IMPORTANT NOTICE REGARDING THE AVAILABILITY OF PROXY MATERIALS FOR THE

SHAREHOLDER MEETING TO BE HELD ON MAY 2, 2019.

The annual report to shareholders and proxy statement are available at:

http://investors.brinks.com/2019annualmeetingmaterials

To help you review The Brink’s Company’s (“Brink’s” or the “Company”) 2019 proxy statement, we have summarized several key topics below. The following description is only a summary.

For more complete information about these topics, please review the complete proxy statement and the Company’s 2018 Annual Report on Form 10-K.

Brink’s is the global leader in total cash management, route-based logistics and payment solutions, including cash-in-transit, ATM services, cash management services, including vault outsourcing, money processing and intelligent safe services, and international transportation of valuables to financial institutions, retailers, government agencies (including central banks), mints, jewelers and other commercial operations around the world. We serve customers in more than 100 countries and have approximately

62,400 employees worldwide. A significant portion of our business is conducted internationally, with approximately 73% of our revenues earned outside the United States. Brink’s reported strong earnings growth in 2018. Following are key financial performance metrics that are monitored by management and the Board, reported to shareholders, and used in determining 2018 compensation for the named executive officers.

Our executive compensation program is structured to link compensation to Company and individual performance over the short- and long-term and to align the interests of executives and shareholders. We do this by using shares of the Company’s common stock (“Brink’s Common Stock”) and stock-

based awards in our incentive compensation programs and by maintaining robust executive stock ownership guidelines. Elements of compensation for Brink’s executives include base salary, annual incentives and long-term incentives (“LTI”).

In 2018, performance-based compensation (which includes annual incentives, Internal Metric PSUs, Relative TSR PSUs and Performance Stock Options) represented approximately 90% of total target compensation for the Chief Executive Officer and

approximately 59% of total target compensation (on average) for the Company’s other named executive officers, as illustrated below. See pages 36 - 37 for additional information about the long-term incentive awards.

In February 2018, the Compensation and Benefits Committee (the “Compensation Committee”) approved LTI awards of Internal Metric PSUs, Relative TSR PSUs, Performance Stock Options and RSUs to the Company’s named executive officers (no Internal Metric PSUs or RSUs were awarded to the Chief Executive Officer). Payouts of 2018 annual incentives to named executive officers were approved by the Compensation Committee in February 2019 ranging from approximately 108% to 137% of target (depending on the named executive officer), reflecting corporate performance that was above the target levels of the non-GAAP operating profit and revenue goals as well as performance in the countries within each executive’s area of responsibility (where applicable) and individual performance factors. In

February 2019, the Compensation Committee also

approved payouts for LTI awards granted in 2016, which consisted of Internal Metric PSUs, Relative TSR PSUs and RSUs. Relative TSR PSUs were paid out in shares of Brink’s Common Stock at 150% of target, reflecting relative TSR above the 75^th percentile of peer companies and stock price appreciation of approximately 123% over the three-year period. Internal Metric PSUs were paid out in shares of Brink’s Common Stock at 110% of target, reflecting performance that was above the target level for the two-year non-GAAP operating profit goal beginning January 1, 2016 and ending December 31, 2017. These compensation decisions are more fully described in the Compensation Discussion and Analysis, beginning on page 25.

Brink’s is committed to good corporate governance and employs a number of practices that the Company’s Board of Directors (the “Board”) has

determined are in the best interest of the Company and our shareholders. Following are examples of those practices.

At last year’s annual meeting of shareholders, over 98% of votes cast approved the “say on pay” proposal regarding the compensation awarded to named executive officers. The Compensation Committee and the Board take into account the results of the “say on pay” vote as they consider the design of the executive compensation program and policies.

There were no changes made to the Company’s executive compensation program in direct response to the 2018 “say on pay” voting results. Members of management and the Board continue to engage in outreach to the Company’s shareholders to discuss governance and compensation policies and practices and emerging issues.

You are receiving this proxy statement in connection with the solicitation of proxies by the Board to be voted at the 2019 annual meeting of shareholders (and at any adjournment or postponement of the 2019 annual meeting), for the purposes set forth in

the accompanying notice. The annual meeting will be held on May 2, 2019, at 10:00 a.m., local time, at the Hilton Dallas/Southlake Town Square, 1400 Plaza Place, Southlake, Texas 76092.

A proxy is your legal designation of another person to vote the stock you own. If you designate someone as your proxy in a written document, that document is also called a proxy (or proxy card). Ronald J. Domanico and Lindsay K. Blackwood have been

designated as proxies for the annual meeting. A proxy, if duly executed and not revoked, will be voted and, if it contains any specific instructions, will be voted in accordance with those instructions.

You are entitled to notice of the annual meeting and may vote your shares of Brink’s Common Stock if you owned them as of the close of business on March 1, 2019, which is the date that the Board has designated as the record date for the 2019 annual

meeting of shareholders. On March 1, 2019, the Company had outstanding 49,705,023 shares of Brink’s Common Stock. Each share of Brink’s Common Stock is entitled to one vote.

The proposals scheduled to be voted on are:

The Board recommends a vote FOR:

A majority of the outstanding shares of Brink’s Common Stock as of the record date must be present in person or represented by proxy at the annual meeting. This is referred to as a quorum. Abstentions, withheld votes and shares held in street name (“Brokers’ Shares”) voted by brokers are included in determining the number of votes present.

Brokers’ Shares that are not voted on any matter will not be included in determining whether a quorum is present. In the event that a quorum is not present at the annual meeting, we expect that the annual meeting will be adjourned or postponed to solicit additional proxies.

Under the rules of the New York Stock Exchange, a broker may vote Brokers’ Shares in its discretion on “routine matters,” but a broker may not vote on proposals that are not considered “routine.” When a

proposal is a non-routine matter and the broker has not received voting instructions with respect to that proposal, the broker cannot vote on that proposal. This is commonly called a “broker non-vote.”

The following table summarizes the vote required to approve each proposal and the effects of abstentions, broker non-votes, and signed, but unmarked proxy cards, on the tabulation of votes for

each proposal. For any other business that may properly come before the annual meeting, proxies will be voted in accordance with the judgment of the person voting the proxies.

The Company’s bylaws provide that the Chairman of the annual meeting will determine the order of business and the voting and other procedures to be observed at the annual meeting. The Chairman is authorized to declare whether any business is properly brought before the annual meeting, and business not properly brought before the annual meeting will not be transacted. We are not aware of

any matters that are to come before the annual meeting other than those described in this proxy statement. If other matters do properly come before the annual meeting, however, it is the intention of the persons named in the enclosed proxy card to exercise the discretionary authority conferred by the proxy to vote such proxy in accordance with their best judgment.

The enclosed proxy is revocable at any time prior to its being voted by filing an instrument of revocation or a duly executed proxy bearing a later time. A proxy may also be revoked by attendance at the annual meeting and voting in person. See “Questions and

Answers About the Annual Meeting—How do I attend the annual meeting? What should I bring?” Attendance at the annual meeting will not by itself constitute a revocation.

The cost of this solicitation of proxies will be borne by the Company. In addition to soliciting proxies by mail, directors, officers and employees of the Company, without receiving additional compensation therefor, may solicit proxies by telephone, facsimile, electronic mail, in person or by other means. Arrangements also will be made with brokerage firms and other custodians, nominees and fiduciaries to forward proxy solicitation material to the beneficial owners of Brink’s Common Stock and the Company will

reimburse such brokerage firms, custodians, nominees and fiduciaries for reasonable out-of-pocket expenses in connection with their solicitation efforts. The Company has retained Innisfree M&A Incorporated to perform proxy advisory and solicitation services. The fee of Innisfree M&A Incorporated in connection with the 2019 annual meeting is estimated to be approximately $15,000, plus reimbursement of out-of-pocket expenses.

