The Board of Directors of The Interpublic Group of Companies, Inc. (“Interpublic”, “IPG”, the “Company”, “us”, “we” or “our”) is providing this Proxy Statement in connection with the Annual Meeting of Shareholders, which will be held in the McGraw-Hill Building, 1221 Avenue of the Americas, New York, New York, at 9:30 a.m., Eastern Time, on Thursday, May 23, 2013.

Interpublic’s principal executive office is located at 1114 Avenue of the Americas, New York, NY 10036. The Proxy materials are first being sent to shareholders beginning on or about April 12, 2013.

Our Proxy Statement is also available on our website at http://www.interpublic.com

Why Did I Receive a Notice In the Mail Regarding the Internet Availability of the Proxy Materials Instead of a Paper Copy of the Proxy Materials?

This year, we are pleased to be using the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission rule that allows companies to furnish their proxy materials over the Internet. As a result, we are mailing to many of our stockholders of record a notice about the Internet availability of the proxy materials in lieu of a paper copy of the proxy materials. All stockholders receiving this Notice of Availability have the ability to access the proxy materials over the Internet or request to receive a paper copy of the proxy materials by mail. In addition, the Notice of Availability has instructions on how you may request to access proxy materials by mail or electronically on an ongoing basis.

Choosing to access your future proxy materials electronically will help us conserve natural resources and reduce the costs of distributing our proxy materials. If you choose to access future proxy materials electronically, you will receive prior to future meetings an e-mail prior to futur meetings with instructions containing a link to the website where the proxy materials are available and a link to the proxy voting website. Your election to access proxy materials by e-mail will remain in effect until it is terminated by you.

Who Can Vote?

You are entitled to vote or direct the voting of your shares of Interpublic common stock (the “Common Stock”) if you were a shareholder on March 27, 2013, the record date for the Annual Meeting. On March 27, 2013, approximately 430,300,534 shares of Common Stock were outstanding.

Who Is the Holder of Record?

If your shares are registered directly in your name, you are the Holder of Record of these shares, and we are sending these proxy materials directly to you. If you hold shares indirectly through a broker, bank or other intermediary, these materials are being sent to you by or on behalf of that entity.

How Do I Vote?

Your vote is important. We encourage you to vote promptly. You may vote in any one of the following ways:

How Many Shares Must be Present to Hold the Annual Meeting?

A quorum is required to transact business at the Annual Meeting. We will have a quorum at the Annual Meeting if the holders of more than 50% of the outstanding shares of Common Stock entitled to vote are present at the meeting, either in person or by proxy.

How Are Votes Counted?

All shares that are the subject of a valid proxy will be voted at the Annual Meeting in accordance with your instructions. If you sign and return your proxy card but do not specify how you wish your shares to be voted, your shares will be voted in accordance with the following Board of Directors recommendations:

A New York Stock Exchange (“NYSE”) member broker that holds shares for the account of a customer has the authority to vote on certain limited matters without instructions from the customer. Of the matters being

submitted to a vote of shareholders at the Annual Meeting, NYSE rules permit member brokers to vote only on the proposal to ratify the appointment of our independent auditor without instruction. On each of the other matters, NYSE members may not vote without customer instruction. A notation by a broker on a retuned proxy that it is not permitted to vote on particular matters due to the NYSE rules is referred to as a “broker non-vote.”

How Can I Revoke My Proxy or Change My Vote?

You can revoke your proxy or change your vote by:

Who Will Count the Vote?

The Board of Directors has appointed Computershare Shareowner Services LLC to act as Inspector of Election at the 2013 Annual Meeting.

Who Is The Proxy Solicitor?

D.F. King & Co., Inc. has been retained by Interpublic to assist with the Annual Meeting, including the distribution of proxy materials and solicitation of votes, for a fee of $17,000 plus reimbursement of expenses to be paid by Interpublic. In addition, our Directors, officers or employees may solicit proxies for us in person or by telephone, facsimile, Internet or other electronic means for which they will not receive any additional

compensation. Banks, brokers and others holding stock for the account of their customers will be reimbursed by Interpublic for out-of-pocket expenses incurred in sending proxy materials to the beneficial owners of such shares.

How do I submit a proposal for inclusion in Interpublic’s 2014 proxy materials?

Shareholder proposals submitted for inclusion in Interpublic’s proxy statement and form of proxy for the 2014 Annual Meeting of Shareholders scheduled to be held on May 22, 2014, must be received by Interpublic by December 13, 2013, in order to be considered for inclusion. Such proposals must comply with all applicable Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”) regulations.

How do I submit an item of business for consideration at the 2014 Annual Meeting

A shareholder wishing to introduce an item of business (including the nomination of any person for election or reelection as a director of Interpublic) for consideration by shareholders at the 2014 Annual Meeting, other than a shareholder proposal described in response to the preceding question, must in accordance with Section 2.13(a)(2) of Interpublic’s Bylaws notify Interpublic no later than February 22, 2014, and no earlier than January 22, 2014, and include in the notification the information required by Section 2.13(a)(2).

1. ELECTION OF DIRECTORS

At the Annual Meeting, nine Directors are to be elected, each for a one-year term to hold office until the Annual Meeting of Shareholders to be held in 2013 and until his or her successor is duly elected or appointed or until his or her earlier death, resignation or removal.

Unless authority is withheld by the shareholder, it is the intention of persons named by Interpublic as proxies on the proxy card to vote “for” the nominees identified in this Proxy Statement or, in the event that any of the nominees is unable or decline to serve (an event not now anticipated), to vote “for” the balance of the nominees and “for” any replacement nominee designated by the Board of Directors.

Each of the nominees is currently a Director, and each has been recommended for re-election to the Board of Directors by the Corporate Governance Committee and approved and nominated for re-election by the Board of Directors.

The Board of Directors recommends that shareholders vote “FOR” each of the nominees.

Nominees for Director

The following information on each Director nominee is as of April 1, 2013, and has been provided or confirmed to Interpublic by the nominee.

JOCELYN CARTER-MILLER is President of TechEdVentures, Inc., a community and personal empowerment firm that develops and markets educational and community-based programs.

Ms. Carter-Miller was Executive Vice President and Chief Marketing Officer of Office Depot, Inc. from February 2002 until March 2004. Prior to that time, Ms. Carter-Miller was Corporate Vice President and Chief Marketing Officer of Motorola, Inc. from February 1999 until February 2002. Ms. Carter-Miller is also a former board member of the Association of National Advertisers.

Qualifications: Ms. Carter-Miller provides the Board with an important perspective in the marketing field, which is a critical component of Interpublic’s business, based on her extensive executive and marketing experience acquired during her time at Motorola, where she served as its Chief Marketing Officer and more recently as Executive Vice President and Chief Marketing Officer of Office Depot, Inc. Her current work as President of TechEdVentures provides the Board with a meaningful voice in keeping Interpublic focused on its corporate social responsibilities.

JILL M. CONSIDINE served as Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of the Depository Trust & Clearing Corporation (DTCC) and its subsidiaries (securities depository and clearing houses) from 1999 to 2008. She was President of the New York Clearing House Association, L.L.C. from 1993 to 1998. Ms. Considine served as a Managing Director, Chief Administrative Officer and as a member of the Board of Directors of American Express Bank Ltd., from 1991 to 1993. Prior to that, Ms. Considine served as the New York State Superintendent of Banks from 1985 to 1991. She

completed a six-year term as a member of the board of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York in 2008 where she served as Chairman of the Audit and Operational Risk Committee. Ms Considine was appointed as one of three trustees of the AIG Credit Facility Trust by the Federal Reserve Bank of NY and the US Treasury and served from 2009 until 2011 when the trust was terminated. She also served as Non Executive Chairman of Butterfield Fulcrum Group Ltd. (a hedge fund administrator) from January 2008 until 2011 when the company was sold.

Qualifications: Ms. Considine’s history in the financial industry, from her time at the Federal Reserve Bank of New York, her senior executive roles at DTCC and New York Clearing House Association, serving as the New York State Superintendent of Banks and to her recent time as Chairman of Butterfield Fulcrum Group Limited, all contributes to the financial expertise of the Board. Her knowledge and experience in financial, credit and liquidity matters provides a valuable perspective beneficial to the Board in its overall assessment and management of Interpublic’s credit and liquidity positions and overall assessment of industry and operational risks.

