Old National Bancorp

One Main Street

Evansville, Indiana 47708

Notice of Annual Meeting of Shareholders

To Our Shareholders:

The 2018 Annual Meeting of Shareholders of Old National Bancorp (the “Company”) will be held in the Schlottman Auditorium at the Old National Bank headquarters located on the 4^th floor at One Main Street, Evansville, Indiana, on Thursday, April 26, 2018, at 9:00 a.m. Central Daylight Time for the following purposes:

Common shareholders of record at the close of business on February 16, 2018 are entitled to notice of, and to vote at, the Annual Meeting.

By Order of the Board of Directors

Jeffrey L. Knight

Executive Vice President,

Chief Legal Counsel and

Corporate Secretary

March 5, 2018

IMPORTANT

Please submit your proxy promptly by mail or by Internet. In order that there may be proper representation at the meeting, you are urged to complete, sign, date and return the proxy card in the envelope provided to you or vote by Internet, whether or not you plan to attend the meeting. No postage is required if mailed in the United States.

Table of Contents

Old National Bancorp

2018 Proxy Statement – Summary

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

GENERAL INFORMATION

(see pages 1 through 4)

Location: Old National Bank, One Main Street, Evansville, Indiana – Schlottman Auditorium 4^th Floor

Record Date: February 16, 2018

Voting: Shareholders as of the Record Date are entitled to vote. Each share of common stock is entitled to one vote for each director nominee and one vote for each of the other proposals being voted on.

Admission: You must provide an admission ticket or proof of stock ownership to enter the meeting. Please see page 2 for further information.

Webcast: We will provide a live webcast of the Annual Meeting that can be accessed from the Investor Relations section of our website at www.oldnational.com.

PROPOSALS TO BE VOTED ON AND BOARD VOTING RECOMMENDATIONS

DIRECTOR NOMINEES

(see pages 17 through 23)

2017 FINANCIAL HIGHLIGHTS

(see pages 32 and 63)

In 2017, the Company delivered strong operating results. The results were impacted by $39.3 million in additional tax expense recorded in December 2017 to estimate the revaluation of Old National’s deferred tax assets due to the lowering of the federal corporate tax rate to 21%. Results were also impacted by merger charges of $8.7 million after-tax and branch and severance charges of $6.4 million after-tax in 2017. The 29.6% tax rate used excludes the estimated $39.3 million tax expense of the deferred tax asset revaluation from the as reported 2017 effective tax rate of 43.3%. These initiatives have positioned the Company for future growth in 2018. The financial highlights for 2017 include:

EXECUTIVE COMPENSATION

Set forth below is the 2017 compensation for each Named Executive Officer (“NEO”) as determined under Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”) rules. See the notes accompanying the 2017 Summary Compensation Table on page 50 for additional information.

Old National Bancorp

One Main Street

Evansville, Indiana 47708

Proxy Statement

For the Annual Meeting of Shareholders to be held on

April 26, 2018, at 9:00 a.m. Central Daylight Time at the

Old National Bank Headquarters

Schlottman Auditorium – 4^th Floor

One Main Street, Evansville, IN 47708

Important Notice Regarding the Availability of Proxy Materials

for the Shareholders’ Meeting to be held on April 26, 2018

The Proxy Statement and 2017 Annual Report to Shareholders are available at:

www.oldnational.com/proxy

General Information about the Annual Meeting of Shareholders and Voting

This Proxy Statement relates to the Annual Meeting of Shareholders (“Annual Meeting”) of Old National Bancorp (the “Company” or “Old National”) to be held on April 26, 2018, at 9:00 a.m. Central Daylight Time. These proxy materials are being furnished by the Company in connection with a solicitation of proxies by the Company’s Board of Directors (the “Board”).

We are pleased to take advantage of the Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”) rule that permits companies to furnish proxy materials to shareholders over the Internet. On or about March 15, 2018, we will begin mailing Notice of Internet Availability of Proxy Materials (“Notice”). The Notice contains instructions on how to vote online, or in the alternative, request a paper copy of the proxy materials and a proxy card. By furnishing the Notice and providing access to our proxy materials by the Internet, we are lowering the costs and reducing the environmental impact of our Annual Meeting.

Who can attend the Annual Meeting?

Only shareholders of the Company of record as of February 16, 2018 (the “Record Date”), their authorized representatives and guests of the Company, may attend the Annual Meeting. Admission will be by ticket only.

Who may vote at the Annual Meeting?

These proxy materials are provided to holders of the Company’s common stock who were holders of record on the Record Date. Only the Company’s common shareholders of record on the Record Date are entitled to vote at the Annual Meeting. As of the Record Date 152,178,828 shares of the Company’s common stock were outstanding.

As of the Record Date, to the knowledge of the Company, no person or firm, other than BlackRock, Inc., The Vanguard Group, Inc., and Dimensional Fund Advisors, LP beneficially owned more than 5% of the common stock of the Company outstanding on that date. As of the Record Date, no individual Director, nominee or officer beneficially owned more than 5% of the common stock of the Company outstanding.

Voting and Proxy Procedures

Each share of the Company’s common stock outstanding on the Record Date will be entitled to one vote at the Annual Meeting. If you receive the Notice by mail, you will not receive a printed copy of the proxy materials unless you request the materials by following the instructions included in the Notice.

1

If your shares are registered in your name, you may vote your shares by Internet, or by completing, signing, dating and returning the requested proxy card in the postage-paid envelope provided. Simply follow the easy instructions on the proxy card or Notice provided. You may also vote in person at the meeting. Execution of the proxy card or voting via Internet will not affect your right to attend the Annual Meeting. If your shares are held in “street name” through a broker, bank or other nominee, please follow the instructions provided by your nominee on the voting instruction form or Notice in order to vote your shares by Internet, or by signing, dating and returning the voting instruction form in the enclosed postage-paid envelope. If you desire to vote in person at the Annual Meeting, you must provide a legal proxy from your bank, broker or other nominee.

Shares of the Company’s common stock for which instructions are received will be voted in accordance with the shareholder’s instructions. If you send in your proxy card or use Internet voting, but do not specify how you want to vote your shares, the proxy holders will vote them FOR each of the items being proposed by the Board and in the discretion of the proxy holders as to any other business that may properly come before the Annual Meeting and any adjournment or postponement thereof.

Can I change my vote after I return the proxy card or after voting electronically?

If you are a shareholder whose shares are registered in your name, you may revoke your proxy at any time before it is voted by one of the following methods:

(1) following the Internet voting instructions, or

(2) completing, signing, dating and returning a proxy card to the Company’s Corporate Secretary.

If you hold your shares in “street name” through a broker, you may revoke your proxy by following instructions provided by your broker. No notice of revocation or later-dated proxy will be effective until received by the Company’s Corporate Secretary at or prior to the Annual Meeting.

How do I receive an admission ticket?

If you are a registered shareholder (your shares are held in your name) and plan to attend the meeting, your Annual Meeting admission ticket will be included in the Notice being mailed on or about March 15, 2018, or if you receive hard copies of the proxy material, the admission ticket can be detached from the top portion of the proxy card.

If your shares are held in “street name” (in the name of a bank, broker or other holder of record) and you plan to attend the meeting, you will need to bring a copy of a brokerage statement reflecting your stock ownership as of the Record Date for admittance to the meeting.

No cameras, recording equipment, electronic devices, large bags, briefcases or packages will be permitted in the meeting.

Will the Annual Meeting be webcast?

Our Annual Meeting will be webcast on April 26, 2018. You are invited to visit www.oldnational.com at 9:00 a.m. Central Daylight Time on April 26, 2018, to access the webcast of the meeting. Registration for the webcast is not required. An archived copy of the webcast will also be available on our website through April 25, 2019.

2

How many votes are needed to have the proposals pass?

Election of Directors.  A plurality of the votes cast at the meeting is required to elect Directors. This means that the Director nominee with the most votes for a particular slot is elected for that slot. You may vote “for” or “withheld” with respect to the election of Directors. Only votes “for” or “withheld” are counted in determining whether a plurality has been cast in favor of a Director. Abstentions are not counted for purposes of the election of Directors.

Our Board has adopted a corporate governance policy regarding Director elections that is contained in our Corporate Governance Guidelines. The policy provides that in any uncontested election, any nominee for Director who receives a greater number of votes “withheld” for his or her election than votes “for” such election will tender his or her resignation as a Director promptly following the certification of the shareholder vote. The Corporate Governance and Nominating Committee, without participation by any Director so tendering his or her resignation, will consider the resignation offer and recommend to the Board whether to accept it. The Board, without participation by any Director so tendering his or her resignation, will act on the Corporate Governance and Nominating Committee’s recommendation no later than 90 days following the date of the Annual Meeting at which the election occurred. If the Board decides to accept the Director’s resignation, the Corporate Governance and Nominating Committee will recommend to the Board whether to fill the resulting vacancy or to reduce the size of the Board. We will promptly disclose the Board’s decision and the reasons for the decision in a broadly disseminated press release that will also be furnished to the SEC on Form 8-K.

Approval of non-binding advisory proposal on Executive Compensation.  The approval or disapproval of the advisory vote on executive compensation will be determined by the vote of a majority of the votes cast (excluding abstentions), which means that the number of votes “for” the proposal must exceed the number of votes “against” the proposal. Because your vote is advisory, it will not be binding on the Board or the Company. However, the Board will review the voting results and take them into consideration when making future decisions regarding executive compensation.

Ratification of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm.  The affirmative vote of a majority of the shares present in person or by proxy is required for ratification of the appointment of Crowe Horwath LLP as the independent registered public accounting firm of the Company for fiscal year 2018.

What is “householding”?

We have adopted a procedure called “householding,” which has been approved by the SEC. Under this procedure, a single copy of the annual report and proxy statement will be sent to any household at which two or more shareholders reside if they appear to be members of the same family, unless one of the shareholders at that address notifies us that they wish to receive individual copies. This procedure reduces our printing costs and fees.

Shareholders who participate in householding will continue to receive separate proxy cards.

Householding will not affect dividend check mailings in any way.

If a single copy of the annual report and proxy statement was delivered to an address that you share with another shareholder, we will promptly deliver a separate copy to you upon your written or oral request to the Company’s Shareholder Services Department at 812-464-1296 or 1-800-677-1749, at P.O. Box 929, Evansville, Indiana 47706-0929, or via email to shareholderservices@oldnational.com.

Shareholders sharing an address who are receiving multiple copies of the annual report and proxy statement may request a single copy by contacting our Shareholder Services Department using the contact information set forth above.

A number of brokerage firms have instituted householding. If you hold your shares in “street name,” please contact your bank, broker, or other holder of record to request information about householding.

3

How are abstentions and broker non-votes treated?

If you are the beneficial owner of shares held in street name and do not provide the bank, broker or other intermediary that holds your shares with specific voting instructions, that bank, broker or other intermediary may generally vote on routine matters but cannot vote on non-routine matters. With the exception of the proposal to ratify the appointment of our auditors, all matters scheduled to be presented at the meeting are non-routine matters. Unless you instruct the bank, broker or other intermediary that holds your shares to vote on these non-routine matters, no votes will be cast on your behalf for the proposal relating to the election of Directors or for the advisory proposal on executive compensation. Therefore, it is important that you instruct the bank, broker or other intermediary to cast your vote if you want it to count on these matters. The proposal to ratify the appointment of our auditors is considered a routine matter and, therefore, broker non-votes are not expected to exist on this proposal.

