Page 101 - Martin Marietta - 2023 Proxy Statement

/ PROPOSAL 5: ADVISORY VOTE ON A SHAREHOLDER PROPOSAL REGARDING GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS REDUCTION TARGETS

In conjunction with these GHG reduction targets and goals, and in response to feedback from various investors and
stakeholders, we have disclosed Our Roadmap to achieving such goals in our Sustainability Report, which includes
numerous actions that we believe are currently achievable to which we have committed, through current or recent
investments and operational improvements, as well as future steps we are evaluating.

As a direct result of our engagement with numerous shareholders and other stakeholders, including the proponent, we
will be updating and providing additional detail to Our Roadmap in our forthcoming 2022 Sustainability Report.

As we have discussed with the proponent, we will continue to consider the business and operational implications of
verifying or setting targets in alignment with science-based frameworks or guidance, including continuing to evaluate
potential opportunities both to expand the coverage of our existing Scope 1 and 2 reduction targets and to measure and
assess our Scope 3 GHG emissions.

Carbon Intensity Considerations

As discussed in detail in our 2021 Sustainability Report and as will be discussed in our forthcoming 2022 Sustainability
Report, we believe our reduction efforts and commitments compare favorably to other cement operators, particularly
when taking into account important differences in applicable regulatory schemes and incentives applicable to E.U. cement
operators. First, as a result of our reduction efforts to date, our current carbon intensity (which is a measure of CO (e)
2
emissions per unit of cement produced) is already lower than the U.S. domestic cement industry average, and we believe
the targets we have set will continue to position us favorably in that respect. Second, E.U. cement operators that report
lower carbon intensity metrics rely on blending cement clinker with non-clinker materials at levels that are simply not
permitted under applicable standards in the U.S., where our two cement plants are located. Those operators also benefit
from more favorable regulatory incentives for combusting certain alternative fuel sources (such as discarded tires) and from
using emissions calculation methodologies that allow them to report lower emissions by omitting emissions associated
with those fuels from carbon intensity calculations. These calculation methodologies, however, are not permitted under
U.S. regulations.

This discrepancy results in a false comparison between commonly used U.S. and non-U.S. carbon intensity figures; in its
correspondence with us, even the proponent has acknowledged our “concerns about being compared with misleading
figures.”

In short, as illustrated above, we believe the steps we have taken to date, and those we will continue to take in the future,
make us a leader in the aggregates sector, where many of our aggregates competitors have not made similar disclosures
or commitments. In addition, we believe that our small, strategic cement business compares favorably to large U.S. and
E.U. cement operators, particularly after accounting for regulatory differences and given that our reductions to date and
future targets reflect efficiency and other improvements that we believe result in real and meaningful operational
emissions reductions. Importantly, we also believe that we have demonstrated that we are actively engaging with both the
proponent as well as other shareholders and stakeholders to learn more about our business and the path forward for
carbon neutrality, as well as understanding any concerns.

The Proposal by does not acknowledge the significant work, commitment and continuing efforts by Martin Marietta to
reduce its GHG emissions, nor does the Proposal contemplate commitments that are currently practical, appropriately
deliberate or tailored to the specifics of our business in the U.S. Rather, the Proposal seeks commitments to set targets on
a timeframe that is not operationally viable or advisable, that rely on speculative future technologies, and that dismiss the
potentially adverse consequences to our business and all of our shareholders’ interests if we make expensive,
technologically impossible commitments.

Therefore, the Board recommends a vote AGAINST this proposal.

MARTIN MARIETTA 95