted audit differences noted by Ernst & Young during its audit of the Company’s annual financial statements; and

>	the potential effects of regulatory and accounting initiatives on the Company’s financial statements.

In connection with its review of the Company’s annual consolidated financial statements, the Committee also discussed with Ernst & Young other matters required to be discussed with the auditor under Statement on Auditing Standards No. 61, as modified or supplemented (communication with audit committees), and those addressed by Ernst & Young’s written disclosures and its letter provided under the applicable requirements of the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board, as modified or supplemented (independence discussions with audit committees).

The Committee is responsible for the engagement of the independent auditor and appointed Ernst & Young to serve in that capacity during 2011 and 2012. In that connection, the Committee:

>	reviewed Ernst & Young’s independence from the Company and management, including Ernst & Young’s written disclosures described above;

>	reviewed periodically the level of fees approved for payment to Ernst & Young and the pre-approved non-audit services it has provided to the Company to ensure their compatibility with Ernst & Young’s independence; and

>	reviewed Ernst & Young’s performance, qualifications and quality control procedures.

38 McDonald’s Corporation 2012

Among other matters, the Committee also:

>	reviewed the scope of and overall plans for the annual audit and the internal audit program;

>	consulted with management and Ernst & Young with respect to the Company’s processes for risk assessment and risk management;

>	reviewed and approved the Company’s policy with regard to the hiring of former employees of the independent auditor;

>	reviewed and approved the Company’s policy for the pre-approval of audit and permitted non-audit services by the independent auditor;

>	received reports pursuant to our policy for the submission and confidential treatment of communications from employees and others about accounting, internal controls and auditing matters;

>	reviewed with management the scope and effectiveness of the Company’s disclosure controls and procedures, including for purposes of evaluating the accuracy and fair presentation of the Company’s financial statements in connection with certifications made by the CEO and CFO;

>	reviewed significant legal developments and the Company’s processes for monitoring compliance with law and Company policies; and

>	reviewed the Company’s related person transactions.

Based on the reviews and discussions referred to above, the Committee recommended to the Board of Directors that the audited financial statements be included in the Company’s Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2011 for filing with the SEC.

Respectfully submitted,

The Audit Committee

Enrique Hernandez, Jr., Chairman

Walter E. Massey

Cary D. McMillan

Sheila A. Penrose

Roger W. Stone

POLICY FOR PRE-APPROVAL OF AUDIT AND PERMITTED NON-AUDIT SERVICES

The Audit Committee has a policy for the pre-approval of all audit and permitted non-audit services to be provided to the Company by its independent auditor. The Audit Committee may pre-approve engagements on a case-by-case basis or on a class basis if the relevant services are predictable and recurring.

Pre-approvals for classes of services are granted at the start of each fiscal year and are applicable for the year. In considering these pre-approvals, the Audit Committee reviews a description of the scope of services falling within each class and imposes budgetary estimates that are largely based on historical costs.

Any audit or permitted non-audit service that is not included in an approved class, or for which total fees are expected to exceed the relevant budgetary estimate, must be pre-approved on an individual basis. Pre-approval of any individual engagement may be granted not more than one year before commencement of the relevant service. Pre-approvals of services that may be provided over a period of years must be reconsidered each year.

The Corporate Controller monitors services provided by the independent auditor and overall compliance with the pre-approval policy. The Corporate Controller reports periodically to the Audit Committee about the status of outstanding engagements, including actual services provided and associated fees, and must promptly report any noncompliance with the pre-approval policy to the Chairman of the Audit Committee.

The policy is available on the Company’s website at www.governance.mcdonalds.com.

McDonald’s Corporation 2012 39

AUDITOR FEES AND SERVICES

The following table presents fees paid for professional services rendered for the audit of the Company’s annual financial statements for 2011 and 2010 and fees paid for other services provided by our independent auditor in those years:


(In millions)	2011		2010
Audit fees (1)	$	11.5	$	10.4
Audit-related fees (2)		0.4		0.3
Tax fees (3)		1.1		1.0
All other fees (4)		0		0.2

Total	$	13.0	$	11.9

(1)	Fees for services associated with the annual audit (including internal control reporting), statutory audits required internationally, reviews of Quarterly Reports on Form 10-Q and accounting consultations.

