Table of Contents

UNITED STATES

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

Washington, D.C. 20549

SCHEDULE 14A

Proxy Statement Pursuant to Section 14(a) of the

Securities Exchange Act of 1934

(Amendment No.    )

Filed by the Registrant  x                            Filed by a Party other than the Registrant  ¨

Check the appropriate box:

Table of Contents

April 27, 2012

Alan J. Herrick

President and Chief Executive Officer

Dear Stockholder,

We invite you to join us at the Annual Meeting of Stockholders of Sapient Corporation, a Delaware corporation. The meeting will be held on Thursday, June 7, 2012 at 9:00 a.m. local time at the Company’s headquarters located at 131 Dartmouth Street, Boston, Massachusetts 02116.

This Proxy Statement describes how you may participate in our Annual Meeting, whether or not in person, and includes the formal agenda for the meeting.

In addition to addressing the specific agenda items at the meeting, we will present a general overview of our operations and ongoing strategy, and will be happy to respond to stockholder questions properly brought before the meeting.

For your convenience, our 2012 Proxy Statement and our Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2011 are available via the Internet at www.proxyvote.com.

Alan J. Herrick

President and Chief Executive Officer

Table of Contents

SAPIENT CORPORATION

131 Dartmouth Street

Boston, Massachusetts 02116

NOTICE OF ANNUAL MEETING OF STOCKHOLDERS

The 2012 Annual Meeting of Stockholders of Sapient Corporation (the “Annual Meeting”) will be held at the offices of Sapient Corporation (“Sapient” or the “Company”), located at 131 Dartmouth Street, Boston, Massachusetts 02116 on Thursday, June 7, 2012, at 9:00 a.m. (local time), for the following purposes:

The stockholders will also act on any additional business that may properly come before the Annual Meeting.

The record date for the Annual Meeting is April 11, 2012. Only stockholders of record as of the close of business on the record date are entitled to vote at the Annual Meeting and any adjournment or postponement thereof. If the Annual Meeting is adjourned or postponed for any reason, any action remaining to be taken on the above matters will be considered when the meeting is resumed.

Your vote is important and is being solicited by our Board of Directors. Instructions on how to vote, a discussion of the above proposals, and significant information about the Company may be found in our 2012 Proxy Statement attached to this Notice. If you plan to attend the Annual Meeting in person, please check the appropriate box on your proxy card prior to submission.

We are pleased to offer these proxy materials and our 2011 Annual Report on Form 10-K (our “Annual Report”) to stockholders via the Internet at www.proxyvote.com. We believe posting these materials on the Internet enables us to provide our stockholders with necessary information more quickly, lowers printing and delivery costs and reduces the environmental impact of our annual meetings of stockholders.

By Order of the Board of Directors,

Joseph A. LaSala, Jr.

Senior Vice President, General Counsel and Secretary

Boston, Massachusetts

April 27, 2012

Table of Contents

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Table of Contents

SAPIENT CORPORATION

131 Dartmouth Street

Boston, Massachusetts 02116

PROXY STATEMENT

For the Annual Meeting of Stockholders

To Be Held on June 7, 2012

INFORMATION ABOUT THE ANNUAL MEETING

Why did I receive these proxy materials?

You received this proxy statement (this “Proxy Statement”), accompanying proxy card or voting instruction form, and our Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2011 (without exhibits) (our “Annual Report”) because the Board of Directors of Sapient Corporation is soliciting your proxy to vote at our 2012 Annual Meeting of Stockholders (the “Annual Meeting”). In these materials, we refer to Sapient Corporation as “Sapient,” “Company,” “we,” “us,” and “our” and to the Board of Directors of Sapient Corporation as “Board of Directors” and “Board.” Our principal executive offices are located at 131 Dartmouth Street, Boston, Massachusetts 02116. Our telephone number is (617) 621-0200. The Notice of Annual Meeting of Stockholders, which accompanies this Proxy Statement and a proxy card, was mailed to stockholders beginning on or about April 27, 2012.

What proposals are being considered at the Annual Meeting?

The proposals listed in the Notice of Annual Meeting of Stockholders are the matters that will be voted on at the Annual Meeting.

How many votes are needed to approve the proposals?

If you choose to withhold authority to vote for any individual director nominee(s) or if you vote to “Abstain” from Proposals Two or Three, your votes will not be included in the vote tally for such proposal and will have no effect on the results of the vote.

Who may vote at the Annual Meeting?

Only stockholders of record as of the close of business on April 11, 2012, the record date, will be entitled to vote at the Annual Meeting.

Table of Contents

Stockholder of Record — If you own shares of our common stock and those shares are registered directly in your name with our transfer agent, American Stock Transfer & Trust Company, you are a stockholder of record, or a “record holder.” As a record holder, you may vote in person at the Annual Meeting or by proxy.

Beneficial Owner — If your shares are held in an account at a brokerage firm, bank or other nominee (each, a “broker”), then you are the “beneficial owner” of shares held in “street name,” and these proxy materials have been or will be forwarded to you by your broker. For purposes of voting at the Annual Meeting, the broker holding your account is considered the record holder, but as a beneficial owner you have the right to direct your broker how to vote the shares in your account.

If you are a beneficial owner, you are invited to attend the Annual Meeting but may not vote your shares in person unless you request and obtain a valid proxy issued in your name from your broker. To vote your shares in person at the Annual Meeting, you must present the following items to the Secretary of the Company before the voting begins: (a) picture identification; (b) an account statement or letter from the record holder, indicating that you owned the stated shares as of the record date; and (c) a proxy from the record holder issued in your name.

How do I vote my shares?

You are entitled to one vote for each share of our common stock you owned as of the record date. Whether or not you plan to attend the Annual Meeting, please carefully review this Proxy Statement and submit your proxy promptly by one of the methods available to you, as described below.

If you vote by telephone or the Internet, you do not need to return your proxy card or voting instruction form. Instead, please follow the instructions on your proxy card or voting instruction form for telephone and Internet voting. So long as your proxy is received prior to the vote at the Annual Meeting and not revoked, your shares will be voted as directed on your proxy. To make certain that your vote will be received in time, please cast your vote, by your choice of available means, at your earliest opportunity.