Shareholders who wish to attend the annual meeting and vote in person and who need directions to the annual meeting may contact the Corporate Secretary at (804) 289-9600. Shareholders of record who wish to vote in person at the annual meeting will be able to request a ballot at the annual meeting. Shareholders

who hold their shares through a broker in “street name” and who wish to vote in person at the annual meeting will not be able to vote their shares at the annual meeting without a legal proxy from the street name holder of record. Those shareholders should contact their brokers for further information.

Role of the Board of Directors

The Board is responsible for advancing the interests of the shareholders by providing advice and oversight of the strategic and operational direction of the Company; overseeing the governance of the Company and the Company’s executive management, including the Chief Executive Officer; and reviewing the Company’s business initiatives, capital projects and budget matters. To do this effectively, the Company has established clear and specific Governance Guidelines for the Board (referred to as our Governance Policies) that, along with Board committee charters and our Code of Ethics, provide the framework for the governance of the Company.

Board Leadership Structure

The Board does not have a policy on whether the roles of the Chief Executive Officer and Chairman should be separate. The Board regularly evaluates relevant factors to determine the best leadership structure for the Company’s operating and governance environment at the time. In accordance with good governance practices, the Board’s policy is to appoint a lead director from among the independent members of the Board in the event that the roles of Chairman and Chief Executive Officer are combined. In response to significant changes in the Company’s leadership, in 2016, the Board appointed Michael J. Herling as the non-executive Chairman of the Board. The Board believes the separation of the offices of Chairman of the Board and Chief Executive Officer was appropriate at that time as it allowed, and continues to allow, Mr. Pertz to focus primarily on Brink’s business strategy and operations and Mr. Herling to provide the independent leadership of the Board. As the non-executive chairman of the Board, Mr. Herling has the following responsibilities:

If the Chairman and CEO roles were to be combined in the future, a lead director would be appointed. We expect that a lead director would have the following responsibilities:

Meetings of the Board and Director Attendance

The Board met six times in 2018. During 2018, all incumbent directors attended at least 75% of the total number of meetings of the Board and of the committees of the Board on which they served.

Executive Sessions of the Board

The non-management members of the Board meet regularly without management present. The Chairman presides over each meeting of the independent Board members.

Director Attendance at Annual Meeting

The Company has no formal policy with regard to Board members’ attendance at annual meetings. All of the directors then in office, with the exception of Mr. Boynton, attended the 2018 annual meeting of shareholders.

For a director to be deemed “independent,” the Board must affirmatively determine, in accordance with the listing standards of the New York Stock Exchange, that the director has no material relationship with the Company, either directly or as a partner, shareholder or officer of an organization that has a relationship with the Company. In making this determination, the Board has adopted the following categorical standards as part of its Governance Policies:

The Board has affirmatively determined that Ms. Docherty and Messrs. Boynton, Clough, Hedgebeth, Henry, Herling, and Stoeckert are independent under the listing standards of the New York Stock Exchange and the categorical standards described above. The Board has determined that the members of the Audit and Ethics Committee (the “Audit Committee”) and the Compensation Committee meet the heightened independence requirements for service on the Audit Committee and Compensation Committee set forth in the respective

committees’ charters. In addition, the Board has determined that the members of the Compensation Committee are “non-employee directors” (within the meaning of Rule 16b-3 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the “Exchange Act”)) and, to the extent necessary to qualify compensation incentives for 162(m) Transition Relief, “outside directors” (within the meaning of Section 162(m) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended (the “Code”)).

The Board has four standing committees: the Audit Committee, Compensation Committee, Corporate Governance and Nominating Committee (the “Corporate Governance Committee”) and Finance and Strategy Committee (the “Finance Committee”). Each committee has a separate chairperson and

each of the committees is composed solely of independent directors. The charters for each of the committees describe the specific authority and responsibilities of each committee and are available on our website at www.brinks.com.

Audit Committee

The Audit Committee oversees management’s conduct of the Company’s financial reporting process and the integrity of its financial statements, including the Company’s accounting, internal controls and internal audit function. The Audit Committee also evaluates the qualifications and performance of the Company’s independent auditors, assesses the independence of the Company’s independent auditors and oversees the annual independent audit of the Company’s financial statements and the Company’s legal and regulatory compliance, as well as ethics programs.

The Board has identified each of Messrs. Boynton, Clough and Stoeckert as an “audit committee financial expert” as that term is defined in the rules promulgated by the Securities and Exchange Commission (the “SEC”). The Board has also determined that each of the members of the Audit Committee is financially literate under New York Stock Exchange standards.

Compensation Committee

The Compensation Committee is responsible for overseeing the policies and programs relating to the compensation of the Chief Executive Officer, and other senior executives, including policies governing salaries, incentive compensation and terms and

conditions of employment. For a further discussion of the Compensation Committee, see “Compensation Discussion and Analysis.”

Corporate Governance Committee

The Corporate Governance Committee is responsible for identifying individuals qualified to become Board members consistent with criteria approved by the Board and recommending to the Board director nominees. The Corporate Governance Committee also oversees the corporate governance of the Company, including recommending to the Board the Governance Policies, and the annual evaluation of the Board’s performance. In addition, the Corporate Governance Committee recommends to the Board any changes in non-employee director compensation.

Finance Committee

The Finance Committee monitors the Company’s strategic direction, recommends to the Board dividend and other actions and policies regarding the financial affairs of the Company, and is responsible for oversight of the Company’s 401(k) Plan and the Frozen Pension Plan, and any similar plans that may be maintained from time to time by the Company. The Finance Committee has authority to adopt amendments to the Company’s 401(k) Plan and the Frozen Pension and Pension Equalization Plans.

The Corporate Governance Committee regularly engages in succession planning for the Board. In accordance with the Governance Policies and the Corporate Governance Committee charter, the Corporate Governance Committee periodically assesses whether any vacancies on the Board are expected due to retirement or other factors and considers possible director candidates. The Corporate Governance Committee has used professional search firms to identify candidates based upon the director membership criteria described in the Governance Policies.

The Corporate Governance Committee’s charter provides that the Corporate Governance Committee will consider director candidate recommendations by shareholders. Shareholders should submit any such recommendations to the Corporate Governance Committee through the method described below under “Communications with Non-Management Members of the Board of Directors.” In accordance with the Company’s bylaws, any shareholder of

record entitled to vote for the election of directors at a meeting of shareholders may nominate persons for election to the Board, if the shareholder complies with the notice procedures set forth in the bylaws and summarized in the section of this proxy statement entitled “Other Information—Shareholder Proposals and Director Nominations” on page 77.

The Corporate Governance Committee evaluates all director candidates in accordance with the director membership criteria described in the Governance Policies. The Corporate Governance Committee evaluates any candidate’s qualifications to serve as a member of the Board based on the skills and characteristics of individual Board members as well as the composition of the Board as a whole, the balance of management and independent directors, and the need for particular expertise. In addition, while there is not specific weight given to any one factor, the Corporate Governance Committee will evaluate a candidate’s business experience, diversity, international background or experience, the number of

other directorships held, leadership capabilities, and any other skills or experience that would contribute to the overall effectiveness of the Board of Directors.

When considering a director standing for re-election as a nominee, in addition to the attributes described above, the Corporate Governance Committee considers that individual’s past contribution and future commitment to the Company. The Corporate Governance Committee evaluates the totality of the merits of each prospective nominee that it considers and does not restrict itself by establishing minimum qualifications or attributes.