(2)	Fees for employee benefit plan audits and certain attestation services not required by statute or regulation.

(3)	Primarily fees for tax compliance in various international markets.

(4)	Fees for miscellaneous advisory services.

Shareholder proposal

PROPOSAL NO. 7.

ADVISORY VOTE ON A SHAREHOLDER PROPOSAL REQUESTING A NUTRITION REPORT

The text of the shareholder proposal and supporting statement appear exactly as received by the Company unless otherwise noted. All statements contained in the shareholder proposal and supporting statement are the sole responsibility of the proponent. The shareholder proposal may contain assertions about the Company or other matters that the Company believes are incorrect, but the Company has not attempted to refute all of those assertions. The Board recommends a vote against the shareholder proposal based on the reasons set forth in the Company’s statement in opposition following the shareholder proposal.

John Harrington advised the Company that he intends to present the following shareholder proposal at the Annual Shareholders’ Meeting. Mr. Harrington owns 100 shares of the Company’s common stock. The address of the proponent is available upon request by calling 1-630-623-2553 or by sending a request to McDonald’s Corporation, Shareholder Services, Department 720, One McDonald’s Plaza, Oak Brook, IL 60523.

Shareholder Proposal

Evaluating Our Company’s Policy Responses and Financial Risks

Regarding the Childhood Obesity Issue

Whereas, the contribution of the fast food industry to the global epidemic of childhood obesity has become a major public issue:

The Centers for Disease Control reports that 1 in 3 US children born in the year 2000 will develop diabetes as a result of diet.

Childhood obesity greatly increases the risk of diabetes, hypertension, heart disease, cancers, asthma, arthritis, reproductive complications and premature death.

A study from the Institute of Medicine of the National Academies (IOM) concluded that fast food marketing influences children’s food preferences, diets and health. In 2009, the IOM recommended that local governments take actions such as adopting zoning policies that restrict fast food near schools and limiting the density of fast food restaurants in residential communities.

40 McDonald’s Corporation 2012

Growing public concerns have spurred action by policymakers:

In August 2010, Congress subpoenaed 48 food companies, including our company, to submit data to the Federal Trade Commission regarding marketing activities and product nutrition.

In January 2011, the USDA released 2010 Dietary Guidelines, recommending limiting the “fast food environment” as key to healthy eating.

In January 2011, Senator Harkin introduced the HeLP America Act of 2011 to restore the rulemaking authority of the FTC to issue restrictions on unfair advertising to kids.

In June 2011, the American Academy of Pediatrics released a policy statement calling for a total ban on child targeted television junk food advertising as well as interactive digital advertising.

In July 2011, the U.S. Interagency Working Group on Food Marketing to Children proposed nutrition standards to limit marketing unhealthy foods to children.

On December 1, 2011, San Francisco implemented an ordinance prohibiting toys with children’s meals failing basic nutritional standards. Instead of complying with the spirit of the law, our company exploited a legal loophole to include a toy for a nominal fee with kids meals instead of meeting the nutrition standards mandated by the law. Other municipalities are currently considering passing similar measures.

A leading obesity research institution, the Yale Rudd Center on Food Policy and Obesity, recently released a study on fast food marketing and nutrition. The study reports that 21 percent more preschoolers saw McDonald’s ads in 2009 than 2007. The study ranks our company’s nutritional quality among the worst, and notes that our marketing especially targets Hispanic and African American children.

Resolved:

Shareholders request that the Board of Directors issue a report, at reasonable expense and excluding proprietary information, within six months of the 2012 annual meeting, assessing the company’s policy responses to growing evidence of linkages between fast food and childhood obesity, diet-related diseases and other impacts on children’s health. Such report should include an assessment of the potential impacts of public concerns and evolving public policy on the company’s finances and operations.

The Board’s Statement in Opposition

The Board recommends voting AGAINST the advisory proposal requesting a nutrition report.