Abstentions and, unless a broker’s authority to vote on a particular matter is limited, broker non-votes are counted in determining the votes present at the meeting. A broker has limited authority to vote on the election of directors but is not limited as to the proposal relating to the ratification of auditors. With respect to the election of Directors, abstentions, broker non-votes and instructions on the enclosed form of proxy to “withhold authority” to vote “for” one or more of the nominees will result in the nominee receiving fewer votes, but will not affect the outcome of the election. Broker non-votes and abstentions will have no effect on the outcome of the advisory vote on executive compensation. With respect to the ratification of auditors, abstentions and broker non-votes have the same effect as a vote against the proposal.

How do I designate my proxy?

If you wish to give your proxy to someone other than the proxies identified on the proxy card, you may do so by crossing out all the names of the proxy members appearing on the proxy card and inserting the name of another person. The signed card must be presented at the Annual Meeting by the person you have designated on the proxy card.

Who will pay for the costs involved in the solicitation of proxies?

The Company will pay all costs of preparing, assembling, printing and distributing the proxy materials. In addition to solicitations by mail, Directors and Officers of the Company and its subsidiaries may solicit proxies personally, by telephone, telefax, electronic mail or in person, but such persons will not be specially compensated for their services.

We will, upon request, reimburse brokerage firms and others for their reasonable expenses incurred for forwarding solicitation material to beneficial owners of stock.

Other Matters Related to the Meeting

Only matters brought before the Annual Meeting in accordance with the Company’s By-Laws will be considered. Aside from the items listed above in the Notice of Annual Meeting, the Company does not know of any other matters that will be presented at the Annual Meeting. However, if any other matters properly come before the Annual Meeting or any adjournment, the proxy holders will vote them in accordance with their best judgment.

Should any nominee for Director become unable or unwilling to accept nomination or election, the persons acting under the proxy intend to vote for the election of another person recommended by the Corporate Governance and Nominating Committee and nominated by the Board. The Company has no reason to believe that any of the nominees will be unable or unwilling to serve if elected to office.

4

Report of the Corporate Governance and

Nominating Committee and Other Board Matters

The Corporate Governance and Nominating Committee is primarily responsible for corporate governance matters affecting the Company and its subsidiaries. The Corporate Governance and Nominating Committee operates under a written charter which conforms to the requirements of the SEC and the NASDAQ.

Board Leadership Structure and Function

The Board, which is elected by the shareholders, selects the Executive Leadership Group (“ELG”), which is the executive management team charged with the conduct of the Company’s business. Having selected the ELG, the Board acts as an advisor and counselor to management and ultimately monitors its performance. The Board has the responsibility for overseeing the affairs of the Company and, thus, an obligation to keep informed about the Company’s business. This involvement enables the Board to provide guidance to management in formulating and developing plans and to exercise its decision-making authority on appropriate matters of importance to the Company. Acting as a full Board and through the Board’s seven standing committees, the Board oversees and approves the Company’s strategic plan. The Board regularly reviews the Company’s progress against its strategic plan and exercises oversight and decision-making authority regarding strategic areas of importance to the Company.

The Company’s Corporate Governance Guidelines provide for an independent Lead Director, currently Rebecca Skillman, who presides at all meetings of the Board at which the Chairman is not present; leads executive sessions of the Board; consults and meets with any or all outside Directors as required and represents such Directors in discussions with management of the Company on corporate governance issues and other matters; ensures that the Board, committees of the Board, individual Directors and management of the Company understand and discharge their duties and obligations under the Company’s system of corporate governance; mentors and counsels new members of the Board to assist them in becoming active and effective Directors; leads the Board in the annual evaluation of the Chairman and Chief Executive Officer’s (“CEO”) performance; acts in an advisory capacity to the Chairman and CEO in all matters concerning the interests of the Board and relationships between management and the Board; and performs such other duties and responsibilities as may be delegated to the Lead Director by the Board from time to time.

The Board appointed Robert G. Jones to serve as Chairman of the Board and appointed Rebecca S. Skillman to serve as Lead Director to be effective upon commencement of the Annual Meeting in 2016. The Board believes that it is in the best interests of the Company to have Mr. Jones serve as Chairman to facilitate succession planning for the Board and to optimize his expertise and insight in leading the Company and his skill in developing executive management leadership of the Company. The Board will annually review the effectiveness of this new arrangement and believes this structure is in the best interest of shareholders and serves the Company well at this time.

Executive sessions, or meetings of outside Directors without management present, are held at regular intervals for both the Board and the Committees. Ms. Skillman, the current Lead Director of the Board, chaired the executive sessions of the Board in 2017. The Board meets in executive session a minimum of four times each year.

The Board met six times during 2017. Each Director attended 75% or more of Board meetings and meetings of Committees on which they served in 2017. Directors as a group attended an average of 97.20% of the Board meetings and meetings of Committees on which they served in 2017.

Corporate Governance and Nominating Committee Scope of Responsibilities

The Corporate Governance and Nominating Committee has responsibility for recruiting and nominating new Directors, assessing the independence of non-management Directors, leading the Board in its annual

5

performance evaluation, reviewing and assessing the adequacy of the Corporate Governance Guidelines and retaining outside advisors as needed to assist and advise the Board with respect to legal and other matters. The Corporate Governance and Nominating Committee is also responsible for reviewing with the full Board, on an annual basis, the requisite skills and characteristics of Board members as well as the composition of the Board as a whole.

CEO Succession Planning

Among the Corporate Governance and Nominating Committee’s responsibilities as described in its charter is to oversee CEO succession planning and leadership development for potential CEO candidates. The Board plans for succession of the CEO and annually reviews the succession strategy for an “unplanned” and “planned” event. As part of this process, the independent directors annually review the Corporate Governance and Nominating Committee’s recommended candidates for consideration as the CEO under either a planned or unplanned scenario. The criteria used when assessing the qualifications of potential CEO successors include certain leadership, management and personal behaviors. The leadership behaviors include the ability to attract and develop talent, drive and execution, empowering others, shaping strategy and leading change. The management behaviors include communication and climate setting, establishing plans and priorities, managing and improving processes and performance monitoring and management. The personal behaviors important to the Corporate Governance and Nominating Committee in evaluating potential CEO candidates include the following: embodies the values that make the Company’s culture distinctive, acts with honor and character, makes and maintains personal relationships with associates, clients and shareholders, demonstrates courage and serves as a champion of the Company’s culture. The individual must also possess the skill and talent to lead the organization in a positive manner with wisdom, enthusiasm and humility.

Attendance at Annual Meetings

The Company has not established a formal policy regarding Director attendance at its Annual Meeting, but it encourages all Directors to attend these meetings and reimburses expenses associated with attendance. The Chairman presides at the Annual Meeting. All the Directors attended the Annual Meeting in 2017.

Code of Conduct and Code of Ethics

The Board has adopted a Code of Business Conduct and Ethics that sets forth important Company policies and procedures in conducting our business in a legal, ethical and responsible manner. These standards are applicable to all our Directors and employees, including the Company’s CEO, Chief Financial Officer and Controller. In addition, the Board has adopted the Code of Ethics for CEO and Senior Financial Officers that supplements the Code of Business Conduct and Ethics by providing more specific requirements and guidance on certain topics. The Code of Ethics for CEO and Senior Financial Officers applies to the Company’s CEO, Chief Financial Officer and Controller. The Code of Business Conduct and Ethics and the Code of Ethics for CEO and Senior Financial Officers are available on our website at www.oldnational.com. We will post any material amendments to, or waivers from, our Code of Business Conduct and Ethics and Code of Ethics for Senior Financial Officers on our website within two days following the date of such amendment or waiver.

Employees are required to report any conduct they believe in good faith to be an actual or apparent violation of our Codes of Conduct. In addition, as required under the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, the Audit Committee has established confidential procedures to receive, retain and treat complaints received regarding accounting, internal accounting controls, or auditing matters and the confidential, anonymous submission by Company employees of concerns regarding questionable accounting or auditing matters.

The Code of Business Conduct and Ethics addresses, among other things, the following topics: responsibilities of every Old National associate; seeking answers and reporting violations; making ethical decisions; civility and respect for one another; preventing discrimination and harassment; preventing substance abuse and violence; protecting confidential information; guidelines for protecting private information; using company assets responsibly; reporting accurately and honestly; engaging in political activities; working with

6

media; ethical handling of personal transactions; preventing conflicts of interest; serving on for-profit and non-profit boards; ethical handling of gifts, meals and entertainment; preventing fraud; prohibiting insider trading; competing fairly; and earning incentives.

Corporate Governance Guidelines

The Board has adopted the Corporate Governance Guidelines that, along with the Company’s corporate charter, By-Laws and charters of the various committees of the Board, provide the foundation for the Company’s governance. Among other things, our Corporate Governance Guidelines set forth the:

Communications from Shareholders to Directors

The Board believes that it is important that a direct and open line of communication exist between the Board and the Company’s shareholders and other interested parties. Consequently, the Board has adopted the procedures described in the following paragraph for communications to Directors.

Any shareholder or other interested party who desires to contact Old National’s Chairman or the other members of the Board may do so by writing to: Board of Directors, c/o Corporate Secretary, Old National Bancorp, P.O. Box 718, Evansville, IN 47705-0718. Communications received are distributed to the Lead Director or other members of the Board, as appropriate, depending on the facts and circumstances outlined in the communication received. For example, if any complaints regarding accounting, internal accounting controls and auditing matters are received, then the Corporate Secretary will forward them to the Chairman of the Audit Committee for review.

Policy Regarding Consideration of Director Candidates Recommended by Shareholders

The Company’s nomination procedures for Directors are governed by its By-Laws. Each year the Corporate Governance and Nominating Committee makes a recommendation to the entire Board regarding nominees for election as Directors. The Corporate Governance and Nominating Committee will review suggestions from shareholders regarding nominees for election as Directors. All such suggestions from shareholders must be submitted in writing to the Corporate Governance and Nominating Committee at the Company’s principal executive office not less than 120 days in advance of the date of the annual or special meeting of shareholders at which Directors are to be elected. All written suggestions of shareholders must set forth:

7

Consent of the suggested nominee to serve as a Director of the Company, if elected, must also be included with the written suggestion.

In seeking individuals to serve as Directors, the Corporate Governance and Nominating Committee seeks members from diverse professional backgrounds who combine a broad spectrum of experience and expertise. Directors should have an active interest in the business of the Company, possess a willingness to represent the best interests of all shareholders, be able to objectively appraise management performance, possess the highest personal and professional ethics, integrity and values, and be able to comprehend and advise management on complicated issues that face the Company and Board.