If you plan to attend the Annual Meeting and need directions to the Company’s headquarters, please contact our Investor Relations department at the address listed on the Notice of Annual Meeting of Stockholders or by email at ir@sapient.com.

How does the Board recommend that I vote?

The Board recommends that you vote:

(1) FOR the election of each of the eight director nominees;

(2) FOR the ratification of the selection of PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP as our independent registered public accounting firm for the 2012 fiscal year; and

(3) FOR our named executive officer compensation.

May I change my vote after submitting my proxy or voting instruction form?

2

Table of Contents

How will my shares be voted if I submit my proxy but don’t provide specific instructions?

What is a “broker non-vote”?

A “broker non-vote” is a proxy submitted by a broker for a matter over which the broker does not have discretionary voting power and for which such broker has not received instructions from the beneficial owner or other person entitled to vote the shares represented by the proxy. While brokers may use their discretion to vote on routine matters where the beneficial owner has not provided instructions, neither the election of directors nor the advisory vote on compensation paid to our named executive officers is deemed a “routine” matter. Of the proposals to be acted upon at the Annual Meeting, we believe that only the ratification of auditors is a routine matter. Therefore, if you do not give your broker voting instructions, your shares will not be voted as to any proposal at the Annual Meeting other than the ratification of auditors. If you have questions about broker non-votes or the voting process generally, please contact your broker or visit the Securities and Exchange Commission’s (“SEC”) website at http://www.sec.gov/spotlight/proxymatters.shtml.

What is a quorum requirement?

To be valid, the Annual Meeting must have a quorum of stockholders present or represented. A quorum of stockholders will be deemed present or represented if at least a majority of the total number of shares of common stock outstanding and entitled to vote as of the close of business on the record date is present or represented by proxy at the Annual Meeting. For purposes of achieving a quorum, abstentions (when you choose to decline to vote), votes withheld from a director nominee, and “broker non-votes” will be counted as present and entitled to vote. As of the close of business on the record date, 140,387,115 shares of our common stock were outstanding and entitled to vote. For a quorum to exist, at least 70,193,558 shares must be present or represented by proxy at our Annual Meeting. Our common stock is our only class of securities outstanding.

3

Table of Contents

IMPORTANT NOTICE REGARDING THE AVAILABILITY OF PROXY MATERIALS FOR THE SAPIENT

CORPORATION ANNUAL MEETING OF STOCKHOLDERS TO BE HELD ON JUNE 7, 2012

This Proxy Statement and our Annual Report are available free of charge at www.proxyvote.com.

You may also find a copy of this Proxy Statement and our Annual Report (with exhibits) on the SEC website at http://www.sec.gov. We will, upon written request and without charge, send you additional copies of our Annual Report (with or without exhibits) and this Proxy Statement. To request additional copies, please send your request by mail to: Sapient Corporation Investor Relations Department, c/o Sapient Corporation, 131 Dartmouth Street, Boston, Massachusetts 02116; or by e-mail to ir@sapient.com.

ELECTRONIC DELIVERY OF FUTURE STOCKHOLDER COMMUNICATIONS

We are pleased to offer our stockholders the opportunity to receive stockholder communications electronically. By opting for electronic delivery of documents, you will receive stockholder communications such as our Proxy Statement and Annual Report as soon as they become available, and may vote via the Internet on matters to be decided at the Annual Meeting. Choosing electronic delivery reduces the number of bulky documents in your mail, conserves natural resources, and reduces our printing and mailing costs.

To sign up for electronic delivery of future mailings, visit http://www.icsdelivery.com/sape and enter information for all of your Sapient stockholdings. Once you enroll, you will receive all future mailings via electronic delivery until you elect to cancel your enrollment by following the instructions provided on the website. If you have any questions about electronic delivery, please contact our Investor Relations department at the mail or e-mail address listed above.

HOUSEHOLDING OF PROXY MATERIALS

Like many other companies, brokers, banks, and nominee record holders, Sapient participates in a practice commonly known as “householding,” where a single copy of our Proxy Statement and Annual Report is sent to one address for the benefit of two or more stockholders sharing that address unless we have received contrary instructions. Householding is permitted under rules adopted by the SEC as a means of satisfying the delivery requirements for proxy statements and annual reports, potentially resulting in extra convenience for stockholders and cost savings for companies. If you hold your shares through a broker, you may have consented to reducing the number of copies of materials delivered to your address. In the event you wish to revoke your consent provided to a broker, you must contact that broker to revoke your consent. If you are subject to householding, we will promptly deliver a separate copy of either document to you if you contact our Investor Relations department at the address or website listed above or call us at (617) 621-0200. If you are receiving multiple copies of our Proxy Statement and Annual Report at your household and wish to receive only one, please notify your broker or contact our Investor Relations department at the mail or e-mail address listed above.

PROPOSAL 1 — ELECTION OF DIRECTORS

The first proposal for consideration at our Annual Meeting is the election of the eight director nominees named in this Proxy Statement. Upon the recommendation of our Governance and Nominating Committee, the Board of Directors has nominated James M. Benson, Hermann Buerger, Jerry A. Greenberg, Alan J. Herrick, J. Stuart Moore, Robert L. Rosen, Ashok Shah and Vijay Singal for election as directors (collectively, the “director nominees”), each of whom currently serves as a director of the Company. Information about our director nominees can be found beginning on page 10 of this Proxy Statement.

If elected, each director nominee will serve as a director until our 2013 Annual Meeting of Stockholders and his successor is duly elected and qualified, or until his earlier death, resignation or removal.

4

Table of Contents

Each director nominee has indicated his willingness to stand for election and serve as a member of our Board of Directors, if elected. However, if any director nominee should be unwilling or unable to stand for election, the person acting as proxy may vote the proxy “FOR” a substitute nominee designated by the Board of Directors. The Board of Directors has no reason to believe that any of the director nominees will be unable to serve if elected.

The number of directors constituting the Board of Directors is fixed at nine, and we currently have nine directors on our Board: the eight director nominees and Darius W. Gaskins, Jr., our Chairman of the Board and Governance and Nominating Committee chair. Mr. Gaskins will continue to serve on the Board in such roles until his current term on the Board expires immediately following the Annual Meeting. At such time, the Board of Directors will reduce the number of directors constituting the Board of Directors to eight immediately following the Annual Meeting. Accordingly, the persons named in the provided proxy card cannot vote for a greater number of persons than the eight director nominees.