RICHARD A. GOLDSTEIN retired as Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of International Flavors & Fragrances Inc. (IFF) in May 2006 after serving in that position for six years. Prior to his six years leading IFF, Mr. Goldstein served for 25 years in key executive positions at

Unilever, including as Business Group President of Unilever North American Foods from 1996 to June 2000 and as President and Chief Executive Officer of Unilever United States, Inc. from 1989 to June 2000.

Qualifications: Mr. Goldstein brings to the Board his leadership and experience as a former Chairman and Chief Executive Officer, which is critical in his role as Presiding Director. His time as Chief Executive Officer of IFF and Unilever United States as well as his directorships at other public companies, provides him with a broad perspective on corporate governance and financial control matters.

H. JOHN GREENIAUS retired as Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of Nabisco Inc. in 1997 having served in that position between 1993 and 1997. Mr. Greeniaus was named President and CEO of Nabisco in 1989 following KKR’s leveraged buyout of the company and served in that position until 1993. Prior to that time, he held various marketing and general management positions with Nabisco in Canada, Europe and the U.S. Mr. Greeniaus began his career with Procter and Gamble in Canada and subsequently he worked at J. Walter Thompson and PepsiCo before joining Standard Brands, a Nabisco predecessor, in 1977.

Qualifications: Mr. Greeniaus provides insight into the challenges and issues facing a global enterprise from his experience as the former Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of Nabisco as well as his time managing

Nabisco’s European operations. His experience at PepsiCo, where he served as Vice President of Marketing, and his time at J. Walter Thompson allow him to offer valuable perspectives on issues relevant to a marketing services company. Mr. Greeniaus’ prior directorships at other public companies across a variety of industries give him the expertise to provide valuable contributions on accounting and corporate governance matters.

MARY J. STEELE GUILFOILE is currently Chairman of MG Advisors, Inc., a privately owned financial services merger and acquisitions advisory and consulting firm. From 2000 to 2002, Ms. Guilfoile was Executive Vice President and Corporate Treasurer at JPMorgan Chase & Co. and also served as Chief Administrative Officer of its investment bank. Ms. Guilfoile was Partner, CFO and COO of The Beacon Group, LLC, a private equity, strategic advisory and wealth management partnership, from 1996 through 2000. Ms. Guilfoile continues as a Partner of The Beacon Group, LP, a private investment group.

Qualifications: Ms. Guilfoile’s knowledge and expertise as a financial industry executive and her training as a certified public accountant contributes an important perspective to the Board. Ms. Guilfoile’s tenure at JP Morgan Chase, and its predecessor companies, serving as Corporate Treasurer, Chief Administrative Officer for its investment bank, and in various merger integration, executive management and strategic planning

positions, as well as her current role as Chairman of MG Advisors, Inc., brings to the Board someone with valuable experience and expertise in corporate governance, accounting, risk management and auditing matters.

DAWN HUDSON has served as Vice Chairman of The Parthenon Group, an advisory firm focused on strategy consulting, since March 2009. Prior to that, Ms. Hudson served as President and Chief Executive Officer of Pepsi-Cola North America, or PCNA, the multi-billion dollar refreshment beverage unit of PepsiCo, Inc. in the United States and Canada from March 2005 until November 2007. From May 2002 through March 2005, Ms. Hudson served as President of PCNA. In addition, Ms. Hudson served as Chief Executive Officer of the PepsiCo Foodservice Division from March 2005 to November 2007. Prior to joining PepsiCo, Ms. Hudson was Managing Director at D’Arcy Masius Benton & Bowles, a leading advertising agency based in New York. Ms. Hudson is a former Chair and board member of the Association of National Advertisers (ANA). In 2006 and 2007, she was named among Fortune Magazine’s “50 Most Powerful Women in Business.” In 2002, she received the honor of “Advertising Woman of the Year” from Advertising Women of New York. Ms. Hudson was also inducted into the American Advertising Federation’s Advertising Hall of Achievement, and has been featured twice in Advertising Age’s “Top 50 Marketers.” Ms. Hudson is the former Chairman of the Board of the Ladies Professional Golf Association.

Qualifications: Ms. Hudson’s extensive experience in strategy and marketing, both at Pepsi-Co and at major

advertising agencies, and her time as Chair of the ANA, bring valuable expertise to the Board on matters which are vital to the Company’s business. In addition, her experience as Vice Chair of Pantheon Group, and as the former Chief Executive Officer of Pepsi-Co North America, provides the Board with valuable insight and perspective on matters involving the Company’s business strategy and planning. Ms. Hudson also provides a unique perspective of having been both on the agency and client side of the industry.

WILLIAM T. KERR is the retired President and Chief Executive Officer of Arbitron Inc., a media and marketing research firm. He was Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of Meredith Corporation from 1998 to 2006. He was President and Chief Executive Officer of Meredith Corporation from 1997 to 1998. Mr. Kerr served as President and Chief Operating Officer for Meredith Corporation from 1994 through 1997 and as Executive Vice President of Meredith Corporation and President of its Magazine Group from 1991 through 1994. Prior to that time, Mr. Kerr served as Vice President of The New York Times Company and President of its magazine group, a position he held since 1984.

Qualifications: Mr. Kerr’s general business background and knowledge in the fields of marketing research and media make a valuable contribution to the Board. Serving as Chief Executive Officer and a member of the board of Arbitron, as well as his previous executive experience at Meredith Corporation, a diversified media

company, Mr. Kerr provides to the Board the perspective and insights of an organizational leader who has managed issues similar to those faced by Interpublic.

MICHAEL I. ROTH became Chairman of the Board and Chief Executive Officer of Interpublic in January 2005. Prior to that time Mr. Roth served as Chairman of the Board of Interpublic from July 2004 to January 2005 and has been a director of Interpublic since 2002. Mr. Roth served as Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of The MONY Group Inc. from February 1994 to June 2004.

Qualifications: Mr. Roth’s leadership and perspective as Interpublic’s Chief Executive Officer gives him an intimate knowledge of the Company’s operations and his role as Chairman of the Board is aided by his successful tenure as Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of The MONY Group. Mr. Roth’s other directorships, and his accounting, tax and legal background, as a certified public accountant and holding an L.L.M. degree from New York University Law School, also adds significant value to his overall contributions as a member of the Board and in his role as Chairman.

DAVID M. THOMAS retired as executive chairman of IMS Health Inc. (IMS) in March 2006, after serving in that position since January 2005. From November 2000 until January 2005, Mr. Thomas served as Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of IMS. Prior to joining IMS, Mr. Thomas was Senior Vice President and Group Executive of IBM from January 1998 to July 2000. Mr. Thomas also serves on the Board of Trustees of Fidelity Investments.

Qualifications: Mr. Thomas’ experience as a Chief Executive Officer and overall management experience at premier global technology companies provides a vital perspective for the Board as it addresses the rapidly changing and growing landscape in advertising and marketing. Mr. Thomas also provides the Board with a great deal of insight and perspective in the healthcare advertising field having served as Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of IMS.

2. APPOINTMENT OF REGISTERED

PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM

The Audit Committee has appointed PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP (“PricewaterhouseCoopers”) as Interpublic’s independent registered public accounting firm for 2013. This firm has been Interpublic’s independent auditor since 1952. PricewaterhouseCoopers has advised Interpublic that it is an independent registered public accounting firm with respect to Interpublic and its subsidiaries within the meaning of the rules and regulations of the SEC.

We are not required to have the shareholders ratify the selection of PricewaterhouseCoopers as our independent auditor for 2013. We nonetheless are doing so because we believe it is a matter of sound corporate practice. If shareholders do not confirm the appointment of PricewaterhouseCoopers, the Board of Directors will consider it a direction to consider selecting another auditing firm for 2013. However, even if you confirm the appointment, the Board of Directors may still appoint a new independent registered public accounting firm at any time if it believes that such a change would be in the best interests of Interpublic and its shareholders.