The Board of Directors has carefully considered the proposal and, in light of our Company’s continuous efforts to address the issues raised by the proposal and our reporting on these efforts, we believe that the report requested in the proposal is unnecessary and redundant.

We acknowledge the importance of children’s nutrition and well-being and have publicly addressed the subject in numerous reports. While these are global issues that require actions that go well beyond what our Company or any other provider of prepared foods can take on its own, we are committed to being part of the effort to address the relevant issues underlying these concerns. We offer a variety of food choices to our customers; provide nutrition information about our menu items in a variety of accessible ways so that families can make informed decisions; communicate with children in a responsible manner through age appropriate marketing and promotional activities; and encourage children and families to live balanced, active lifestyles.

The Company has publicly reported on these efforts in a thorough and transparent way and is committed to continue reporting on these efforts. Further, the Company provides public disclosure regarding its assessment of the potential impact on its finance and operations of public concerns about health and evolving public policy, including in the Company’s risk factors in relevant filings with the Securities and Exchange Commission. The publication of another report on this topic, as requested by the proponent, would provide no meaningful “new” information about the Company’s efforts or disclosures.

Since 2004, the Company’s sustainability reports have clearly demonstrated our commitment to address nutrition and well-being matters. As recently as December 2011, the Company published the 2011 Sustainability Scorecard (Scorecard), which highlights our focus in five key priority areas, including nutrition and well-being. Among other things, the Scorecard reports on efforts by McDonald’s markets around the world to continue to expand food and beverage choices that contain fruits and vegetables and to grow awareness for these menu items, especially for children. The Scorecard supplements the extensive information on nutrition and well-being that is on the Company’s website, including “Policies and Programs,” “Best Practices,” “Children’s Global Marketing Guidelines” and “Nutrition Information.” The Scorecard and sustainability reports may be found at http://www.aboutmcdonalds.com/mcd/sustainability.html.

McDonald’s Corporation 2012 41

In addition, many McDonald’s markets also provide their own reports in their local languages and on their individual websites about their efforts regarding nutrition and well-being. The Company’s U.S. subsidiary, McDonald’s USA, for example, reports extensively on its efforts to address children’s nutrition and well-being issues. (See, for example, http://www.mcdonalds.com/us/en/food/food_quality/nutrition_choices.html.)

(The reports referenced above are not considered part of this Proxy Statement.)

Highlights of recent initiatives in the U.S. include:

—	In July 2011, McDonald’s USA announced a comprehensive plan (Plan) designed to help customers—especially children and families—make nutrition-minded choices while visiting McDonald’s or eating elsewhere. Certain aspects of the Plan have already been implemented, including:

Happy Meals served in all U.S. restaurants now automatically include apple slices and smaller-sized French fries (The impact of this change is an estimated 20% reduction in calories of the most popular Happy Meals.); and

McDonald’s USA has launched a television campaign that includes nutrition messages to children. This is part of the annual pledge that McDonald’s USA has made to the Council of Better Business Bureaus since 2006 regarding its compliance with the “Children’s Food and Beverage Advertising Initiative.”

Other aspects of the Plan that are scheduled for future implementation, include:

—	Providing funding for grass roots community nutrition awareness programs; and

—	Evaluating the progress of McDonald’s USA nutrition commitments by relying on “independent third parties with expertise in children’s well-being.”

Highlights of other global initiatives include:

—

Adherence to the McDonald’s Global Children’s Marketing Guidelines, which, among other things, guide the way that we communicate to children about balanced food choices that fit their nutritional needs and provide positive messages that support their well-being. These guidelines have unified our worldwide markets around a common set of principles for marketing to children.

—	More than 95% of McDonald’s restaurants around the world offer Happy Meals with sides of fruit, vegetable or low-fat dairy as an option.

—	Engaging the support of subject matter experts to help guide our efforts to promote informed choices by children and families worldwide. We work with a Global Advisory Council comprised of nutrition and public health experts from around the world to provide us with independent, scientific input.

—	Engaging with policy leaders to provide input and learn from others.