Directors should also demonstrate achievement in one or more fields of business or professional, governmental, communal, scientific or educational endeavors. Directors are expected to have sound judgment, borne of management or policy making experience that demonstrates an ability to function effectively in an oversight role. In addition, Directors should have a general appreciation regarding major issues facing public companies of a size and operational scope similar to that of the Company. These issues include contemporary governance concerns, regulatory obligations of an SEC reporting financial holding company, strategic business planning and basic concepts of corporate finance.

The Company does not currently have a formal diversity policy. However, the Corporate Governance Guidelines state that the Board seeks members with diverse professional backgrounds. The Board also annually reviews the requisite skills and characteristics of Board members as well as the composition of the Board as a whole. The annual assessment includes a review of the skills, experience and diversity of the Board in the context of the needs of the Board.

Determination with Respect to the Independence of Directors

It is the policy of the Board that a majority of its members be independent from management, and the Board has adopted Director Independence Standards that meet the listing standards of the NASDAQ. These Independence Standards are included in our Corporate Governance Guidelines which can be viewed under the Investor Relations/Corporate Governance link on the Company’s website at www.oldnational.com.

In accordance with our Corporate Governance Guidelines, the Board undertook its annual review of Director independence. During this review, the Board considered any and all commercial and charitable relationships of Directors, including transactions and relationships between each Director or any member of his or her immediate family and the Company and its subsidiaries. Following the review, the Board affirmatively determined, by applying the Director Independence Standards contained in the Corporate Governance Guidelines, that each of our Directors nominated for election at this Annual Meeting is independent of the Company and its management in that none has a direct or indirect material relationship with the Company, with the exception of Robert G. Jones.

The independent Directors of the Company are Alan W. Braun, Niel C. Ellerbrook, Andrew E. Goebel, Jerome F. Henry, Jr., Phelps L. Lambert, Arthur H. McElwee, Jr., James T. Morris, Randall T. Shepard, Rebecca

8

S. Skillman, Kelly N. Stanley, Derrick J. Stewart, Katherine E. White and Linda E. White. The only non-independent Director is CEO Robert G. Jones. Mr. Jones is considered an inside Director because of his employment as CEO of the Company.

In addition, all members of the Audit Committee, the Compensation and Management Development Committee and the Corporate Governance and Nominating Committee satisfy the standards of independence applicable to members of such committees established under applicable law, the listing requirements of the NASDAQ and the Director Independence Standards set forth in the Company’s Corporate Governance Guidelines.

Determination with respect to Director Qualifications

Members of the Board must possess certain basic personal and professional qualities in order to properly discharge their fiduciary duties to shareholders, provide effective oversight of the management of the Company and monitor the Company’s adherence to principles of sound corporate governance. In seeking individuals to serve as Directors, the Corporate Governance & Nominating Committee seeks members from diverse professional backgrounds who combine a broad spectrum of experience and expertise. The Directors of the Company have an active interest in the business of the Company and possess a willingness to represent the best interests of all shareholders without favoring or advancing any particular shareholder or other constituency of the Company. The Directors are able to objectively appraise management performance, and they possess the highest personal and professional ethics, integrity and values, and are able to comprehend and advise management on complicated issues that face the Company and Board.

In addition to the general skills stated above, the Directors do not have any interests that would materially impair their ability to exercise independent judgment, or otherwise discharge the fiduciary duties owed as a Director to the Company and its shareholders. As stated on pages 17 through 23, our Directors and Nominees have demonstrated significant achievement and generally have significant management experience in one or more fields of business, professional, governmental, communal, and educational endeavors. We believe that our Directors’ extensive management or policy-making experience provides them with the skills and judgment necessary to function effectively in an oversight role. Given the tenure of most of the Directors on our Board, they have a general appreciation regarding major issues facing public companies.

9

Committees of our Board

The following table lists the current membership of the Company’s standing Board Committees.

The members of the Company’s Board are elected to various committees. The standing committees of the Board include an Audit Committee, a Compensation and Management Development Committee, a Corporate Governance and Nominating Committee, a Funds Management Committee, an Enterprise Risk Committee, a Community and Social Responsibility Committee and a Finance and Corporate Development Committee.

The current members of the Audit Committee are Andrew E. Goebel (Chairman), Jerome F. Henry, Jr., Phelps L. Lambert, Arthur H. McElwee, Jr. and Kelly N. Stanley. The Audit Committee held eight meetings during 2017. The functions of the Audit Committee are described under ‘‘Report of the Audit Committee’’ on page 67. The Audit Committee has adopted a written charter which has been approved by the Board.

The current members of the Corporate Governance and Nominating Committee are Rebecca S. Skillman (Chairperson), Niel C. Ellerbrook, Phelps L. Lambert, and Kelly N. Stanley. The Corporate Governance and Nominating Committee met four times in 2017. The functions of the Corporate Governance and Nominating Committee are described under ‘‘Report of the Corporate Governance and Nominating Committee and Other Board Matters” on page 5. The Corporate Governance and Nominating Committee has adopted a written charter which has been approved by the Board.

The current members of the Compensation and Management Development Committee are Niel C. Ellerbrook (Chairman), James T. Morris, Randall T. Shepard, Rebecca S. Skillman and Derrick J. Stewart. The Compensation and Management Development Committee met four times during 2017. The functions of the Compensation and Management Development Committee are described under “Scope of Responsibilities” on

10

page 30. The Compensation and Management Development Committee has adopted a written charter which has been approved by the Board.

The current members of the Enterprise Risk Committee are Linda E. White (Chairperson), Alan W. Braun, Andrew E. Goebel and Katherine E. White. The Enterprise Risk Committee met six times in 2017. The function of the Enterprise Risk Committee is to oversee the Company’s policies, procedures and practices relating to credit, operational, fraud, information technology/cyber and compliance risk. The Enterprise Risk Committee has retained an outside cyber security consultant The Enterprise Risk Committee has adopted a written charter which has been approved by the Board.

The current members of the Community and Social Responsibility Committee are Kelly N. Stanley (Chairman), James T. Morris, Randall T. Shepard, Derrick J. Stewart and Linda E. White. The Community and Social Responsibility Committee met four times in 2017. The Community and Social Responsibility Committee has the responsibility to review the Company’s compliance with the Community Reinvestment Act, Fair Lending Practices, associate commitment and diversity, supplier diversity and the Company’s Affirmative Action Plan. The Community and Social Responsibility Committee also monitors the activities of the Old National Bank Foundation through which major charitable gifts from the Company are funded. The Community and Social Responsibility Committee has adopted a written charter which has been approved by the Board.

The current members of the Funds Management Committee are Phelps L. Lambert (Chairman), Alan W. Braun, Andrew E. Goebel, Jerome F. Henry, Jr., Arthur H. McElwee, Jr. and Katherine E. White. The Funds Management Committee met five times during 2017. The function of the Funds Management Committee is to monitor the balance sheet risk profile of the Company, including credit, interest rate, liquidity and capital risks. The Funds Management Committee is also responsible for reviewing and approving the investment policy for the Company. The Funds Management Committee has adopted a written charter which has been approved by the Board.

The current members of the Finance and Corporate Development Committee are Alan W. Braun (Chairman), Niel C. Ellerbrook, Andrew E. Goebel, Phelps L. Lambert, Rebecca S. Skillman and Linda E. White. The Committee met six times in 2017. The function of the Finance and Corporate Development Committee is to review management’s financial forecasts, goals and budget and to monitor and provide appropriate feedback concerning the financial performance of the Company, overseeing the mergers and acquisition activity, as well as other strategic corporate development opportunities of the Company. The Finance and Corporate Development Committee has adopted a written charter which has been approved by the Board.

2017 Work of the Corporate Governance and Nominating Committee

During the year, the Corporate Governance and Nominating Committee (“Governance Committee”) evaluated each Board member’s committee assignments in light of the applicable qualification requirements, including additional independence requirements of certain committees. Based upon this evaluation, the Governance Committee did not recommend any changes to the committee composition and leadership for 2018.

As required by the Governance Committee’s Charter, which is posted on the Company’s website at www.oldnational.com, the Governance Committee conducted an annual review of the Corporate Governance Guidelines applicable to the full Board. Based upon that review, the Governance Committee concluded that no modifications were advisable. The current Corporate Governance Guidelines are posted on the Company’s website at www.oldnational.com.

At its January 26, 2017 meeting, the Chair of the Governance Committee and Lead Director administered the annual Board performance evaluation process pursuant to which the Board reviews its performance. The Board also reviewed the independence of Board members and determined that all the members of the Board were independent, with the exception of Robert Jones, who serves as Chairman and CEO of the Company.

11

The Governance Committee continued its work in 2017 to oversee the CEO succession planning and the leadership development process for potential internal CEO candidates and continued to use Russell Reynolds Associates to assist in the development of candidates.

The Governance Committee also continued its work in 2017 to oversee the succession planning for Directors who will retire at this annual meeting and for other directors who will retire in the next three years. In that regard, the Governance Committee engaged in a search process in the states of Indiana and Wisconsin seeking to identify prospective candidates in those markets who meet the qualifications outlined in the Company’s Corporate Governance Guidelines, and who have the time and skills to serve on the Board. The Company identified Thomas E. Salmon, current Chairman and CEO of Berry Global Group, Inc., which is headquartered in the Company’s headquarter city of Evansville, Indiana. Information concerning Mr. Salmon can be found on page 20 of this Proxy Statement. The Company also identified Ryan C. Kitchell, Executive Vice President and CFO of IU Health Physicians, who lives in Indianapolis, Indiana, and who also meets the qualifications of a Financial Expert as defined by the SEC. Additional information concerning Mr. Kitchell can be found on page 19 of this Proxy Statement. The Governance Committee and Company are currently engaged in a search process to locate additional directors who qualify and would serve the Company from the states of Wisconsin and Minnesota.

Availability of Corporate Governance Documents

The Company’s Corporate Governance Guidelines (including the Director Independence Standards), Board committee charters for the Audit Committee, Corporate Governance and Nominating Committee, and the Compensation and Management Development Committee, as well as the Code of Business Conduct and Ethics, and the Code of Ethics for CEO and Senior Financial Officers can be viewed under the Investor Relations/Corporate Governance link on the Company’s website at www.oldnational.com. These documents, as well as charters for all the Company’s Board committees, are available in print to any interested party who requests them by writing to: Corporate Secretary, Old National Bancorp, P.O. Box 718, Evansville, IN 47705-0718.

Risk Oversight

The entire Board is involved in overseeing risk associated with the Company. The charters of certain committees of the Board assign oversight responsibility for particular areas of risk. The Board and its committees monitor risks associated with their respective principal areas of focus through regular meetings with management and representatives of outside advisors.

The following is a summary of oversight responsibility for particular areas of risk:

12

Director Compensation

The Corporate Governance and Nominating Committee annually reviews and recommends the compensation for our non-employee Directors. No fees are paid to Directors who are also employees. As a starting point for its recommendations, the Corporate Governance and Nominating Committee uses the peer group compensation data prepared for the Compensation Committee by the compensation consultant. The Committee seeks to establish Board compensation that is competitive with the market practices within the Company’s Peer Group and geographic footprint.