After evaluating any potential director nominees, the Corporate Governance Committee makes a

recommendation to the full Board, and the Board determines the nominees. The evaluation process of prospective director nominees is the same for all nominees, regardless of the source from which the nominee was first identified.

The Company did not receive any notice of a director candidate recommended by a shareholder or group of shareholders owning more than 5% of the Company’s voting common stock for at least one year as of the date of recommendation on or prior to November 23, 2018, the date that is 120 days before the anniversary date of the release of the prior year’s proxy statement to shareholders.

The Board annually assesses the effectiveness of the full Board and the performance of its committees. The Corporate Governance Committee is charged

with overseeing this process. In 2016, the Board implemented periodic evaluations by a third party and individual director assessments.

The Board is responsible for the Company’s overall risk oversight and receives regular reports from management on the Company’s risk management program (described below) and from the Board’s Audit, Compensation, Corporate Governance, and Finance Committees, each of which is responsible for risk oversight within its area of responsibility. Management is responsible for the Company’s risk management. Through the Company’s enterprise risk management (“ERM”) program, management identifies and addresses significant risks facing the Company. Under the ERM program, a team of senior executives identifies and prioritizes risks, and assigns an executive to address each major identified risk area, including by monitoring relevant mitigation plans and processes.

The Audit Committee is responsible for discussing with management the Company’s major financial risk exposures and the steps management has taken to monitor and control such exposures, including the Company’s risk assessment and risk management policies. As part of its responsibilities, the Audit Committee oversees the Company’s financial policies, including financial risk management. Management holds regular meetings that identify, discuss and assess financial risk from current macro-

economic, industry and company-specific perspectives. As part of its regular reporting process, management reports and reviews with the Audit Committee the Company’s material financial risks, proposed risk factors and other public disclosures, mitigation strategies, and the Company’s internal controls over financial reporting. The Audit Committee also engages in periodic discussions with the Chief Financial Officer, the Vice President, Internal Audit and other members of management regarding risks.

Each of the other committees of the Board considers risks within its respective areas of responsibility and regularly reports to the Board on issues related to the Company’s risk profile. The Compensation Committee considers any risks related to the Company’s executive compensation programs and has oversight responsibility for the Company’s review of all compensation policies and procedures to determine whether they present significant risks. The Corporate Governance Committee considers risks relating to governance and succession planning. The Finance Committee reviews risks related to strategic transactions and oversees risks related to the Company’s liquidity, credit ratings, and pension and savings plans.

As part of its oversight of the Company’s executive compensation program, the Compensation Committee reviews and considers any potential risk implications created by compensation awards. The Compensation Committee believes that the executive compensation program is designed with the appropriate balance of risk and reward in relation to the Company’s overall business strategy and that the balance of compensation elements does not encourage excessive risk taking. The Compensation Committee will continue to consider compensation risk implications, as appropriate, in designing any new executive compensation components. In connection with its ongoing risk assessment, the Compensation Committee notes the following attributes of the executive compensation program:

The Compensation Committee also has oversight over the Company’s responsibility to review all Company compensation policies and procedures, including the incentives that they create, to assess risk. At the Compensation Committee’s direction, the Company’s Human Resources Department in partnership with the Internal Audit Department, conducted a risk assessment of the Company’s compensation programs during 2018. Based on its assessment, management concluded that the compensation policies and practices of the Company and its subsidiaries for employees do not create risks that are reasonably likely to have a material adverse effect on the Company, and management presented the results of its assessment to the Compensation Committee.

The Company has adopted a policy in the Audit Committee’s charter regarding the review and approval of related person transactions. In the event that the Company proposes to enter into such a transaction, it must be referred to the Audit Committee. The Audit Committee is required to review and approve each related person transaction and any disclosures required by Item 404 of Regulation S-K. The Audit Committee reviews any related person transactions on a case-by-case basis.

For purposes of this policy, a “related person transaction” has the same meaning as in Item 404 of Regulation S-K: a transaction, arrangement or relationship (or any series of related transactions, arrangements or relationships) in which the Company is, was or will be a participant and the amount

involved exceeds $120,000 and in which any “related person” has, had or will have a direct or indirect material interest.

For purposes of this policy, a “related person” has the same meaning as in Item 404 of Regulation S-K: any person who was a director, a nominee for director or an executive officer of the Company during the preceding fiscal year (or an immediate family member of such a director, nominee for director or executive officer) or a beneficial owner of more than 5% of the outstanding Brink’s Common Stock (or an immediate family member of such owner).

During 2018, there were no related person transactions under the relevant standards.

The Company’s Governance Policies set forth a process by which shareholders and other interested third parties can send communications to the non-management members of the Board. When interested third parties have concerns, they may make them known to the non-management directors

by communicating via written correspondence sent by U.S. mail to “Chairman” at the Company’s Richmond, Virginia address. All such correspondence is provided to the Chairman of the Board at, or prior to, the next executive session held at a regular Board meeting.

The Board regularly engages in succession planning for the Chief Executive Officer role. Members of the Board (with oversight from the Corporate Governance Committee) annually review and discuss an evaluation of potential Chief Executive Officer successors. The Board ensures that meeting

agendas for the Board and its committees provide directors with exposure to and opportunities to assess potential successors. The Board annually reviews the emergency succession plan for the Chief Executive Officer.

In general, it is not the Company’s practice to make financial or in-kind political contributions with corporate assets, even when permitted by applicable law. The Company complies with all applicable state and federal laws related to the disclosure of lobbying activities.

The Company administers, under federal and state election laws, The Brink’s Company Political Action Committee, which is a non-partisan political action committee comprised of the Company’s managerial and professional U.S. employees who voluntarily pool their financial resources to support the Company’s efforts to promote the business interests of the Company through the legislative process.

Under the Company’s Governance Policies, a director who retires or whose job responsibilities change materially from those in effect at the time the director was last elected to the Board should submit his or her resignation to the Board. The Corporate Governance Committee will then review and consider the director’s resignation and make a recommendation to the Board whether to accept or decline the resignation. In addition, the Board maintains a policy that a director may not stand for election to the Board for any term during which his or her 72^nd birthday would fall more than six months prior to the expiration of that term.

The Company’s Governance Policies also provide that any nominee for director in an uncontested election who receives a greater number of shareholder votes “against” his or her election than votes “for” his or her election must promptly tender his or her resignation to the Board. The Corporate Governance Committee will then evaluate the best interests of the Company and will recommend to the Board whether to accept or reject the tendered resignation. Following the Board’s determination, the Company will disclose the Board’s decision of whether or not to accept the resignation and an explanation of how the decision was reached.

In accordance with the Company’s Amended and Restated Articles of Incorporation and bylaws, directors are nominated for election (or re-election) to one-year terms. Each of the Company’s directors is serving a term that expires in May 2019.

The Corporate Governance Committee has recommended, and the Board has approved Ms. Docherty and Messrs. Boynton, Clough, Hedgebeth, Henry, Herling, Pertz and Stoeckert each as nominees for election to a one-year term expiring in 2020. Proxies cannot be voted for a greater number of persons than the number of nominees named in this proxy statement. Unless otherwise specified, all proxies will be voted in favor of Ms. Docherty and Messrs. Boynton, Clough, Hedgebeth, Henry, Herling, Pertz and Stoeckert for election as directors of the Company. The Board has

no reason to believe that any of the nominees is not available or will not serve if elected. If any of them should become unavailable to serve as a director, full discretion is reserved to the persons named as proxies to vote for such other persons as may be properly nominated.