In light of our Company’s extensive efforts to address children’s nutrition and well-being, as well as our public reporting on these matters, we believe that the report requested by the proposal is unnecessary and redundant. We further believe that the proposal represents the potential for a diversion of resources with no corresponding benefit to the Company, our customers or our shareholders. Although we believe that the report requested by the proposal is unnecessary, we reached out to the proponent to communicate our willingness to issue a report in return for the proponent’s withdrawal of the proposal. The proponent was unwilling to withdraw the proposal. Finally, we note that a substantially similar proposal voted on by McDonald’s shareholders in 2011 received only 5.6% of shares voted in support.

Therefore, your Board of Directors recommends that you vote AGAINST this proposal.

42 McDonald’s Corporation 2012

Board and governance matters

LEADERSHIP STRUCTURE

Since 2004, our Board has been led by an independent Chairman, Andrew McKenna. This structure has worked well to assure constructive engagement among the Board and the Chief Executive Officer, and effective oversight of management. In addition, this structure allows the CEO to focus on the Company’s business, while the Chairman can focus on corporate governance matters, as well as leadership development and succession planning.

DIRECTOR SELECTION PROCESS

The Company has a policy for the consideration of Director candidates under which the Governance Committee establishes criteria for nominees, screens candidates and evaluates the qualifications of persons nominated or recommended by shareholders. The Governance Committee recommends Director nominees for approval by the Board. The Governance Committee considers candidates suggested by other Directors, senior management and shareholders. The Committee may, at the Company’s expense, retain search firms and other advisors to assist it.

The Governance Committee reviews the size and structure of the Board and considers Director tenure, skills and experience in determining the slate of nominees and as part of Director succession planning. All candidates are evaluated on the basis of qualifications. The Governance Committee seeks Directors with records of achievement in their chosen fields and experience relevant to the Company’s scope, strategy and operations. Director candidates also are expected to possess certain qualities, such as integrity, independence of mind, analytical skills, a commitment to serve the interests of shareholders, and a willingness to challenge management in a constructive and collegial environment, as well as the ability to exercise good judgment and provide practical insights and diverse perspectives. Candidates also are evaluated in light of Board policies, such as those relating to Director independence and service on other boards.

Candidates with appropriate qualifications are interviewed in person, typically by the Chairman, the Chief Executive Officer, a majority of the members of the Governance Committee and other available Directors. The Governance Committee also periodically evaluates all Directors in light of the above considerations and their contributions to the Board.

Shareholders who wish to suggest candidates for nomination by the Board or who wish to directly nominate Director candidates for election at the Company’s 2013 Annual Shareholders’ Meeting should follow the procedures described in the section on Consideration of Director Nominations for the 2013 Annual Shareholders’ Meeting, appearing on page 51.

BOARD DIVERSITY

In selecting Director candidates, the Governance Committee and the Board take diversity into account, seeking to ensure a representation of varied perspectives and experience, although the Company’s nomination policy does not prescribe specific standards for diversity. Currently, 50% of the Board is composed of women or individuals who are minorities.

SUCCESSION PLANNING

The Board regularly reviews short and long-term succession plans for the Chief Executive Officer and for other senior management positions. In assessing possible CEO candidates, the independent Directors identify the skills, experience and attributes they believe are required to be an effective CEO in light of the Company’s global business strategies, opportunities and challenges.

The Board also considers its own succession. In doing so, the Governance Committee and Board take into account, among other things, the needs of the Board and the Company in light of the overall composition of the Board with a view to achieving a balance of the skills, experience and attributes that would be beneficial to the Board’s oversight role.

McDonald’s Corporation 2012 43

DIRECTOR INDEPENDENCE

Our Corporate Governance Principles require that all Directors except management Directors be independent under applicable law and listing standards, as well as under the Board’s Standards on Director Independence. The Board considers relationships involving Directors and their immediate family members and relies on information derived from Company records, questionnaires and other inquiries.

