The enclosed proxy is solicited on behalf of the Board of Directors, or Board, of Amgen Inc., a Delaware corporation, for use at our 2015 Annual Meeting of Stockholders, or Annual Meeting, to be held on Thursday, May 14, 2015, at 11:00 A.M., local time, or at any continuation, postponement or adjournment thereof, for the purposes discussed in this proxy statement and in the accompanying Notice of Annual Meeting of Stockholders and any business properly brought before the Annual Meeting. Amgen Inc. may also be referred to as Amgen, the Company, we, us or our in this proxy statement. Proxies are solicited to give all stockholders of record an opportunity to vote on matters properly presented at the Annual Meeting. The Annual Meeting will be held at the Four Seasons Hotel Westlake Village, Two Dole Drive, Westlake Village, California 91362.

Pursuant to the rules adopted by the Securities and Exchange Commission, we have elected to provide access to our proxy materials over the Internet. Accordingly, we are sending a Notice Regarding the Availability of Proxy Materials, or Notice, to certain of our stockholders of record, and we are sending a paper copy of the proxy materials and proxy card to other stockholders of record who we believe would prefer receiving such materials in paper form. Brokers and other nominees who hold shares on behalf of beneficial owners will be sending their own similar Notice. Stockholders will have the ability to access the proxy materials on the website referred to in the Notice or request to receive a printed set of the proxy materials. Instructions on how to request a printed copy by mail or electronically may be found on the Notice and on the website referred to in the Notice, including an option to request paper copies on an ongoing basis. We intend to make this proxy statement available on the Internet and to mail the Notice, or to mail the proxy statement and proxy card, as applicable, on or about April 2, 2015 to all stockholders entitled to notice of and to vote at the Annual Meeting.

Important Notice Regarding the Availability of Proxy Materials for the 2015 Stockholder Meeting to Be Held on May 14, 2015.

This proxy statement, our 2014 annual report and our other proxy materials are available at: www.astproxyportal.com/ast/Amgen. At this website, you will find a complete set of the following proxy materials: notice of 2015 annual meeting of stockholders; proxy statement; 2014 annual report and form proxy card. You are encouraged to access and review all of the important information contained in the proxy materials before submitting a proxy or voting at the meeting.

What Are You Voting On?

You will be entitled to vote on the following proposals at the Annual Meeting:

Who Can Vote

The Board has set March 16, 2015 as the record date for the Annual Meeting. You are entitled to notice and to vote if you were a stockholder of record of our Common Stock, $.0001

par value per share, or Common Stock, as of the close of business on March 16, 2015. You are entitled to one vote on each proposal for each share of Common Stock you held on the record date. Your shares may be voted at the Annual Meeting only if you are present in person or your shares are represented by a valid proxy.

Difference Between a Stockholder of Record and a “Street Name” Holder

If your shares are registered directly in your name, you are considered the stockholder of record with respect to those shares.

If your shares are held in a stock brokerage account or by a bank, trust or other nominee, then the broker, bank, trust or other nominee is considered to be the stockholder of record with respect to those shares. However, you are still considered to be the beneficial owner of those shares, and your shares are said to be held in “street name.” Street name holders generally cannot submit a proxy or vote their shares directly and must instead instruct the broker, bank, trust or other nominee how to vote their shares using the methods described below.

Shares Outstanding and Quorum

At the close of business on March 16, 2015, there were 757,913,499 shares of our Common Stock outstanding and entitled to vote at the Annual Meeting. The presence of the holders of a majority of the outstanding shares of our Common Stock entitled to vote constitutes a quorum, which is required to hold and conduct business at the Annual Meeting. Shares are counted as present at the Annual Meeting if:

If you are a record holder and you submit your proxy, regardless of whether you abstain from voting on one or more matters, your shares will be counted as present at the Annual Meeting for the purpose of determining a quorum. If your shares are held in “street name,” your shares are counted as present for purposes of determining a quorum if your broker, bank, trust or other nominee submits a proxy covering your shares. Your broker, bank, trust or other nominee is entitled to submit a proxy covering your shares as

to certain “routine” matters, even if you have not instructed your broker, bank, trust or other nominee on how to vote on those matters. Please see the subsection “If You Do Not Specify How You Want Your Shares Voted” below. In the absence of a quorum, the Annual Meeting may be adjourned, from time to time, by vote of the holders of a majority of the shares represented thereat, but no other business shall be transacted at such meeting.

Voting Your Shares

You may vote by attending the Annual Meeting and voting in person or by submitting a proxy. The method of voting by proxy differs (1) depending on whether you are viewing this proxy statement on the Internet or receiving a paper copy and (2) for shares held as a record holder and shares held in “street name.”

Shares Held as a Record Holder. If you hold your shares of Common Stock as a record holder and you are viewing this proxy statement on the Internet, you may submit a proxy over the Internet by following the instructions on the website referred to in the Notice previously mailed to you. You may request paper copies of the proxy statement and proxy card by following the instructions on the Notice. If you hold your shares of Common Stock as a record holder and you are reviewing a paper copy of this proxy statement, you may submit a proxy over the Internet or by telephone by following the instructions on the proxy card, or by completing, dating and signing the proxy card that was included with the proxy statement and promptly returning it in the pre-addressed, postage-paid envelope provided to you.

Shares Held in Street Name. If you hold your shares of Common Stock in street name, you will receive a Notice from your broker, bank, trust or other nominee that includes instructions on how to vote your shares. Your broker, bank, trust or other nominee may allow you to deliver your voting instructions over the Internet and may also permit you to submit your voting instructions by telephone. In addition, you may request paper copies of the proxy statement and proxy card from your broker by following the instructions on the Notice provided by your broker, bank, trust or other nominee.

The Internet and telephone voting facilities will close at 11:59 P.M., Eastern Time, on May 13, 2015. Stockholders who submit a proxy through the Internet or telephone should be aware that they may incur costs to access the Internet or telephone, such as usage charges from telephone companies or Internet service providers and that these costs must be

borne by the stockholder. Stockholders who submit a proxy by Internet or telephone need not return a proxy card or the form forwarded by your broker, bank, trust or other holder of record by mail.

YOUR VOTE IS VERY IMPORTANT. You should submit your proxy even if you plan to attend the Annual Meeting.

Voting in Person

If you plan to attend the Annual Meeting and wish to vote in person, you may request a ballot at the Annual Meeting. Please note that if your shares are held of record by a broker, bank, trust or other nominee, and you decide to attend and vote at the Annual Meeting, your vote in person at the Annual Meeting will not be effective unless you present a legal proxy, issued in your name from the record holder (your broker, bank, trust or other nominee). Even if you intend to attend the Annual Meeting, we encourage you to submit your proxy in advance of the Annual Meeting. Please see the important instructions and requirements below regarding “Attendance at the Annual Meeting.”

Changing Your Vote

As a stockholder of record, if you submit a proxy, you may revoke that proxy at any time before it is voted at the Annual Meeting. Stockholders of record may revoke a proxy prior to the Annual Meeting by (i) delivering a written notice of revocation to the attention of the Secretary at our principal executive offices at One Amgen Center Drive, Thousand Oaks, California 91320-1799, Mail Stop 38-5-A, (ii) duly submitting a later-dated proxy over the Internet, by mail or by telephone or (iii) attending the Annual Meeting in person and voting in person. Attendance at the Annual Meeting will not, by itself, revoke a proxy.

If your shares are held in the name of a broker, bank, trust or other nominee, you may change your voting instructions by following the instructions of your broker, bank, trust or other nominee.

If You Receive More Than One Proxy Card or Notice

If you receive more than one proxy card or Notice, it means you hold shares that are registered in more than one account. To ensure that all of your shares are voted, sign and return each proxy card or, if you submit a proxy by telephone or the Internet, submit one proxy for each proxy card or Notice you receive.

How Will Your Shares Be Voted

Stockholders of record as of the close of business on March 16, 2015 are entitled to one vote for each share of our Common Stock held on all matters to be voted upon at the Annual Meeting. All shares entitled to vote and represented by properly submitted proxies received before the polls are closed at the Annual Meeting, and not revoked or superseded, will be voted at the Annual Meeting in accordance with the instructions indicated on those proxies. YOUR VOTE IS VERY IMPORTANT.

If You Do Not Specify How You Want Your Shares Voted

As a stockholder of record, if you submit a signed proxy card or submit your proxy by telephone or Internet and do not specify how you want your shares voted, the proxy holder will vote your shares:

A “broker non-vote” occurs when a nominee holding shares for a beneficial owner has not received voting instructions from the beneficial owner and the nominee does not have discretionary authority to vote the shares. If you hold your shares in street name and do not provide voting instructions to your broker or other nominee, your shares will be considered to be broker non-votes and will not be voted on any proposal on which your broker or other nominee does not have discretionary authority to vote. Shares that constitute broker non-votes will be counted as present at the Annual Meeting for the purpose of determining a quorum, but will not be considered entitled to vote on the proposal in question. Brokers generally have discretionary authority to vote on the ratification of the selection of Ernst & Young LLP as our independent registered public accountants. Brokers, however, do not have discretionary authority to vote on the election of directors to serve on our Board, the advisory vote to approve our executive compensation or on any stockholder proposals.

In their discretion, the proxy holders named in the proxy are authorized to vote on any other matters that may properly come before the Annual Meeting and at any continuation, postponement or adjournment thereof. The Board knows of no other items of business that will be presented for consideration at the Annual Meeting other than those described in this proxy statement. In addition, other than the stockholder proposal described in this proxy statement, no other stockholder proposal or nomination was received on a timely basis, so no such matters may be brought to a vote at the Annual Meeting.

Inspector of Election and Counting of Votes

All votes will be tabulated as required by Delaware law, the state of our incorporation, by the inspector of election appointed for the Annual Meeting, who will separately tabulate affirmative and negative votes, abstentions and broker non-votes. Shares held by persons attending the Annual Meeting but not voting, shares represented by proxies that reflect abstentions as to one or more proposals and broker non-votes will be counted as present for purposes of determining a quorum.