Set forth below for each director nominee is information concerning the nominee’s age, principal occupation, employment (including other positions with the Company), directorships during the past five years, and the year in which he or she first became a director of the Company. Also set forth below is a brief discussion of the specific experience, qualifications, attributes or skills that led to the conclusion that each nominee should serve as a director, in light of the Company’s business and structure.

The Company is seeking shareholder approval of an advisory resolution to approve the compensation of the Company’s named executive officers as disclosed in this proxy statement.

The Company maintains a pay for performance compensation philosophy and an executive compensation program that is designed to:

In deciding how to vote on this proposal, the Board asks that you consider the following key points with respect to our executive compensation program:

You are encouraged to review the Compensation Discussion and Analysis, the compensation tables and the accompanying narrative on pages 25 through 58 of this proxy statement, which provide a comprehensive review of the Company’s executive compensation program and its elements, objectives and rationale.

In accordance with Section 14A of the Exchange Act rules, shareholders are asked to approve the following non-binding resolution:

“RESOLVED, that the Company’s shareholders approve, on a non-binding advisory basis, the compensation of the

Company’s named executive officers, as disclosed in the Proxy Statement for the 2019 Annual Meeting of Shareholders pursuant to the compensation disclosure rules of the Securities and Exchange Commission, including the Compensation Discussion and Analysis, the 2018 Summary Compensation Table, the other related tables and the accompanying narrative on pages 25 through 58.”

The Company holds this non-binding advisory vote annually. The shareholder vote on this proposal will be non-binding on the Company and the Board and will not be construed as overruling a decision by the Company or the Board. However, the Board and the Compensation Committee value the opinions that shareholders express in their votes and will consider the outcome of the vote when making future executive compensation decisions as they deem appropriate.

2019 CD&A

This Compensation Discussion and Analysis (“CD&A”) and the executive compensation tables that follow describe the compensation of the Company’s named executive officers:

Information about named executive officers’ salaries and any changes in 2018 can be found under “Base Salary” on page 31. Information about annual incentive targets and awards appears under “Annual Cash Incentives Awards – EIP and BIP” beginning on page 31. Information about LTI targets and awards appears under “Long—Term Incentive Compensation” beginning on page 35.

2018 in Review

Brink’s reported strong earnings growth in 2018. Following are key financial performance metrics that are monitored by management and the Board, reported to shareholders, and used in determining compensation amounts for the named executive officers.

2018 Annual and Long-Term Incentive Payouts

Incentive program payout determinations for 2018 for the named executive officers reflect the Company’s performance against specific, pre-established financial goals. The named executive officers received 2018 annual incentive payouts under the Executive Incentive Plan (“EIP”) at a range of approximately 108% to 137% of their respective targets. These payouts reflect adjusted results that were above the target non-GAAP operating profit of $365 million and the target non-GAAP revenue of $3.4 billion established under the Company’s Brink’s Incentive Plan, as well as performance in the countries within each executive’s area of responsibility (where applicable) and individual performance factors. See the description of 2018 annual incentive payouts beginning on page 33.

Payouts for Relative TSR PSUs for the 2016 – 2018 performance period reflect TSR above the 75^th percentile of the peer companies (reflecting stock price appreciation of approximately 123%), which resulted in payment of 150% of the target Relative TSR PSUs awarded in 2016. Payouts for Internal Metric PSUs for the 2016 – 2018 performance period reflect performance above the target level of non-GAAP operating profit established by the Compensation Committee and resulted in payment to each named executive officer of 110% of his target Internal Metric PSUs awarded in 2016. See pages 37 and 38 for a description of LTI payouts.

2018 Compensation for Chief Executive Officer, Douglas A. Pertz

The primary components of compensation for the Chief Executive Officer consist of base salary, annual incentive and long-term incentive.

For 2018, the Compensation Committee established an annual incentive target of 125% of Mr. Pertz’s base salary. Mr. Pertz received an annual incentive payout of $1,504,913 in March 2019, which represented approximately 123% of the target in light of Brink’s performance against the pre-established performance goals and Mr. Pertz’s individual performance. In February 2018, the Compensation Committee approved an LTI award in the amount of $7,500,000 for Mr. Pertz, which was made up entirely of performance-based equity awards, a majority of which are Performance Stock Options that link vesting to stock price appreciation of 25% for certain awards and 50% for other awards, and are also subject to a three year time vesting requirement. In setting Mr. Pertz’s 2018 LTI, the Compensation Committee considered relevant market data as well as his performance since being appointed Chief Executive Officer in June 2016, expected future contributions to the Company, and the retentive value of the award.

Say on Pay Results and Shareholder Engagement

At the 2018 annual meeting, over 98% of votes cast on the “say on pay” proposal approved the compensation awarded to named executive officers.

The Compensation Committee and the Board take into account the results of the “say on pay” vote as they consider the design of the executive compensation program and policies. There were no changes made to the Company’s executive compensation program in direct response to the 2018 “say on pay” voting results. Members of management and the Board continue to engage in outreach to the Company’s shareholders to discuss governance and compensation policies and practices and emerging issues.

Compensation Committee Review Process. The Compensation Committee sets each component of target compensation for the Company’s named executive officers. At least annually, the Compensation Committee undertakes a comprehensive review of competitive market data and information regarding the value of target compensation levels provided to the Company’s Chief Executive Officer and other senior executives, including base salary, target annual incentive and LTI awards.

The Compensation Committee reviews the Chief Executive Officer’s evaluation of the performance of the other named executive officers, as well as his recommendations related to their compensation, when considering named executive officer target compensation and payout determinations. When the Compensation Committee considers base salary adjustments and sets annual incentive and LTI targets, it takes the following factors into account:

With respect to the Chief Executive Officer, the Compensation Committee reviews performance relative to annual objectives and competitive market data in order to make base salary and target annual incentive and LTI determinations and to make recommendations to the Board regarding annual incentive payments. The Compensation Committee is supported in its work by the Company’s Human Resources Department and an independent executive compensation consultant as described below.

Role of the Compensation Consultant. The Compensation Committee receives data, analysis and support from Frederic W. Cook & Co., Inc. (“FW Cook”), which serves as the Compensation Committee’s and the Corporate Governance Committee’s independent compensation consultant.

In 2018, FW Cook provided the following services to the Compensation Committee:

Role of Chief Executive Officer. The Chief Executive Officer annually reviews each named executive officer’s target compensation (other than his own) and recommends changes to elements of a named executive officer’s target total compensation, as necessary, based on the factors identified under “Process for Setting Executive Compensation” above. The Chief Executive Officer makes recommendations regarding payouts for annual incentives in accordance with the terms of the awards. The Compensation Committee considers the Chief Executive Officer’s recommendations in making its own determinations regarding compensation awarded to the named executive officers.

The Chief Executive Officer does not play any role in determining his own compensation.

Compensation Consultant Conflicts of Interest. In retaining FW Cook, the Compensation Committee considered the six factors set forth in Rule 10C-1(b)(4)(i) through (vi) of the Exchange Act. In addition, after review of information provided by each of the members of the Compensation Committee as

well as information provided by FW Cook and members of the FW Cook team, the Compensation Committee determined that there are no conflicts of interest raised by the firm’s work with the Compensation Committee.

In determining target and actual compensation for the named executive officers in 2018, the Compensation Committee considered the following key factors.

Performance. The executive compensation program provides the named executive officers with opportunities to receive actual compensation that is greater or less than targeted compensation, depending upon the Company’s financial performance and their individual performance.