The relationships reviewed by the Board in its most recent determination involved commercial relationships with companies:

>	at which Board members then served as officers (including Mattel, Inc., Inter-Con Security Systems, Inc. and NIKE, Inc.);

>	in which Board members or their immediate family members then held an aggregate 10% or more direct or indirect interest (including Schwarz Supply Source and Inter-Con Security Systems, Inc.); and

>	at which Board members then served as outside Directors (including Aon Corporation, Chevron Corporation, ConAgra Foods, Inc., Discover Financial Services, Exelon Corporation, Jones Lang LaSalle Incorporated, The Walt Disney Company and Wells Fargo & Company).

These relationships involved McDonald’s purchases of products and services in the ordinary course of business that were made on arm’s-length terms in amounts and under other circumstances that did not affect the relevant Directors’ independence.

The Board also reviewed Company donations to not-for-profit organizations with which Board members or their immediate family members were affiliated by membership or service as directors or trustees.

Based on its review, the Board determined that none of its non-management Directors has a material relationship with the Company and that all of them are independent. Currently, our non-management Directors are Susan E. Arnold, Robert A. Eckert, Enrique Hernandez, Jr., Jeanne P. Jackson, Richard H. Lenny, Walter E. Massey, Andrew J. McKenna, Cary D. McMillan, Sheila A. Penrose, John W. Rogers, Jr., Roger W. Stone and Miles D. White.

BOARD COMMITTEES

Our Corporate Governance Principles provide for six standing committees: Audit, Compensation, Governance, Sustainability and Corporate Responsibility, Finance and Executive. Committee charters are available on the Company’s website at www.governance.mcdonalds.com.

Table continued on next page

44 McDonald’s Corporation 2012

Table continued from previous page


Committee	Current members	Primary responsibilities	Number of 2011 meetings
Governance	Andrew J. McKenna (Chairman) Robert A. Eckert Enrique Hernandez, Jr. Jeanne P.Jackson Roger W. Stone Miles D. White	> Monitors the Board’s structure and operations. > Sets criteria for Board membership. > Searches for and screens candidates to fill Board vacancies and recommends candidates for election. > Evaluates Director and Board performance and assesses Board composition and size. > Recommends to the Board non-management Director compensation. > Evaluates the Company’s corporate governance process. > Recommends to the Board whether to accept the resignation of incumbent Directors who fail to be re-elected in uncontested elections.	7
Sustainability and Corporate Responsibility	Walter E. Massey (Chairman) Susan E. Arnold Richard H. Lenny Sheila A. Penrose John W. Rogers, Jr.	> Advises management about the Company’s global sustainability strategies and reporting. > Reviews social trends and stakeholder activities that may impact the Company’s brand reputation. > Reviews the Company’s diversity activities, corporate political contributions and philanthropy efforts. > Considers shareholder proposals about the Company’s sustainability practices.	4
Finance	Jeanne P. Jackson (Chair) Richard H. Lenny Cary D. McMillan John W. Rogers, Jr. Roger W. Stone	> Reviews the Company’s dividend policy and share repurchase program in light of the Company’s strategy and performance. > Oversees certain material financial matters, such as derivatives commodities, liquidity and debt. > Annually reviews the Company’s banking arrangements.	2
Executive	James A. Skinner (Chairman) Robert A. Eckert Enrique Hernandez, Jr. Andrew J. McKenna	> May exercise most Board powers during the periods between Board meetings.	0

BOARD AND COMMITTEE MEETINGS

Directors are expected to attend the Annual Shareholders’ Meeting and all Board meetings and meetings of the Committees on which they serve. Our Board met eight times during 2011. At each regularly scheduled Board meeting, our independent Directors met in executive session. Each Director attended over 90% of the total number of meetings of the Board and relevant Committees while the Director was a member. All Directors attended the 2011 Annual Shareholders’ Meeting.

McDonald’s Corporation 2012 45

BOARD AND COMMITTEE EVALUATIONS

The Governance Committee annually evaluates the performance of the Board of Directors. Directors are evaluated periodically, but no less often than each time they are slated for re-election. In addition, each of the Audit, Compensation and Governance Committees annually conducts self-evaluations and each of the Sustainability and Corporate Responsibility and Finance Committees conducts such evaluations at least every two years. Results of these evaluations are discussed at Committee meetings and with the full Board.