Election of Directors. We have a majority voting standard for the election of directors in an uncontested election, which is generally defined as an election in which the number of nominees does not exceed the number of directors to be elected at the meeting. In the election of directors, you may either vote “for,” “against” or “abstain” for each nominee. Cumulative voting is not permitted. Under our majority voting standard, in uncontested elections of directors, such as this election, each director must be elected by the affirmative vote of a majority of the votes cast by the shares present in person or represented by proxy. A “majority of the votes cast” means that the number of votes cast “for” a director nominee exceeds the number of votes cast “against” the nominee. For these purposes, abstentions will not count as a vote “for” or “against” a nominee’s election and thus will have no effect in determining whether a director nominee has received a majority of the votes cast. Brokers do not have discretionary authority to vote on this proposal. Broker non-votes will have no effect on the election of directors as brokers are not entitled to vote for or against a nominee without instruction from the beneficial owner. If a director nominee is an incumbent director and does not receive a majority of the votes cast in an uncontested election, that director will

continue to serve on the Board as a “holdover” director, but must tender his or her resignation to the Board promptly after certification of the election results of the stockholder vote. The Governance and Nominating Committee of the Board will then recommend to the Board whether to accept the resignation or whether other action should be taken. The Board will act on the tendered resignation, taking into account the recommendation of the Governance and Nominating Committee, and the Board’s decision will be publicly disclosed within 90 days after certification of the election results of the stockholder vote. A director who tenders his or her resignation after failing to receive a majority of the votes cast will not participate in the recommendation of the Governance and Nominating Committee or the decision of the Board with respect to his or her resignation.

Ratification of Auditors. The ratification of the selection of Ernst & Young LLP requires the affirmative vote of the holders of a majority of the shares present or represented by proxy at the Annual Meeting and entitled to vote on the matter. Abstentions will have the same effect as votes “against” the ratification. Because brokers have discretionary authority to vote on the ratification, we do not expect any broker non-votes in connection with the ratification.

Advisory Vote on Executive Compensation. The approval of the advisory vote on our executive compensation requires the affirmative vote of the holders of a majority of the shares present or represented by proxy at the Annual Meeting and entitled to vote on the matter. Abstentions will have the same effect as votes “against” the proposal. Brokers do not have discretionary authority to vote on this proposal. Broker non-votes, however, will have no effect on the proposal as brokers are not entitled to vote on such proposal in the absence of voting instructions from the beneficial owner.

Stockholder Proposal. The approval of the stockholder proposal, if properly presented at the Annual Meeting, requires the affirmative vote of the holders of a majority of the shares present or represented by proxy at the Annual Meeting and entitled to vote on the matter. Abstentions will have the same effect as votes “against” such proposal. Brokers do not have discretionary authority to vote on the proposal. Broker non-votes, therefore, will have no effect on the stockholder proposal as brokers are not entitled to vote on such proposal in the absence of voting instructions from the beneficial owner.

Solicitation of Proxies

We will bear the entire cost of solicitation of proxies, including preparation, assembly and mailing of this proxy statement, the proxy, the Notice and any additional information furnished to stockholders. Copies of solicitation materials will be furnished to banks, brokerage houses, fiduciaries and custodians holding shares of our Common Stock in their names that are beneficially owned by others to forward to those beneficial owners. We may reimburse persons representing beneficial owners for their costs of forwarding the solicitation materials to the beneficial owners. Original solicitation of proxies may be supplemented by telephone, facsimile, electronic mail or personal solicitation by our directors, officers or staff members. No additional compensation will be paid to our directors, officers or staff members for such services. In addition, we have retained D.F. King & Co. to assist in the solicitation of proxies for a fee of approximately $150,000 plus distribution costs and other costs and expenses. A list of stockholders entitled to vote at the Annual Meeting will be available for examination by any stockholder for any purpose germane to the Annual Meeting during ordinary business hours at our principal executive offices at One Amgen Center Drive, Thousand Oaks, California, 91320-1799 for the ten days prior to the Annual Meeting and also at the Annual Meeting.

Attendance at the Annual Meeting

To attend the Annual Meeting, you will need an admittance ticket and proof of ownership of our Common Stock as of the close of business on March 16, 2015. If you have received a paper copy of the proxy statement, to receive an admittance ticket you will need to complete and return the postage-paid reply card attached to this proxy statement. If you received electronic delivery of this proxy statement, you will receive an e-mail with instructions for obtaining an admittance ticket. If you are viewing the proxy statement over the Internet, please follow the instructions indicated on the website referred to in the Notice. Each stockholder is entitled to one admittance ticket. Directions to attend the Annual Meeting will be sent with your admittance ticket and are available at the website referred to in the Notice and www.astproxyportal.com/ast/Amgen.

You must bring certain documents with you to be admitted to the Annual Meeting. The purpose of this requirement is to help us verify that you are actually a stockholder of the Company. Please read the following rules carefully, because

they specify the documents that you must bring with you to the Annual Meeting to be admitted. The items that you must bring with you differ depending upon whether or not you were a record holder of our Common Stock as of the close of business on March 16, 2015. A “record holder” of stock is someone whose shares of stock are registered in his or her name in the records of the Company’s transfer agent. Many stockholders are not record holders because their shares of stock are registered in the name of their broker, bank, trust or other nominee, and the broker, bank, trust or other nominee is the record holder instead. All persons must bring a valid personal photo identification (such as a driver’s license or passport). If you are a record holder, at the Annual Meeting, we will check your name for verification purposes against our list of record holders as of the close of business on March 16, 2015.

If a broker, bank, trust or other nominee was the record holder of your shares of Common Stock as of the close of business on March 16, 2015, then you must also bring to the Annual Meeting:

Examples of proof of ownership include the following: (1) an original or a copy of the voting information form from your bank or broker with your name on it; (2) a letter from your bank or broker stating that you owned shares of our Common Stock as of the close of business on March 16, 2015 or (3) a brokerage account statement indicating that you owned shares of our Common Stock as of the close of business on March 16, 2015.

If you are a proxy holder for a stockholder of the Company who owned shares of our Common Stock as of the close of business on March 16, 2015, then you must also bring to the Annual Meeting:

Under our governing documents, the Board of Directors, or Board, has the power to set the number of directors from time to time by resolution. We currently have 13 authorized directors and 13 directors serving on our Board. On October 17, 2014, R. Sanders Williams was appointed to serve on our Board. The Board has fixed the authorized number of directors at 13 to continue to be effective as of the 2015 Annual Meeting of Stockholders, or Annual Meeting. The independent members of our Board re-elected Vance D. Coffman to serve for another term as our lead independent

director with specific and significant duties as discussed under “Corporate Governance.” Based upon the recommendation of our Governance and Nominating Committee, the Board has nominated each of the current directors set forth below to stand for re-election, or in the case of Dr. Williams to stand for initial election by our stockholders, in each case for a one-year term expiring at our 2016 annual meeting of stockholders and until his or her successor is elected and qualified, or until his or her earlier retirement, resignation, disqualification, removal or death.

Vacancies on the Board (including any vacancy created by an increase in the size of the Board) may be filled only by a majority of the directors remaining in office, even though less than a quorum of the Board. A director elected by the Board to fill a vacancy (including a vacancy created by an increase in the size of the Board) will serve until the next annual meeting of stockholders and until such director’s successor is elected and qualified, or until such director’s earlier retirement, resignation, disqualification, removal or death.

If any nominee should become unavailable for election prior to the Annual Meeting, an event that currently is not anticipated by the Board, the proxies will be voted in favor of the election of a substitute nominee or nominees proposed by the Board or the number of directors may be reduced accordingly. Each nominee has agreed to serve if elected and the Board has no reason to believe that any nominee will be unable to serve.

David Baltimore is President Emeritus and Robert Andrews Millikan Professor of Biology at the California Institute of Technology, or Caltech. He received the Nobel Prize in Medicine as a co-recipient in 1975. Dr. Baltimore has been a director of Regulus Therapeutics Inc., a biopharmaceutical company, since 2007, serving on its Compensation Committee and chairing its Nominating and Governance Committee. Dr. Baltimore has also been a member of the board of directors of Immune Design Corp. (formerly Vaccsys), a vaccine company, since 2008, chairing its Nominating and Governance Committee. He was a director of BB Biotech, AG, a Swiss investment company, from 1994 to March 2011 and served as a director of MedImmune, Inc., a privately-held antibody formulation company, from 2003 to 2007. In 2008, Dr. Baltimore became a founder of Calimmune, Inc., a privately-held company developing a stem-cell HIV/AIDS therapy, and serves as Chairman of the board of directors.

Dr. Baltimore was President of Caltech from 1997 to 2006. Prior to this, he was a professor at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, or MIT, and at The Rockefeller University where he also served as the President. During this time he was also the Chairman of the National Institutes of

Health AIDS Vaccine Research Committee, a director and member of the Whitehead Institute for Biomedical Research, and a professor of microbiology and research professor of the American Cancer Society. He was a postdoctoral fellow at MIT and Albert Einstein College of Medicine and on the staff of The Salk Institute for Biological Studies. Dr. Baltimore has been awarded honorary degrees from numerous institutions, including Harvard, Yale and Columbia.

Dr. Baltimore holds leadership roles in a number of scientific and philanthropic non-profit organizations, currently serving as a director and member of the Board of Scientific Counselors of the Broad Institute of MIT and Harvard, a director of the Foundation for Biomedical Research, a member of the Human Genome Organisation and a member of the scientific advisory board of Immune Design Corp.

The Board concluded that Dr. Baltimore should serve on the Board because Dr. Baltimore has spent his career in scientific academia at a number of well-known and highly regarded institutions. This experience provides Dr. Baltimore with extensive scientific knowledge and a deep understanding of our industry and of the research and development activities and operations of our Company.

Frank J. Biondi, Jr. has served as Senior Managing Director of WaterView Advisors LLC, an investment advisor organization, since 1999. Prior to WaterView Advisors, Mr. Biondi was the Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of Universal Studios, Inc. from 1996 to 1998, the President and Chief Executive Officer of Viacom, Inc. from 1987 to 1996, Executive Vice President of Entertainment Business Sector of The Coca-Cola Company and Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of Coca-Cola Television from 1985 to 1987, Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of Time Inc.’s subsidiary Home Box Office, Inc. from 1982 to 1984, Vice President of Time Inc. from 1978 to 1984 and Assistant Treasurer of the Children’s Television Workshop from 1974 to 1978.

Mr. Biondi has been a director of Cablevision Systems Corp., a telecommunications, media and entertainment company, since 2005; Seagate Technology plc, a manufacturer of hard disk drives, since 2005, serving on its Compensation Committee and chairing its Finance Committee; and RealD Inc., a global licensor of three-dimensional technologies, since July 2010, serving as its lead director and on its Audit Committee and chairing its Compensation Committee. Mr. Biondi has been a director of Hasbro, Inc., a toy and games company, since 2002, serving on its Compensation and Nominating, Governance and Social Responsibility Committees. Hasbro has announced that Mr. Biondi will not stand for election at Hasbro’s annual meeting of stockholders in May 2015.

From 2008 until May 2010, Mr. Biondi was a director of Yahoo! Inc., a provider of Internet services, serving on its Compensation Committee. From 2002 to 2008, he was a director of Harrahs Entertainment, Inc., a gaming corporation, serving on its Compensation and Governance Committees, and from 1995 to 2008 he was a director of The Bank of New York Mellon Corporation, an asset management and securities services company, serving on its Compensation and Risk Committees. He has also been a director of Vail Resorts, Inc., a mountain resort operator, and The Seagram Company, a liquor and spirits company. Mr. Biondi received an undergraduate degree from Princeton University and a master’s degree from Harvard Business School.