Market Competitiveness. For the named executive officers, the Compensation Committee generally aims to set base salary, target annual incentive and target LTI compensation (in the aggregate) at approximately the market median relative to comparable positions within a relevant comparison group of companies (the

“Peer Group”), Brink’s uses the market median as a reference to ensure pay practices are competitive overall and generally sets named executive officers’ individual total target compensation between the 25^th and 75^th percentile of Peer Group compensation, depending on the criticality of the role, individual performance and long-term potential to create value for shareholders.

The Company’s peer group is designed to include companies of comparable size, companies with similar business characteristics (including revenue and market capitalization) and companies with which Brink’s competes for talent and investor capital. Below is the list of companies included in the Peer Group for 2018 compensation.

The Compensation Committee periodically reviews market information, including Peer Group compensation data, survey data and other reports on executive compensation practices in making its compensation decisions for named executive officers. Survey data is used as the primary reference point for all named executive officers. The Committee uses Peer Group data as an additional reference point for the Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer roles and for Mr. Zukerman’s role. Based on its analysis and the compensation levels set for the Company’s named executive officers in 2018, FW Cook has concluded that the Company’s overall current total target direct compensation (including base salary and target annual incentive and LTI compensation) was between the 25^th and 75^th percentile of the relevant market data for each of the named executive officers, with the exception of the Chief Executive Officer, whose total target direct

compensation exceeds the 75^th percentile as a result of the 2018 LTI award, the amount of which was increased for 2018 in recognition of Mr. Pertz’s performance and expected future contributions, and as a retention incentive.

Mix of Cash and Stock-Based Compensation and Current, Short-Term and Long-Term Awards. The Compensation Committee considers the competitive market, compensation mix and pay for performance philosophy when setting various components of compensation. The Compensation Committee determined that current and short-term compensation (base salary and annual incentives) should be composed of cash, but that LTI compensation should be composed of stock-based awards that reward the achievement of Company results and increases in Company value over the long-term, and align named executive officers’ interests with the economic interests of shareholders.

In 2018, performance-based compensation (which includes annual incentives, Internal Metric PSUs, Relative TSR PSUs, and Performance Stock Options) represented approximately 90% of total target

compensation for the Chief Executive Officer and approximately 59% of total target compensation (on average) for the Company’s other named executive officers, as illustrated below

Base Salary

The Compensation Committee’s decisions on base salary levels for the named executive officers are primarily influenced by its review of competitive market information for comparable positions. These decisions are also influenced by the Company’s talent philosophy, which includes differential investment in talent based on the executive’s performance of his or her duties, criticality of the executive’s role to the execution of corporate strategy, and the executive’s potential to impact future business results. For the named executive officers other than the Chief Executive Officer, the Compensation Committee also considers the Chief Executive Officer’s recommended salary adjustments based on position relative to the competitive market information.

In 2018, the Compensation Committee approved adjustments to base salaries for each of the named executive officers. For each of the officers other than Mr. Marshall, adjustments were made in connection with the Company’s annual merit review process, which reflects the market-based merit budget as well as performance of each individual executive. For Mr. Marshall, the adjustment reflects a market-based adjustment to better align his compensation to the market median for the role of a Chief Administrative Officer leading both the Legal and HR functions. Following are the base salaries for each of the named executive officers as of December 31, 2018 (actual salary amounts for 2018 appear in the Summary Compensation Table on page 44):

Annual Cash Incentive Awards—EIP and BIP

General

The Company’s annual cash incentive program for named executive officers provides incentive compensation that is variable, contingent and directly linked to Company and country or business unit performance. For 2017 and 2018, annual incentive awards for executive officers were paid under the EIP, which works in conjunction with the metrics and

goals of the Brink’s Incentive Plan (“BIP”), which governs annual incentives for other executives and employees.

The EIP was approved by shareholders in 2017 and was designed to ensure that annual incentive compensation paid to executive officers was tied directly to the achievement of Company operating profit and was intended to qualify as performance-based compensation under Section 162(m) and be

deductible by the Company, as permitted under applicable law.

Under the EIP, the maximum award to be paid to the CEO is 1.5% of non-GAAP operating profit and the maximum award to be paid to any other named executive officer is 0.75% of non-GAAP operating profit. However, the Compensation Committee retains negative discretion to reduce the award below these maximum amounts payable. Using this negative discretion, the Committee may reduce the payout to an amount determined in accordance with the executive’s annual incentive target and the Company’s performance against the performance targets established under the BIP, as described below, and may take into consideration the performance of a named executive officer’s business unit or function and the executive’s individual performance. The Compensation Committee does not have discretion to increase the size of annual incentive awards under the EIP.

In February 2019, the Compensation Committee decided to terminate the EIP, in light of the changes to IRC Section 162(m) under U.S. Tax Reform. As a result of these changes to IRC Section 162(m), the EIP no longer facilitates the tax deductibility of certain awards to executive officers. Beginning with awards for the 2019 fiscal year, annual incentive awards to executive officers will be administered under the BIP.

The Compensation Committee sets annual incentive performance metrics and goal(s) under the BIP in February of the performance year. In doing so, the Compensation Committee selects one or more metrics that it believes are aligned with the Company’s financial and strategic goals for the year and selects a target level of performance for each metric that the Compensation Committee believes represents a rigorous goal.

The Compensation Committee generally considers and approves actual annual incentive payments for the prior fiscal year in February. At the same time, the Compensation Committee certifies the amount of non-GAAP operating profit for the plan year and certifies that the awards to be paid to the named executive officers do not exceed the maximum awards permitted under the EIP. For 2018, the Compensation Committee used its negative discretion under the EIP to reduce the annual incentive payouts to named executive officers to a level consistent with the Company’s performance against the pre-established BIP performance goals and each executive’s individual performance. The Compensation Committee approves annual incentive payments to all EIP participants with the exception of the Chief Executive Officer. The Board approves any annual incentive payments to the Chief Executive Officer upon the recommendation of the Compensation Committee. In determining annual incentive payouts, the Compensation Committee and the Board consider Company financial results, the performance of the Chief Executive Officer and the other named executive officers and the recommendations of the Chief Executive Officer (with respect to the other named executive officers.)

2018 Annual Incentive Goal Setting

The Compensation Committee approved two performance metrics for 2018 annual incentives under the BIP: non-GAAP operating profit (75% weighting) and non-GAAP revenue (25% weighting) in order to ensure focus on improving profitability while at the same time growing the Company’s business. The named executive officers’ 2018 annual incentive awards are tied to the achievement of the non-GAAP operating profit and revenue goals as set forth below. The Compensation Committee believes that these goals represent rigorous objectives for our named executive officers and align with shareholder interests.

Each year, in connection with the approval of the annual incentive performance goals, the Compensation Committee also approves specific adjustments that the Compensation Committee may make at the end of the year to the performance results against the goal. In 2018, the Compensation Committee determined that, when considering performance against the 2018 non-GAAP operating profit and revenue performance goals, it would exclude the positive or negative impact of acquisitions and divestitures and the positive or negative impact of foreign exchange translation versus the foreign exchange rates used in the Company’s 2018 business plan, except for highly inflationary countries, where 50% of such foreign exchange translation would be excluded.

The Compensation Committee applies straight-line interpolation for determining award payouts when performance results fall between the goals above. For example, achievement of $373.75 million non-GAAP

operating profit would equate to a payout factor of 125% for that performance metric.

2018 Annual Incentive Target Award Opportunities

In February 2018, the Compensation Committee established 2018 annual incentive targets for the named executive officers. The annual incentive target is expressed as a percentage of annual base salary and is designed to be indicative of the incentive payment that each named executive officer would expect to receive on the basis of strong performance by the Company against the performance goals for the BIP. Annual incentive targets for 2018 were approved for each of the named executive officers by the Compensation Committee as set forth below. The Committee approved an increase in Mr. Domanico’s annual incentive target for 2018 to better align his compensation with the market data for his role. Incentive payments cannot exceed 200% of each named executive officer’s annual incentive target.