The eight director nominees receiving the highest number of “FOR” votes by the shares entitled to be voted will be elected. The persons named in the accompanying proxy card will vote each proxy “FOR” the election of the director nominees unless authority to vote for the election of one or more of the nominees is withheld by marking the proxy card to that effect. Broker non-votes and abstentions will not be counted as votes “FOR” the director nominees.

For more information about our Board of Directors and its Committees, including the director nomination process, see “Information About Our Directors and Corporate Governance” beginning on page 10 of this Proxy Statement.

THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS UNANIMOUSLY RECOMMENDS THAT OUR STOCKHOLDERS VOTE “FOR” THE ELECTION OF EACH OF THE EIGHT DIRECTOR NOMINEES.

5

Table of Contents

PROPOSAL 2 — RATIFICATION OF SELECTION OF PRICEWATERHOUSECOOPERS LLP AS THE COMPANY’S INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM

The second proposal for consideration at our Annual Meeting is to ratify the selection, made by the Audit Committee of our Board of Directors, of PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP (“PwC”) as our independent registered public accounting firm for the fiscal year ending December 31, 2012.

PwC has served as our independent registered public accounting firm since 1999, and we have been advised by PwC that it is an independent registered public accounting firm with the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (the “PCAOB”) and complies with the auditing, quality control and independence standards and rules of the PCAOB and the SEC. A representative of PwC is expected to be present at the Annual Meeting to answer appropriate questions, and to make a statement if he or she so desires.

STATEMENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM FEES AND SERVICES

The professional services provided by PwC and the aggregate fees for those services rendered to Sapient during the years ended December 31, 2011 and 2010 were as follows:

For a discussion of the Audit Committee’s pre-approval policies and procedures, see page 15 of this Proxy Statement.

Although stockholder approval of the Audit Committee’s selection of PwC is not required by law, the Board of Directors believes it is advisable to afford stockholders an opportunity to ratify this selection. Even if the selection of PwC is ratified, the Audit Committee may, in its discretion, direct the appointment of a different independent registered public accounting firm or firms, in whole or in part, at any time during the year, should it determine that such a change is in the best interests of the Company and its stockholders.

Unless contrary instructions are given, shares represented by proxies solicited by the Board of Directors will be voted “FOR” the ratification of the selection of PwC as the Company’s independent registered public accounting firm for the fiscal year ending December 31, 2012. If this proposal is not approved at the Annual

6

Table of Contents

Meeting, the Audit Committee will reconsider its selection of PwC, although it may elect to continue to retain PwC. If you are a beneficial owner whose shares are held of record by a broker, your broker has discretionary voting authority to vote your shares on the ratification of the selection of PwC as our independent registered public accounting firm. Abstentions will not be counted as votes “FOR” or “AGAINST” this proposal.

THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS UNANIMOUSLY RECOMMENDS THAT OUR STOCKHOLDERS VOTE “FOR” THE RATIFICATION OF THE SELECTION OF PRICEWATERHOUSECOOPERS LLP AS THE COMPANY’S INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM FOR THE FISCAL YEAR ENDING DECEMBER 31, 2012.

PROPOSAL 3 — ADVISORY VOTE TO APPROVE EXECUTIVE COMPENSATION (“SAY-ON-PAY”)

The Company is providing its stockholders with the opportunity to cast an advisory vote on executive compensation, as it did in 2011. Under the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act of 2010 (the “Dodd-Frank Act”), stockholders are entitled to vote at the Annual Meeting to approve, on an advisory basis, the compensation of the Company’s named executive officers, as disclosed in this Proxy Statement pursuant to Item 402 of Regulation S-K.

The stockholder vote on executive compensation is an advisory vote only, and it is not binding on the Company or the Board of Directors. Although the vote is non-binding, the Compensation Committee and the Board of Directors value the opinions of the stockholders and will consider the outcome of the vote when making future compensation decisions. Furthermore, the Company believes that it is appropriate to annually seek the views of stockholders on the design and effectiveness of the Company’s executive compensation program. In 2011, the advisory vote on executive compensation received greater than 95% support from stockholders.

As described in detail under the heading “Compensation Discussion and Analysis” (“CD&A”), beginning on page 26 of this Proxy Statement, our executive compensation program is designed to implement and achieve the goals of our executive compensation philosophy. Our philosophy, fundamentally, is to align each executive’s compensation with our short-term and long-term performance and to provide the compensation and incentives needed to attract, motivate, and retain our named executive officers, who are critical to our success. Under this executive compensation program, our named executive officers are rewarded for the achievement of specific annual, long-term and strategic goals, corporate goals, and the realization of increased stockholder value. The CD&A provides additional details about our executive compensation program, including information about the fiscal year 2011 compensation of our named executive officers.

Sapient continues to maintain best practices in designing and implementing its executive compensation program. These practices include the following:

7

Table of Contents

We are asking our stockholders to indicate their support for our named executive officer compensation as described in this Proxy Statement. This proposal, commonly known as a “say-on-pay” proposal, gives our stockholders the opportunity to express their views on our named executive officers’ compensation. This vote is not intended to address any specific item of compensation, but rather the overall compensation of our named executive officers and our philosophy, policies and practices as described in this Proxy Statement. Accordingly, we ask our stockholders to vote “FOR” the following resolution:

“RESOLVED, that the compensation paid to the Company’s named executive officers, as disclosed pursuant to Item 402 of Regulation S-K, including the Compensation Discussion and Analysis, compensation tables and narrative discussion, is hereby APPROVED on an advisory basis.”

Broker non-votes and abstentions will not be voted “FOR” or “AGAINST” this proposal.

THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS UNANIMOUSLY RECOMMENDS A VOTE “FOR” THE APPROVAL, ON AN ADVISORY BASIS, OF THE COMPENSATION OF OUR NAMED EXECUTIVE OFFICERS.