For 2017, we paid each outside Director an annual retainer of $80,000 for serving as a Director. Of this amount, we paid $40,000 in cash and $40,000 in the form of our stock. We paid the cash compensation in four equal quarterly payments and the stock retainer was paid in two equal installments in May and November. In addition, the Lead Director of the Board was paid a $25,000 retainer for her duties as Lead Director.

For 2017, we paid the Audit Committee Chairman an additional retainer of $15,000, the Compensation and Management Development Committee Chairman an additional $12,000, and all other committee chairpersons an additional retainer of $10,000. In 2017, committee members of the Audit Committee received an additional retainer of $7,500. Committee members of the Compensation and Management Development Committee and the Enterprise Risk Committee received retainers of $6,000 and all other committee members received retainers of $5,000. Robert G. Jones, Chairman and CEO of the Company, is the only inside Director on the Board and receives no compensation for his Directorship.

We maintain a nonqualified deferred compensation plan, known as the “Directors’ Deferred Compensation Plan,” for our non-employee Directors. A Director may defer 25%, 50%, 75%, or 100% of his or her cash compensation pursuant to the plan. We credit a Director’s plan account with earnings based on the hypothetical earnings of an investment fund consisting of Company stock, the return on a recognized market index selected by the Compensation and Management Development Committee, or a combination of the two, as elected by the Director. For the market index fund, we use a Bloomberg index, which approximates the risk and return associated with a diversified high quality corporate bond fund.

All amounts paid under the plan are paid from our general assets and are subject to the claims of our creditors. In most circumstances, deferred amounts are not distributed to the Director until after termination of his or her service. In general, the Director may elect to receive his or her plan benefits in a lump sum or in annual installments over two to ten years.

13

The following table shows all outside Director compensation paid for 2017.

2017 Director Compensation

(1) On May 5, 2017, Alan W. Braun, Niel C. Ellerbrook, Andrew E. Goebel, Jerome F. Henry, Jr., Phelps L. Lambert, Arthur H. McElwee, Jr., James T. Morris, Randall T. Shepard, Rebecca S. Skillman, Kelly N. Stanley, Derrick J. Stewart, Katherine E. White and Linda E. White each received 1,166 shares of Company stock at a closing stock price of $17.15 per share with a Grant Date Fair Value of $19,996.90. On November 3, 2017, Alan W. Braun, Niel C. Ellerbrook, Andrew E. Goebel, Jerome F. Henry, Jr., Phelps L. Lambert, Arthur H. McElwee, Jr., James T. Morris, Randall T. Shepard, Rebecca S. Skillman, Kelly N. Stanley, Derrick J. Stewart, Katherine E. White and Linda E. White each received 1,075 shares of Company stock at a closing stock price of $18.60 with a Grant Date Fair Value of $19,995.00.

(2) The amounts specified in Column (f) are attributable entirely to earnings credits under our Directors Deferred Compensation Plan in excess of the applicable federal long-term rate, with compounding (as described by Section 1274(d) of the Internal Revenue Code).

(3) Includes $40,000 cash retainer, $10,000 Corporate Governance and Nominating Committee Chair retainer, $6,000 Compensation and Management Development Committee member retainer, $5,000 retainer for membership on the Finance and Corporate Development Committee, and a $25,000 retainer for serving as Lead Director.

(4) Includes $40,000 cash retainer, $10,000 Finance and Corporate Development Committee Chair retainer and $11,000 retainer for membership on the Enterprise Risk Committee and Funds Management Committee.

(5) Includes $40,000 cash retainer, $12,000 Compensation and Management Development Committee Chair retainer, and $10,000 retainer for membership on the Corporate Governance and Nominating Committee and Finance and Corporate Development Committee.

(6) Includes $40,000 cash retainer, $15,000 Audit Committee Chair retainer, and $16,000 retainer for membership on the Enterprise Risk Committee, Funds Management Committee and Finance and Corporate Development Committee.

14

(7) Includes $40,000 cash retainer, $7,500 for Audit Committee membership, and $5,000 for Funds Management Committee membership.

(8) Includes $40,000 cash retainer, $10,000 Funds Management Committee Chair retainer, $7,500 retainer for Audit Committee membership, and $10,000 retainer for membership on the Corporate Governance and Nominating Committee and Finance and Corporate Development Committee.

(9) Includes $40,000 cash retainer, $7,500 Audit Committee member retainer, and $5,000 Funds Management Committee retainer.

(10) Includes $40,000 cash retainer, $6,000 Compensation and Management Development Committee member retainer, and $5,000 retainer for membership on the Community & Social Responsibility Committee.

(11) Includes $40,000 cash retainer, $6,000 Compensation and Management Development Committee member retainer, and $5,000 retainer for membership on the Community & Social Responsibility Committee.

(12) Includes $40,000 cash retainer, $10,000 Community & Social Responsibility Committee Chair retainer, $7,500 Audit Committee member retainer, and $5,000 Corporate Governance and Nominating Committee member retainer.

(13) Includes $40,000 cash retainer, $6,000 Compensation and Management Development Committee member retainer, and $5,000 retainer for membership on the Community & Social Responsibility Committee.

(14) Includes $40,000 cash retainer, $6,000 retainer for membership on the Enterprise Risk Committee and $5,000 retainer for membership on the Funds Management Committee.

(15) Includes $40,000 cash retainer, $10,000 Enterprise Risk Committee Chair retainer, and $10,000 retainer for membership on the Community & Social Responsibility Committee and Finance and Corporate Development Committee.

15

The first item to be acted upon at the Annual Meeting is the election of thirteen Directors to the Board of the Company. Each of the persons elected will serve a term of one year and until the election and qualification of his or her successor.

If any Director nominee named in this proxy statement shall become unable or decline to serve (an event which the Board does not anticipate), the persons named as proxies will have discretionary authority to vote for a substitute nominee named by the Board, if the Board determines to fill such nominee’s position. Unless authorization is withheld, the proxy, when properly validated, will be voted ‘‘FOR’’ the election as Directors of all the nominees listed in this proxy statement.

The By-Laws of the Company currently provide for the Board to be comprised of 15 Directors. The Board currently contemplates taking action to either reduce the size of the Board to 13 persons or to fill the remaining vacancies. The proxies may not be voted for a greater number of persons than are presently nominated as Directors.

Pages 17 through 26 contain the following information with respect to each Director nominee of the Company: name; principal occupation or business experience for the last five years; skills and other qualifications to serve on the Board; age; the year in which the nominee or incumbent Director first became a Director of the Company; the number of shares of common stock of the Company beneficially owned by the nominee or incumbent Director as of February 16, 2018; and the percentage that the shares beneficially owned represent of the total outstanding shares of the Company as of February 16, 2018. The number of shares of common stock of the Company shown as being beneficially owned by each Director nominee or incumbent Director includes those over which he or she has either sole or shared voting or investment power.

16

Listed below is certain biographical information of each of the nominees for election including his or her principal occupation and other business affiliations.

Nominees for Director to be Elected

17

18

19

20

21

22

Our Board unanimously recommends that you vote “FOR” the election of the thirteen candidates for Director.

23

Retiring Directors’ Biographies

24

COMMON STOCK BENEFICIALLY OWNED

BY DIRECTORS AND EXECUTIVE OFFICERS

The following table and accompanying footnotes set forth information concerning the beneficial ownership of the shares of common stock of the Company as of February 16, 2018, by each Director and Named Executive Officer and all Directors and Executive Officers as a group.

25

26

SECURITIES OWNED BY CERTAIN BENEFICAL OWNERS

The following table and accompanying footnotes set forth information concerning the beneficial ownership of the shares of common stock of the Company by each person or entity known by us to own beneficially more than 5% of our Common Stock as of December 31, 2017.

27

Executive Officers of the Company

The executive officers of the Company are listed in the table below. Each officer serves a term of office of one year and until the election and qualification of his or her successor.

28

29

Compensation and Management Development Committee Matters

The Board appoints the members of the Compensation and Management Development Committee (“Compensation Committee”). The Compensation Committee is currently composed of five non-employee Directors, each of whom is independent from management and the Company (as independence is currently defined in the NASDAQ listing requirements and in the Company’s Corporate Governance Guidelines). No member is eligible to participate in any management compensation program.

Compensation Committee Charter

The Compensation Committee operates pursuant to a written charter. A copy of the Compensation Committee’s charter is available on our website, www.oldnational.com, under the Investor Relations/Corporate Governance link. As required by the charter, the Compensation Committee reviews its charter annually and conducts an annual performance evaluation, the results of which are discussed with the Compensation Committee members and shared with the Company’s Corporate Governance and Nominating Committee.

Compensation Consultant

The Compensation Committee retained Pearl Meyer to provide information, analyses and advice regarding executive compensation, as described further in this report. The Pearl Meyer consultant who performs these services reports directly to the Committee Chairman. With consent of the Compensation Committee Chairman, Pearl Meyer may, from time to time, contact the Company’s executive officers for information necessary to fulfill its assignments and may make reports and presentations to and on behalf of the Compensation Committee that the executive officers also receive. All of the decisions with respect to determining the amount or form of executive compensation under the Company’s executive compensation programs are made by the Compensation Committee and may reflect factors and considerations other than the information and advice provided by Pearl Meyer. To the extent that the outside consultant’s work involves Director compensation, that work is shared with the Corporate Governance and Nominating Committee, which is responsible for reviewing and making recommendations to the Board regarding Director compensation and benefits.

Scope of Responsibilities

The Compensation Committee is responsible for approving and evaluating the Company’s employee compensation and benefit programs, ensuring the competitiveness of those programs, and advising the Board regarding the talent development and succession management of key executives of the Company. The Compensation Committee is responsible for annually reviewing, approving, and recommending to the Board for its approval all elements of the compensation of the CEO and other executive officers who report directly to the CEO. The Compensation Committee is also responsible for determining awards to employees of stock or stock options pursuant to the Company’s Amended and Restated 2008 Incentive Compensation Plan.

Compensation Committee Interlocks and Insider Participation

No member of the Compensation Committee is or was formerly an officer or employee of the Company within the last three years. No executive officer of the Company currently serves or in the past year has served as a member of the compensation committee or board of directors of another company of which an executive officer serves on the Compensation Committee. Nor does any executive officer of the Company serve or has in the past year served as a member of the compensation committee of another company of which an executive officer serves as a Director of the Company.

Assessing Risk in Compensation

Our compensation programs do not use highly leveraged incentives that drive risky short-term behavior. Our compensation programs are designed to reward our executives for the achievement of short-term and long-term strategic and operational goals and the achievement of increased total shareholder return, while at the same time avoiding the encouragement of unnecessary or excessive risk-taking. With the adoption of stock ownership

30

requirements that require Company management to maintain a significant ownership level of stock, there is a strong incentive to ensure the Company is managed with a long-term view, and this helps to ensure that Company management avoids excessive risk taking in the short term. With the balance of compensation among annual salary, short-term incentive and long-term equity awards, no particular element of compensation is excessively weighted versus other elements. In addition, the use of multiple Performance Measures in the short-term and long-term incentive plans ensures that executives must excel in a number of areas – rather than simply maximizing performance on a single performance measure – in order to earn incentives.