In February 2019, the Compensation Committee (and the independent members of the Board for Mr. Pertz) approved 2018 annual incentive payouts for the named executive officers. To determine the actual annual incentive payments for the named executive officers, the Compensation Committee (and the independent members of the Board) considered the Company’s non-GAAP operating profit and

non-GAAP revenue against the goals set by the Compensation Committee in February 2018 as well as each executive’s individual performance. For Messrs. Beech and Zukerman, the Compensation Committee also considered the performance of the operating companies within each executive’s scope of responsibility, which is referred to as Combined Operating Performance.

The Company Performance Factor was determined by the Compensation Committee to be 117% which reflects the Company’s adjusted non-GAAP operating profit results of $370 million versus the 2018 performance goal of $365 million and the adjusted non-GAAP revenue results of $3.425 billion versus the performance goal of $3.4 billion. In approving the results used to determine annual incentive funding and the Company Performance Factor, the Compensation Committee considered the Company’s reported 2018 non-GAAP operating profit results of $347 million and non-GAAP revenue results of $3.438 billion, which were then adjusted upward to remove the impact of certain foreign exchange translation and the impact of divestitures during the year and adjusted downward to remove the impact of acquisitions during the year. Non-GAAP operating profit and non-GAAP revenue are reconciled to the most directly comparable GAAP measures on page 35 of the Company’s 2018 Annual Report on Form 10-K.

In addition to the strong Company performance that resulted in a Company Performance Factor of 117%, the Compensation Committee also considered Mr. Pertz’s recommendations regarding individual performance of each of the named executive officers (other than Mr. Marshall, who was no longer serving as an executive officer at the time the Compensation Committee made its decisions regarding annual incentive payouts).

For Mr. Domanico, the Committee approved an annual incentive at approximately 123% of target and considered Mr. Domanico’s overall leadership of the Company’s strong financial performance, including

an increase in non-GAAP operating profit by 23% versus the prior year and an increase in free cash flow, as well as his efforts to amend the Company’s credit agreement to reduce borrowing costs, increase borrowing capacity and extend the loan term. For Mr. Beech, the Committee approved an annual incentive at approximately 137% of target and considered the strong financial results in his area of responsibility, particularly the very strong results in Mexico, as well as Mr. Beech’s effective leadership of the Company’s global security organization. For Mr. Zukerman, the Committee approved an annual incentive at approximately 108% of target and considered the solid performance of the BGS business and the Rest of World segment.

Mr. Pertz’s annual incentive award was approved by the Board at approximately 123% of target, reflecting the Company’s overall operating performance, including reported non-GAAP year over year revenue growth of 8% and a non-GAAP operating profit increase of 23%, with an improvement of 130 basis points in the Company’s non-GAAP operating profit margin rate. The award also reflected Mr. Pertz’s individual achievements in 2018, particularly with respect to continued development and execution of the Company’s strategic plan, the successful execution of accretive acquisitions, including Dunbar, and continued transformation of the Company’s culture.

The following table sets forth the actual annual incentive payments for 2018. Annual incentive payments are also shown in the Summary Compensation Table on page 44.

Long-Term Incentive Compensation

General

The Company provides LTI compensation to ensure that a significant portion of named executive officer compensation is tied to the Company’s long-term results and increases in shareholder value. In 2018, the Compensation Committee approved LTI awards to named executive officers that included Relative TSR PSUs, and Stock Options and, for all executives other than the Chief Executive Officer, Internal Metric PSUs and RSUs.

Internal Metric PSUs. The performance period for the Internal Metric PSUs is generally three years,

beginning on January 1 of the first year of the performance period and ending on December 31 of the third year of the performance period. Named executive officers benefit from Internal Metric PSUs only to the extent Brink’s achieves performance goals determined by the Compensation Committee at the beginning of the performance period. After the conclusion of the performance period, Internal Metric PSU payouts will be in shares of Brink’s Common Stock and will range from 0 to 200% of the target award. The number of shares ultimately paid will depend on performance against the goals established by the Compensation Committee.

Relative TSR PSUs. The performance period for the Relative TSR PSUs is generally three years, beginning on January 1 of the first year of the performance period and ending on December 31 of the third year of the performance period. Named executive officers benefit from Relative TSR PSUs only to the extent Brink’s achieves performance goals determined by the Compensation Committee at the beginning of the

performance period. After the conclusion of the performance period, Relative TSR PSU payouts will be in shares of Brink’s Common Stock and will range from 0 to 200% of the target award. The number of shares ultimately paid will depend on performance against the goals established by the Compensation Committee.

RSUs. Each RSU is the economic equivalent of one share of Brink’s Common Stock and is settled in shares of Brink’s Common Stock. RSUs retain value even if the price of Brink’s Common Stock decreases below the price on the date of grant as long as the named executive officer satisfies the vesting requirements.

Stock Options. Each Stock Option represents an opportunity to purchase a share of the Company’s common stock at the fair market value as of the grant date, subject to time-based and/or performance-based vesting conditions.

2018 Long-Term Incentive Target Award Opportunities

The Compensation Committee approved annual LTI awards in February 2018. For each of the named executive officers other than the Chief Executive Officer, 2018 LTI awards included equity awards under the 2017 Equity Incentive Plan composed of Internal Metric PSUs (25% of the award), Relative TSR PSUs (25% of the award), RSUs (25% of the award), and Performance Stock Options (25% of the award). For Mr. Pertz, the Committee approved a 2018 LTI award that included Relative TSR PSUs (25% of the award) and Performance Stock Options (75% of the award). In establishing LTI compensation targets for each named executive officer for 2018, the

Compensation Committee primarily considered competitive market information, in the context of the overall LTI compensation philosophy, which takes into account the executive’s skills and experience and potential future contributions to the Company. The Compensation Committee approves LTI awards based on a target dollar value that is then converted into a number of Relative TSR PSUs, Internal Metric PSUs, RSUs, and Performance Stock Options, based on the grant date fair value of each award type. The Committee believes this approach is aligned with the market-based LTI grant value determination for each position.

In 2018, the Compensation Committee approved an increase in Mr. Pertz’s annual LTI in light of the Company’s success following Mr. Pertz’s appointment as CEO and his expected future contributions to the

Company and as a retention incentive. The Committee also adjusted the mix of equity vehicles in Mr. Pertz’s LTI award to increase the proportion of Performance Stock Options, thereby substantially increasing the proportion of his performance-based, at-risk compensation. As a result, for 2018, Mr. Pertz’s LTI was composed of Relative TSR PSUs (25% of the award), and Performance Stock Options (75% of the award, split equally between Performance Stock Options that vest only in the event of stock price appreciation of 25% or more and Performance Stock Options that vest only in the event of stock price appreciation of 50% or more).

The following table sets forth the aggregate amount of LTI award opportunities approved by the Compensation Committee for 2018, for each of the named executive officers. The equity awards appear in the Grants of Plan-Based Awards Table on page 47.

Equity Awards under the 2017 Equity Incentive Plan

Internal Metric PSU Awards. In 2018, Internal Metric PSUs represented 25% of the LTI award for each named executive officer other than the Chief Executive Officer, who did not receive any Internal Metric PSUs. In February 2018, the Compensation Committee established non-GAAP EBITDA as the performance metric for the Internal Metric PSUs awarded in 2018 to incentivize leaders to execute our organic and acquisition growth strategy, align to one of the most common performance metrics used for LTI plans in our peer group and ensure that we did not have overlap with the metrics in our annual incentive plan.