The Board concluded that Mr. Biondi should serve on the Board due to Mr. Biondi’s experience as chief executive officer of many large, public companies and his current role with WaterView Advisors which provide valuable management and leadership skills, as well as an understanding of the operations and financial results and prospects of our Company. Given his financial and leadership experience, Mr. Biondi has been determined to be an Audit Committee financial expert by our Board.

Robert A. Bradway has served as our director since October 2011 and Chairman of the Board since January 1, 2013. Mr. Bradway has been our President since May 2010 and Chief Executive Officer since May 2012. From May 2010 to May 2012, Mr. Bradway served as our Chief Operating Officer. Mr. Bradway joined Amgen in 2006 as Vice President, Operations Strategy and served as Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer from April 2007 to May 2010. Prior to joining Amgen, he was a Managing Director and Head of International Banking at Morgan Stanley in London since 2001 where he had responsibility for the firm’s banking department and corporate finance activities in Europe and focused on healthcare.

Mr. Bradway has been a director of Norfolk Southern Corporation, a transportation company, since July 2011,

serving on its Audit and Governance and Nominating Committees. He has served on the board of trustees of the University of Southern California since April 2014.

The Board concluded that Mr. Bradway should serve on the Board due to Mr. Bradway’s knowledge of all aspects of our business, combined with his leadership and management skills having served as our President and Chief Operating Officer and formerly our Chief Financial Officer. During this time, Mr. Bradway provided strong leadership through a variety of challenges and this positions him well to serve as a director and provides the Board with a knowledgeable perspective with regard to the Company’s products and operations.

François de Carbonnel is a director of corporations and corporate advisor. Mr. de Carbonnel has been a director of Solocal Group (formerly known as Pages Jaunes S.A.), a French company which offers online content, advertising solutions and transactional services, since 2004 and serves as chairman of the Remuneration and Appointments Committee. Mr. de Carbonnel has been a supervisory board member of Mazars Group, a privately-held international organization specializing in audit, accountancy, tax, legal and advisory services since December 2011.

From 2004 until October 2013, Mr. de Carbonnel was a director of a number of funds managed by Ecofin, a privately-held investment management firm. Mr. de Carbonnel was a director of Thomson S.A., a French multimedia corporation, from 2007 to January 2010, serving as Chairman of the Audit Committee throughout his tenure, and as non-executive Chairman of the Board from April 2008 to April 2009. Mr. de Carbonnel was a director of Quilvest S.A., a Luxembourg company which provides wealth management and private equity services, from 2006 to 2013.

Mr. de Carbonnel was a Senior Advisor of the Global Corporate and Investment Bank of Citigroup from 2004 to

2006, and a Managing Director from 1999 to 2004. He was the Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of Midial S.A., a French listed company, from 1994 to 1998, Chairman of General Electric Capital SNC from 1996 to 1998. He was a corporate Vice President of General Electric Company and President of General Electric Capital-Europe from 1990 to 1992, President of Strategic Planning Associates, an international consulting company, from 1981 to 1990 and Vice President of Boston Consulting Group from 1971 to 1981. He is a member emeritus of the Business Board of Advisors of the Carnegie Mellon Tepper School of Business. Mr. de Carbonnel is a French citizen and resides in Europe.

The Board concluded that Mr. de Carbonnel should serve on the Board because Mr. de Carbonnel has acquired knowledge, skills and brings a strong vantage point through his international career as an executive officer of well-known consulting firms as well as a number of public companies. This perspective is important as the Company undertakes further global expansion plans. Given his experience in the financial industry, Mr. de Carbonnel has been determined to be an Audit Committee financial expert by our Board.

Vance D. Coffman is our lead independent director. Dr. Coffman has been a director of 3M Company, a consumer and office products and services company, since 2002 and he has been a director of Deere & Company, a farm and construction machinery company, since 2004. He serves on the Compensation Committee and chairs the Finance Committee of 3M Company and serves on the Corporate Governance and Executive Committees and chairs the Compensation Committee of Deere & Company. Dr. Coffman was also director of Bristol-Myers Squibb Company, a pharmaceutical company, and a member of its Audit and Governance Committees, from 1998 to 2007.

Dr. Coffman was the Chairman of the Board and Chief Executive Officer of Lockheed Martin Corporation, an aerospace and defense company, from 1998 to 2005, and was ex officio member of all board committees. From 1997 to 1998, he was Vice Chairman of the Board and Chief

Executive Officer of Lockheed Martin. He is currently on the Board of Trustees of the Naval Postgraduate School Foundation, the Stanford Engineering Advisory Council of Stanford University and the Board of Governors of the Iowa State University Foundation. Dr. Coffman has been a Member of the National Academy of Engineering since 1997 and a Fellow of the American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics and the American Astronautical Society since 1989 and 1997, respectively. Dr. Coffman received an undergraduate degree from Iowa State University and a doctorate from Stanford University.

The Board concluded that Dr. Coffman should serve on the Board as during his service as Chairman of the Board and Chief Executive Officer of Lockheed Martin, Dr. Coffman acquired important leadership and management skills that provide insight into the operations of our Company and the challenges of managing a complex organization.

Robert A. Eckert has been an Operating Partner at Friedman Fleischer & Lowe, a private equity firm, since September 2014. Mr. Eckert was the Chief Executive Officer of Mattel, Inc., a toy design, manufacture and marketing company, having held this position from 2000 through December 2011, and its Chairman of the Board from 2000 through 2012. He was President and Chief Executive Officer of Kraft Foods Inc., a consumer packaged food and beverage company, from 1997 to 2000, Group Vice President from 1995 to 1997, President of the Oscar Mayer Foods Division from 1993 to 1995 and held various other senior executive and other positions from 1977 to 1992.

Mr. Eckert has been a director of McDonald’s Corporation, a company which franchises and operates McDonald’s restaurants in the global restaurant industry, since 2003, serving as the Chair of the Compensation Committee and a member of the Executive and Governance Committees. Mr. Eckert was a director of Smart & Final Stores, Inc., a

warehouse store, from May 2013 until July 2014 prior to it becoming a publicly-traded company. Mr. Eckert also has served as a director of Levi Strauss & Co., a privately-held jeans and casual wear manufacturer, since 2010. He was appointed director of Eyemart Express Holdings LLC, a privately-held eyewear retailer and portfolio company of Friedman Fleischer & Lowe, in 2015. Mr. Eckert is on the Global Advisory Board of the Kellogg Graduate School of Management and serves on the Eller College National Board of Advisors at the University of Arizona.

The Board concluded that Mr. Eckert should serve on our Board because of Mr. Eckert’s recent and long-tenured experience as a Chief Executive Officer of large public companies, his broad international experience in marketing and business development and his valuable leadership experience. Given his financial and leadership experience, Mr. Eckert has been determined to be an Audit Committee financial expert by our Board.

Greg C. Garland is the Chairman, President and Chief Executive Officer of Phillips 66, an energy manufacturing and logistics company with midstream, chemical, refining and marketing and specialties businesses created through the repositioning of ConocoPhillips, having held this position since April 2012. Mr. Garland chairs the Executive Committee of Phillips 66. Prior to Phillips 66, Mr. Garland served as Senior Vice President, Exploration and Production, Americas of ConocoPhillips from 2010 to April 2012. He was President and Chief Executive Officer of Chevron Phillips Chemical Company (now a joint venture between Phillips 66 and Chevron) from 2008 to 2010 and Senior Vice President,

Planning and Specialty Chemicals from 2000 to 2008. Mr. Garland served in various positions at Phillips Petroleum Company from 1980 to 2000. Mr. Garland is a member of the Engineering Advisory Board for Texas A&M University.

The Board concluded that Mr. Garland should serve on our Board because of Mr. Garland’s experience as a Chief Executive Officer and his over 30 years of international experience in a highly regulated industry. Given his financial and leadership experience, Mr. Garland has been determined to be an Audit Committee financial expert by our Board.

Rebecca M. Henderson has been the John and Natty McArthur University Professor at Harvard University since 2011 and is the Co-Director of the Business and Environment Initiative at Harvard Business School. From 2009 to 2011, Dr. Henderson served as the Senator John Heinz Professor of Environmental Management at Harvard Business School. Prior to this, she was a professor of management at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, or MIT, for 21 years, having been the Eastman Kodak LFM Professor of Management since 1999. Since 1995, she has also been a Research Associate at the National Bureau of Economic Research. She specializes in technology strategy and the broader strategic problems faced by companies in high technology industries. Dr. Henderson has been a director of IDEXX Laboratories, Inc., a company which develops and commercializes technology-based products and services for veterinary, food and water applications, since 2003, serving on its Finance Committee and chairing its Nominating and Governance Committee.

Dr. Henderson has also served as a director of the Ember Corporation, a privately-held semiconductor chip

manufacturer, and was on its Compensation Committee, from 2001 to July 2009. She has further been a director of Linbeck Construction Corporation, a privately-held facility solutions company, from 2000 until 2004. In May 2011, Dr. Henderson was appointed to the U.S. Department of Commerce Innovation Advisory Board which was established as a result of the America COMPETES Reauthorization Act of 2010 signed into law by President Obama on January 4, 2011 and which guided a study of U.S. economic competitiveness and innovation to help inform national policies at the heart of U.S. job creation and global competitiveness. Dr. Henderson has published articles, papers and reviews in a range of scholarly journals. Dr. Henderson received an undergraduate degree from MIT and a doctorate from Harvard University.

The Board concluded that Dr. Henderson should serve on the Board because Dr. Henderson’s study of the complex strategy issues faced by high technology companies provides unique insight into the Company’s strategic and technology issues.

Frank C. Herringer has been Chairman of the Board of Transamerica Corporation, a financial services company, since 1995. Mr. Herringer was an executive with Transamerica for 20 years, including its Chief Executive Officer from 1991 until its acquisition by Aegon N.V., a life insurance, pensions and asset management company, in 1999, subsequently serving on Aegon’s Executive Board for one year and he is currently a director of Aegon U.S. Holding Corporation, a position he has held since 1999. Mr. Herringer has been a director of The Charles Schwab Corporation, a brokerage and banking company, since 1996, serving on its Compensation, Nominating and Corporate Governance Committees, and a director of Cardax, Inc., a biotechnology company, since 2014, serving on its Compensation Committee and chairing its Governance and Nominating Committee, and has been a director of its parent company, Cardax Pharmaceuticals, Inc., since 2006. Mr. Herringer is a member of the Board of Trustees of the California Pacific Medical Center Foundation, a not-for-profit organization which develops philanthropic resources for the California

Pacific Medical Center, a privately-held, not-for-profit academic medical center, since 2013. Mr. Herringer was a director of Safeway Inc., a food and drug retailer, from 2008 until January 2015, serving on its Executive Compensation and Executive Committees and chairing its Nominating and Corporate Governance Committee. From 2002 to 2005, Mr. Herringer was a director of AT&T Corporation, and a member of its Audit and Compensation Committees. In 2004, Mr. Herringer was named an Outstanding Director of the Year by the Outstanding Directors Exchange. Mr. Herringer received an undergraduate degree and master of business administration from Dartmouth College.