A representative of PricewaterhouseCoopers is expected to be present at the Annual Meeting and will have the opportunity to make a statement and to respond to appropriate questions.

Fees Paid to PricewaterhouseCoopers

The following is a summary and description of the fees for services provided by PricewaterhouseCoopers in 2011 and 2012.

Worldwide Fees (In Millions)

(A) Audit Fees: Consists of fees and out-of-pocket expenses billed for professional services rendered for the audit of Interpublic’s consolidated financial statements and the audit of the effectiveness of Interpublic’s internal control over financial reporting, for review of the interim consolidated financial statements included in quarterly reports and for services that are normally provided by PricewaterhouseCoopers in connection with statutory and regulatory filings or engagements and attest services, except those not required by statute or regulation.

(B) Audit Related Fees: Consists of fees billed for assurance and related services that are reasonably related to the performance of the audit or review of Interpublic’s consolidated financial statements and are not reported under “Audit Fees.” These services include

employee benefit plan audits, compliance audits and reviews, attest services that are not required by statute or regulation and consultations concerning financial accounting and reporting standards.

(C) Tax Fees: Consists of tax compliance/preparation and other tax services. Tax compliance/preparation includes fees billed for professional services related to federal, state and international tax compliance, assistance with tax audits and appeals, assistance with custom and duties audits, expatriate tax services and assistance related to the impact of mergers, acquisitions and divestitures on tax return preparation. Other tax services include miscellaneous tax consulting and planning.

(D) All Other Fees: Consists of the performance of studies related to information technology and human resources and financial diligence for potential acquisitions.

Audit Committee Pre-Approval of Audit and Permissible Non-Audit Services of Independent Auditors

The Audit Committee approves all audit and permissible non-audit services provided by the independent auditor. The permissible non-audit services include the services described above for which we paid Audit Related Fees, Tax Fees and All Other Fees. The Audit Committee has adopted a policy for the pre-approval of services provided by the independent auditor. Under the policy, pre-approval is generally provided for up to one year and any pre-approval is detailed as to the particular service or category of services and is subject to a specific budget. In addition, the Audit Committee may pre-approve particular services on a case-by-case basis. The Audit Committee has delegated pre-approval authority to the Committee’s Chairperson for projects less than $200,000, who must then report any such decision to the Audit Committee at the next scheduled meeting.

The Board of Directors recommends a vote “FOR” the confirmation of the appointment of PricewaterhouseCoopers as Interpublic’s independent registered public accounting firm for 2013.

AUDIT COMMITTEE REPORT

The Audit Committee operates under a written charter adopted by the Board. The Board has determined that each member of the Committee is independent and financially literate under the listing standards of the NYSE and satisfies the financial expertise requirements of the NYSE. The Board has also determined that each member of the Audit Committee has the requisite experience to be designated an “audit committee financial expert” as that term is defined by rules of the SEC.

In accordance with its written charter, the primary function of the Audit Committee is to assist the Board of Directors in its oversight of Interpublic’s financial reporting process.

Management is responsible for Interpublic’s consolidated financial statements and overall reporting process, including the system of internal controls. PricewaterhouseCoopers, Interpublic’s independent registered public accounting firm, is responsible for conducting annual audits and quarterly reviews of Interpublic’s consolidated financial statements and expressing opinions as to the conformity of the annual consolidated financial statements with generally accepted accounting principles.

In performing its oversight function for the year ended December 31, 2012, the Audit Committee:

3. ADVISORY VOTE TO APPROVE NAMED EXECUTIVE OFFICER COMPENSATION

In accordance with a requirement under the federal securities laws, enacted as part of the recent Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act (the “Dodd-Frank Act”) and SEC rules thereunder, we are submitting to an advisory vote of shareholders the compensation of our named executive officers as disclosed in the Compensation Discussion and Analysis, the compensation tables, and the narrative discussion set forth on pages 34 to 89 of this Proxy Statement. In addition to complying with the requirements of the Dodd-Frank Act, the Board recognizes that providing shareholders with an advisory vote on named executive officer compensation may produce useful information on investor sentiment with regard to the Company’s executive compensation programs.

At our annual meeting of shareholders held in May 2012, a substantial majority of the Company’s shareholders voted on an advisory basis to approve the compensation of the Company’s named executive officers . The Compensation Committee believes this reflects shareholders’ support of the Company’s approach to executive compensation.

As described in the Compensation Discussion and Analysis section of this Proxy Statement, our compensation principles and underlying programs, as designed and administered by the Compensation Committee, are designed to provide a competitive level of compensation necessary to attract, motivate and retain talented and experienced executives who are crucial to our long-term success. The compensation paid to our named executive officers reflects our commitment to pay for performance and includes long-term cash and equity awards that are designed to encourage management to achieve results to the mutual benefit of shareholders and management. Moreover, a significant portion of our named executive officers’ annual cash compensation is paid in the form of annual performance-based incentives, which are contingent on the Company’s achievement of predefined performance measures.

We encourage you to carefully review the Compensation Discussion and Analysis beginning on page 34 of this Proxy Statement for additional details on Interpublic’s executive compensation, including Interpublic’s compensation philosophy and objectives, as well as the processes our Compensation Committee used to determine the structure and amounts of the compensation received by our named executive officers in fiscal 2012. The Compensation Committee and the Board believe that these policies and procedures are effective in implementing our compensation philosophy and in achieving its goals.

We are asking you to indicate your support for the compensation of our named executive officers as described in this Proxy Statement. This vote is not intended to address any specific item of compensation, but rather the overall compensation of our named executive officers and the philosophy, policies and practices described in this Proxy Statement. Accordingly, we are asking you to vote, on an advisory basis, “For” the following resolution at the Annual Meeting:

“RESOLVED, that the compensation paid to the named executive officers of The Interpublic Group of Companies, Inc., as described in the Compensation Discussion and Analysis, compensation tables and narrative discussion set forth on pages 34 to 89 of this Proxy Statement, is hereby approved.”

While the results of this advisory vote are not binding, the Compensation Committee will consider the outcome of the vote in deciding whether to take any action as a result of the vote and when making future compensation decisions for named executive officers.

The Board of Directors recommends that you vote “FOR” the resolution approving the compensation of our named executive officers as disclosed in this Proxy Statement.

4. SHAREHOLDER PROPOSAL ENTITLED

“ANNUAL DISCLOSURE OF EEO-1 DATA”

Interpublic is advised that a shareholder intends to present the proposal set forth below for consideration by shareholders at the Annual Meeting. Interpublic will promptly furnish to any shareholder who submits a request either orally or in writing, the name and address of the shareholder submitting this proposal and number of shares of Common Stock that the shareholder has identified as owning. The text of the shareholder’s proposal and supporting statement is as follows:

TEXT OF SHAREHOLDER PROPOSAL

RESOLVED: Shareholders request the Board of Directors to adopt and enforce a policy requiring Interpublic Group of Companies, Inc. (“Interpublic”) to disclose its EE0-1 data- a comprehensive breakdown of its workforce by race and gender according to 10 employment categories – in its annual sustainability report, beginning in 2013.

SUPPORTING STATEMENT

Despite federal and state laws forbidding employment discrimination on the basis of race, allegations of racial discrimination persist in some industries; and in recent years, a number of companies have agreed to pay millions of dollars to settle allegations of racial discrimination.

The advertising industry, of which Interpublic is a part, is characterized by the persistent and pervasive underrepresentation of minorities, particularly in senior positions. A recent study entitled “Research Perspectives on Race and Employment in the Advertising Industry” (Bendick and Egan Economic Consultants, Inc. 2009) found that:

Numerous studies have found that workplace diversity provides a competitive advantage by generating diverse, valuable perspectives, creativity and innovation, increased productivity and morale, while eliminating the limitations of “groupthink.”

Interpublic agrees that “research consistently shows that .companies that embrace diversity outperform their peers” and states that it has made increasing diversity “a top strategic priority,” according to its 2011 report entitled “Diversity & Inclusion+ Sustainability@ Interpublic.” The report emphasizes Interpublic’s commitment to recruiting, retaining and promoting minorities and women, and points to a set of specific initiatives. But without quantitative disclosure, shareholders have no way to evaluate and benchmark the effectiveness of these efforts.