In 2010, the Board adopted a Bonus Recoupment, or “Clawback,” Policy that provides the Board with authority to recover a bonus or other incentive paid to any NEO or executive officer in appropriate circumstances where there has been a material restatement of the Company’s financial results. The Board believes that this Policy, along with a requirement that executive officers maintain a significant level of stock ownership in the Company while they are employees, provides significant incentives to help ensure the Company is managed with a long-term view.

Our Compensation Committee reviewed the relationship between our risk management policies and practices and the incentive compensation provided to the NEOs at its April 20, 2017 meeting. After review with the Company’s Chief Risk Officer and representatives of Pearl Meyer, the Compensation Committee determined that our incentive compensation programs do not encourage unnecessary and excessive risk taking.

Compensation Committee Report

The Compensation Committee has reviewed and discussed the Compensation Discussion and Analysis required by Item 402(b) of SEC Regulation S-K with management and, based on such review and discussions, the Compensation Committee recommended to the Board of Directors that the Compensation Discussion and Analysis be included in this proxy statement.

Submitted by,

Members of the Compensation Committee

Niel C. Ellerbrook, Chairman

James T. Morris

Randall T. Shepard

Rebecca S. Skillman

Derrick J. Stewart

31

Executive Compensation

Compensation Discussion and Analysis

Overview

This Compensation Discussion and Analysis describes the key principles and approaches used to determine the compensation earned by our CEO, Chief Financial Officer, and our other executive officers employed at the end of 2017 who were most highly compensated for 2017. Detailed information regarding the compensation of these executive officers, who are referred to as “Named Executive Officers” or “NEOs”, appears in the tables following this Compensation Discussion and Analysis. This discussion should be read in conjunction with those tables.

This Compensation Discussion and Analysis consists of the following parts:

Executive Summary

We seek to closely align the interests of our NEOs with the interests of our shareholders. Our compensation programs are designed to reward our NEOs for the achievement of short-term and long-term strategic and operational goals and the achievement of increased total shareholder return, while at the same time avoiding the encouragement of unnecessary or excessive risk-taking. Our NEOs’ total compensation is comprised of a mix of base salary, annual cash incentive awards and long-term incentive awards paid in equity. These compensation components, combined with our stock ownership guidelines and recoupment policy, extend the time horizon beyond the vesting and/or performance periods and represent a balanced approach.

The Company’s financial performance remained strong in 2017. As more fully described in “Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Conditions and Results of Operations” in our Annual Report on Form 10-K, the Company took certain actions in 2017 to position the Company for future growth.

In 2017, we expanded our footprint into the state of Minnesota through our acquisition of Anchor Bancorp, Inc. In addition to our entry into this new market, management remained keenly focused on organic growth and efficiency efforts. This is evidenced by the following 2017 highlights:

32

Strong financial results in 2017 contributed to the Company’s Total Shareholder Return (“TSR”), outpacing other U.S. Banks in the $10 billion - $25 billion in assets category with Old National performing -0.9% and banks in the $10 billion - $25 billion in assets category performing at -1.3% for the year. The Company’s Board of Directors is committed to the philosophy of pay for performance. The Company’s relative TSR for the 2015-2017 period compared favorably to its peers. As a result, the CEO and other NEOs as a group earned 38% of the performance-based restricted stock for the TSR award. The NEOs as a group earned 26% of the performance-based restricted stock for the earnings per share (“EPS”) award since the EPS growth over the performance period of 2015 - 2017 met the threshold of $1.07 EPS (excluding the deferred tax revaluation charges, 2017 merger charges, branch consolidation charges and severance charges.)

The key factors in determining compensation for 2017 included the following:

33

We believe that our compensation program builds upon the Company’s compensation governance framework and our overall pay-for-performance philosophy, which are demonstrated by the following:

We encourage you to read this Compensation Discussion and Analysis for a detailed discussion and analysis of our executive compensation program, including information about the fiscal 2017 compensation of the NEOs.

Review of 2017 Advisory Vote on Executive Compensation

At our 2017 Annual Meeting, our shareholders had the opportunity to provide an advisory vote on the compensation paid to our NEOs, or a “say-on-pay” vote. Ninety-five percent of the votes cast by our shareholders were in favor of the compensation provided to our NEOs. Accordingly, the Compensation Committee generally believes that such results affirmed shareholder support of our approach to executive

34

compensation and did not believe it was necessary to, and therefore did not, make any significant changes to our executive officer compensation program or pay for performance philosophy solely in response to the vote. In addition, in recognition of the Board’s and shareholders’ majority preference expressed at the 2017 meeting, the Compensation Committee recommended, and the Board approved, an annual non-binding “say-on-pay” vote to occur at the meeting (see page 63), so that any shareholder concerns about executive pay can be acknowledged and considered in the timeliest manner. The Compensation Committee will continue to consider the results from this year and future advisory votes on executive compensation.

Responsibility for Executive Compensation Program

Subject to full Board approval, the Compensation Committee of our Board is responsible for establishing and implementing our general executive compensation philosophy and determining the compensation for all of our executive officers reporting directly to the Chairman and CEO, including our NEOs. The Compensation Committee’s charter permits the Compensation Committee to delegate authority to subcommittees. In 2017, the Compensation Committee made no delegation of its authority over compensation matters relating to our NEOs.

Compensation Philosophy and Objectives

Through our compensation program for executive officers, we strive to attract and retain superior executives in a highly competitive environment and provide financial incentives that align our executive officers’ interests with those of our shareholders. The Compensation Committee believes that the primary components of each executive officer’s compensation should be a competitive base salary and incentive compensation that rewards the achievement of annual and long-term objective performance goals. The Compensation Committee also believes stock ownership is important because it aligns our executives’ interests with the interests of our shareholders. Thus, equity compensation represents a significant element of each executive officer’s potential compensation.

The Company believes that it is important to maintain consistency in our compensation philosophy and objectives, although it is sometimes necessary to adjust certain programs as economic and business conditions change. Even though value creating performance by the executive officers of the Company does not always translate into an immediate appreciation in the Company’s stock price or net income performance, the Board believes that executive management made significant progress in 2017 in managing the Company.

35

The improvement in the Company’s performance was primarily driven by the contributions from the Company’s merger and acquisitions strategy and an increase in organic loan growth in 2017, paired with a focus on reducing expenses and maintaining credit quality.

The Board intends to continue to reward management performance with cash and equity compensation based on a philosophy and belief that the strong operating fundamentals in the Company will be reflected in earnings growth and eventual stock price appreciation. It is in this context that certain actions were taken by the Board to reward executive management for 2017 performance and to establish incentive goals for 2018.

Role of Executive Officers in Compensation Decisions

The Compensation Committee reviews, approves, and recommends to our full Board each element of compensation for each executive officer reporting directly to the CEO, including all NEOs. The Compensation Committee considers the recommendations of the CEO in determining the base salary, annual incentive compensation and long-term incentive awards for each of the executive officers of the Company other than the CEO, but ultimately the Committee makes all determinations in its discretion as to final pay outcomes. Together with the Compensation Committee, our CEO annually reviews the performance of each of our other executive officers, the compensation of each executive officer, including base salary, annual incentive compensation and long-term incentive awards and makes recommendations to the Compensation Committee regarding the compensation of those officers for the following year. The Compensation Committee Chairman annually reviews our CEO’s compensation with representatives from Pearl Meyer (in conjunction with an annual performance review led by the Company’s non-executive Chairman or Lead Director) and makes recommendations to the Compensation Committee regarding the CEO’s compensation for the following year. The CEO is not involved in the final determination regarding his own compensation, and all decisions with respect to the CEO’s compensation are made in executive session of the Compensation Committee, without the CEO present.

Committee Procedures

In 2017, the Compensation Committee engaged Pearl Meyer, a nationally recognized compensation consulting firm, to assist it in evaluating our executive compensation program. During the year ending December 31, 2017, Pearl Meyer’s services to the Company were limited to those provided to the Compensation Committee in connection with its decisions concerning executive compensation. The Compensation Committee reviewed its relationship with Pearl Meyer and concluded that Pearl Meyer was independent and free of any conflicts of interest in regard to the advice it provided the Compensation and Governance Committees.

The following is a description of the services Pearl Meyer provided to the Compensation Committee to assist it in establishing compensation for the NEOs and other members of management for 2017:

36

In examining our business performance, Pearl Meyer focused on:

In evaluating the competitiveness of our compensation levels for NEOs and other members of management, Pearl Meyer gathers pay and performance data from a peer group of publicly-traded financial services companies that includes a broad representation of regional banks within the Company’s region of operation and which are similar in asset size to the Company. Pearl Meyer selects the peer group with input from the Compensation Committee. The Compensation Committee considers the peer group data when evaluating the compensation for all of the NEOs. The composition of the peer group may be amended from year to year to take account of mergers, acquisitions, and other changes that make a company more or less appropriate for inclusion. The Compensation Committee has at times in the past removed companies from the peer group because the companies’ asset sizes were deemed by the Compensation Committee to not be representative of the other companies in the group and in excess of the Company’s asset size. For 2017, Pearl Meyer recommended that the Company use the Peer Group as approved by the Company in 2016.

Under SEC disclosure rules, companies generally limit executive compensation disclosure to their most highly compensated executive officers. To determine competitive pay for these positions, Pearl Meyer uses data from publicly-filed documents as well as data from its proprietary market surveys. For the remaining executives, Pearl Meyer uses data from its proprietary market surveys only. The market surveys include a broader range of companies and do not provide company-specific information. The survey data is used as a general reference and is one of a number of factors considered in determining where pay is actually set.

For 2017 compensation decisions, our publicly-traded peer group consisted of the following 23 companies which had asset sizes ranging from $11.5 billion to $30.1 billion, with a median asset size of $19.3 billion:

On July 20, 2017, the Compensation Committee reviewed the above peer group listing with Pearl Meyer and Pearl Meyer agreed that this peer group continued to be appropriate for the Company’s pay and performance benchmarking for 2018.

37

In making its recommendations to the Compensation Committee regarding executive officer compensation, Pearl Meyer typically reviews the compensation practices and performance of the peer companies and discusses our performance and strategic objectives with our CEO, Chief Financial Officer, EVP-Associate Engagement and Integrations and Chief Risk Officer. Before the beginning of each fiscal year, Pearl Meyer provides the Compensation Committee with a detailed written report regarding our executive compensation structure, its competitiveness relative to the peer group companies, and the alignment of our executive pay with the Company’s performance.

In preparation for the evaluation of 2017 compensation and development of the written report, Pearl Meyer reviewed the business performance of the Company and the peer companies over one-year and three-year periods through the end of 2015, as well as projected results for 2016, and evaluated the alignment of the Company’s pay and performance relative to peers.

In a report delivered to the Committee in January 2018, Pearl Meyer reported the following results:

As part of its written report, Pearl Meyer reported that the Company’s targeted compensation levels were slightly below the relevant market benchmarks. Pearl Meyer noted the following results with respect to compensation relative to peers:

Pearl Meyer’s review evaluates overall compensation as well as each significant component of compensation. It evaluates whether the compensation structure continues to provide the appropriate incentives and alignment of executive officers’ interests with those of our shareholders. Pearl Meyer meets with the Compensation Committee to discuss its written report, answer questions, and discuss issues that require further study.