The Board concluded that Mr. Herringer should serve on the Board due to Mr. Herringer’s career as Transamerica’s Chief Executive Officer and Chairman of the Board which developed Mr. Herringer’s management and leadership skills and provides an informed perspective on our financial performance, prospects and strategy.

Tyler Jacks joined the faculty of Massachusetts Institute of Technology, or MIT, in 1992 and is currently the David H. Koch Professor of Biology and director of the David H. Koch Institute for Integrative Cancer Research, which brings together biologists and engineers to improve detection, diagnosis and treatment of cancer, a position he has held since 2007. Dr. Jacks has been an investigator with the Howard Hughes Medical Institute, a nonprofit medical research organization, since 1994. Dr. Jacks has been a director of Thermo Fisher Scientific, Inc., a life sciences supply company, since May 2009, and serves on its Strategy and Finance Committee and scientific advisory board. In 2006, he co-founded T2 Biosystems, Inc., a biotechnology company, and served on its scientific advisory board until 2013. Dr. Jacks has been a consultant scientific advisor to Epizyme, Inc., a biopharmaceutical company, since 2007. Dr. Jacks served on the scientific advisory board of Aveo Pharmaceuticals Inc., a cancer therapeutics company, from 2001 until 2013. He was appointed to the National Cancer Advisory Board, which advises and assists the Director of the National Cancer Institute with respect to the National Cancer Program, in October 2011. Dr. Jacks was a director of MIT’s

Center for Cancer Research from 2001 to 2007 and received numerous awards including the Paul Marks Prize for Cancer Research and the American Association for Cancer Research Award for Outstanding Achievement. He was elected to the National Academy of Sciences as well as the Institute of Medicine in 2009. Dr. Jacks received an undergraduate degree from Harvard University and his doctorate from the University of California, San Francisco.

The Board concluded that Dr. Jacks should serve on the Board due to Dr. Jacks’ extensive scientific expertise relevant to our industry, including his broad experience as a cancer researcher and service on several scientific advisory boards. His expertise in the field of oncology, which includes pioneering the use of technology to study cancer-associated genes and to construct animal models of many human cancer types, is evidenced by his appointment to the National Cancer Advisory Board and by his numerous awards for cancer research. Dr. Jacks’ scientific knowledge and thorough understanding of our industry positions him to provide valuable insights into the scientific activities of our Company.

Judith C. Pelham is the President Emeritus of Trinity Health, a national system of healthcare facilities, including hospitals, long-term care, home care, psychiatric care, residences for the elderly and ambulatory care, and one of the largest Catholic healthcare systems in the U.S. Prior to her current position at Trinity Health, she was the President and Chief Executive Officer of Trinity Health from 2000 to 2004, the President and Chief Executive Officer of Mercy Health Services, a system of hospitals, home care, long-term care, ambulatory services and managed care, from 1993 to 2000, the President and Chief Executive Officer of the Daughters of Charity Health Services of Austin, a network of hospitals, home care and ambulatory services, from 1982 to 1992, and the Assistant Vice President of Brigham and Women’s Hospital from 1976 to 1980.

Ms. Pelham has been a director of Health Care REIT, Inc., a public real estate investment trust for senior living and health care real estate, since May 2012 and serves on its Compensation, Planning, Nominating/Corporate Governance and Investment Committees. Ms. Pelham was a director of Zoll Medical Corporation, a medical products and software solutions company, from February 2011 to April 2012 when it became a wholly owned subsidiary of Asahi Kasei Group. Ms. Pelham was a director of Eclipsys Corporation, a healthcare IT solutions company, from 2009 to August 2010 when it merged with AllScripts, and was a member of its Compensation Committee. In addition, from 2005 to 2006 she was a director of Hospira, Inc., a specialty pharmaceutical

delivery company, and a member of its Audit and Public Policy and Compliance Committees. She also sits on the board of trustees of Smith College and is a member of its Audit, Finance, Buildings and Grounds, and Libraries Committees and chairs the Audit and Information Technology Committees.

Ms. Pelham has received numerous honors for her civic and healthcare systems leadership, including the CEO IT Achievement Award in 2004 from Modern Healthcare and the Healthcare Information Management Systems Society for her leadership in implementing information technology in healthcare provider organizations and the National Quality Healthcare Award in 2004 from the National Committee for Quality Healthcare, for innovation and implementation of clinical quality and patient safety systems. She received the American Hospital Association Partnership for Action Grassroots Advocacy Award in 1992 in recognition of her work in healthcare reform.

The Board concluded that Ms. Pelham should serve on the Board due to Ms. Pelham’s career as an executive leader at a number of large healthcare systems, as well her extensive experience developing programs to improve the health status of communities and championing innovation and advances in the delivery of, access to and financing of healthcare, her understanding of the nation’s healthcare system, the patient populations served by our Company’s products and the operations of our Company.

Ronald D. Sugar is the retired Chairman of the Board and Chief Executive Officer of Northrop Grumman Corporation, a global aerospace and defense company, having held these posts from 2003 through 2009. He was President and Chief Operating Officer of Northrop Grumman Corporation from 2001 until 2003. He was President, Chief Operating Officer and director of Litton Industries, Inc., a developer of military products, from 2000 until 2001, and Chief Financial Officer of TRW, Inc., an aerospace, automotive and credit reporting company, from 1994 to 1996, and President and Chief Operating Officer of TRW Aerospace, a developer of missile systems and spacecraft, from 1998 to 2000. He is a senior advisor to Ares Management LLC, a privately-held asset manager and registered investment advisor, and a senior advisor to Northrop Grumman Corporation, both since 2010.

Dr. Sugar has been a director of Chevron Corporation, a petroleum, exploration, production and refining company, since 2005. Dr. Sugar has also been a director of Apple Inc., a manufacturer and seller of, among other things, personal computers, mobile communication and media devices since

2010 and of Air Lease Corporation, an aircraft leasing company, since 2010. Dr. Sugar chairs the Audit Committee of Chevron, chairs the Audit and Finance Committee of Apple, chairs the Compensation Committee of Air Lease, and serves on the Air Lease Governance Committee. In 2014, Dr. Sugar joined the Temasek Americas Advisory Panel of Temasek Holdings (Private) Limited, a private investment company based in Singapore. Dr. Sugar is a member of the National Academy of Engineering, trustee of the University of Southern California, member of UCLA Anderson School of Management Board of Visitors, director and member of the Los Angeles Philharmonic Association and national trustee of the Boys and Girls Clubs of America.

The Board concluded that Dr. Sugar should serve on our Board because Dr. Sugar’s board and senior executive-level expertise, including his recent experience as Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of Northrop Grumman Corporation, provides valuable leadership experience and insight in the areas of operations, government affairs, technology and finance.

R. Sanders Williams has served as a director of the Company since October 17, 2014. Dr. Williams was first identified to the Governance and Nominating Committee as a potential director candidate by Vance D. Coffman, our lead independent director, and Robert A. Bradway, our Chairman of the Board and Chief Executive Officer. Dr. Williams is President of Gladstone Institutes, a non-profit biomedical research enterprise, and its Robert W. and Linda L. Mahley Distinguished Professor of Medicine, both since 2010. He is also a Professor of Medicine at the University of California, San Francisco since 2010. Prior to this, Dr. Williams served as Senior Vice Chancellor of the Duke University School of Medicine from 2008 to 2010 and Dean of the Duke University School of Medicine from 2001 to 2008. He was the founding Dean of the Duke-NUS Graduate Medical School, Singapore, from 2003 to 2008 and served on its Governing Board from 2003 to 2010. From 1990 to 2001, Dr. Williams was Chief of Cardiology and Director of the Ryburn Center for Molecular Cardiology at the University of Texas, Southwestern Medical Center. Dr. Williams has been a director of the Laboratory

Corporation of America Holdings, a diagnostic technologies company, since 2007. Dr. Williams was a director of Bristol-Meyers Squibb Company, a pharmaceutical company, from 2006 until 2013. Dr. Williams has served on the board of directors of the Gladstone Foundation, a non-profit institution that is distinct from Gladstone Institutes, since 2012 and on the board of directors of Exploratorium, a non-profit science museum and learning center located in San Francisco, since 2011. Dr. Williams received his undergraduate degree from Princeton University and his doctorate from Duke University.

The Board concluded that Dr. Williams should serve on the Board due to his broad medical and scientific background, including his leadership roles at Gladstone Institutes and Duke University, deep experience in cardiology, oversight of governance of multi-hospital healthcare provider systems, leadership of international medical programs in Singapore and China, and prior industry board experience, all of which provide valuable perspectives and insight into the operations of our Company.

THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS RECOMMENDS A VOTE “FOR” EACH OF THE ABOVE 13 NAMED NOMINEES.

The Audit Committee of the Board of Directors has selected Ernst & Young LLP, or Ernst & Young, as our independent registered public accountants for the fiscal year ending December 31, 2015, and the Board has directed that management submit this selection for ratification by the stockholders at our 2015 Annual Meeting of Stockholders. Ernst & Young has served as our independent registered public accounting firm and has audited our financial statements since the Company’s inception in 1980. The Audit Committee periodically considers whether there should be a rotation of our independent registered public accountants. The members of the Audit Committee believe that the continued retention of Ernst & Young as our independent registered public accountants is in the best interests of the Company. In conjunction with the mandated rotation of Ernst & Young’s lead engagement partner, the Audit Committee and its chairperson are directly involved in the selection of Ernst & Young’s new lead engagement partner. A representative of Ernst & Young is expected to be present at the

Annual Meeting and will have an opportunity to make a statement and respond to appropriate questions.

Stockholder ratification of the selection of Ernst & Young as our independent registered public accountants is not required by the Amgen Inc. Restated Certificate of Incorporation, the Amended and Restated Bylaws of Amgen Inc., or otherwise. However, the Board is submitting the selection of Ernst & Young to the stockholders for ratification because we believe it is a matter of good corporate governance practice. If our stockholders fail to ratify the selection, the Audit Committee will reconsider whether or not to retain Ernst & Young, but still may retain them. Even if the selection is ratified, the Audit Committee in its discretion may direct the appointment of a different independent registered public accounting firm at any time during the year if the Audit Committee determines that such a change would be in our best interests and that of our stockholders.

THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS RECOMMENDS A VOTE “FOR” RATIFICATION OF OUR INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS.

This advisory stockholder vote, commonly known as “Say on Pay,” gives you as a stockholder the opportunity to endorse or not endorse our executive pay program and policies. Accordingly, you are being asked to vote on the compensation of our Named Executive Officers, or NEOs, as disclosed in the Compensation Discussion and Analysis and related compensation tables and the narrative in this proxy statement.

Our executive compensation program is designed to achieve the following objectives:

A significant majority of each NEO’s compensation is dependent on our performance and our execution of our strategic priorities. In 2014, we delivered strong performance, the highlights of which include:

Our stock price increased from $114.08 to $159.29 per share during 2014, reflecting appreciation of 40%. This 2014 stock price performance contributed to our strong three-year stock price performance. Since 2012, our stock price has increased 148% versus 103% for our peer group and 64% for the Standard & Poor’s 500, or S&P 500.

Our one-year total shareholder return, or TSR, of 42%, including our dividends, outperforms the TSRs of our peer group and the S&P 500 for the same period of 24% and 14%, respectively. Our three-year TSR of 157% also outperforms the TSRs of our peer group and the S&P 500 for the same period of 111% and 75%, respectively.

Our Annual Cash Incentive Award Program is Tied Directly to Our Performance Based on Pre-Established Performance Goals.

The payout under our annual cash incentive award program for all measures after weighting was 147% of target bonus opportunity.

In 2014, we received over 97% stockholder support on our say on pay advisory vote. We have engaged consistently in broad direct stockholder outreach over the past several years and have found these interactions highly valuable and informative and will continue to engage with our stockholders to further enhance our understanding of the perspectives of our investors. The compensation related feedback from our stockholders is reviewed by our Compensation and Management Development Committee, or Compensation Committee, and we have made a number of compensation changes in response to past discussions with our stockholders.

Since our 2014 annual meeting of stockholders, we have engaged in outreach activities and discussions with stockholders comprising approximately 50% of our outstanding shares. In 2014, our predominant feedback from investors with respect to our compensation practices was that they are satisfied with our compensation program. While we are pleased with our say on pay results and stockholder feedback, we will continue to reach out to understand and address any concerns of our stockholders. Our stockholder outreach efforts will continue after the filing of this proxy statement, as well as through our executive compensation website (accessible at www.amgen.com/executivecompensation) initiated in 2008 that invites stockholders to provide feedback directly to the Compensation Committee regarding our executive compensation program.

We are mindful of compensation and governance best practices and have implemented the following practices, among others:

Our Board believes that our current executive compensation program aligns the interests of our executives with those of our stockholders and is earned primarily based on the performance of our Company. We intend that our compensation programs reward actions and outcomes that are consistent with the sound operation of our Company and are aligned with the creation of long-term stockholder value.

For the reasons discussed above, the Board recommends that stockholders vote “FOR” the following resolution:

“Resolved, that the stockholders approve, on an advisory basis, the compensation paid to the Company’s Named Executive Officers, as disclosed pursuant to Securities and

Exchange Commission rules in the Compensation Discussion and Analysis, the compensation tables and the accompanying narrative disclosure of this proxy statement.” Although this vote is advisory and is not binding on the Board, our Compensation Committee values the opinions expressed by our stockholders and will consider the outcome of the vote when making future executive compensation decisions.

We currently conduct annual advisory votes on executive compensation, and we expect to conduct the next advisory vote on executive compensation at our 2016 annual meeting of stockholders.

THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS RECOMMENDS A VOTE “FOR” THE APPROVAL OF THE ADVISORY RESOLUTION INDICATING THE APPROVAL OF THE COMPENSATION OF THE COMPANY’S NAMED EXECUTIVE OFFICERS.

A stockholder and co-filer have informed the Company that they intend to present the proposal set forth below at our 2015 Annual Meeting of Stockholders, or Annual Meeting. If the stockholder (or its “qualified representative” as determined under our Amended and Restated Bylaws) is present at the Annual Meeting and properly submits the proposal for a vote, then the stockholder proposal will be voted upon at the Annual Meeting.

In accordance with the Federal securities laws, the stockholder proposal and supporting statement is presented below as submitted by the stockholder and is quoted verbatim and is in italics. The Company disclaims all responsibility for the content of the proposal and the supporting statement, including other sources referenced in the supporting statement.

FOR THE REASONS STATED IN THE BOARD’S RESPONSE, WHICH FOLLOWS THE STOCKHOLDER PROPOSAL, THE BOARD STRONGLY AND UNANIMOUSLY RECOMMENDS THAT YOU VOTE “AGAINST” THE STOCKHOLDER PROPOSAL.

Stockholder Proposal

Michael Burke Stansbury and Francie Rutherford, each owner of a purported 50 shares of our Common Stock as of December 9, 2014, appointing Investor Voice, SPC as their representative, with an address of 10033 12th Avenue NW, Seattle, WA 98177, have notified us of their intention to submit the following proposal at our Annual Meeting. Walden Asset Management, owner of a purported 25,636 shares of our Common Stock as of December 3, 2014, has notified us that they are co-filing the proposal.

RESOLVED: Shareholders of Amgen, Inc. (“Amgen”) hereby request the Board of Directors to initiate the steps necessary to amend Amgen’s governing documents to provide that all matters presented to shareholders, other than the election of directors, shall be decided by a simple majority of the shares voted FOR and AGAINST an item. This policy shall apply to all such matters unless shareholders have approved higher thresholds, or applicable laws or stock exchange regulations dictate otherwise.

SUPPORTING STATEMENT:

This proposal is needed because Amgen counts votes two different ways in its proxy – a practice we feel is confusing, inconsistent, does not fully honor voter intent, and harms shareholder best-interest.

Vote Calculation Methodologies, a CalPERS / GMI Ratings report, studied companies in the S&P 500 and Russell 1000 and found that 48% employ simple majority vote-counting as requested by this Proposal. See http://www.calpers-governance.org/docs-sof/provyvoting/calpers-russell-1000-vote-caculation-methodology-final-v2.pdf

Recently, Cardinal Health, ConAgra Foods, Plum Creek Timber, and Smucker’s each implemented the request of this Proposal.

The Securities and Exchange Commission dictates a specific vote-counting formula for the purpose of establishing eligibility for resubmission of shareholder-sponsored proposals. This formula – which we will call the “Simple Majority Vote” – is the votes cast FOR, divided by two categories of vote, the:

However, Amgen does not uniformly follow the Simple Majority Vote. With respect to adopting a shareholder-sponsored proposal (versus determining its eligibility for resubmission), Amgen’s proxy states that abstentions “will have the same effect as votes against”.

Thus, results are determined by the votes cast FOR a proposal, divided by not two, but three categories of vote:

At the same time as Amgen applies this more restrictive formula that includes abstentions to shareholder-sponsored items (and other management ones), it employs the Simple Majority Vote and excludes abstentions for management’s Proposal 1 (in uncontested director elections), saying they “will not count”.

These practices boost the appearance of support for management’s Proposal 1, but depress the calculated level of support for other items – including every shareholder proposal.

Invariably, abstaining voters have not followed a Board’s typical recommendation to vote AGAINST every shareholder-sponsored item. Despite this, Amgen counts every abstain vote – without exception – as if the voter agreed with the Board’s AGAINST recommendation.

In our view, Amgen’s use of two vote-counting formulas is confusing, inconsistent, does not fully honor voter intent, and harms shareholder best-interest.

Therefore, please vote FOR good governance and Simple Majority Voting at Amgen.

~ ~ ~

The Board of Directors recommends a vote “AGAINST” the Stockholder Proposal for the following reasons:

Our Board of Directors has considered this proposal and has concluded that it is not in the best interests of the Company or its stockholders to adopt the proponent’s vote-counting methodology.

Our stockholder approval standard and vote counting methodology of including abstentions adheres to Delaware law. The Company is incorporated in the State of Delaware and, therefore, Delaware law governs the voting standards for action by the Company’s stockholders. The required vote for action by the Company’s stockholders follows the default approval standard for stockholder action under Delaware law. The Company’s Amended and Restated Bylaws provide that, except in the election of directors, as otherwise provided by the Company’s governing documents or required by applicable laws, rules and regulations, when a quorum is present, the affirmative vote of the holders of a majority of the shares present (in person or by proxy) and entitled to vote is required to approve any matter brought before a stockholder meeting. We believe the majority of Delaware corporations adhere to the same default voting standard.

Under Delaware law, abstention votes are considered shares “entitled to vote.” Accordingly, in the vote tabulation for matters that require the affirmative vote of the majority of the shares present and entitled to vote, abstentions are not included in the numerator (because they are not affirmative votes), but are included in the denominator as shares entitled to vote. Therefore, abstentions under this standard have the same practical effect as a vote “against” a proposal.

Our vote counting methodology applies identically to management-sponsored proposals and stockholder proposals. In its supporting statement, the proponent focuses on the effect that counting abstentions has on stockholder proposals. As disclosed in this proxy statement, abstention votes are included in the vote count for each of these management-sponsored proposals and have the same practical effect as a vote against them. This vote count standard does not favor these management-sponsored proposals over the stockholder proposals. Both are treated equally.

Our Board of Directors believes that since stockholders are made aware of the treatment and effect of abstentions, counting abstention votes effectively honors the intent of our stockholders. Stockholders typically have three voting choices for a particular proposal: for; against and abstain. In the proxy statement for the annual meeting, the Company discloses the vote required to approve each proposal, and also describes how abstentions will be counted in the vote tabulation and the effect of abstentions on the outcome of a matter. The Company’s stockholders are informed that if they vote “abstain” on a proposal other than the election of directors, their vote will have the same practical effect as an “against” vote, and the Board believes that counting abstention votes effectively honors the intent of the Company’s stockholders. If a stockholder elects to abstain on a matter, the Board believes that the stockholder recognizes the impact of the vote and expects it to be included in the vote count.

Furthermore, the Board believes that abstentions serve a worthwhile purpose. The proponent of an item of business,

be it management or a stockholder, bears the burden of persuading a majority of stockholders to affirmatively vote in favor of the item. Consistent with conversations we have had with some of our stockholders, the proponent’s own cited source recognizes the value of abstentions, noting, “that some institutional investors abstain on shareholder proposals when they wish to convey support for the general subject matter, but have reservations about the specific action requested.”⁽¹⁾ We therefore do not believe it would be in our stockholders’ best interest or effective corporate governance to disregard these views.