Federal law requires companies with 100 or more employees to annually submit an EE0-1 Report to the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. The report profiles a company’s workforce by race and gender according to 10 job categories, including senior management.

Disclosure of Interpublic’s EEO1 data would allow shareholders to evaluate the effectiveness of its efforts to increase the diversity of its workforce throughout its ranks, and at minimal cost. In addition, we believe full disclosure of Interpublic’s EE0-1 data would drive management and the Board to pursue continuous improvements in the company’s diversity programs, fully integrate diversity into its culture and practices, and strengthen its reputation and accountability to shareholders.

We urge shareholders to vote “FOR” the proposal.

INTERPUBLIC’S STATEMENT IN OPPOSITION

The Board of Directors recommends that shareholders vote “AGAINST” this proposal for the following reasons:

IPG is making meaningful progress on diversity and inclusion goals.

We share the proponent’s goals of a diverse and inclusive workforce, and are fully committed to diversity and an environment of inclusion at all levels of Interpublic and our agencies.

Research consistently shows that diverse teams arrive at more creative results and are more effective on behalf of clients. What’s more, in order to serve our clients most successfully, our workforce must reflect the ever-changing and ever more diverse consumer population we aim to reach on their behalf.

We have made a top-level commitment to furthering diversity and inclusion at IPG that includes:

Our programs have earned us recognition that includes:

While sharing the goal of increased diversity with the shareholder proposal, we oppose the release of EEO-1 reports for the following reasons:

The release of EEO-1 numbers would be of limited use.

While providing a helpful macro view, EEO-1 data is limited in its portrayal of talent at a company like ours. Marketing communications is a specialty industry, and the EEO categories do not account for factors specific to our Company or sector. As a result, we do not feel that providing all of our data publically would reveal an accurate accounting of the progress and results we have seen within our Company thanks to our many initiatives aimed at increasing diversity within our ranks.

The release of EEO-1 reports could put us at a competitive disadvantage.

We annually release top-line figures from our EEO-1 filings. These include:

These top-line figures are reflected on the diversity page of our website http://www.interpublic.com/ diversity, where we have been and will continue to be forthcoming about our programs, initiatives and achievements in creating an environment of diversity and inclusion.

Unlike these top-level numbers, detailed EEO-1 reports contain highly sensitive information that helps provide us with a competitive advantage in the marketplace. The release of this information would provide a plethora of facts for our peers that could put us at a competitive disadvantage as relates to them.

Ours is an ‘ideas industry,’ and as such, our most important assets are our people. The war for top talent is fiercely competitive and poaching of best talent is

rampant between competitors. Releasing detailed EE0-1 numbers would provide a roadmap for our competitors to find our top diverse talent, people whose careers we’ve actively managed and promoted.

The release of EEO-1 data will not further our goals of diversity and inclusion in any meaningful way.

The Board does not believe adoption of this proposal to publicly disclose our EEO-1 reports would enhance its commitment to an environment of diversity and inclusion in any meaningful way, and in fact, could negatively impact our competitive position in the marketplace, particularly given that we are in an industry in which talent is our primary and most valuable asset.

We are proud of the work that we have done thus far in this important area, and also understand that there is still progress to be made. Diversity and inclusion remains a top priority for our Company and our board and we understand that its continued progress will require ongoing work and a sustained commitment. We do not, however, believe that public disclosure of our EEO-1 filings will further this goal.

For the foregoing reasons, the Board believes publicly disclosing Interpublic’s EEO-1 data would not be in the best interests of our shareholders.

The Board of Directors recommends a vote “AGAINST” this proposal.

5. SHAREHOLDER PROPOSAL ENTITLED “PROPOSAL 5-LIMIT ACCELERATED EXECUTIVE PAY”

Interpublic is advised that a shareholder intends to present the proposal set forth below for consideration by shareholders at the Annual Meeting. Interpublic will promptly furnish to any shareholder who submits a request either orally or in writing, the name and address of the shareholder submitting this proposal and number of shares of Common Stock that the shareholder has identified as owning. The text of the shareholder’s proposal and supporting statement is as follows:

Proposal 5-Limit Accelerated Executive Pay

Resolved: Shareholders ask our board of directors to adopt a policy that in the event of a change in control (as defined under any applicable employment agreement, equity incentive plan or other plan), there shall be no acceleration of vesting of any equity award granted to any senior executive, provided, however, that our board’s Compensation Committee may provide in an applicable grant or purchase agreement that any unvested award will vest on a partial, pro rata basis up to the time of the senior executive’s termination, with such qualifications for an award as the Committee may determine.

For purposes of this Policy, “equity award’’ means an award granted under an equity incentive plan as defined in Item 402 of the SEC’s Regulation S-K., which addresses executive compensation. This resolution shall be implemented so as not affect any contractual rights in existence on the date this proposal is adopted.

The vesting of equity pay over a period of time is intended to promote long-term improvements in performance. The link between executive pay and long-term performance can be severed if such pay is made on an accelerated schedule.

This proposal should also be evaluated in the context of our Company’s overall corporate governance as reported in 2012:

GMI/The Corporate Library, an independent investment

research firm, downgraded our company to “D” with “High Governance Risk.” Also “Concern” for director qualifications and “Very High Concern’’ for Executive Pay -$12 million for our CEO Michael Roth. Mr. Roth also had a potential entitlement of $34 million under a change in control.

GMI said long-term incentive pay for our highest paid executives consisted of performance cash and time-based equity in the form of market-priced stock options and restricted shares. Equity pay given as a long-term incentive should at least include job performance requirements. Moreover, cash-based long-term incentive pay did nothing to link executive performance with long-term shareholder value.

Four directors had 10 to 15 years long-tenure. This included Richard Goldstein, our Lead Director. It may come as no surprise that our director with the longest tenure, Jill Considine, chaired our executive pay committee. Director independence erodes after 10 years. GMI said long-tenure could hinder director ability to provide effective oversight. A more independent perspective would be a priceless asset for our directors, especially Mr. Goldstein and Ms. Considine. William Kerr, our leading director in getting negative votes, was on our audit and executive pay committees. Mr. Kerr received 15 times as many negative votes as 2 of our directors. Dawn Hudson did not own any stock and did not share our risk. Emeritus directors like David Bell are not elected and do not vote on board decisions. But if Mr. Bell attends meetings his presence is likely to have an effect on discussions. With the majority of our directors on our audit committee this may negate the benefit of the more typical, smaller committee structure which adds an additional layer of review on major decisions.

Please vote to protect shareholder value:

Limit Accelerated Executive Pay-Proposal 5

INTERPUBLIC’S STATEMENT IN OPPOSITION

The Board of Directors recommends that shareholders vote “AGAINST” this proposal for the following reasons:

The Proposal seeks to revisit terms of the 2009 PIP that were approved by a vote of the shareholders at the 2009 Annual Meeting.

The 2009 Performance Incentive Plan (the “2009 PIP”) governs all long-term and annual incentive awards granted to our senior executives. At our 2009 Annual Meeting, the 2009 PIP, which specifically provides that all outstanding long-term Incentive Awards and annual incentives will vest at target upon a change in control, was approved by our shareholders. The 2009 PIP also provides the Board with the discretion to prevent the accelerated vesting of any Award if the Board determines that taking such action is in the best interests of our shareholders. The proposal simply revisits a matter previously presented which was fully considered and approved by the shareholders in 2009.

The Proposal would create potential conflicts of interest by disrupting the alignment of the interests of the Company’s management with the interests of the Company’s shareholders.

The Compensation Committee believes that the most effective executive compensation program is one that is designed to reward the achievement of annual and long-term performance goals and aligns executives’ interests with those of shareholders, with the ultimate objective of increasing shareholder value. One of the essential purposes of providing executives with long-term incentive awards is to align their interests with those of our shareholders. As described in the Compensation Discussion and Analysis section of this proxy statement beginning on page 34, a significant percentage of each executive’s compensation opportunity is provided in the form of long-term incentive awards that will vest over time and that will have value only if vesting occurs.