8

Table of Contents

REPORT OF THE AUDIT COMMITTEE OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS

The report by this committee is not “soliciting material,” is not deemed “filed” with the SEC and is not to be incorporated by reference into any filing of the Company under the Securities Act of 1933 or the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, both as amended.

The Audit Committee of the Board of Directors of Sapient (the “Audit Committee”) comprises four non-employee directors, each of whom is an independent director within the meaning of the applicable NASDAQ listing standards and SEC rules and regulations.

On behalf of the Board of Directors, the Audit Committee oversees the operation of a comprehensive system of internal control designed to ensure the integrity of Sapient’s financial statements and reports; compliance with laws, regulations and corporate policies; and the independent registered public accounting firm’s qualifications, performance and independence.

Consistent with this oversight responsibility, the Audit Committee has reviewed and discussed with management the audited financial statements for the year ended December 31, 2011 and management’s assessment of the effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting as of December 31, 2011. PwC, the Company’s independent registered public accounting firm in 2011, issued its report on the Company’s financial statements and the effectiveness of the Company’s internal control over financial reporting, the details of which are set forth in the Company’s Annual Report.

Additionally, the Audit Committee has discussed with PwC the matters required to be discussed in accordance with Statement on Auditing Standards (“SAS”) No. 61, Communication with Audit Committees, as amended by SAS No. 90, Audit Committee Communications. The Audit Committee also has received the written disclosures and the letter from PwC required by the PCAOB regarding PwC’s communications with the Audit Committee concerning independence, and has discussed PwC’s independence from the Company and its management.

Based on these reviews and discussions, the Audit Committee recommended to the Board of Directors that the Company’s audited financial statements for the year ended December 31, 2011 be included in the Company’s Annual Report.

Hermann Buerger, Chairman

Robert L. Rosen

Ashok Shah

Vijay Singal

9

Table of Contents

INFORMATION ABOUT OUR DIRECTORS AND CORPORATE GOVERNANCE

At the recommendation of the Governance and Nominating Committee, our Board of Directors proposes that the following eight individuals, each a current member of our Board of Directors, be nominated for election at our Annual Meeting, as described beginning on page 4 of this Proxy Statement.

The below biographical information is provided as of the date of this Proxy Statement for each director nominee, including his age, period of service as a director, business experience during at least the past five years (including other public company directorships), and any qualifications, attributes and skills that contributed to the Board’s conclusion that he should continue his service as a member of our Board of Directors.

Director Nominees

10

Table of Contents

11

Table of Contents

12

Table of Contents

Board Leadership Structure

Our Chairman of the Board, Darius W. Gaskins, Jr., is an independent director and has served as Chairman of the Board and Governance and Nominating Committee chair since June 2008. Mr. Gaskins will continue to serve as Chairman of the Board and Governance and Nominating Committee chair until his current term on the Board expires immediately following the Annual Meeting. Following the Annual Meeting and as a result of the expiration of Mr. Gaskins’ term, the Board will adopt a leadership structure for the Board that will best serve the interests of our stockholders.

The Board believes that during Mr. Gaskins’ tenure as Chairman of the Board, its leadership structure provided an appropriate and effective level of oversight over the Company’s business operations, enhanced the Board’s ability to oversee our enterprise-wide approach to risk management, and enabled the Board to carry out its roles and responsibilities on behalf of the Company’s stockholders.

Independence of our Board of Directors and its Committees

The listing rules established by the NASDAQ Global Select Market (“NASDAQ”) require that a majority of the members of a listed company’s board of directors qualify as “independent,” as affirmatively determined by the Board. This means that each independent director has no relationship that would interfere with his exercise of independent judgment. Our Board of Directors considers a number of factors in determining independence and consults with legal counsel to ensure that our Board’s determination with respect to the definition of “independent” is consistent with current NASDAQ listing rules.

Our Board of Directors reviewed all relevant transactions or relationships between each director (or any of his family members) and Sapient and/or our senior management, and the Board has affirmatively determined that each of our current directors, other than Alan J. Herrick (our President and Chief Executive Officer) and Jerry A. Greenberg, is an independent director under the applicable guidelines noted above.

13

Table of Contents

Our Board of Directors has four committees: the Audit Committee, Compensation Committee, Governance and Nominating Committee, and Risk Committee. With the exception of Mr. Greenberg’s service on the Risk Committee, each of these committees consists solely of Board members determined to be independent as established under current NASDAQ listing rules and applicable securities laws and regulations.

Board Oversight of Risk Management

The Board believes that evaluating how the executive team manages the various risks confronting the Company is one of its most important areas of oversight. In carrying out this critical responsibility, the Board’s Risk Committee focuses on oversight of the Company’s enterprise risk management, and each of the other Board committees considers risk within its specific area of responsibility. The specific duties and responsibilities of the committees are set forth under each committee’s respective heading below. Each of the committee chairs reports to the full Board at its regular meetings concerning the activities of the committee, the significant issues it has discussed, and the actions taken by the committee. While the Board and its committees oversee risk management strategy, management is responsible for implementing and supervising day-to-day risk management processes, and reporting to the Board and its committees on such matters.

Board and Committee Meetings

Our Board of Directors and its committees meet periodically throughout the year, as needed, to direct management of the Company. In 2011, the Board of Directors held 12 meetings and took action by unanimous written consent four times. Each director attended at least 93% of the aggregate of the meetings of the Board and the committees on which he served. Our independent directors met in regularly scheduled executive sessions at which only independent directors were present.

Director Attendance at Annual Meetings

We encourage, but do not require, our directors to attend our Annual Meetings of Stockholders. All directors attended the Company’s 2011 Annual Meeting of Stockholders.

Audit Committee

The Audit Committee, among other responsibilities, reviews our auditing, accounting, financial reporting and internal control functions, and selects our independent registered public accounting firm. See “Report of the Audit Committee of the Board of Directors” on page 9 of this Proxy Statement. The Audit Committee meets at least four times annually and with greater frequency if necessary. The Audit Committee met 11 times in 2011.