The Compensation Committee considers the information provided by Pearl Meyer, including compensation reports and Pearl Meyer’s recommended best practices as a baseline for establishing targeted total compensation, principal compensation components, and determining the allocation of total potential compensation components for each NEO and other executives in the Company. In general, we seek to establish total compensation, base salaries, annual incentive compensation, and long-term equity incentive compensation for each position at or near the median for the peer group, if targeted performance is achieved, and at or near the 75^th percentile of the peer group, if exceptional performance is achieved. The Compensation Committee also seeks to allocate potential total compensation among base salary, annual incentive compensation, and longer-term incentive compensation in proportions that reflect peer group practices.

Executive Compensation for 2017

Components of Compensation.  In establishing the 2017 compensation for our executive officers, the Compensation Committee:

38

The principal components of each executive officer’s compensation used by the Compensation Committee to reward, align and retain our named executives are:

In general, we strive to target the percentage that each of these components bears to the total compensation for our executive officer group as a whole, assuming the achievement of targeted performance, to approximately the corresponding percentages for the peer group.

In structuring our long-term incentive awards to our CEO and the other NEOs, we emphasize the use of performance-based equity awards. In fact, 100% of the CEO’s long-term incentive awards are performance-based, and 75% of the long-term incentive awards for the other NEO’s are performance-based. For 2017, performance-based equity awards represented a significantly greater percentage of our executives’ long-term incentive compensation than was the case for our peer group as a whole. According to Pearl Meyer’s report, the following chart represents each element of compensation and the corresponding percentage of total compensation represented by each element for our peer group for the NEOs’ compensation for 2017.

The Company’s allocation for 2017 for the CEO and the other NEOs was:

39

The actual mix of these components for each individual executive officer varies, depending on our evaluation of the executive officer’s responsibilities, the percentage of the executive officer’s compensation that should be at risk, and the reasonable potential compensation in light of that risk. Additionally, the pay mix data set forth in the above chart for the NEOs other than the CEO is represented in the aggregate as each NEO does not have the same pay mix.

The only elements of our executive officers’ compensation that we pay in cash are base salary and annual incentive compensation. For 2017, we paid the following cash compensation to our NEOs:

Base Salary.  Base salary is the only component of compensation that is not subject to the achievement of performance or vesting criteria. Base salary is designed to provide a fixed level of cash compensation for performing the responsibilities associated with an executive’s position. We establish base salary ranges for each position based on the ranges for similar positions at other peer group companies. In general, we target base salary ranges near the median for the peer group. We review base salaries annually and we adjust them in April of each year to take into account such factors as market changes, changes in duties, individual performance, and experience.

In assessing Mr. Jones’ performance for 2017 compensation decisions, the Compensation Committee considered the role Mr. Jones played in selecting and leading the management team in its 2016 strategic, operational, and financial performance. The Compensation Committee determined that Mr. Jones’ leadership skills both within the Company and as a leader in the banking industry were significant contributors to the Company’s success during the year. The Committee noted that Mr. Jones had led the Company in 2016 to an integration of the Company’s largest acquisition, placing the Company in growth markets in the state of Wisconsin. The Compensation Committee also noted Mr. Jones’ leadership in creating a “Tone at the Top” to cultivate a culture of highly ethical standards, professionalism, integrity and establishing ethically sound strategic goals for the Company and its employees. These accomplishments, and the fact that Mr. Jones’ base salary lagged significantly behind the median of peers, were considered by the Committee in its decision to raise Mr. Jones’ base salary for 2017.

In assessing the performance of Messrs. Ryan, Sandgren, Moore and Knight, Mr. Jones subjectively evaluated their contributions to the strategic, operational and financial performance of the Company in 2016.

40

Messrs. Ryan, Sandgren, Moore and Knight met or exceeded Mr. Jones’ subjective performance expectations in 2016 and based on his recommendations, the Compensation Committee increased their base salaries in 2017.

Annual Incentive Compensation.  Our practice is to award cash incentive awards based on our achievement of pre-established objective performance goals. The objective of awarding annual incentive compensation is to reward short-term financial and operational performance. The Amended and Restated 2008 Incentive Compensation Plan, which includes the Short Term Incentive Compensation Plan or “STIP”, and which was approved by shareholders in 2016, is intended to be our primary vehicle for awarding such incentives. The STIP does not preclude us from making discretionary bonus payments or special awards to STIP participants outside of the STIP. In establishing performance goals for 2017, the Compensation Committee made a determination at the beginning of 2017 to exclude one-time charges associated with acquisitions that occurred in 2017, including any associated one-time charges. The Compensation Committee also made a determination to exclude charges incurred as a result of any deferred tax asset revaluation that might occur due to corporate tax cuts, and to exclude branch closings and severance charges associated with restructuring of the Company.

The amount of cash incentive payments under the STIP is based entirely on target incentive potentials and the achievement of the performance goals established by the Compensation Committee at the beginning of the year. Actual payout levels are determined by the Compensation Committee after evaluating performance through the end of the year and reviewing peer and survey data provided by Pearl Meyer. The percentage payout levels are consistent with the payout levels paid to similarly situated executives within the Company’s peer group.

The 2017 STIP contains targeted annual incentives and provides an opportunity for participants, including the NEOs, to earn between 50% and 150% of their target opportunities provided certain performance thresholds are met. The Compensation Committee believes having a payout range helps to ensure that pay varies with performance and aligns it with market. No payouts under the STIP will be made for performance below minimum required performance. If threshold is achieved, an incentive payout equal to 50% of targeted incentive level for each of the NEOs will be paid. If the targeted profitability measures are achieved, each of the NEOs will receive 100% of the target incentive payout.

In practice, the Compensation Committee makes recommendations that the Board then approves or adjusts. The Performance Measures, as well as the weighting given to the measures, for the 2017 STIP for Messrs. Jones, Ryan, Sandgren, Moore and Knight included the following:

The Compensation Committee adopted the performance measures of ROATCE and EPS growth as part of the STIP performance measures for 2017 because of their correlation with creating shareholder value. The Compensation Committee elected to keep Efficiency Ratio as part of the STIP design to ensure management focuses on managing expenses within the Company. The achievement of certain diversity and inclusion targets for 2017 were also adopted as part of the plan as a negative modifier to the final results.

41

The Compensation Committee established the 2017 potential payouts to each NEO. Under the STIP, the target incentive payout for the CEO was established at 100% of base salary. The target incentive payout for the Chief Financial Officer and President and Chief Operating Officer was established at 60% of base salary, and the target incentive payout for the other NEOs was established at 45% of base salary. The maximum payout under the STIP is 150% of the target incentive payout and is earned only when actual performance significantly exceeds the target.

The 2017 STIP performance and payout results for Messrs. Jones, Ryan, Sandgren, Moore and Knight were as follows, resulting in a bonus payout of 105% of target:

Percentage amounts under the caption “Performance Factor” in the tables above reflect the overall percentage of annual incentive compensation earned with respect to each metric after giving effect to the weighting factor applied to the metric and the performance level achieved for that metric. The “Total Percentage Earned” is the sum of the Performance Factors for all metrics.

For 2017, the STIP final award earned was subject to a negative adjustment by up to 10% based on whether executive management achieved certain employee diversity objectives during the year. Mr. Jones reviewed the achievements of the Company in making progress toward establishing a more diverse work force in 2017 with the Compensation Committee. Based on these achievements, Mr. Jones recommended, and the Compensation Committee accepted, that no negative adjustment be made to the STIP earned award for 2017.

Long-Term Incentive Compensation.  We believe that stock ownership by our executive officers is an important tool for aligning their interests with those of our shareholders over the long-term. Therefore, our long-term incentive compensation consists entirely of equity compensation awards. The Amended and Restated 2008 Incentive Compensation Plan, which was again approved by shareholders in 2017, is our primary vehicle for providing equity compensation.

42

In 2017, the award mix for the CEO under the Amended and Restated 2008 Incentive Compensation Plan was entirely performance-based (i.e., 100% of the value awarded consisted of performance-based restricted stock units), as illustrated below:

The awards for the NEOs (other than the CEO) under the Amended and Restated 2008 Incentive Compensation Plan consisted of a combination of Performance-based Restricted Stock Units and Service-based Restricted Stock. The majority of the value awarded (75%) consisted of Performance-based Restricted Stock Units, as illustrated below:

Each of these forms of award encourages executives to use their best efforts to increase the value of our stock, since the value of the awards increases with the value of our stock. In addition, because an executive officer’s right to an award generally vests over time, such awards provide a valuable retention tool.

Our practice is to determine the dollar amount of equity compensation that we want to provide, based on consultation with the compensation consultant who advises the Compensation Committee concerning current market practices. In general, we seek to pay equity incentive compensation that approximates the median for our peer group, if targeted performance is achieved and the 75^th percentile for our peer group, if maximum performance is achieved. The Compensation Committee typically makes recommendations regarding equity compensation awards at its first meeting in January, depending upon the availability of the financial results for the preceding year. Typically, these awards are then approved or adjusted by the Board at its next meeting. We make the awards as early as practicable in the year and communicate them to executive officers so that the incentives will be known as early as practicable, thereby maximizing their potential impact. We make equity awards after financial data for the preceding year is available, because this information enables us to refine our expectations for the current year. The proximity of any awards to earnings announcements or other market events is coincidental. Under special circumstances, such as the employment of a new executive or substantial promotion of an existing executive, the Compensation Committee may award equity compensation at other times during the year.

On January 26, 2017, we granted performance-based restricted stock units and service-based restricted stock to the NEOs (with the exception of the CEO who only received performance-based restricted stock units)

43

pursuant to our Amended and Restated 2008 Incentive Compensation Plan. These awards are reflected on the Table on page 52 entitled “Grants of Plan-Based Awards During 2017.” The Compensation Committee and Board, in order to align the CEO’s incentive compensation directly with shareholder interests and to place 100% of his equity compensation at risk, determined that his equity compensation should consist of performance-based restricted stock units with no service-based component.

The Compensation Committee awarded the right to earn shares to the NEOs and certain other executives based on the performance of the Company in 2017. The awards differed for each of the NEOs and they were determined by the Compensation Committee, according to each officer’s salary level and based on competitive survey data provided by Pearl Meyer. The performance goals were not based on individual performance.

Performance-Based Restricted Stock Units.  The Compensation Committee continued the use of performance-based restricted stock units in 2017 because their use simplifies the administration of the performance awards, as shares are not actually granted until the end of the performance period and dividends are not paid on the units until the units vest into earned shares. In general, our executive officers will not earn performance-based restricted stock units unless we meet pre-established objective performance criteria for the performance period, and the executive officer remains employed throughout the performance period and any required service period.

The CEO only receives performance-based restricted stock unit awards. In 2017, the CEO’s performance-based restricted stock unit awards were allocated between internal and external performance measures as described in the chart on page 43.

The Committee allocated 50% of the award based on a measure of relative total shareholder return to ensure the CEO’s interests were closely aligned with shareholders. The Committee allocated 50% of the award based on the internal measure of ROATCE because of the strong correlation between the improvement in ROATCE and the increase in shareholder value.