Long-term incentive awards include performance shares and performance cash (which vests 50% in shares of Interpublic common stock), each of which vest upon achieving performance goals over a three-year period and fixed-price stock options for our Chief Executive Officer, pro-rata over a four year period.

No executive officer of Interpublic has received time based restricted shares since 2010.

The long-term incentive awards work together to incentivize the achievement of Interpublic’s long-term strategic objectives, align financial rewards with the economic interests of shareholders and promote retention of the leadership talent that is critical to our success. At any particular time, our senior executives hold significant unvested long-term incentive awards representing a significant portion of the compensation they will receive if they remain with Interpublic through the specified vesting dates if the performance goals are met.

The proposal, if implemented, would eliminate our ability to provide reasonable assurance to senior executives that they will realize the expected value of their long-term incentive awards even if Interpublic experiences a change in control, conflicting with a key objective of the Company’s executive compensation program. Putting the compensation of senior executives at risk if Interpublic were to experience a change in control could create a conflict of interest if we were pursuing a merger or similar transaction that the Board believes is in the best interests of shareholders. Accelerating the vesting of long-term incentive awards upon a change in control eliminates this potential misalignment of the interests of executives and our shareholders by ensuring that executives, who are implementing strategic actions in the best interest of the shareholders, are not at the same time penalized with a loss of their incentive compensation.

The Proposal could put Interpublic at a competitive disadvantage in attracting and retaining key executives.

As noted on page 6 of our 2012 Annual Report, provided to you together with this proxy statement, the marketing communications business is highly competitive and our most valuable assets are our employees. Our ability to attract and retain key employees is largely dependent on the compensation packages provided to such employees. Unless the prohibition on accelerated vesting of equity awards

advocated by the proposal is implemented by every company that we compete with for executive talent, the proposal could adversely affect our ability to attract and retain highly qualified senior executives and other personnel, not only in connection with the negotiation of a change in control, but also in the operation of our business, thus jeopardizing Interpublic’s performance and ability to create and deliver maximum value to shareholders.

Moreover, the risk of job loss, coupled with a loss of significant long-term incentive awards, in connection with a change in control may present an unnecessary distraction for our senior executives. The prospect of a change in control might, for example, lead senior executives whose positions might be eliminated after consummation of the transaction to begin seeking new employment. The search for new employment while the Board is negotiating a change in control transaction, or during the critical post-closing integration period, could be distracting to management and the Board and create a potential conflict with the Interpublic’s goal of protecting its shareholders’ interests and maximizing shareholder value.

Retaining our senior executives while a change in control transaction is pending can be particularly important, since the loss of our senior executives could adversely affect our business or operations if the transaction is not completed. Accelerated vesting provisions therefore help provide stability, ensure continuity of our senior executives and keep our senior executives focused on assisting the Board to maximize shareholder value during a potential change in control transaction.

The Proposal would unduly restrict the ability of the Compensation Committee to structure executive compensation.

The Board believes that the Compensation Committee, which is comprised of entirely of independent, non-management directors, needs to be in a position to develop executive compensation principles and practices that reflect market conditions and are in the best interests of our shareholders. To do that, the Compensation Committee must have the flexibility to structure effective and competitive compensation programs. The proposal’s restrictions on the Committee’s ability to permit executives to realize the full value of their long-term incentive awards upon a change in control could, as discussed above, hinder our ability to attract and retain executive talent. The Board believes that the Compensation Committee must be given latitude to develop an executive compensation program that is competitive and that is designed to foster achievement of the strategic, operational and financial goals of Interpublic. A rigid policy against acceleration would limit the Committee’s ability to design effective and competitive compensation programs and therefore would place us at a competitive disadvantage in recruiting, retaining and motivating executive officers.

For the foregoing reasons, the Board believes that restricting the acceleration of the long-term incentive awards of our senior executives would not be in the best interests of our shareholders.

The Board of Directors recommends a vote “AGAINST” this proposal.

CORPORATE GOVERNANCE GUIDELINES

Interpublic has a strong commitment to maintaining sound corporate governance practices. Interpublic’s Corporate Governance Guidelines are available free of charge on Interpublic’s website at http://www. interpublic.com or by writing to The Interpublic Group of Companies, Inc., 1114 Avenue of the Americas, New York, NY 10036, Attention: Secretary.

Director Independence

In accordance with NYSE listing standards (the “NYSE Listing Standards”), the Board annually evaluates the independence of each member of the Board of Directors under the independence standards set forth in Interpublic’s Corporate Governance Guidelines, and under the NYSE Listing Standards. Interpublic’s Director Independence Standards are included in Interpublic’s “Corporate Governance Guidelines” available at the website noted above.

Interpublic has nine directors, one of whom, Michael I. Roth, is an employee of Interpublic (referred to in this Proxy Statement as the “Management Director”) and eight of whom are not employees of Interpublic or its subsidiaries (referred to in this Proxy Statement as “Non-Management Directors”). Of the eight Non-Management Directors, the Corporate Governance Committee determined at its meeting held on February 23, 2012, that each is an independent director under Interpublic’s Corporate Governance Guidelines and the NYSE Listing Standards. Each member of the Compensation Committee, the Corporate Governance Committee and the Audit Committee is also an independent director.

Meeting of Independent Directors

The NYSE Listing Standards require that if the group of Non-Management Directors includes one or more directors who are not independent, then at least once annually, the Non-Management Directors should hold an executive session attended by only independent directors. Although not required under the NYSE

Listing Standards for 2012, the Board nevertheless held an executive session of its independent directors on February 23, 2012. Mr. Goldstein served as the Chairperson of the executive session.

Director Selection Process

The Corporate Governance Committee is charged with the responsibilities described below under the heading “Principal Committees of the Board of Directors—Corporate Governance Committee.”

One of the Committee’s responsibilities is to identify and recommend to the Board candidates for election as directors. The Committee considers candidates suggested by its members, other directors, senior management and shareholders as necessary in anticipation of upcoming director elections or due to Board vacancies. The Committee is given broad authorization to retain, at the expense of Interpublic, external legal, accounting or other advisers including search firms to identify candidates and to perform “background reviews” of potential candidates. The Committee is expected to provide guidance to search firms it retains about the particular qualifications the Board is then seeking.

All director candidates, including those recommended by shareholders, are evaluated on the same basis. Candidates are considered in light of the entirety of their credentials, including:

In determining the needs of the Board and Interpublic, the Committee considers the qualifications of sitting directors and consults with other members of the Board (including as part of the Board’s annual self-evaluation), the CEO and other members of senior management and, where appropriate, external advisers. All directors are expected to exemplify the highest standards of personal and professional integrity and to assume the responsibility of challenging management through their active and constructive participation and questioning in meetings of the Board and its various committees, as well as in less formal contacts with management.

Director candidates, other than sitting directors, are interviewed by members of the Committee and by other directors, the CEO and other key management personnel, and the results of those interviews are considered by the Committee in its deliberations. The Committee also reviews sitting directors who are considered potential candidates for re-election, in light of the above considerations and their past contributions to the Board.

Shareholders wishing to recommend a director candidate to the Committee for its consideration should write to the Committee, in care of its Chairperson, at The Interpublic Group of Companies, Inc., 1114 Avenue of the Americas, New York, NY 10036. Any recommendations will be considered for the next

annual election of directors in 2014. A recommendation should include the proposed candidate’s name, biographical data and a description of his or her qualifications in light of the criteria listed above.

Succession Planning

Interpublic’s Board of Directors is actively engaged and involved in talent management. Annually, the Board reviews and analyzes the alignment of Interpublic’s strategy on personnel and succession with its overall business strategy. This includes a detailed discussion of Interpublic’s global leadership bench, strength and succession plans with a focus on key positions at the senior officer level. In addition, the committees of the Board regularly discuss the talent pipeline for specific critical roles at Interpublic and each of its global agencies. The Board seeks opportunities to provide potential leaders with exposure and visibility to Board members through formal presentations and by holding a number of Board and committee meetings throughout the year at key operating units. In addition, the Board is regularly updated on key talent indicators for the overall workforce, including climate, diversity, recruiting and development programs.