The current members of the Audit Committee are Hermann Buerger, Robert L. Rosen, Ashok Shah and Vijay Singal, each of whom is an independent director within the meaning of applicable NASDAQ listing rules and securities laws and regulations, is able to read and understand the Company’s financial statements and, per the applicable NASDAQ listing standards, has not participated in the preparation of the Company’s or its subsidiaries’ financial statements in the last three years. Currently, Mr. Buerger serves as the Chairman of the Audit Committee. Our Board of Directors has determined that each of Mr. Buerger, Mr. Rosen, and Dr. Singal is an “audit committee financial expert” within the meaning of the rules and regulations of the SEC and that each member of the Audit Committee has the requisite financial sophistication required by applicable NASDAQ listing standards.

Under its charter, the Audit Committee may form and delegate authority to subcommittees consisting of one or more members of the committee, as appropriate. Unless otherwise specifically determined by the Audit Committee, its Chairman will serve as a one-person subcommittee with discretionary authority to act on the committee’s behalf during periods between its meetings. The Audit Committee may request reports of the actions of any subcommittee at subsequent meetings. The Audit Committee’s responsibilities are more fully described in its charter, a copy of which may be found on the Investors portion of our website, http://www.sapient.com, under “Corporate Governance.”

14

Table of Contents

Pre-Approval of Audit and Permissible Non-Audit Services

Consistent with requirements of the SEC and the PCAOB regarding auditor independence, the Audit Committee has responsibility for appointing, setting the compensation of, and overseeing the work of the independent registered public accounting firm. In recognition of this responsibility, the Audit Committee has established a policy to pre-approve all audit and permissible non-audit services provided by the independent registered public accounting firm.

Prior to engagement of the independent registered public accounting firm for the next year’s audit, management submits a list of services and related fees expected to be rendered during that year within each of four categories of services to the Audit Committee for approval.

Prior to engagement, the Audit Committee pre-approves independent registered public accounting firm services within each category and the fees for each category are budgeted. The Audit Committee requires the independent registered public accounting firm and management to report actual fees versus the budget periodically throughout the year by category of service. During the year, circumstances may arise when it may become necessary to engage the independent registered public accounting firm for additional services not contemplated in the original pre-approval categories. In those instances, the Audit Committee requires specific pre-approval before engaging the independent registered public accounting firm.

Risk Committee

The Risk Committee focuses on oversight of the Company’s enterprise risk management and is responsible for, among other duties, identifying, evaluating and mitigating strategic, operational and external environmental risks the Company may encounter. The Risk Committee’s primary role is to ensure Company management has instituted adequate processes to identify and evaluate major risks and has developed, where merited, credible plans to mitigate such risks. From time to time, the Risk Committee determines the primary risks it believes merit increased Board-level, strategic oversight focus, and ensures such focus occurs, as appropriate.

The Risk Committee meets at least two times annually and with greater frequency if necessary. The Risk Committee met three times in 2011 and its current members are James M. Benson, Jerry A. Greenberg, J. Stuart Moore and Vijay Singal. Dr. Singal and Messrs. Benson and Moore meet the criteria for independence required under applicable NASDAQ listing rules and securities laws and regulations. Currently, Dr. Singal serves as the Chairman of the Risk Committee.

15

Table of Contents

Under its charter, the Risk Committee may form and delegate authority to subcommittees consisting of two members of the committee, as appropriate. Subcommittees have the authority to act on the committee’s behalf during periods between committee meetings, and the committee may request reports of the actions of any subcommittee at subsequent meetings. The Risk Committee’s responsibilities are more fully described in its charter, a copy of which may be found on the Investors portion of our website, http://www.sapient.com, under “Corporate Governance.”

Compensation Committee

The Compensation Committee is responsible for reviewing our overall compensation policies and, with the input of the Chief Executive Officer, approves and oversees the framework of our executive compensation program, including the elements and amounts of compensation for our executive officers. However, our Chief Executive Officer may not participate in or be present during any deliberations or determinations of the Compensation Committee regarding his own compensation or individual performance objectives.

The Compensation Committee meets at least three times annually and with greater frequency if necessary. The Compensation Committee met seven times and took action by unanimous written consent once in 2011. In the first quarter of each year, the Compensation Committee meets to approve our senior leadership team’s annual bonus payments for the prior year and determine and approve the current year’s base salary changes, annual bonus targets, and equity awards for our senior leadership team, including our Chief Executive Officer. The Compensation Committee also meets at other times, as warranted, to approve compensation adjustments for our executives, among other matters.

The current members of the Compensation Committee are James M. Benson, Darius W. Gaskins, Jr. and Ashok Shah, each of whom is an independent, outside, non-employee director within the meaning of applicable NASDAQ listing rules, tax rules, and applicable securities laws and regulations. Currently, Mr. Benson serves as the Chairman of the Compensation Committee. Although it regularly meets in executive session, from time to time the Compensation Committee invites various members of management, other employees and outside advisors or consultants to join its meetings to make presentations, provide financial or other background information or advice, or otherwise participate. The Compensation Committee also retains outside consultants periodically to provide advice regarding trends in compensation practices and comparative benchmarking data.

Under its charter, the Compensation Committee may form and delegate authority to subcommittees consisting of one or more of its members, as appropriate. Unless specifically determined otherwise by the Compensation Committee, its Chairman serves as a one-person subcommittee with discretionary authority to act on the committee’s behalf during periods between its meetings. The Compensation Committee may request reports of the actions of any subcommittee at subsequent meetings. The Compensation Committee’s functions and responsibilities are more fully described in its charter, a copy of which may be found on the Investors portion of our website, http://www.sapient.com, under “Corporate Governance.”

More detailed information related to our compensation philosophies and goals, as well as the Compensation Committee’s specific determinations concerning executive compensation, may be found under “Compensation Discussion and Analysis,” beginning on page 26 of this Proxy Statement.

Outside Compensation Consultants and Affiliated Companies

Since 2008, the Compensation Committee has retained Mercer (US), Inc. (“Mercer”), an outside consulting firm, to advise the committee on the Company’s executive compensation program. In 2011, the Compensation Committee again directly engaged Mercer to assess the competitiveness of the base salaries, target and actual total cash compensation, long-term incentives and actual total direct compensation of our named executive officers as well as assist the Compensation Committee with the evaluation and development of compensation packages for our senior leadership team members. Mercer was paid $213,989 for these services.