In 2017, the NEOs (except for the CEO) received awards of performance-based restricted stock units allocated as described below and shown in the chart on page 43.

Based on the recommendation of Pearl Meyer, the Committee determined to weight 50% of the performance-based restricted stock unit award to the external measure of relative total shareholder return to ensure the officers’ interests were closely aligned with the interests of shareholders. The remaining 50% portion of the performance-based restricted stock unit award was allocated to ROATCE because of the strong correlation between the improvement in ROATCE and the increase in shareholder value.

In general, the NEOs must be employed by the Company through the distribution date, which would be after December 31, 2019 and before March 31, 2020, in order to receive a distribution of any 2017 performance-based restricted stock unit awards earned for the performance measures. However, if the executive officer terminates employment on account of disability or retirement, he or she will be treated the same as if he or she had continued employment.

For each restricted stock unit award, we have established minimum, target and maximum performance levels. The actual performance level at the end of the performance period will determine the percentage of units earned. No units will be earned if results are less than the required minimum performance. If target is achieved, all of the units awarded will be earned. If maximum performance is achieved, the number of units earned will multiply by 1.5. Earned units are converted to shares after the performance period has ended and actual results have been evaluated relative to the established minimum, target and maximum performance levels.

The financial performance measurement of ROATCE is measured over a three-year performance period. This measure was chosen because the Committee believes there is a strong correlation between improvement in ROATCE and an increase in shareholder value. For a minimum (25%) payout to occur, ROATCE must be 12.9%

44

over the three-year performance period. For targeted (100%) payout to occur, ROATCE must be 13.6% over the three-year performance period, and for maximum (150%) payout to occur, ROATCE must be 14.2% over the three-year measurement period.

Total shareholder return is our external relative measure for determining performance-based units earned. For purposes of the 2017 award, we define relative total shareholder return – which is measured against the peer group for the three-year measurement period – as the three-month average stock price for the period ending December 31, 2016 compared to the three-month average stock price for the period ending December 31, 2019 for the Company and the Peer Group. The three-month average stock price will be determined by averaging the closing stock price of each trading day during the three months ending on the applicable December 31, including adjustments for cash and stock dividends. This measure was chosen because the Committee believes it strongly links executive compensation to shareholder value creation over time.

Shares received from any earned performance-based restricted stock units must be held until the stock ownership guidelines are met. Dividends earned on vested shares accumulated during the performance period, are paid in stock after the end of the performance period and are subject to the holding requirement.

If an executive officer’s employment is terminated on account of death, the target performance criteria will be deemed satisfied, and restrictions on the shares will lapse. If the executive officer terminates employment on account of disability or retirement, the executive officer will be treated the same as if he or she had continued employment through the end of the performance period. For the 2017 awards, if there is a Change in Control and the NEO is terminated, then performance-based restricted stock awarded to the NEO will be paid as if Targeted performance had been achieved.

Service-Based Restricted Stock.  We grant service-based restricted stock for various reasons: these stock awards create ownership, which aligns the executive’s interests with those of other shareholders; these awards contribute to the retention of key employees, whose future service is deemed essential to the ongoing success of the Company. However, because service-based restricted stock is not contingent on our business performance, the value of the service-based restricted stock award is substantially less than the value of the performance-based portion of the award. In general, with the exception of dividends, an executive officer will not realize value for service-based restricted stock, unless he or she remains employed during the required service period. If an executive officer terminates employment on account of death, or terminates without cause or with good reason following a Change in Control of the Company, restrictions on the stock will lapse. If the executive officer terminates employment on account of disability or retirement, he or she will be treated the same as if he or she had continued employment. The service-based restricted stock granted in 2017 will vest in three approximately equal annual installments over a three-year period ending on February 1, 2020. We pay cash dividends on service-based restricted stock to our executive officers during the restricted period. The service-based restricted stock must be held by the NEO until the stock ownership guidelines are met even if the restrictions have lapsed.

In 2017, the Compensation Committee granted service-based restricted stock to NEOs other than the CEO in order to encourage ownership of Company stock, align the Company with Peer Group practices and to ensure the retention of key executive officers in the Company. Twenty-five percent of the total equity award for the NEOs other than the CEO was in the form of service-based stock in 2017. As noted previously, the CEO’s long-term incentive awards are entirely performance-based and do not include any service-based restricted stock.

Retirement Plans.  Until December 31, 2005, we maintained a traditional qualified defined benefit pension plan, known as the Old National Bancorp Employees’ Retirement Plan (“Retirement Plan”). We froze the Retirement Plan as of December 31, 2001, except for employees who were at least age 50 or who had 20 years of credited service as of December 31, 2001. As of December 31, 2005, we froze the Retirement Plan for all remaining employees. We also maintained a nonqualified retirement plan to replace any reduction in benefits under the Retirement Plan due to limitations on benefits under the Internal Revenue Code (“Supplemental Plan”). We also froze the Supplemental Plan as of December 31, 2005. No executive officer will earn further benefits under the Retirement Plan or the Supplemental Plan after 2005, although benefits as of December 31, 2005, are preserved.

45

In 2016, the Board terminated the Retirement Plan and paid out the proceeds to former and current employees on October 21, 2016. The Supplemental Plan was not terminated.

We continue to maintain a tax-qualified defined contribution plan, known as the Old National Bancorp Employee Stock Ownership and Savings Plan (“Savings Plan”), for eligible employees. The Savings Plan allows employees to make pre-tax and Roth 401(k) contributions. Subject to the conditions and limitations of the Plan, an employee will be eligible to become a participant of the plan on the first day of the month after completing one month of service. All active participants will be eligible to receive a match of fifty cents on the dollar up to the first 6% of eligible compensation that is contributed to the plan. We may also make profit sharing contributions, in our discretion. To receive profit sharing contributions for a year, an employee must have (i) completed at least 1,000 hours of service during the year and (ii) been employed on the last day of the year or retired on or after age 65, died, or became disabled during the year.

We also maintain a nonqualified deferred compensation plan, known as the “Executive Deferred Compensation Plan,” for a select group of management employees designated by the Compensation Committee. All executive officers are eligible to participate in the plan. An executive officer may elect to defer up to 25% of his or her regular compensation, and up to 75% of his or her annual bonus under the STIP, in which case the deferral amount will be credited to his or her plan account. The Executive Deferred Compensation Plan applies the same matching formula that is used for the Savings Plan. We provide matching contribution credits under the plan, reduced by any matching contributions under the Savings Plan. In addition, we may provide discretionary contribution credits to make up for any reduction in discretionary profit sharing contributions under the Savings Plan due to Internal Revenue Code contribution limits applicable to tax-qualified retirement plans. We did not provide discretionary credits for 2016.

We credit an executive officer’s plan account with earnings based on the hypothetical earnings of an investment fund consisting of Company stock, the return on a recognized market index selected by the Compensation Committee, or a combination of the two, as elected by the executive officer. For the market index fund, we use a Bloomberg index, which approximates the risk and return associated with a diversified high quality corporate bond fund. The earnings credited under the Executive Deferred Compensation Plan could be in excess of earnings that would have been credited using the applicable federal long-term rate. Any excess earnings are reported in column (h) of the Summary Compensation Table on page 50.

All amounts paid under the Executive Deferred Compensation plan are paid from our general assets and are subject to the claims of our creditors. Except in the case of financial emergency, an executive officer’s benefits under the plan may not be distributed until after termination of employment. In general, an executive officer may elect to receive his plan benefits in a lump sum or in annual installments over two to ten years.

Employment Arrangements.  We have entered into employment agreements with each of the NEOs with the exception of Jeffrey L. Knight, who has an Amended Severance and Change of Control Agreement (referred to collectively as “employment agreement(s)” or “agreements”). The employment agreements were amended effective January 1, 2011, to provide for:

46

The changes to these agreements were adopted after reviewing prevailing market and developing executive compensation best practices. Under each of their respective employment and severance agreements, the NEOs are entitled to a base salary, incentive compensation (both cash and equity) and other employee benefits as determined by the Board. Based on information provided by the Compensation Committee’s compensation consultant, the Committee determined that the benefits, including the various multiples of components of compensation, were within the market range for such payouts and benefits. The Committee regularly reviews the Company’s employment and severance agreement arrangements and uses peer data to determine whether these arrangements are consistent with prevailing market practices.

Pursuant to the employment agreements, we are generally obligated to pay certain non-change of control severance benefits to the NEO, if we terminate his or her employment without cause, or the executive resigns within 90 days after we have taken certain actions that adversely affect him or her. An NEO must satisfy the terms of the agreement, including its non-solicitation and non-compete provisions, to receive his or her severance benefits.

The employment and severance agreements also provide for change of control severance benefits for each NEO. The Company is required to pay change of control severance benefits if, within two years following a change of control (as defined in the agreements), we terminate the NEO’s employment for a reason other than “Cause” or the NEO’s disability, or if the executive resigns within two years after a change of control after we have taken certain actions detrimental to the NEO.

The Compensation Committee believes that the employment agreements, which include change of control severance benefits, assure the fair treatment of the NEOs in relation to their professional careers with the Company by assuring them of some financial security in the event of a change of control. The change of control provision also protects the shareholders of the Company by encouraging the NEOs to continue to devote their full attention to the Company without being distracted by the need to seek other employment following the change of control. The Compensation Committee established the change of control payouts to each of the NEOs after reviewing peer data and consulting with the Compensation Committee consultant.

In the Committee’s view, severance benefits, including in the event of a change-in-control, are contingent and operate as a form of insurance rather than a principal component of compensation strategy. In that regard, the Committee does not reduce or otherwise modify compensation elements on the basis of eligibility for severance benefits. The Potential Payments on Termination or Change-in-Control tables on pages 58 through 62 and the discussion of the employment agreements beginning on page 55 set forth the estimated values and details of the termination benefits under various scenarios for each of the NEOs.

Perquisites and Other Compensation.  Detailed information regarding other compensation is provided in note 5 to the Summary Compensation Table on page 51. In general, we believe that perquisites should not constitute a consequential portion of any executive officer’s compensation. The Company makes available to the NEOs financial counseling services to assist them in obtaining financial planning advice. This benefit is provided to the executives, but the executives pay any tax due on the benefit.

James Sandgren received a country club membership allowance of $12,540 for business development purposes. No other executive received perquisites in excess of $10,000 in 2017. Moreover, certain of the perquisites provided to executive officers also provide a benefit to us. For example, executive physicals, which we require annually for the CEO and every other year for the other NEOs, help us to assure that our executive officers do not postpone addressing health issues that could result in great cost to us in lost productivity and covered treatment costs.

47

Stock Ownership Guidelines.  In 2010, the Compensation Committee and Board amended the previously established stock ownership guidelines for the Company’s executive officers, including the NEOs, to make the guidelines more consistent with market practices, and to ensure executives retain a specified percentage of stock of the Company until the target ownership level is achieved and to reduce the risk that stock price volatility could impact the achievement of the target ownership requirement. Under the guidelines, the NEOs are required to hold shares of our stock with a value which is the lesser of the following:

As of the date of the Proxy Statement, each of the NEOs has met the stock ownership guideline requirement. For purposes of the guidelines, vested in-the-money options, unearned performance-based restricted stock units, unvested service-based restricted stock and phantom shares in the Nonqualified Deferred Compensation Plan are taken into account.