COMMUNICATIONS WITH THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS AND NON-MANAGEMENT DIRECTORS

Interested parties may contact Interpublic’s Board of Directors, or the Non-Management Directors as a group, at the following address:

Board of Directors or Non-Management

Directors, as applicable

The Interpublic Group of Companies, Inc.

1114 Avenue of the Americas

New York, NY 10036

Communications may also be sent to individual directors at the above address. Communications to the Board, the Non-Management Directors or to any individual director that relate to Interpublic’s accounting, internal accounting controls or auditing matters will also be referred to the chairperson of

the Audit Committee. Other communications will be referred to the Presiding Director (whose responsibilities are described below) or the appropriate committee chairperson.

CODE OF CONDUCT

Interpublic has adopted a set of ethical standards, known as the Code of Conduct, which applies to all employees of Interpublic and its subsidiaries and affiliates. Interpublic’s Corporate Governance Guidelines provide that members of the Board of Directors and officers (which includes Interpublic’s Chief Executive Officer, Chief Financial Officer, Controller and Chief Accounting Officer and other persons performing similar functions) must comply with the Code of Conduct. In addition, the Corporate Governance Guidelines state that the Board will not waive any provision of the Code of Conduct for any Director or executive officer. The Code of Conduct, including future amendments, is available free of charge on Interpublic’s website at http://www.interpublic.com or by writing to The Interpublic Group of Companies, Inc., 1114 Avenue of the Americas, New York, NY 10036, Attention: Secretary.

MEETINGS AND COMMITTEES OF THE BOARD

Board Structure and Committees

The standing committees of the Board consist of the Executive Committee, the Compensation and Leadership Talent Committee, the Corporate Governance Committee and the Audit Committee. The

activities of the Compensation and Leadership Talent Committee, the Corporate Governance Committee and the Audit Committee are each governed by a charter that is available free of charge on Interpublic’s website at http://www.interpublic.com or by writing to The Interpublic Group of Companies, Inc., 1114 Avenue of the Americas, New York, NY 10036, Attention: Secretary. A description of the responsibilities of each standing Committee of the Board is provided in this Proxy Statement below under the heading “Principal Committees of the Board of Directors.”

Attendance at Board of Directors and Committee Meetings

The Corporate Governance Guidelines provide that each director is expected to prepare for, attend and participate in, at least 75% of all regularly scheduled and special meetings of the Board, absent special circumstances. The Board of Directors held seven meetings in 2012 and committees of the Board held a total of 19 meetings. During 2012, each director attended 75% or more of the total number of meetings of the Board of Directors and committees on which he or she served.

Attendance at Annual Meeting of Shareholders

Interpublic does not have a specific policy for attendance by directors at the Annual Meeting of Shareholders. However, each current director who was a director at the time of the 2012 Annual Meeting attended the meeting.

Executive Committee

The Executive Committee is authorized, when the Board of Directors is not in session, to exercise all powers of the Board of Directors which, under Delaware law and the by-laws of Interpublic, may properly be delegated to a committee, except certain powers that have been delegated to other committees of the Board of Directors or reserved for the Board of Directors itself. Due to the frequency of meetings of the Board and other committees of the Board, the Executive Committee did not hold any meetings in 2012.

Corporate Governance Committee

The Corporate Governance Committee is responsible for recommending to the Board of Directors the persons to be nominated for election to the Board of Directors and the membership and chairman of each Board committee. The other responsibilities of the Corporate Governance Committee include the establishment of criteria for membership on the Board and its committees, the review and recommendation to the Board as to the independence of Non-Management Directors under the requirements set forth in Interpublic’s Corporate Governance Guidelines and the NYSE Listing Standards, the evaluation on an annual

basis of the collective performance of the Board and the Board’s committees, the recommendation to the Board of compensation and benefits for Non-Management Directors, the review and general oversight of the Company’s corporate social responsibility programs and practices, and the periodic assessment and recommendation to the Board of the best practices in corporate governance matters generally. In addition, the Corporate Governance Committee is authorized to hire experts or other independent advisers or legal counsel, at Interpublic’s expense, to assist the Committee in the discharge of its duties. Each member of the Corporate Governance Committee is a Non-Management Director and is independent in accordance with the standards set forth in Interpublic’s Corporate Governance Guidelines and the NYSE Listing Standards.

Audit Committee

The Audit Committee assists the Board in fulfilling its oversight responsibilities with respect to (i) the annual financial information to be provided to shareholders and the SEC; (ii) the system of internal controls that management has established; and (iii) the internal and external audit processes. In addition, the Audit Committee provides an avenue for communication among internal audit, the independent auditor, financial management and the Board. The Audit Committee also is responsible for the selection and retention of Interpublic’s independent auditor and the review of its compensation. Specific activities of the Audit Committee are described in the Audit Committee Report on page 12. Other responsibilities of the Audit Committee are described below under the heading “Risk Management.” In addition, the Audit Committee is authorized to hire experts or other independent advisers or legal counsel, at Interpublic’s expense, to assist the Audit Committee in the discharge of its duties. Each member of the Audit Committee is a Non-Management Director and is independent in accordance with the standards set forth in Interpublic’s Corporate Governance Guidelines and the NYSE Listing Standards. The Board has determined that each member of the Audit Committee qualifies as an “audit committee financial expert” within the meaning of applicable SEC rules.

Compensation and Leadership Talent Committee

The Compensation and Leadership Talent Committee (the “Compensation Committee”) is responsible for the adoption and periodic review of an executive remuneration strategy for Interpublic and its subsidiaries, which ensures that executive compensation for key senior executives is designed to incentivize and reward long-term growth, profitability and return to shareholders.

In the execution of such duties, the Compensation Committee is responsible for approving the compensation paid to senior executives of Interpublic and its subsidiaries. For these purposes, compensation includes but is not limited to: (i) salary, (ii) deferred compensation, (iii) bonuses and other extra compensation of all types, including annual and long-term performance incentive awards under Interpublic’s 2009 Performance Incentive Plan (the “2009 PIP”), (iv) The Amended and Restated Interpublic Restricted Cash Plan, (v) insurance paid for by Interpublic or any of its subsidiaries other than group plans, (vi) annuities and individual retirement arrangements, (vii) Executive Special Benefit Agreements, (viii) Interpublic’s Senior Executive Retirement Income Plan, and (ix) Interpublic’s Capital Accumulation Plan. The Compensation Committee also administers the 2009 PIP (and its predecessors) and the Employee Stock Purchase Plan (2006).

The Compensation Committee is responsible for approving the adoption of new plans and changes made to these plans and makes recommendations to the Board with respect to incentive compensation and equity based programs. The Compensation Committee also reviews initiatives of Interpublic and its subsidiaries to retain and develop key employees on an ongoing basis and coordinates, manages and reports to the Board on the annual performance evaluation of key executives of Interpublic. In addition, the Compensation Committee is authorized to hire experts or other independent advisers or legal counsel, at Interpublic’s expense, to assist the Compensation Committee in the discharge of its duties.

The Compensation Committee’s primary processes for establishing and overseeing executive compensation are described in the Compensation Discussion and Analysis under the heading “Setting Compensation for the Named Executive Officers.” Each member of the Compensation Committee is a Non-Management Director and is independent in accordance with the standards set forth in Interpublic’s Corporate Governance Guidelines and the NYSE Listing Standards.

Board Leadership Structure

The Board continually examines its policies to ensure that Interpublic’s corporate governance and Board structure are designed to maximize the Company’s effectiveness. Currently, the Board believes that Interpublic’s Chief Executive Officer is best situated to serve as Chairman because he is the director most familiar with the operations of the Company, and most capable of determining the strategic and operational priorities of Interpublic and leading discussions with the Board. To ensure a proper level of independent board oversight, the Board has also designated a Presiding Director, who has the duties described below. The Board believes that the corporate governance measures it has in place ensure that strong, independent directors effectively oversee our management and provide vigorous oversight of our key issues relating to strategy, risk and integrity.