RISK OVERSIGHT

The Board is actively engaged in overseeing and reviewing the Company’s strategic direction and objectives, taking into account (among other considerations) the Company’s risk profile and exposures. The Board conducts an annual in-depth review of the business, which includes consideration of certain risk exposures. In addition, the Board receives regular updates on risk exposures.

Although the Board as a whole has responsibility for risk oversight, including CEO succession planning, the Board’s Committees also oversee the Company’s risk profile and exposures relating to matters within the scope of their authority and report to the Board about their deliberations. The Audit Committee considers audit, accounting and compliance risk, and it receives reports from the head of internal audit, the head of corporate tax, the General Counsel, the Chief Compliance Officer and the Chief Information Officer. The Audit Committee annually reviews the Company’s policies with respect to financial risk assessment and financial risk management. The Audit Committee is also responsible for discussing audit, accounting and compliance risk exposures with management, internal audit and Ernst & Young, and taking steps to monitor and control such exposures, and for evaluating management’s process to assess and manage enterprise risk issues. The Compensation Committee considers the level of risk posed by our compensation programs, including incentive compensation programs. The Governance Committee monitors potential risks to the effectiveness of the Board, notably Director succession and Board composition. The Sustainability and Corporate Responsibility Committee reviews risks to the business and the Company’s brand reputation that may result from trends in sustainability issues. The Finance Committee monitors the Company’s risk profile through its review of our worldwide insurance program and other material financial matters.

CODE OF CONDUCT FOR THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS

Each year, Directors confirm that they have read, and will comply with, the Code of Conduct for the Board of Directors.

DIRECTOR COMPENSATION

The Governance Committee recommends to the Board the form and amount of compensation for non-management Directors. Only non-management Directors are paid for their service on the Board. In 2011, this compensation structure was as follows: (i) an annual cash retainer of $90,000; (ii) an annual retainer fee of $20,000 for each Director serving as Chair of the Audit, Compensation or Governance Committees, and an annual retainer fee of $10,000 for each Director serving as Chair of other Board Committees; and (iii) common stock equivalent units with a $130,000 value granted annually to each Director serving for the entire calendar year, under the Directors’ Deferred Compensation Plan. Directors serving for a portion of the year receive prorated grants of common stock equivalent units.

The Company reimburses non-management Directors for expenses incurred in attending Board, Committee, shareholder and other McDonald’s business meetings. On limited occasions, the Company may permit Directors to be joined by their spouses and reimburses the spouses’ travel expenses. The Company also reimburses expenses for Director continuing education.

Beginning in 2012, non-management Directors will receive: (i) an annual cash retainer of $100,000; (ii) an annual retainer fee of $25,000 for serving as Chair of the Audit, Compensation or Governance Committees and an annual retainer fee of $15,000 for serving as Chair of other Board Committees; and (iii) common stock equivalent units with a $140,000 value.

46 McDonald’s Corporation 2012

The following table summarizes the compensation received by each non-management Director in 2011:


Name (a)	Fees earned or paid in cash (1) (b)		Stock awards (2)(3) (c)		All other compensation (4) (g)		Total (h)
Susan E. Arnold	$	90,000	$	130,000	$	10,000	$	230,000
Robert A. Eckert		110,000		130,000		10,000		250,000
Enrique Hernandez, Jr.		110,000		130,000		10,000		250,000
Jeanne P. Jackson		100,000		130,000		10,000		240,000
Richard H. Lenny		90,000		130,000		10,000		230,000
Walter E. Massey		100,000		130,000		10,000		240,000
Andrew J. McKenna (5)		110,000		895,438		10,000		1,015,438
Cary D. McMillan		90,000		130,000		10,000		230,000
Sheila A. Penrose		90,000		130,000		5,000		225,000
John W. Rogers, Jr.		90,000		130,000		10,000		230,000
Roger W. Stone		90,000		130,000		10,000