16

Table of Contents

Sapient management also engaged Mercer in 2011 to provide support to the Company with non-executive compensation benchmarking, sales incentive compensation, surveys, international brokerage, and actuarial work related to our self-insured U.S. health plan. For these services, the Company paid Mercer $172,590 in fees. Although the Compensation Committee was aware of the extent and cost of Mercer’s additional services provided to management, management defined and authorized the work.

Mercer is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Marsh & McLennan Companies (“MMC”). In 2011, we paid fees of $261,086 to another MMC company, Marsh Inc. (“Marsh”), for the provision of insurance brokering services unrelated to those services provided by Mercer. These fees do not include the cost of insurance policy premiums. Although the Compensation Committee was aware of the extent and cost of Marsh’s services provided to management, management defined and authorized the work.

Because the Compensation Committee and management both use Mercer for compensation consultancy services, the Compensation Committee and Mercer have implemented policies and procedures to ensure that the advice the Compensation Committee receives from Mercer is objective and not influenced by Mercer’s or its affiliates’ relationships with the Company. These policies and procedures include:

In advising the Compensation Committee, it is necessary for the consultant advising the Compensation Committee to interact with management to gather information, but the Compensation Committee has adopted protocols governing if and when the consultant’s advice and recommendations to the Compensation Committee can be shared with management. These protocols are included in the consultant’s engagement letter. The Compensation Committee also determines the appropriate forum for receiving consultant recommendations. Where appropriate, management invitees are present to provide context for the recommendations. In other cases, the Compensation Committee receives the consultant’s recommendations in executive session where management is not present. The Compensation Committee believes that this approach protects the Compensation Committee’s ability to receive objective advice from the consultant so that the Compensation Committee may make independent decisions about executive pay.

Governance and Nominating Committee

The Governance and Nominating Committee’s duties, among others, are to identify and evaluate potential candidates for our Board of Directors and make recommendations regarding such candidates to our Board of Directors. The Governance and Nominating Committee meets at least once annually and with greater frequency if necessary. The Governance and Nominating Committee met twice in 2011 and its current members are James M. Benson, Hermann Buerger, Darius W. Gaskins, Jr. and Vijay Singal, each of whom is an independent director within the meaning of applicable NASDAQ listing rules, and applicable securities laws and regulations. Currently, Mr. Gaskins serves as the Chairman of the Governance and Nominating Committee.

The Governance and Nominating Committee advises our Board of Directors regarding principles and practices applicable to governance of the Company, and monitors the Company’s compliance with its

17

Table of Contents

Governance Practices and Procedures as incorporated into the committee’s charter. Under its charter, the Governance and Nominating Committee may form and delegate authority to subcommittees consisting of one or more of its members, as appropriate. Unless specifically determined otherwise by the Governance and Nominating Committee, its Chairman serves as a one-person subcommittee with discretionary authority to act on the committee’s behalf during periods between its meetings. The Governance and Nominating Committee may request reports of the actions of any subcommittee at subsequent meetings. The Governance and Nominating Committee’s responsibilities are more fully described in its charter, a copy of which may be found on the Investors portion of our website, http://www.sapient.com, under “Corporate Governance.”

Identifying Candidates for Consideration as a Director Nominee

The Governance and Nominating Committee recommends candidates it believes have the requisite professional experience, knowledge, and perspective to contribute value to the Board’s oversight of the Company. Although the Governance and Nominating Committee does not maintain a written policy outlining the specific characteristics it must consider in its candidate evaluation process, the Governance and Nominating Committee strives to develop a Board and Board committees that are diverse in nature and comprise experienced and seasoned advisers. To achieve this goal, the Governance and Nominating Committee considers a number of factors that it deems relevant, including industry background, experience (including financial expertise, management experience guiding organizations through growth cycle stages, and global expertise), judgment, skill, diversity, integrity, education, availability, commitment, and the interplay of the nominee’s experience with the experience of other directors.

Based upon the recommendation of Mr. Herrick, our President and Chief Executive Officer, the Governance and Nominating Committee recommended the appointment of Mr. Robert L. Rosen to the Board on January 31, 2012, and the Board so appointed Mr. Rosen on February 1, 2012. Factors considered by the Governance and Nominating Committee in reviewing Mr. Rosen’s qualifications included his extensive and diversified business and financial experience coupled with his management and advisory expertise. In connection with this review, we engaged a third party firm to assist in evaluating Mr. Rosen, and members of management, the Board, and the Governance and Nominating Committee interviewed Mr. Rosen.

Policy Regarding Stockholder Candidates for Nomination as a Director

The Governance and Nominating Committee will consider and evaluate director candidates recommended by eligible stockholders on the same basis as candidates recommended by any other source. Pursuant to our Policy Regarding Stockholder Candidates for Nomination as a Director, a stockholder is eligible to submit such a recommendation if the stockholder, either individually or as a member of a group, has beneficially owned 1% or more of our common stock for at least one year prior to the nomination date (the “Nominating Stockholder”). A Nominating Stockholder may submit only one candidate for consideration per year, and the aggregate number of candidates that the Governance and Nominating Committee will be required to consider and evaluate under this policy for any annual meeting is limited as follows:

If we receive more than the maximum number of candidate recommendations as set forth above, the Governance and Nominating Committee will review and evaluate for possible nomination candidates recommended by those Nominating Stockholders with the highest level of beneficial ownership of our common stock, until it has evaluated the maximum number of candidates as outlined above.

18

Table of Contents

Under the Policy, a Nominating Stockholder should submit a nomination in writing, delivered (by first class United States mail, postage prepaid) to our Board of Directors, in care of our Secretary, at 131 Dartmouth Street, Boston, Massachusetts 02116. To be considered for our 2013 Annual Meeting of Stockholders, nominations must be received no later than the 120^th calendar day before the anniversary of the date the Company released the prior year’s Annual Meeting proxy statement to our stockholders, or December 28, 2012.

Each Nominating Stockholder recommendation must contain the following information:

Each nomination submitted by a Nominating Stockholder must contain additional information as required by our Policy Regarding Stockholder Candidates for Nomination as a Director, located on the Investors portion of our website, http://www.sapient.com, under “Corporate Governance.”