Our Board of Directors believes that lowering the approval standard for proposals would be poor corporate governance. The proponent requests that abstentions be ignored for all matters presented to the Company’s stockholders. Ignoring abstention votes would lower the approval standard and effectively make approval easier. Except with respect to the election of directors and matters that require, statutorily or otherwise, a different vote, the Board believes that a proposal—whether management-sponsored or stockholder-sponsored—should receive more “for” votes than the sum of “against” and “abstain” votes in order to constitute approval by the Company’s stockholders. Moreover, the proponent’s argument of using the “SEC Standard” of excluding abstentions in vote tabulations is based on the SEC’s vote-counting rules for determining whether a stockholder may resubmit a proposal for inclusion in a company’s proxy statement. These rules do not govern whether a stockholder proposal has been approved by stockholders. It may be that in this limited context the SEC

wished to set a lower bar to enable stockholders to more easily resubmit proposals. However, in other contexts, the SEC promotes voting standards similar to ours. For instance, the SEC expressly requires a form of proxy to include an abstention option with respect to the advisory vote on the frequency of advisory vote on executive compensation. The Board believes that it would not be effective corporate governance or serve the best interests of the Company’s stockholders to take one voting standard that an organization applies to a specific context and adopt that standard universally.

Faced with similar proposals in 2014, stockholders overwhelmingly did not support the adoption of the proposed vote counting methodology. In 2014, three companies included a similar proposal from Investor Voice in their 2014 annual meeting proxy statements. Each of those proposals received less than 13% support from stockholders. The proponent’s supporting statement claims that ConAgra Foods has implemented the request of this proposal yet ConAgra Food’s 2014 annual meeting proxy statement proposal on this topic received just 12.6% of its stockholders’ support and we have found no evidence in public filings that ConAgra Foods has indeed implemented the subject of this proposal. Additionally, Investor Voice failed to attend our 2014 Annual Meeting of Stockholders to properly present the proposal and so it was not properly placed before the meeting. However, had it been presented, based on voting information as of immediately prior to our meeting, it would have received very low support (approximately 5.4%) from our stockholders.

THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS RECOMMENDS A VOTE “AGAINST” THE STOCKHOLDER PROPOSAL.

Our Board of Directors, or Board, is governed by our Amgen Board of Directors Corporate Governance Principles, or Corporate Governance Principles, which are amended from time to time to incorporate certain current best practices in corporate governance. Our Corporate Governance Principles may be found on our website at www.amgen.com and are available in print upon written request to the Company’s Secretary at our principal executive offices at One Amgen Center Drive, Thousand Oaks, California 91320-1799, Mail Stop 38-5-A. The Board’s corporate governance practices include the following:

Our Governance Committee is responsible for determining Board membership qualifications and for selecting, evaluating and recommending to the Board nominees for annual election to the Board and to fill vacancies as they arise. The Governance Committee reviews, periodically with the Board, the composition and size of the Board, each committee’s performance and makes recommendations, as necessary, so that the Board reflects the appropriate balance of knowledge, experience, skills, expertise and diversity advisable for the Board as a whole and contains at least the minimum number of independent directors required by applicable laws and regulations.

The Governance Committee maintains guidelines for selecting nominees to serve on the Board and for considering stockholder recommendations for nominees. The Amgen Inc. Board of Directors Guidelines for Director Qualifications and Evaluations are included in this proxy statement as

Appendix A. Among other things, Board members should possess demonstrated breadth and depth of management and leadership experience, financial and/or business acumen or relevant industry or scientific experience, integrity and high ethical standards, sufficient time to devote to the Company’s business, the ability to oversee, as a director, the Company’s business and affairs for the benefit of our stockholders, the ability to comply with the Amgen Board of Directors Code of Conduct and a demonstrated ability to think independently and work collaboratively. In addition, although the Governance Committee does not maintain a diversity policy, the Governance Committee considers diversity in its determinations. Diversity includes race, ethnicity, age and gender and is also broadly construed to take into consideration many other factors, including industry knowledge, operational experience and scientific and academic expertise, geography and personal backgrounds.

Our current leadership structure and governing documents permit the roles of Chairman and CEO to be filled by the same or different individuals. The Board has currently determined that it is in the best interests of the Company and our stockholders to have Robert A. Bradway, our CEO and President, serve as Chairman, coupled with an active lead independent director. As such, Mr. Bradway holds the position of Chairman, CEO and President, and Dr. Coffman serves as the lead independent director.

Corporate Governance Structure. The Board believes our corporate governance structure, with its strong emphasis on Board independence, an active lead independent director and strong Board and committee involvement, provides sound and robust oversight of management.

Director Independence. At least annually, the Governance Committee reviews the independence of each non-employee director and makes recommendations regarding director independence to the Board and the Board affirmatively determines whether each director qualifies as independent. Each director must keep the Governance Committee fully and promptly informed as to any development that may affect the director’s independence.

12 out of the 13 director nominees (over 92%) are independent as defined by The NASDAQ Stock Market, or NASDAQ, listing standards and the requirements of the Securities and Exchange Commission, or SEC, with the exception being Mr. Bradway. All of our directors are elected annually.

Lead Independent Director. The lead independent director is elected by the independent members of the Board on an annual basis. Dr. Coffman has served as the lead independent director since January 1, 2012. His term was extended by the independent members of the Board in December 2014 and he was re-elected to serve for an additional term by the independent members of the Board in March 2015. In such position, Dr. Coffman serves as a means for regular communication between the independent directors and Mr. Bradway, keeping Mr. Bradway apprised of any concerns, issues or determinations made during the independent sessions, and consults with Mr. Bradway on other matters pertinent to the Company and the Board. The lead independent director’s additional responsibilities include:

Key Committees Comprised of Independent Directors. The Audit, Compensation, Compliance and Governance Committees are each composed solely of independent directors and provide independent oversight of management. In addition, the Audit, Compensation and Compliance Committees meet in executive session on a regular basis with no members of management present (unless otherwise requested by the committee). Each of our committees effectively manages its Board delegated duties and communicates regularly with the Chairman and members of management. In addition, the Compensation Committee has an effective process for monitoring and evaluating Mr. Bradway’s compensation and performance. Each committee chair provides a report on committee meetings held to the full Board at each regular meeting of the Board.

Independent Directors Sessions. At each regularly scheduled Board meeting, the independent directors meet in an executive session without Mr. Bradway to review Company performance, management effectiveness, proposed programs and transactions and the Board meeting agenda items. These independent sessions are organized and chaired by our lead independent director.

Annual Assessment. As part of the Board’s annual self-evaluation process, the Board reviews its leadership structure and whether combining or separating the roles of

Chairman and CEO is in the best interests of the Company and our stockholders.

Benefits of Combined Leadership Structure. The Board believes that the Company and our stockholders have been best served by having Mr. Bradway in the role of Chairman and CEO for the following reasons:

Flexibility of the Leadership Structure. The Board is committed to high standards of corporate governance. The Board values its flexibility to select, from time to time, a leadership structure that is best able to serve the Company’s

and stockholders’ best interests based on the qualifications of individuals available and circumstances existing at the time. As such, the Board regularly evaluates whether combining or separating the roles of Chairman and CEO is in the best interests of the Company and our stockholders. The Board believes that a policy limiting its flexibility to choose, consistent with its fiduciary duties, a leadership structure that will enable the Company to most effectively execute its strategy and business plans to maximize stockholder value would be detrimental to the Company and our stockholders.

The Board’s Role in Risk Oversight

Our Board oversees an enterprise-wide approach to risk management, which is designed to support the achievement of the Company’s objectives, including strategic objectives to improve long-term financial and operational performance and enhance stockholder value. Our Board believes that a fundamental part of risk management is understanding the risks that we face, monitoring these risks and adopting appropriate control and mitigation of these risks. We believe that the risk management areas that are fundamental to the success of our annual and strategic plans include the areas of product development, safety, supply, quality, value and access, sales and promotion and corporate development, as well as protecting our assets (financial, intellectual property and information), all of which are managed cross-functionally by senior executive management reporting directly to our CEO.

We have implemented an Enterprise Risk Management, or ERM, program, which is a Company-wide effort to identify, assess, manage, report and monitor enterprise risks and risk areas that may affect our ability to achieve the Company’s objectives. The ERM program involves our Board, our management and other personnel and is overseen by one of our senior executive officers. Enterprise risks are identified and managed by management and the business functions and, as discussed below, are overseen by the Board or the appropriate Board committee.

At each regular meeting, or more frequently as needed, the Board considers reports from each of the committees set forth above, which reports may provide additional detail on risk management issues and management’s response.

Compensation Risk Management

On an annual basis, management, working with the Compensation Committee’s independent compensation consultant, conducts an assessment of the Company’s compensation policies and practices for all staff members generally, and for our staff members who participate in our sales incentive compensation program, for material risk to the Company. The results of this assessment are reviewed and discussed with the Compensation Committee. Based on this assessment, review and discussion, we believe that, through a combination of risk-mitigating features and incentives guided by relevant market practices and Company-wide goals, our compensation policies and practices do not present risks that are reasonably likely to have a material adverse effect on us.

In evaluating our compensation policies and practices, a number of factors were identified which the Company, the Compensation Committee and its independent consultant believe discourage excessive risk-taking, including the factors described below:

Our Board has adopted two codes of business conduct and ethics, one that applies to our directors and the second which applies to all of our staff members, including our executive officers. We also have a Code of Ethics for senior financial officers. To view our codes of business conduct, please visit our website at www.amgen.com. We intend to

disclose any future amendments to certain provisions of our codes of business conduct and ethics, or waivers of such provisions, applicable to our directors and executive officers, at the same location on our website identified above. There were no waivers of any of the codes of business conduct or the codes of ethics in 2014.

At least annually, the Governance Committee reviews the independence of each non-employee director and makes recommendations to the Board and the Board affirmatively determines whether each director qualifies as independent. Each director must keep the Governance Committee fully and promptly informed as to any development that may affect the director’s independence.

The Board has determined that each of our non-employee directors is independent under the listing standards of NASDAQ and the requirements of the SEC. Mr. Bradway is

not independent based on his service as our CEO and President. Mr. Bradway is the only director who also serves us in a management capacity. In making its independence determinations, the Board reviewed direct and indirect transactions and relationships between each director, or any member of his or her immediate family, and us or one of our subsidiaries or affiliates based on information provided by the director, our records and publicly available information. All of the reviewed transactions and arrangements were entered into in the ordinary course of business and none of the business transactions, donations or grants involved an

amount that (i) exceeded the greater of 5% of the recipient entity’s revenues or $200,000 with respect to transactions where a director or any member of his or her immediate family or spouse served in any capacity other than as a director of a publicly held-corporation or (ii) exceeded $10,000 with respect to professional or consulting services provided by entities at which our directors serve as professors or employees. The following types and categories of transactions, relationships and arrangements were considered by our Board in making its independence determinations:

None of our directors directly or indirectly provides any professional or consulting services to us and none of our directors currently has or has had any direct or indirect material interest in any of the above transactions and arrangements. The Board determined that these transactions and arrangements did not warrant a determination that the director was not independent.