Interpublic’s Board structure allows for independent directors to bring experience, oversight and expertise from outside Interpublic and other industries, while the Chief Executive Officer brings a company-specific knowledge base and expertise. The Board believes that the combined role of Chairman and Chief Executive Officer promotes more effective strategy development and execution and a more enhanced information flow between management and the Board, which are essential to effective governance. The Board believes the combined role of Chairman and Chief Executive Officer, together with a Presiding Director, provides the most efficient and effective leadership for Interpublic, and accordingly is in the best interests of Interpublic and our shareholders.

Presiding Director

The Presiding Director of the Board helps to coordinate communications between the Board and management of Interpublic. Specifically, the Presiding Director, convenes and chairs meetings and executive sessions of the Non-Management Directors, coordinates feedback to the Chairman and Chief Executive Officer on behalf of the Non-Management Directors on business issues and management, and coordinates and develops with the Chairman of the Board and Chief Executive Officer the agendas and presentations for meetings of the Board. Effective April 1, 2013, Mr. Thomas was elected to serve as the Presiding Director.

Risk Management

The Board and its committees have an active role in the oversight and management of Interpublic’s risks. Elements of the Board’s risk management practices include:

Each committee also regularly informs the Board of any potential issues or concerns raised when performing its risk management duties.

REVIEW AND APPROVAL OF TRANSACTIONS WITH RELATED PERSONS

Interpublic’s Code of Conduct requires directors and employees to avoid activities that could conflict with the interests of Interpublic, except for transactions that are disclosed and approved in advance. Interpublic has adopted a written policy (the “Related Person Transaction Policy”) under which approval is required for any transaction, agreement or relationship between Interpublic or any of its consolidated subsidiaries and a Related Person (a “Related Person Transaction”).

Under the Related Person Transaction Policy, a “Related Person” is defined as any (i) director, nominee for election as a director, an executive officer or any of their “immediate family members” (as defined by the Related Person Transaction Policy); (ii) any entity, including not-for-profit and charitable organizations, controlled by or in which any of the foregoing persons have a substantial beneficial ownership interest; or (iii) any person who is known to be, at the time of the transaction, the beneficial owner of more than 5% of the voting securities of Interpublic or an immediate family member of such person.

Under the policy, Related Person Transactions do not include any employee benefit plan, program, agreement or arrangement that has been approved by the Compensation Committee or recommended by the Compensation Committee for approval by the Board.

To facilitate compliance with the policy, the Code of Conduct requires that employees, including directors and executive officers, report circumstances that may create or appear to create a conflict between the personal interests of the individual and the interests of Interpublic, regardless of the amount involved, to Interpublic’s Chief Risk Officer using Interpublic’s Compliance Report Form. Each director and executive officer annually confirms to the Company certain information about Related Person Transactions as part of the preparation of Interpublic’s Annual Report on Form 10-K and its annual proxy statement. Director nominees and persons promoted to executive officer positions must also confirm such information at the time of their nomination or promotion. Management also reviews its records and makes additional inquiries of management personnel and, as appropriate, third parties and other sources of information for the purpose of identifying Related Person Transactions, including Related Person Transactions involving beneficial owners of more than 5% of Interpublic’s voting securities.

The Audit Committee reviews transactions subject to the Related Person Transaction Policy and determines whether or not to approve or disapprove those transactions, by examining whether or not the transactions are fair, reasonable and within Interpublic policy. The Audit Committee makes its determination by taking into account all relevant factors and any controls that may be implemented to protect the interests of Interpublic and its shareholders. Among the factors that the Audit Committee takes into account in determining whether a transaction is fair and reasonable, as applicable, are the following:

No director may participate in any consideration or approval of a Related Person Transaction with respect to which he or she or any of his or her immediate

family members is the Related Person. Related Person Transactions entered into, but not approved or ratified as required by the Related Person Transaction Policy, are subject to termination by Interpublic. If the transaction has been completed, the Audit Committee will consider if rescission of the transaction is appropriate and whether disciplinary action is warranted.

Related Person Transactions

Since January 1, 2012, there were no transactions involving a Related Person identified in the responses to the annual questionnaire sent to each director and executive officer of Interpublic or that otherwise are known to the Audit Committee or Interpublic.

DIRECTOR SHARE OWNERSHIP GUIDELINES

The Compensation Committee has adopted Common Stock ownership guidelines for Non-Management Directors. These guidelines set the minimum ownership expectations for Non-Management Directors at a value of $300,000, which represents three times the Directors’ current annual cash retainer of $100,000. Non-Management Directors elected in or following 2008 have five years from their initial election to meet this guideline. Outstanding shares of restricted stock are included in a Director’s share ownership, but Common Stock underlying unexercised stock options is not included. The Company believes that the equity component of director compensation serves to further align the Non-Management Directors with the interests of our shareholders. For information about share ownership of our Non-Management Directors, see “Non-Management Director Compensation” on page 31 and “Share Ownership of Management” on page 92. For a discussion of the share ownership guidelines applicable to Interpublic’s executives, see “Compensation Discussion and Analysis — Share Ownership Guidelines.” As of December 31, 2012, all Non-Management Directors had met or exceeded these guidelines, with exception to Ms. Hudson who was elected to the Board in 2011 and will have until 2016 to reach set ownership guidelines.

Annual Board/Committee Retainer Fees

During 2012, each Non-Management Director received as cash compensation for services rendered an annual retainer of $100,000. No additional compensation was paid for attendance at Board or committee meetings.

For 2012, the Chairpersons of the Compensation Committee and the Audit Committee each received an additional annual retainer of $20,000 and the Chairperson of the Corporate Governance Committee received an additional annual retainer of $10,000 per year. At a meeting held on October 25, 2012, the Corporate Governance Committee approved an increase of the annual fee paid to the Chairperson of the Corporate Governance Committee from $10,000 to $15,000, beginning January 1, 2013.

Presiding Director Retainer Fees

As Presiding Director for 2012, Mr. Goldstein received $25,000. This retainer was in addition to his retainers for service as a Non-Management Director and as the Chairperson of the Corporate Governance Committee.

Non-Management Directors Plan

Each Non-Management Director in 2012 also received, as consideration for services rendered as a member of the Board, an award of restricted shares of Common Stock having a market value of $100,000 on the date of grant (the “Restricted Shares”) under the 2009 Interpublic Non-Management Directors’ Stock Incentive Plan, which was approved by the shareholders in 2009 (the “2009 Directors Plan”).

Under the terms of the 2009 Director Plan, a recipient of restricted shares has all rights of ownership with respect to the shares, including the right to vote and to receive dividends, except that, during a restricted period ending on the third anniversary of that date of the grant (or, if earlier, the cessation due to death or

disability), (i) the recipient is prohibited from selling or otherwise transferring the shares and (ii) the shares are subject to forfeiture if the recipient’s service as a director terminates for any reason, other than due to death or disability, the Corporate Governance Committee, which is responsible for the administration of the 2009 Directors’ Plan, has discretion to waive the forfeiture if the cessation of service occurs on or after the first anniversary of the grant.

On May 31, 2012, in accordance with the 2009 Directors’ Plan, Mss. Carter-Miller, Considine, Guilfoile and Hudson and Messrs. Goldstein, Greeniaus, Kerr and Thomas each received a grant of 9,514 Restricted Shares.

On October 25, 2012, the Corporate Governance Committee increased annual grant of restricted shares to Non-Management Directors, beginning with the grant to be made in May 2013, from $100,000 to $150,000.

Deferred Compensation

Mr. Goldstein and Ms. Considine each have an agreement with Interpublic under which they deferred all director fees for service before 2007. In 2012, the amounts deferred earned interest credits at an annual rate of 0.10%. The amounts deferred and accrued interest will be paid in a lump-sum within 30 days after the director’s separation from the Board. This rate did not constitute “above-market” or “preferential” earnings on deferred compensation as defined by SEC rules.