The Internal Metric PSUs awarded in 2018 are subject to a three-year performance period that began on January 1, 2018 and will end on December 31, 2020.

The Compensation Committee established threshold, target and maximum levels of non-GAAP EBITDA for the Internal Metric PSUs, which correspond to payouts in shares of Brink’s Common Stock at a rate of 0% to 200% of target as noted below.

At the time the Compensation Committee established the target levels of performance, it believed that achievement of the threshold performance level was attainable, but not certain, that target performance would be difficult to achieve, and that the maximum level of performance was possible, but not likely to be achieved.

Relative TSR PSU Awards. In 2018, Relative TSR PSUs represented 25% of the LTI award for the CEO and 25% of each other named executive officer’s LTI award. In February 2018, the Compensation Committee established that the Company’s Relative TSR will be determined by the percentile rank of the Company’s TSR for the performance period as compared to the TSR for the performance period for companies in the S&P Mid Cap 400 with foreign

revenues that exceed 50% of total revenues. The Relative TSR PSUs awarded in 2018 are subject to a three-year performance period that began on January 1, 2018 and will end on December 31, 2020.

The Compensation Committee established threshold, target and maximum levels of TSR performance, which correspond to payouts in shares of Brink’s Common Stock at a rate of 0% to 200% as noted below.

At the time the Compensation Committee established the target levels of performance, it believed that achievement of the threshold performance level was attainable, but not certain, that target performance would be difficult to achieve, and that the maximum level of performance was possible, but not likely to be achieved.

RSU Awards. In 2018, RSUs represented 25% of the LTI award for each named executive officer other than the Chief Executive Officer, who did not receive any RSUs. RSUs awarded as part of the named executive officers’ 2018 long-term incentive awards will vest in three equal annual installments beginning on the first anniversary of the grant date.

Performance Stock Options. In 2018, Performance Stock Options represented 75% of the CEO’s LTI award and 25% of each other named executive officer’s LTI award. Performance Stock Options awarded as part of the 2018 long-term incentive awards for named executive officers other than the Chief Executive Officer will vest on the third anniversary of the grant date if the average closing price of the Company’s common stock during any 15 day period between the grant date and the three year anniversary of the grant date is 125% of the closing price on the grant date. Options representing half of the value of option awards to the Chief Executive Officer will vest on the third anniversary of the grant date if the average closing price of the Company’s common stock during any 15 day period between the grant date and the three year anniversary of the grant date is 125% of the closing price on the grant date, and options representing the other half of the value of option awards granted to the Chief Executive Officer will vest on the third anniversary of the grant date if

the average closing price of the Company’s common stock during any 15 day period between the grant date and the three year anniversary of the grant date is 150% of the closing price on the grant date.

2018 Long Term Incentive Payouts

In 2018, the Compensation Committee certified the level of payouts for the Relative TSR PSUs and Internal Metric PSUs that were awarded in 2016. The long-term incentive awards to the named executive officers were comprised of Relative TSR PSUs (37.5%), Internal Metric PSUs (37.5%) and RSUs (25%). The Relative TSR PSU payouts were determined by Brink’s total shareholder return (calculated based on the 20 day average closing stock prices at the start and end of the three year performance period) as compared to companies in the S&P Small Cap 600 with foreign revenues exceeding 50%. The Compensation Committee approved a payout of Relative TSR PSUs at a level of 150% of target, which reflected TSR at the 75^th percentile as compared to the peer companies (as a result of stock price appreciation from $29.79 per share at the beginning of the performance period compared to $66.53 per share at the end of the performance period). Individual payouts to each of the named executive officers appear in the Realized Pay Table on page 46.

The PSU payouts for the 2016 – 2018 performance period were determined by the Company’s performance against threshold, target and maximum levels of non-GAAP operating profit for a two year period (January 1, 2016 – December 31, 2017) set by the Compensation Committee in February 2016. The 2016 – 2018 PSU design was approved by the

Compensation Committee in keeping with the desire to have a three year term for this LTI vehicle, while recognizing management’s two year strategic plan period. In February 2019, the Compensation Committee considered the Company’s performance against the goals. The performance exceeded the target performance level of $450 million of non-GAAP operating profit, which resulted in a payout of 110% of target shares.

The cumulative non-GAAP operating profit performance result of $457 million reflects adjustments (in accordance with the terms of the

2013 Equity Incentive Plan) for the impact of foreign exchange, acquisitions and divestitures, changes in pension accounting and exclusion of amortization expenses. These adjustments were designed to ensure that participants are neither helped nor hurt by changes in foreign exchange rates, changes in how we measure non-GAAP results or the impact or timing of acquisitions or divestitures.

The following tables show the Company’s performance against the PSU performance goals, resulting in the payouts described above.

Tax Deductibility

Prior to the adoption of the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act of 2017 on December 22, 2017 (“Tax Reform”), under Section 162(m) of the Code, compensation in excess of $1,000,000 paid in any one year to a publicly-held corporation’s covered employees who are employed by the corporation at year-end would not be deductible for federal income tax purposes unless the compensation was considered “qualified performance-based compensation” (or another

exemption is met). Covered employees included the Chief Executive Officer and the three other most highly-compensated executive officers as of the last day of the taxable year other than the Chief Executive Officer or Chief Financial Officer.

As a result of Tax Reform: (i) the exception for qualified performance-based compensation was eliminated effective for tax years beginning on or after January 1, 2018, (ii) the definition of “covered employees” was expanded to include the Chief

Financial Officer, and (iii) “covered employee status” was made permanent for any executive who was a “covered employee” for any tax year beginning after December 31, 2016. However, performance-based compensation arrangements pursuant to written binding contracts in effect as of November 2, 2017 may continue to be treated as performance-based compensation and are deductible so long as the arrangements are not modified thereafter in any material respect (“162(m) Transition Relief”).

We believe that PSU payouts for the 2016-2018 and 2017-2019 performance periods and Stock Option awards granted in 2017 and 2018 that are subject to award agreements entered into prior to November 2, 2017 and not subsequently materially modified, will continue to be deductible under the 162(m) Transition Relief.

There can be no guarantee, however, that amounts potentially subject to the Section 162(m) Transition Relief limitations will be treated by the Internal Revenue Service as qualified performance-based compensation under Section 162(m) Transition Relief or that such amounts will be deductible by the Company. As described above, a number of requirements must be met under Section 162(m) of the Code and the corresponding 162(m) Transition Relief in order for particular compensation to qualify for the exception. There can be no assurance that amounts intended to constitute “qualified performance-based” compensation under the 162(m) Transition Relief, including, if applicable, amounts payable under EIP or the Company’s LTI program, will be fully deductible under all circumstances. In addition, the Company reserves the flexibility to award non-deductible compensation in circumstances where the Company believes, in its good faith business judgment, that such an award is in its best interest in attracting or retaining capable management.

Equity Grant Practices

The Company does not strategically time LTI awards in coordination with the release of material non-public information and has never had a practice of doing so. It is Company policy not to engage in backdating options. In addition, the Company has never timed and does not plan to time the release of material non-public information for the purpose of affecting the value of executive compensation. The accounting for PSU, RSU and Option awards granted by the Company is compliant with accounting principles

generally accepted in the United States and is disclosed in the Company’s annual and quarterly financial reports filed with the SEC. The determination of grant date fair value for RSUs, PSUs and Options is described on page 44.