Policy Regarding Stockholder Communications with our Board of Directors

Our Board of Directors welcomes communications from our stockholders. The correspondence should be submitted in writing and delivered (by registered mail, signature required, where available) to the Board of Directors, in care of our General Counsel, at the address listed on the Notice of Annual Meeting of Stockholders. Our General Counsel will forward each submission, without editing or alteration, to the Chairman of the Board (or to the independent director having the longest tenure of Board service if the Board does not have a Chairman at the time of submission), no later than the next scheduled meeting of the Board. Correspondence to the Board must contain the information listed in the Company’s Policy Regarding Stockholder Communications with Directors, located on the Investors portion of our website, http://www.sapient.com, under “Corporate Governance.”

Code of Ethics and Conduct

Our Board of Directors has approved the Sapient Corporation Code of Ethics and Conduct, as amended, which covers all employees, directors and independent contractors of the Company, including our Chief Executive Officer and our Chief Financial Officer. A current copy of our Code of Ethics and Conduct may be found on the Investors portion of our website, http://www.sapient.com, under “Corporate Governance.” Any future amendments to the Code of Ethics and Conduct, and any waivers thereto involving our executive officers, also will be posted on our website.

19

Table of Contents

DIRECTOR COMPENSATION — 2011

The following table sets forth information concerning the compensation that we paid during the year ended December 31, 2011 to each of our non-employee directors.

As of December 31, 2011, our non-employee directors had the following RSUs outstanding:

20

Table of Contents

As consideration for their service on the Board, we pay each of our non-employee directors an annual retainer of $25,000 and the following additional retainers, as applicable:

All annual retainers are paid in four equal quarterly installments, provided that the director continues to serve in such capacity. Additionally, we pay non-employee directors the following attendance fees:

If a director participates in either a Board or committee meeting by telephone, rather than in person, or if the committee meeting is held on the same day and at the same location as a Board meeting, the director receives one-half of the applicable meeting fees. Additionally, we reimburse each non-employee director for expenses incurred in connection with his meeting attendance.

Pursuant to our 2011 Incentive Plan (the “2011 Plan”), and under our Board compensation plan as approved by our directors on June 8, 2011, each of our non-employee directors is granted a restricted stock unit (“RSU”) award on the date of the annual meeting of stockholders (each, an “Annual RSU Award”). The number of RSUs comprising each Annual RSU Award is determined by dividing $100,000 by the last reported sale price per share of our common stock on the date of grant, as listed on NASDAQ (rounded down to the nearest whole share). All Annual RSU Awards to non-employee directors will vest in full on the first anniversary of the grant date, subject to continued service on the Board. Any non-employee director appointed to the Board on a date other than at an annual meeting receives an Annual RSU Award that is prorated to reflect the portion of the year during which the newly appointed director will serve.

Change in Control — Acceleration of Vesting

Certain equity awards granted to our directors are subject to acceleration of vesting upon a “change in control” of the Company, such that the next scheduled vesting date will be deemed to have occurred on the date of a change in control of the Company. The following table summarizes the number of units underlying RSU awards outstanding as of December 31, 2011 for which vesting would be accelerated assuming a change in control on that date:

21

Table of Contents

INFORMATION ABOUT OUR EXECUTIVE OFFICERS

Listed below are the name, age and principal occupations for at least the last five years of each executive officer of the Company as of April 27, 2012. All such persons have been elected to serve until their successors are elected and qualified or until their earlier resignation or removal. Information pertaining to Mr. Herrick, who is both a director and an executive officer of the Company, may be found in the section entitled “Director Nominees” beginning on page 10 of this Proxy Statement.

22

Table of Contents

INFORMATION ABOUT OWNERSHIP OF OUR COMMON STOCK

The following table sets forth information as of April 11, 2012 regarding the beneficial ownership of shares of our common stock by: (i) each person, or group of affiliated persons, known by us to beneficially own more than five percent of our common stock, (ii) each director and director nominee, (iii) each of our executive officers named in the Summary Compensation Table included in this Proxy Statement on page 45, and (iv) all of our current executive officers and directors as a group. The table is based on information supplied to us by our officers, directors, 5% stockholders, and a review of Schedules 13G, as filed with the SEC.

The number of shares beneficially owned includes any shares that may be acquired upon the exercise of stock options that either are or will become exercisable on or before June 10, 2012 (60 days from April 11, 2012) as well as any RSUs and dividend equivalents that will vest as of that date. These shares are deemed to be outstanding and beneficially owned by the person holding those options for the purpose of computing the person’s percentage ownership, but they are not treated as outstanding for purposes of computing the percentage ownership of any other person. Applicable percentages are based on 140,387,115 shares of common stock outstanding as of April 11, 2012.

23

Table of Contents

24

Table of Contents

25

Table of Contents

Section 16(a) Beneficial Ownership Reporting Compliance

Our directors, executive officers, and persons holding more than 10% of our common stock, are required under Section 16(a) of the Exchange Act, to file initial reports of beneficial ownership and reports of changes in beneficial ownership of our common stock and other equity securities with the SEC, and to provide us with a copy of any such filings. Based on a review of the copies of such reports provided to us, and written representations that no other reports were required, we believe that our directors, officers, and other persons holding more than 10% of our common stock complied with all Section 16(a) filing requirements during 2011, except as set forth below:

Administrative oversight led to the late filing of a Statement of Changes of Beneficial Ownership of Securities (Form 4) for (i) Preston B. Bradford, reporting the number of shares withheld for taxes upon the vesting of an RSU award, on March 17, 2011 instead of March 16, 2011, and (ii) Jerry A. Greenberg, reporting an initial award granted to Mr. Greenberg upon his re-appointment as a Director pursuant to our Board compensation plan, on June 16, 2011 instead of October 29, 2010.

EXECUTIVE COMPENSATION

Compensation Discussion and Analysis

This Compensation Discussion and Analysis (“CD&A”) describes the Company’s executive compensation program (“Executive Program”) and explains the analysis and approach that the Compensation Committee of our Board of Directors (defined as the “Committee” in this Executive Compensation section) applied in making compensation decisions for 2011 for the following Named Executive Officers (“NEOs”):

The compensation for our NEOs is listed in the tables following this CD&A.