Executive Compensation in 2018

In January 2018, based on results of a review by executive management of the compensation program, the Compensation Committee approved certain changes to the program which will be effective in 2018. In this review, the Compensation Committee considered the balance between short and long-term incentives, cash versus stock, revenue and risk metrics and absolute and relative Performance Measures and considered the time horizon of payments versus risks.

The Compensation Committee and Board first recognized the improvement in financial results in 2017 over 2016, compared to peers. Performance of the Company for the three-year period through 2016 and through the third quarter of 2017, compared to peers, was at the 44^th percentile and the 48^th percentile of peers. The financial results of the Company compared favorably to peers across various measures of profitability, returns, growth and credit quality. The Compensation Committee noted, however, that there was a slight misalignment of executive compensation with total cash compensation just below the median of the peer group. The Compensation Committee noted that the misalignment was due to the impact of lower base salaries and target cash incentives positioned slightly below the market median.

In 2018, the Compensation Committee agreed with management’s recommendation to continue the approach toward long-term equity incentive awards adopted in 2017.

The CEO’s long-term equity award in 2018 consists solely of performance-based restricted stock units. The purpose of awarding 100% of the CEO’s stock award and performance-based restricted stock units is to insure his interests are totally aligned with the interests of shareholders. Fifty percent of the CEO’s award will be based on growth in ROATCE and 50% will be based on total shareholder return relative to peers, both measured over a three-year performance period.

In 2018, our long-term equity awards for the NEO’s (other than the CEO) will be allocated as follows:

75% performance based restricted stock units; and 25% service based restricted stock units.

These weightings are the same as in 2017 and they insure that most (75%) of an NEO’s long-term incentive compensation must be earned for performance. The performance measure for the internal measure

48

(50% of the performance-based award) will be based on the Company’s growth in ROATCE over a three-year period. The performance measure for the external measure (50% of the performance-based award) will be total shareholder return compared to peers over a three-year performance period.

The Compensation Committee and Board agreed to increase the base salary in 2018 for the CEO in recognition of the strong financial performance of the Company in 2017. As noted on pages 32 and 63 of this Proxy Statement, the Company experienced significant strategic growth in 2017 and ended 2017 with a stock price performance that was better than peers in the $10 billion - $25 billion asset category. The Compensation Committee also noted that Mr. Jones led the company in 2017 to an integration of the Company’s acquisition of Anchor Bancorp, Inc., placing the Company in the significant growth market of Minneapolis in the state of Minnesota. The Compensation Committee also noted Mr. Jones’ leadership in cultivating the culture of highly ethical standards of professionalism, integrity and establishing ethically-sound strategic goals for the Company and its employees. The Compensation Committee also noted Mr. Jones’ emphasis on including diversity and inclusion initiatives in 2017 as part of the Company’s incentive compensation plan. These accomplishments, and the fact that Mr. Jones’ base salary lagged significantly behind the median of peers, was considered by the Compensation Committee in its decision to raise Mr. Jones’ base salary for 2018. The Compensation Committee also agreed to raise the STIP target percentage of Mr. Jones from 100% to 125%.

The other NEOs met or exceeded Mr. Jones’ performance expectations for 2017, and based on his recommendations, the Compensation Committee increased the base salaries of each of the NEOs with the exception of Mr. Moore who declined a salary increase for 2018 due to the fact his salary was already within the targeted range for comparable positions within the Company’s peer group. The Compensation Committee also agreed to raise the STIP target percentage for Messrs. Ryan and Sandgren from 60% to 65%, and to increase the STIP target percentage for Messrs. Knight and Moore from 45% to 50%.

In 2018, all of the NEOs will participate in the STIP comprised of the performance measures agreed to by the Compensation Committee in 2017. In 2018, the Compensation Committee also agreed to continue certain enhancements to the Company’s diversity objectives for 2018 and also granted the CEO the discretion to reduce any STIP earned in 2018 by up to 10% in the event the CEO, in his discretion, does not believe the executive management team is sufficiently championing diversity within the Company’s culture.

In addition to the changes summarized above, the Company is maintaining its existing compensation practices that represent strong corporate governance including the following:

49

2017 Summary Compensation Table

The table below provides information regarding compensation earned by our CEO, Chief Financial Officer, and other three executive officers employed at the end of 2017 who were most highly compensated for 2017.

(1) Base salary increases for NEOs are effective in the first pay of April during the calendar year.

(2) Stock awards included in Column (e) consist entirely of service-based restricted stock and performance-based restricted stock units granted under our Amended and Restated 2008 Incentive Plan. The grant date value of the awards is as determined under FASB ASC Topic 718. For performance-based restricted stock, the grant date value is based on the number of units that would be earned at target levels of performance. The value of the award assuming the highest level of performance conditions are achieved for the 2015, 2016, and 2017 awards would be: Robert Jones ($1,361,637, $1,041,855, and $1,675,339); James Ryan ($206,369, $295,488, and $457,113); James Sandgren ($337,694, $288,498, and $457,113); Daryl Moore ($243,891, $187,523, $297,123); and Jeffrey Knight ($243,891, $187,523, $297,123). For the number of shares of service-based and performance-based restricted stock awarded in 2017, see the Grants of Plan-Based Awards Table.

(3) These amounts represent incentives that were earned under the Company’s STIP.

(4) This amount is the increase of the actuarial present value of the executive’s benefit under our frozen defined benefit plans, plus the amount of the executive’s earnings credit under our Executive Deferred Compensation Plan in excess of the earnings that would have been credited using the applicable federal long-term rate, with compounding (as described by Section 1274(d) of the Internal Revenue Code).

The 2017 Change in Pension Values and Non-Qualified Deferred Compensation “excess” earnings were: Robert Jones ($0 and $-33,718); James Ryan ($0 and $152); James Sandgren ($0 and $235); Daryl Moore ($60,101 and $19,337), and Jeffrey Knight ($0 and $404).

The 2016 Change in Pension Values and Non-Qualified Deferred Compensation “excess” earnings were: Robert Jones ($0 and $293,543); James Ryan ($0 and $195); James Sandgren (-$4,173 and $285); Daryl Moore ($97,497 and $25,636) and Jeffrey Knight ($1,231 and $499).

The 2015 Change in Pension Values and Non-Qualified Deferred Compensation “excess” earnings were: Robert Jones ($0 and -$65,253); James Ryan ($0 and $150); James Sandgren (-$4,551 and $228); Daryl Moore (-$66,972 and $21,230); and Jeffrey Knight (-$7,281 and $359).

50

(5) The amounts specified in Column (i) include the following: perquisites, company contributions to defined contribution plans, cash dividends on restricted stock, and life insurance premiums.

(a) James Sandgren and James Ryan received country club membership allowances of $12,540 and $4,020, respectively, for business development purposes. Additionally, Mr. Ryan received an executive physical in 2017 with a value of $1,272.

(b) Company Contributions to Defined Contribution Plans include $8,100 and $32,108 to the Old National Bancorp Employee Stock Ownership and Savings Plan and the Old National Bancorp Executive Deferred Compensation Plan respectively, for Robert Jones; and $7,947 and $1,050 for James Ryan; and $8,100 and $4,050 for James Sandgren; and $7,948 and $5,897 for Daryl Moore; and $8,150 and $4,050 for Jeff Knight; respectively to those same plans.

(c) The listed executive officers receive group life coverage equal to two times base salary, whereas most other employees receive coverage of one times base salary. The amounts in this column are the premiums for the executive officers’ coverage.

CEO Pay Ratio

We believe our executive compensation program must be internally consistent and equitable to motivate our employees to create stockholder value. Our Compensation Committee monitors the relationship between the compensation of our executive officers and our non-executive employees; however, the Compensation Committee does not view this ratio as a meaningful tool in evaluating the appropriateness of the CEO’s compensation, both on an internal and external basis.

For 2017, the ratio of the CEO’s Total Compensation to the median employee’s Total Compensation is as follows:

In determining the median employee, a ranked list was prepared of all associates employed other than the CEO as of October 1, 2017 based on their compensation for 2017. As a result of the ranked list containing an even number of employees, two median employees were identified. The calculation of compensation for the two median employees was determined in the same manner as the “Total Compensation” shown for our CEO in the Summary Compensation Table. The represented calculation of Total Compensation for the median employees was averaged in order to arrive at the Median Employee Total Compensation.

51

Grants of Plan-Based Awards During 2017

(1) All non-equity incentive plan awards are made pursuant to our Amended and Restated 2008 Incentive Plan.

(2) The shares in Columns (f), (g), and (h) are performance-based restricted stock units granted under our Amended and Restated 2008 Incentive Compensation Plan. The performance period for 100% of the performance-based awards is the three-year period ending December 31, 2019. The restriction period for 100% of the performance-based grant ends on March 15, 2020. For all executive awards, 50% of the grant is based upon the company’s Return on Tangible Common Equity with the other 50% of the grant based upon total shareholder return as compared to the company’s peer group. Dividends accumulate on earned shares and are paid in the form of shares.

(3) The shares in Column (i) are service-based restricted shares granted under our Amended and Restated 2008 Incentive Compensation Plan that vest in three substantially equal installments on February 1 of 2018, 2019 and 2020. Vesting is contingent upon the Executive Officers remaining employed during the required service period. Executive Officers are entitled to dividends during the vesting period on the number of outstanding shares.

(4) No stock options were granted in 2017.

(5) The fair market value of the service-based restricted stock units reported in Column (l) is the grant date value of the awards based on the closing stock price. The fair market value of the internal performance-based restricted stock units reported in Column (l) is the grant date value based on the closing stock price less the present value of dividends expected to be paid during the requisite performance period. A Monte-Carlo simulation is used to determine the fair market value of the relative performance-based restricted stock units.

52

Outstanding Equity Awards at December 31, 2017

Footnotes:

(1A) Service-based restricted shares granted in 2015 that will become vested on February 1, 2018.

(1B) Service-based restricted shares granted in 2016 that will become vested in two substantially equal installments on February 1 of 2018 and 2019.

(1C) Service-based restricted shares granted in 2017 that will become vested in three substantially equal installments on February 1 of 2018, 2019 and 2020.

(2) This award represents performance-based restricted stock units granted in 2015. The number of units assumes that target performance has been achieved. The executive officers’ interest in any earned shares will vest on the distribution date which will be after December 31, 2017 and before March 15, 2018.

(3) This award represents performance-based restricted stock units granted in 2016. The number of units assumes that threshold performance has been achieved. The executive officers’ interest in any earned shares will vest on the distribution date which will be after December 31, 2018 and before March 15, 2019.

(4) This award represents performance-based restricted stock units granted in 2017. The number of units assumes that threshold performance has been achieved. The executive officers’ interest in any earned shares will vest on the distribution date which will be after December 31, 2019 and before March 15, 2020.

53

Option Exercises and Stock Vested in 2017

Pension Benefits in 2017