The Board held seven meetings in 2014 and all of the directors attended at least 75% of the total number of meetings of the Board and committees on which they served. Dr. Williams was appointed to the Board in October 2014 and attended all meetings of the Board and committees on which he served in 2014 after the date of his appointment. The independent directors meet in executive session without management, including Mr. Bradway, present at all regularly

scheduled meetings of the Board. Dr. Coffman, our lead independent director, presided at such meetings. We and the Board expect all current directors to attend our annual meetings of stockholders barring unforeseen circumstances or irresolvable conflicts. All of the then-current members of the Board, except for Drs. Baltimore and Coffman, were present at our 2014 annual meeting of stockholders.

The Board has six standing committees: Audit Committee; Compensation Committee; Compliance Committee; Equity Award Committee; Executive Committee and Governance Committee. The Board maintains charters for each of these standing committees. In addition, the Board has adopted a written set of Corporate Governance Principles and a Board

of Directors’ code of conduct that generally formalize practices we have in place. To view the charters of our standing Board committees, our Corporate Governance Principles and the Board of Directors’ code of conduct, please visit our website at www.amgen.com.

Audit Committee

The Audit Committee met nine times in 2014. Throughout 2014 and currently, Mr. Biondi serves as chairman and Ms. Pelham, Dr. Baltimore and Messrs. de Carbonnel, Eckert and Garland serve as members of the Audit Committee. Dr. Gilbert S. Omenn served on the Audit Committee until his retirement from the Board in May 2014. All members of the Audit Committee meet the NASDAQ composition requirements, including the requirements regarding financial literacy and financial sophistication, and the Board has determined that each member is independent under the listing standards of NASDAQ and the rules of the SEC, regarding audit committee membership. The Board has also determined that Messrs. Biondi, de Carbonnel, Eckert and Garland are each an “audit committee financial expert” as defined by SEC rules.

The Audit Committee has sole authority for the appointment, compensation, retention and oversight of the work of the independent registered public accountants, and responsibility for reviewing and discussing, prior to filing or issuance, with management and the independent registered public accountants (when appropriate) our audited consolidated financial statements to be included in our Annual Report on Form 10-K and earnings press releases.

Compensation and Management Development Committee

The Compensation Committee met six times in 2014. Throughout 2014 and currently, Mr. Herringer serves as chairman and Ms. Pelham, Mr. Biondi and Dr. Coffman serve as members of the Compensation Committee. Each member of the Compensation Committee has been determined by the Board to be independent under the listing standards of NASDAQ and the requirements of the SEC.

The Compensation Committee assists the Board in fulfilling its fiduciary responsibilities with respect to the oversight of the Company’s compensation plans, policies and programs, especially those regarding executive compensation. The Compensation Committee is responsible for designing the Company’s compensation programs that encourage high performance, promote accountability and adherence to Company values and the staff member code of conduct and to align with the interests of the Company’s stockholders. The Compensation Committee is responsible for ensuring that the executive management development processes

attract, develop and retain talented leadership to serve the long-term best interests of the Company. The Compensation Committee has authority for overseeing the Board’s relationship with stockholders on executive compensation matters, including stockholder outreach efforts, stockholder proposals, advisory votes, communications with proxy advisory firms and related matters.

The processes and procedures of the Compensation Committee for considering and determining compensation for 2014 for our executive officers were as follows:

Each year the Compensation Committee reviews the independence of its compensation consultants and other advisors. In performing its analysis, the Compensation Committee considers the factors set forth in the SEC rules and the NASDAQ listing requirements. After review and consultation with Cook & Co., the Compensation Committee has determined that Cook & Co. is independent and there is no conflict of interest resulting from retaining Cook & Co. currently or during the year ended December 31, 2014.

Equity Award Committee

The Equity Award Committee met four times in 2014. Throughout 2014 and currently, Mr. Herringer serves as chairman and Dr. Coffman and Mr. Bradway serve as members of the Equity Award Committee. Our Board has delegated to the Equity Award Committee the responsibility for determining annual equity-based awards to vice presidents and below who are not Section 16 officers and authority to make equity-based awards from time to time to such eligible staff members for purposes of compensation, retention, promotion and upon commencement of their employment consistent with the equity grant guidelines established by the Compensation Committee. In addition, the Equity Award Committee presents a report to the Compensation Committee detailing the equity-based awards made by the Equity Award Committee at least twice per year.

Governance and Nominating Committee

The Governance Committee met four times in 2014. Throughout 2014 and currently, Dr. Coffman serves as chairman and Drs. Baltimore, Henderson, Jacks and Sugar, and Messrs. de Carbonnel, Garland and Herringer serve as members of the Governance Committee, with Dr. Williams joining the Governance Committee effective October 2014. Each of the members of the Governance Committee has been determined by the Board to be independent under the listing standards of NASDAQ and the requirements of the SEC.

The Governance Committee is responsible for developing and overseeing the Board’s Corporate Governance Principles and a code of conduct applicable to members of the Board and for monitoring the independence of the Board. The

Governance Committee also determines Board membership qualifications, selects, evaluates and recommends to the Board nominees to fill vacancies as they arise, reviews the performance of the Board and its committees and is responsible for director education. The Governance Committee maintains, with the approval of the Board, guidelines for selecting nominees to serve on the Board and considering stockholder recommendations for nominees. Such guidelines are included in this proxy statement as Appendix A. Stockholders wishing to communicate with the Governance Committee regarding recommendations for director nominees should follow the procedure described in “Communication with the Board” below. See “OTHER MATTERS—Stockholder Proposals” for a description of the information that a stockholder proposing to nominate a director for election must provide to the Company in their advance notice. Additionally, the Governance Committee recommends to the Board nominees for appointment as executive officers and certain other officers.

The Governance Committee also oversees the corporate governance and Board membership matters of the Company. The Governance Committee identifies and recommends to the Board qualified individuals for Board and committee membership and considers and recommends to the Board nominees to stand for election at the annual meeting of stockholders and to fill vacancies as they arise as more fully described previously in “Director Qualifications and Review of Board Diversity.” Among the Governance Committee’s responsibilities, the Governance Committee evaluates and makes recommendations to our Board regarding compensation for non-employee Board members. Any Board member who is also an employee of the Company does not receive separate compensation for service on the Board.

The processes and procedures of the Governance Committee for considering and determining director compensation are as follows:

Corporate Responsibility and Compliance Committee

The Compliance Committee met five times in 2014. Throughout 2014 and currently, Dr. Sugar serves as chairman and Drs. Henderson and Jacks and Mr. Eckert serve as members of the Compliance Committee. Dr. Omenn served on the Compliance Committee until his retirement from the Board in May 2014. Dr. Williams joined the Compliance Committee effective October 2014.

The Compliance Committee is responsible for overseeing our compliance program and reviewing our programs in a number of areas governing ethical conduct including: (i) Federal health care program requirements; (ii) Food and Drug Administration requirements and other regulatory agency requirements, including good manufacturing, clinical and laboratory practices, drug safety and pharmacovigilance activities; (iii) interactions with members of the healthcare community; (iv) the Company’s Corporate Integrity Agreement; (v) environment, health and safety and (iv) human resources and government affairs. Additionally, the Compliance Committee receives regular updates on political, social and environmental trends, and public policy issues that may affect our business or public image, and reviews our environmental sustainability, political and philanthropic activities.

Our compliance program is designed to promote ethical business conduct and ensure compliance with applicable laws and regulations. We have codes of conduct for our officers, staff and suppliers that delineate standards for ethical business conduct and legal and regulatory

compliance as well as a business conduct hotline through which anonymous reports of misconduct can be made to our Chief Compliance Officer. To view the codes of conduct, please visit our website at www.amgen.com.

Our Chief Compliance Officer, who reports to the Compliance Committee, oversees the ongoing operations of the compliance program. The key objectives of our compliance program operations include developing policies and procedures, providing ongoing compliance training and education, auditing and monitoring of compliance risks, maintaining and promoting the business conduct hotline, conducting investigations, responding appropriately to any compliance violations and taking appropriate steps to detect and prevent recurrence.

Executive Committee

The Executive Committee did not meet in 2014. Throughout 2014 and currently, Mr. Bradway serves as chairman and Messrs. Biondi and Herringer and Drs. Coffman and Sugar serve as members of the Executive Committee. The Executive Committee has all the powers and authority of the Board in the management of our business and affairs, except with respect to certain enumerated matters, including Board composition and compensation, changes to the Amgen Inc. Restated Certificate of Incorporation or any other matter expressly prohibited by law or the Amgen Inc. Restated Certificate of Incorporation.

Our annual meeting of stockholders provides an opportunity each year for stockholders to ask questions of, or otherwise communicate directly with, members of the Board on appropriate matters. In addition, stockholders may communicate in writing with any particular director, any committee of the Board, or the directors as a group, by sending such written communication to our Secretary at our principal executive offices at One Amgen Center Drive, Thousand Oaks, California 91320-1799, Mail Stop 38-5-A. Copies of written communications received at such address will be provided to the Board or the relevant director unless such communications are considered, in the reasonable judgment of our Secretary, to be inappropriate for submission to the intended recipient(s). Examples of stockholder

communications that would be considered inappropriate for submission to the Board include, without limitation, customer complaints, solicitations, communications that do not relate directly or indirectly to our business or communications that relate to improper or irrelevant topics. The Secretary or his designee may analyze and prepare a response to the information contained in communications received and may deliver a copy of the communication to other Company staff members or agents who are responsible for analyzing or responding to complaints or requests. Communications concerning potential director nominees submitted by any of our stockholders will be forwarded to the chairman of the Governance Committee.

The Compensation Committee has reviewed and discussed the following Compensation Discussion and Analysis with management, and based on the review and discussions, recommended to the Board of Directors that the

Compensation Discussion and Analysis be included in the Company’s 2015 Annual Meeting proxy statement and incorporated by reference into the Company’s Annual Report on Form 10-K.

A significant majority of each NEO’s compensation is dependent on our performance and our execution of our strategic priorities. In 2014, we delivered strong performance, the highlights of which include:

Our stock price increased from $114.08 to $159.29 per share during 2014, reflecting appreciation of 40%. This 2014 stock price performance contributed to our strong three-year stock price performance. Since 2012, our stock price has increased 148% versus 103% for our peer group and 64% for the Standard & Poor’s 500, or S&P 500.