“Double Trigger” Acceleration of Vesting Following Change in Control

The Compensation Committee has approved terms and conditions for the executive officers’ PSU awards that provide for double trigger vesting of awards upon a change in control—which means that the vesting of these awards will accelerate only upon certain terminations of employment following a change in control. For Internal Metric PSUs awarded in 2018, a change in control within the first twelve months of the performance period will result in conversion of the awards to time-based RSUs at target level that vest at the end of the performance period. The RSUs resulting from the conversion of Internal Metric PSUs will be subject to a double trigger for accelerated vesting. If a change in control occurs after the first twelve months of the performance period, the Compensation Committee will assess performance against the pre-established goals (adjusted for the reduced duration of the performance period) and the Internal Metric PSUs will be converted to time based RSUs that vest at the end of the performance period for that number of shares that would have become payable based on the goals (as adjusted) achieved through the date of the change in control. The RSUs resulting from the conversion of Internal Metric PSUs will be subject to a double trigger for accelerated vesting.

For Relative TSR PSUs awarded in 2018, a change in control during the performance period will result in conversion of the awards to time-based RSUs that vest at the end of the performance period for that number of shares of Brink’s Common stock that is equal to the number of Relative TSR PSUs that would have become payable based on the goals achieved through the date of the change in control. The RSUs resulting from the conversion of Relative TSR PSUs will be subject to a double trigger for accelerated vesting.

For Performance Stock Option awards granted in 2018, in the event of a change in control prior to the vesting date, the stock price performance condition will be deemed achieved and the Options will be subject to a double trigger for accelerated vesting.

General. The types and amounts of benefits provided to the named executive officers are established based upon an assessment of competitive market factors and a determination of what is needed to attract and retain talent, as well as providing long-term financial security to the Company’s employees and their families. The Company’s primary benefits for the named executive officers include participation in the plans and arrangements listed below.

Deferred Compensation. The Company maintains a non-qualified deferred compensation program, the Key Employees’ Deferred Compensation Program, for certain of its most highly compensated U.S.– based employees, including all of the named executive officers based in the U.S. Under the deferred compensation program, named executive officers may defer a portion of their compensation, which is invested in mutual funds or converted to units that track Brink’s Common Stock, according to the executive’s instructions at the time of enrollment. Matching contributions by the Company are made in the form of units of Brink’s Common Stock, which are subject to a five-year vesting period from the date of original participation in the program. As a result, participation in the deferred compensation program enhances the alignment of the interests of the named executive officers with the Company’s shareholders by providing the Company’s executive officers with a further opportunity to meet or make progress against their stock ownership guidelines. The Compensation Committee also believes that the deferred compensation program furthers the Company’s goal of retaining program participants, including the named executive officers, in part, because any matching contributions by the Company are subject to a five-year vesting period that begins at the time of enrollment in the program. Because he is not based in the U.S., Mr. Zukerman does not participate in this program.

For more information on the Company’s deferred compensation program, see “Non-qualified Deferred Compensation” beginning on page 55.

Pension Plans

The Company maintains a frozen noncontributory defined benefit pension plan covering U.S. employees who met plan eligibility requirements and were employed before December 31, 2005. In addition, the Company maintains a frozen pension equalization plan under which the Company makes

additional payments in excess of those payable under the Code limitations applicable to the pension plan. Mr. Marshall is the only named executive officer who participates in the Frozen Pension Plan and the Pension Equalization Plan. The accrual of benefits under these plans has been frozen since December 31, 2005. The Company also maintains pension plans in other countries in which it has operations. Mr. Zukerman participates in the Company’s Switzerland Pension Plan which provides benefits to Switzerland-based employees. For more information on the Company’s pension plans, see “Pension Benefits” beginning on page 53.

Executive Salary Continuation Plan. The U.S.–based named executive officers participate along with other senior executives in the Company’s Executive Salary Continuation Plan, which, in the event a participant dies while in the employment of the Company, provides that the Company will pay a designated beneficiary a death benefit equal to three times the participant’s annual salary. This benefit is paid out over a 10-year period following the participant’s death. Because he is not based in the U.S., Mr. Zukerman does not participate in this plan.

Long-Term Disability Plan. U.S.-based named executive officers participate along with other salaried U.S. employees in a long-term disability program. In the event that the executive is totally incapacitated, he would receive 50% of current annual base salary plus the average of the last three years’ annual incentive payments, with a maximum annual payment of $300,000. These payments would continue (as long as the executive is totally disabled) until the executive reaches the social security normal retirement age. Because he is not based in the U.S., Mr. Zukerman does not participate in this plan.

Health and Welfare Plans. Messrs. Pertz, Domanico, Beech, and Marshall are also eligible to participate in the Company’s health, dental and vision plans, and various insurance plans, including basic life insurance, and the Company’s matching charitable gifts program on the same basis as any other salaried U.S. employee.

Perquisites. For 2018, the Company provided its named executive officers with limited perquisites, including limited personal and spouse travel, entertainment and gifts, reimbursement of relocation expenses, executive physical examinations, and payment of certain tax preparation expenses for Mr. Zukerman. Executives bear all tax consequences and are not grossed up.

Severance Pay Plan

The Severance Pay Plan provides severance benefits to eligible employees, including the named executive officers, whose employment is terminated by the Company without cause other than by reason of incapacity or terminated by the participant for good reason. A participant would not be entitled to severance benefits under the Severance Pay Plan if the participant were otherwise eligible for more favorable severance benefits under another arrangement (including a Change in Control Agreement, see below) or in connection with a divestiture in which the participant is offered a comparable position. The Severance Pay Plan provides the following benefits to a participant if his or her employment is terminated under the circumstances described above:

See “Potential Payments Upon Termination or Change in Control”—Severance Pay Plan beginning on page 58 for additional information about the Severance Pay Plan.

The Company has change in control agreements with each of the named executive officers that are described under “Potential Payments upon Termination or Change in Control—Change in Control Agreements” beginning on page 61. The Compensation Committee believes that the change in control agreements serve the interests of the Company and its shareholders by ensuring that if a change in control is ever under consideration, the named executive officers will be able to advise the Board whether the potential change in control transaction is in the best interests of shareholders, without being unduly influenced by personal considerations, such as fear of the economic

consequences of losing their jobs as a result of a change in control. The change in control agreements are “double trigger,” which means that benefits become available to named executive officers under the agreements only upon a change in control followed by certain terminations of employment. The Compensation Committee believes that a double trigger appropriately protects the legitimate interests of the named executive officers in employment security without unduly burdening the Company or affecting shareholder value in connection with a change in control. The Compensation Committee reviews the potential payments under these agreements each year.

In the event the Company is required to provide an accounting restatement for any of the prior three fiscal years for which audited financial statements have been completed, due to material noncompliance with any financial reporting requirement under the federal securities laws, the Company will recoup from the executive officers and

any recipient of performance-based cash or equity compensation who was directly responsible for the restatement, any performance-based cash or equity-based incentive compensation that they would not have been entitled to receive under the restated results.

The Company maintains stock ownership guidelines for its executive officers in the amounts below:

Shares of Brink’s Common Stock owned outright, deferred compensation stock-based units and vested and unvested RSUs on an after-tax basis (but not unexercised stock options) are all eligible to be included for purposes of satisfying the guidelines.

Unearned PSUs and unvested stock options do not count towards executive officers’ guidelines. Until an executive officer meets his or her stock ownership guideline, the executive officer must hold at least 50% of any profit shares from stock option exercises, restricted stock unit vesting, or payout of any PSUs or Market Share Units.

Executive officers are prohibited from engaging in any hedging transaction that could reduce or limit the officer’s economic risk relative to his or her holdings, ownership or interest in Company securities. In addition, directors and executive officers are required to obtain approval to pledge Company securities.