Charitable Matching Program

Under a charitable matching program (the “Charitable Matching Program”), which was approved by the Board of Directors and has been in effect for a number of years, Interpublic matches up to $20,000 in charitable contributions made to eligible charities and academic institutions by members of the Board of Directors and certain senior management employees of Interpublic and its subsidiaries.

This section of our Proxy Statement provides an overview of our compensation philosophy and our executive compensation programs, which are designed to reward our senior leaders for effectively building long-term shareholder value. This section of the Proxy Statement also details how we pay our “Named Executive Officers,” as well as the factors weighed by the Compensation and Leadership Talent Committee of our Board of Directors (the “Committee”) in arriving at specific compensation policies and decisions involving executive pay in 2012.

Our 2012 Named Executive Officers:

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Executive Compensation Highlights for 2012

Our executive compensation programs are aligned with best practices in corporate governance:

We align pay with performance. Our incentive plans are closely tied to performance and create significant leverage whether in years of strong or more moderate financial performance, which aligns Agency Management with the interests of our shareholders. In 2012, our NEOs, on average, received approximately 75% of total target compensation in variable pay (annual and long-term incentives). The long-term incentives of our Named Executive Officers (NEOs) are 100% performance-based and are earned based on achieving corporate financial goals, with the exception that our Chairman & CEO receives a portion (1/3) of his long-term incentives in stock options which are tied directly to the our stock price performance.

Our programs require executive share ownership. We adopted share ownership guidelines in 2007; in 2012, we increased our Chairman & CEO’s required share ownership guideline from 5x to 6x base salary. All NEOs are in compliance with or are in progress of achieving their established ownership guideline. Beginning in 2013, those executives who have not met their established guideline level in the time allotted will be required to hold all net shares delivered from equity vestings until requirements are met.

Our equity plan includes appropriate safeguards. We prohibit our NEOs and other senior executives from engaging in any transaction involving derivatives designed to hedge against the market risk associated with ownership of Interpublic shares. Our Performance Incentive Plan prohibits the repricing of stock options without shareholder approval and does not allow for the granting of reload stock options. In addition, we adopted a clawback policy under which compensation can be recovered in the event of a significant restatement of our financial results due to fraud or misconduct.

We appropriately limit guaranteed compensation. The majority of our compensation is performance based. As shown on page 65 in footnote 9 of the Summary Compensation Table, we do not provide company-paid perquisites to our most senior executives. Executive severance and change-in-control agreements are limited to 2.99 times the sum of base salary and target bonus, with the majority of NEOs receiving less than this amount. Dividends cannot be earned on unvested performance shares.

These practices were validated at our annual meeting of shareholders in May 2012 when a substantial number of votes (92%) were cast in favor of our executive compensation. We did not make any significant structural changes to our compensation programs in 2012.

2012 Business Highlights

2012 challenged us in terms of growth, but we proved our ability to manage costs and continued to invest in the most promising areas of the business, such as digital and emerging markets. We also drove significant value creation through our strong balance sheet and the return of capital to our owners.

Key headlines of our performance included:

International revenue growth was 3.8% for the year, with consistently strong results in many of the world’s most dynamic emerging markets, including Brazil, China and India. Our digital offerings – within our global networks, integrated domestic independent agencies and standalone digital specialists – also made significant contributions to revenue growth.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

For the full year, operating expenses increased by 0.5% organically and operating margin was maintained at 9.8%, the same level as in 2011. Excluding the benefits of the sale of half of our holdings of Facebook in each period, full year diluted earnings per share in 2012 was $0.82, compared to $0.76 in the prior year, an increase of approximately 8%.

Share repurchases in 2012 totaled 33 million and an additional 33 million dilutive share equivalents in convertible debt was retired during the course of the year. During 2012, our dividend and share repurchase programs returned $454 million to owners, bringing the total amount that has been put to work for shareholders since the initiation of our return of capital programs two years ago to nearly $1 billion.

Global economic and political uncertainty made for a choppy year on the stock market, but our annualized total shareholder return (“TSR”) in 2012 was 16%, in line with that of the S&P 500 market index and our major US competitor, but trailing our European competitors. For the three year period spanning 2010 through 2012, our TSR exceeded that of the S&P 500 and is in line with the average return of our three major competitors.

2012 Target Compensation Pay Mix for the NEOs

For 2012, on average, approximately 75% of the target total compensation (excluding benefits) for NEOs was variable pay (see chart that follows). For our NEOs, 100% of the annual incentives and performance-based awards could be earned only if corporate financial performance goals were met.

2012 Compensation Highlights

The Compensation Committee periodically reviews the Company’s compensation policies and programs and continues to believe that they encourage executives to remain focused on delivering against both the short-term and long-term goals of the Company. In 2012, the Committee made the following few adjustments to retain current executives, attract new talent and continue strengthening the linkage between pay and long-term performance:

COMPENSATION PHILOSOPHY AND BASIC PRINCIPLES

Our executive compensation philosophy remains to provide a market-competitive total compensation program that:

Our success continues to depend on our ability to attract, motivate and retain a diverse group of talented individuals throughout our organization – who will enable us to deliver the best and most contemporary marketing solutions to drive our clients’ businesses. Talent is our Company’s most vital asset, which is why it represents our most significant expense. We must continue to ensure the investments we make in our key people are disciplined and designed to drive results. To this end, our compensation programs are guided by the following basic principles:

HOW COMPENSATION DECISIONS ARE MADE

Role of the Compensation Committee

The Committee is responsible for establishing, implementing and continually monitoring adherence to the Company’s compensation philosophy, as well as approving compensation awarded to senior corporate and operating executives, including the NEOs. Among its duties, the Committee is responsible for formulating the compensation recommendations for our Chairman & CEO and approving all compensation recommendation for select senior executives. Following review and discussion, the Committee submits its recommendations for compensation for the Chairman & CEO to the non-employee members of our Board for approval. The Committee is supported in its work by the EVP, Chief Strategy and Talent Officer, his staff, and an independent executive compensation consultant as described below.

The Committee’s charter, which sets out its duties and responsibilities and addresses other matters, can be found on our website at http://www.interpublic.com.

Role of Executive Officers and Management in Compensation Decisions

The Committee makes all pay decisions related to the NEOs. The Chairman & CEO does not participate in the Committee’s deliberations or decisions with regard to his own compensation.

At the Committee’s request, the Chairman & CEO does present individual pay recommendations to the Committee for the CFO, the other NEOs and other executives whose compensation arrangements are subject to the Committee’s review. The Chairman & CEO’s pay recommendations for such executives are informed by his assessments of individual contributions to the Company’s financial performance, achievement of specified performance or strategic objectives, results from our annual talent review process, as well as competitive pay data and other factors. These recommendations are then considered by the Committee with the assistance of its independent consultant.

The Chairman & CEO, the EVP, Chief Strategy and Talent Officer, the SVP, General Counsel & Secretary, and the Vice President of Global Executive Compensation all attend Committee meetings, but are not present for the Committee’s executive sessions, or for any discussion of their own compensation. Other senior executives, as appropriate to the topic, may be asked to attend Committee meetings to provide relevant information or advice, but they also do not attend executive sessions, or any discussion of their own compensation.

Role of Independent Consultant

In 2012, the Committee again retained the services of an external independent executive compensation consultant, Meridian Compensation Partners, LLC (“Meridian”), to work for the Committee in its review of executive and non-employee director compensation practices, including the competitiveness of pay levels, executive compensation design issues, market trends, and technical considerations.

At no time during 2012, nor at any other time, has the Committee directed Meridian to perform its services in any particular manner, or using any particular methodology.

The Committee has the final authority to hire and terminate the consultant, and the Committee evaluates the consultant annually. Pursuant to SEC rules the Committee has assessed the independence of Meridian and concluded that no conflict of interest exists that would prevent Meridian from independently representing the Committee. Meridian does not provide any consulting advice to Interpublic, or any of its subsidiaries, outside the scope of executive compensation and will not do so without the prior consent of the Committee chair. Meridian meets with the Committee chair and the Committee outside the presence of management.

Setting Compensation for the Named Executive Officers

The Committee reviews and assesses the total compensation of each NEO on an annual basis. Material