Our one-year total shareholder return, or TSR, of 42%, including our dividends, outperforms the TSRs of our peer group and the S&P 500 for the same period of 24% and 14%, respectively. Our three-year TSR of 157% also outperforms the TSRs of our peer group and the S&P 500 for the same period of 111% and 75%, respectively.

*represents annualized dividend

Our Annual Cash Incentive Award Program is Tied Directly to Our Performance Based on Pre-Established Performance Goals.

The payout under our annual cash incentive award program for all measures after weighting was 147% of target bonus opportunity.

In 2014, we received over 97% stockholder support on our say on pay advisory vote. We have engaged consistently in broad direct stockholder outreach over the past several years and have found these interactions highly valuable and informative and will continue to engage with our stockholders to further enhance our understanding of the perspectives of our investors. The compensation related feedback from our stockholders is reviewed by our Compensation and Management Development Committee, or Compensation Committee, and we have made a number of compensation changes in response to past discussions with our stockholders.

Since our 2014 annual meeting of stockholders, we have engaged in outreach activities and discussions with stockholders comprising approximately 50% of our outstanding shares. In 2014, our predominant feedback from investors with respect to our compensation practices was that they are satisfied with our compensation program. While we are pleased with our say on pay results and stockholder feedback, we will continue to reach out to understand and address any concerns of our stockholders. Our stockholder outreach efforts will continue after the filing of this proxy statement, as well as through our executive compensation website (accessible at www.amgen.com/executivecompensation) initiated in 2008 that invites stockholders to provide feedback directly to the Compensation Committee regarding our executive compensation program.

Use of Independent Compensation Committee Consultant

To assist the Compensation Committee in its review and determination of executive compensation, the Compensation Committee retained and sought advice from Frederic W. Cook & Co., Inc., or Cook & Co., an independent consultant, throughout 2014 and to date in 2015. George B. Paulin, the Chairman of Cook & Co., worked directly with the Compensation Committee in the roles and undertaking the responsibilities previously described in “How Compensation Decisions Are Made for Our Named Executive Officers” and specifically provided consultation regarding regulatory updates, selection of our peer group and market practices for NEO compensation.

On a periodic basis, the Company purchases proprietary executive compensation survey data from Cook & Co. to inform the Compensation Committee’s decisions, but does not engage Cook & Co. for any other services to the Company. During 2014, the Compensation Committee, as in past years, had responsibility for engaging Cook & Co. and directed the nature of the activity and interchange of data between Cook & Co. and management.

Peer Group

The Compensation Committee recognizes the unique demands of our industry, including its complex regulatory and reimbursement environment, and the challenges of running an enterprise focused on the discovery, development, manufacture and commercialization of innovative treatments to address serious illness. The Compensation Committee believes that these unique demands require executive talent that has significant industry experience as well as, for certain key functions, unique scientific expertise to oversee research and development activities and the complex manufacturing requirements for biologic products. Further, the Compensation Committee believes that these very specific skills and capabilities limit the pool of talent from which we can recruit and also cause our employees to be highly valued and sought after in our industry. This makes it imperative that our peer group for compensation purposes include those companies with which we compete for new executives given the similarities in experience and knowledge that are

developed at these companies. Moreover, as evidenced by the fact that 13 of the 15 companies in our peer group (10 U.S.-based companies) also list us as a peer, we believe that our peer group accurately reflects those companies with whom we compete for executive talent. The Compensation Committee compares our pay levels and programs to the peer group and uses this comparative data as a reference point in its review and determination of executive compensation. The Compensation Committee’s approach also considers our performance, the individual’s performance and other relevant factors in setting pay.

In July 2014, Cook & Co. reviewed our peer group with the Compensation Committee to determine whether it remained appropriate. Based in part on recommendations from Cook & Co., the Compensation Committee determined that the peer group remained appropriate and continued to meet the following objective criteria from the universe of other pharmaceutical and biotechnology companies given that our relative size and positioning remains generally the same as the prior year:

Therefore, no changes were made to the peer group in 2014 and it is the Compensation Committee’s view that this peer group is the most appropriate for benchmarking executive compensation as these companies are generally those with which we most closely compete for executive talent.

The market capitalization of our peer group ranged between $33 billion and $258 billion determined as of the last trading day of 2013 as provided by ThomsonONE™. The 2013 revenues of our peer group ranged between $6.3 billion and $71.3 billion based on public filings. Amgen’s 2013 market capitalization and revenues were $86 billion and $18.7 billion, respectively. The median 2013 market capitalization and revenues of our peer group (not including Amgen) was $115 billion and $25.7 billion, respectively. We were between the 25^th percentile and median relative to all of our peer group and in the range of median relative to our U.S. peers.

Peer Group Data

Our primary data sources for evaluating all elements of compensation for our CEO and other NEOs’ against the peer group in March 2014 were the 2013 Towers Watson Pharmaceutical Human Resources Association, or PHRA, Executive Compensation Survey (the 2013 Towers Survey), and the available data from proxy statements filed in 2013 with the SEC for our peer group. The 2013 Towers Survey contains compensation information from pharmaceutical companies in our peer group, but does not contain information on many biotechnology companies. Therefore, compensation information for the biotechnology companies within our peer group is compiled using proxy statement filings to provide additional data and to inform the

Compensation Committee. The 2013 Towers Survey data and the peer group proxy data is compiled and presented by management to the Compensation Committee both individually and in the aggregate, including the comparison of each NEO on a position or pay rank basis and an analysis of each element of direct compensation at the median and 75^th percentile of the peer group for each NEO position, other than Mr. Bradway, as our CEO. For Mr. Bradway, Cook & Co. provides data to the Compensation Committee of the median and a range between the 25^th percentile and 75^th percentile of the specific compensation elements paid to CEOs in our peer group. In addition to the sources provided previously, for the determination of LTI equity awards, we also considered the Cook & Co. 2013 Survey of Long-Term Incentives.

In general, the “Market Median” is derived by averaging the values of the 2013 Towers Survey 50^th percentile and the 2013 peer group proxy statement 50^th percentile, except for Mr. Bradway as our CEO. The Market Median shown for Mr. Bradway was the median of the specific compensation elements paid to CEOs in our peer group, as reported by Cook & Co. from proxy statement filings and Form 8-K filings. Mr. Hooper’s position was not well-represented in either the 2013 Towers Survey or peer group proxy statements and, accordingly, based on his position as Executive Vice President, Global Commercial Operations with its global scope and span as well as degree of importance to the

Company, Mr. Hooper was matched to the median of the second highest paid NEOs in the 2013 Towers Survey. No market comparable position data was available for Mr. Balachandran because his position as Executive Vice President, Operations had no comparable position included in the 2013 Towers Survey or peer group proxy statement filings as our peer group companies did not have individuals

in similarly global positions. Mr. Balachandran’s position was unique, as compared to positions reported in the 2013 Towers Survey and the peer group proxy statements, because it includes global oversight of all of the Company’s manufacturing operations, quality and product and process engineering.

Long-Term Incentive Equity Awards

Our compensation program aims to achieve the appropriate balance of compensation relative to the responsibilities of our staff members, with the result that the largest proportion of the compensation program for our CEO and the other executive officers is in the form of LTI equity awards that are risk-based and closely aligned with the creation of long-term stockholder value. Equity-based compensation represents 72% of our CEO’s compensation and 64% of compensation for our other NEOs. In addition, we also grant LTI equity awards each year to nearly all of our staff members worldwide to increase awareness of how our performance impacts stockholder value.

Company Continues to Exercise Discipline in the Grant of Long-Term Incentive Equity Awards

Our compensation philosophy, practices and approach continue to be effective in balancing the use of equity to align employees with our stockholders while being mindful of the level of dilution that our stockholders experience. The Compensation Committee sets an LTI budget that is approximately at the 50^th percentile, or median, of our peer group because, while the Compensation Committee supports a broad-based equity plan to align our staff members with our stockholders, based on the rates at which we grant LTI equity awards the Compensation Committee strives to limit the amount of stockholder dilution to that which would be expected to be experienced by stockholders of our peer group. The rates at which we grant LTI equity awards and its potential dilutive effect is consistent with our peer group levels and has decreased over the last five years.

LTI equity award grant guidelines for each job level within the Company are then set based on the size of the annual total LTI equity award budget. We believe that our capacity to grant equity-based compensation has been a significant factor in achieving our strategic objectives by rewarding execution of our strategy and stock price appreciation, aligning our NEOs’ and staff members’ interests with stockholders and fostering long-term focus and retention.

Long-Term Incentive Equity Award Composition

LTI equity awards granted to our NEOs in 2014 consisted of 80% performance units and 20% RSUs.

This allocation results in the substantial majority of equity compensation being earned based on our achieved performance. We believe it is important to maintain a relatively small percentage of equity awards in the form of RSUs to incentivize retention. This composition of LTI equity awards also facilitates a more efficient use of the shares available under our LTI equity award plan and minimizes dilution as fewer shares are used when granting performance units and RSUs as compared to stock options. Performance units are generally earned at the end of the three-year performance period to the extent to which the performance

goals for the applicable period are met. Our time-vested RSUs generally vest over four years, with no vesting in the first year and vesting in approximately three equal annual installments on the second, third and fourth anniversaries of the grant date (instead of four equal annual installments commencing on the first anniversary of the grant date). This delay in the commencement of RSU vesting further emphasizes the long-term performance focus of our LTI equity award program and enhances retention.

Value of Long-Term Incentive Equity Awards Granted to Named Executive Officers in 2014

In December 2013, the Compensation Committee considered executive LTI equity award grants for 2014. To determine 2014 executive LTI equity award grant compensation, the Compensation Committee compared the value of the 2014 annual LTI equity awards for each NEO being recommended by management to the 50^th and 75^th percentile of the peer group for each available NEO position (as previously described under “Peer Group Data”). The Compensation Committee also took the Company’s performance, the individual’s performance in their role and historical grant levels into account when determining individual grants.

In reviewing the peer group market data, the Compensation Committee took into account the reduction in the median values of our peer group. Also, the Compensation Committee noted the difference in LTI equity award values for our Executive Vice President roles (or their equivalents). As a result, the Compensation Committee approved reduced values for LTI equity award grants made in 2014 from those made in 2013 for all NEOs, other than the CEO, to respond to lower median values among our peer group for those roles. Also, the Compensation Committee approved slightly higher grant values for Mr. Hooper and Dr. Harper than granted to Mr. Balachandran because Mr. Hooper and Dr. Harper are viewed as having positions that have comparable impact to the execution of the Company’s strategy, whereas Mr. Balachandran’s role was viewed to be more comparable to the Chief Financial Officer market data available shown in the table below. The Compensation Committee awarded Mr. Bradway a LTI equity award grant valued higher than in 2013 to maintain median positioning against our peer group for this position as the 2013 median for the CEO position increased over the prior year.