Our Executive Program, which we use to motivate and reward our NEOs and other members of our senior leadership team, principally comprises the following pay elements:

26

Table of Contents

Compensation Objectives and Strategy

The primary purpose of our Executive Program is to establish a meaningful reward system within an appropriate cost structure that aligns executive compensation with our stockholders’ interests. The objectives and strategy of our Executive Program are to:

¹ For purposes of this CD&A, the terms “business unit” and “operating segment” are used interchangeably.

27

Table of Contents

Role of Management and Outside Advisor in Compensation Determinations

The Committee’s executive compensation decisions are informed by consultation with the CEO, who provides detailed input regarding our executives’ job performance (other than his own performance), including their accomplishments, leadership, strengths and areas for personal development, and their promotion of and contributions to the achievement of our business strategy and Strategic Context (defined as our company purpose, core company values, vision, goals and client value proposition). Additionally, Mr. Herrick provides specific compensation recommendations for the executives based on the factors described in Compensation Decision-Making, below.

The CEO and our Vice President — People Success (who oversees our human resources functions) typically attend Committee meetings at which the Committee reviews the financial and operational performance of the Company and the performance of individual executives (other than themselves), and approves the compensation for those executives. Additionally, other members of management and our Board of Directors may, by Committee invitation, participate in the executive compensation review and approval process. Nonetheless, the Committee retains ultimate authority over the compensation decisions for our executives, and only Committee members (and no members of management) approve executive compensation.

The Committee has retained Mercer to be the Committee’s advisor for the Executive Program. In 2011, Mercer assisted the Committee by assessing the competitiveness of our Executive Program across base salary, actual total cash compensation, target total cash compensation, long-term incentives and actual total direct compensation, and evaluating and developing proposed 2011 compensation packages for our NEOs and other senior leadership team members.

Compensation Decision-Making

To determine our executive officers’ compensation packages and ensure that compensation decisions are consistent with and promote our compensation objectives and strategy, the Committee considers multiple sources of information, including the compensation practices of other companies within our Executive Peer Group (described below), individual performance and objectives, individual compensation history and comparative pay levels for peers within Sapient and in similar job functions in the marketplace.

1.    Target Market Development

The Committee uses competitive assessments to understand executive pay programs, pay levels and pay mix among similarly situated companies and to assess the overall market competitiveness of our Executive Program.

In assessing competitive market practices, and consistent with our emphasis on the “at risk” portion of executive pay and on rewarding our executives for Company and individual performance, the Committee aims to establish executive base salaries equal to or as much as 15% below the market median of the executive peer group (“Executive Peer Group”) described below (the “Median”), with Total Cash (defined as base salary plus cash bonus eligibility) compensation targeted at the Median, and total executive compensation (inclusive of equity-based incentive compensation) targeted at or above the Median by as much as 15%. However, pay levels for specific individuals and/or job functions may vary from these targets based on market demand for particular talent, among other factors. Actual total compensation in a given year may vary well above or well below our targeted compensation relative to Median levels, based primarily on the Company’s attainment of its financial and operating goals and the executive’s achievement of individual performance goals.

To assess the market competitiveness of our Executive Program, the Committee reviews its Executive Peer Group each year to ensure that the peer companies selected remain appropriate for compensation and performance comparison purposes. Companies are selected based on industry and size, reflected by both revenue and market capitalization. The Committee’s goal is to assemble a group of companies with which Sapient

28

Table of Contents

competes for executive talent. In light of Sapient’s unique market position and differentiated service offerings, the Committee could not assemble an Executive Peer Group consisting of companies that provide the breadth and complement of marketing and technology services that Sapient provides its clients. Nonetheless, the Committee has compiled an Executive Peer Group consisting of companies that are similar to Sapient in terms of structure, organization, selling capacity, revenue and/or market capitalization.

2011 Executive Peer Group:

Source: Standard & Poor’s Research Insight Database

To give the Committee a broader industry perspective on executive compensation, Mercer, in addition to compiling Executive Peer Group information, provided the Committee published survey data consisting of professional service companies and/or high-technology and marketing firms similar in size to Sapient. The Committee principally used the 2011 Mercer Executive Remuneration Database for executive compensation survey data.

29

Table of Contents

2.     Individual Performance Objectives

In addition to using competitive assessments and peer benchmarking, the Committee weighs individual performance against established and agreed upon objectives in determining base salaries, bonus targets and payouts, and long-term incentives for our executives. The Committee’s key considerations regarding executive performance include the following:

In determining our executives’ annual compensation packages, and awarding annual and long-term incentives, the Committee does not weight a specific performance criteria more heavily than another, but rather assesses the totality of the individual’s performance against all criteria in setting that individual’s compensation.

3.    Individual Compensation History

The Committee reviews each executive’s compensation history, including equity awards and salary progression, to determine its current year compensation decisions. In considering compensation changes for our executives in 2011, the Committee reviewed the Company’s 2010 financial performance and each executive’s base salary for the prior two years, the number and “in the money” value of equity awards in the prior ten years (or fewer years for those executives who have worked at the Company less than ten years) and actual and target bonuses in the prior year. Through this information, the Committee observes trends in our compensation approaches for each executive and, based on these observations and the other considerations described in this CD&A, may approve compensation adjustments for the executives.

4.    Internal Pay Equity

While the Committee relies on survey data and comparative analysis through peer group benchmarking to compare compensation levels and assess the market competitiveness of our Executive Program, we believe that internal pay equity among our executives is equally critical to ensuring our executives are compensated fairly, relative to each other, for their contributions to the Company. Accordingly, the Committee’s decisions concerning each executive’s compensation include a careful review of the executive’s pay components and levels relative to other executives in similar roles, seniority and/or levels of responsibility. The Committee performed an internal pay equity assessment for 2011 and determined that the compensation packages for our NEOs were equitable and, therefore, did not — solely for internal pay equity purposes — require adjustment. However, adjustments to our executives’ compensation were made in light of company performance, external market data and executive achievement against individual performance objectives.

30

Table of Contents

5.    The Role of Stockholder Say-on-Pay Votes

In 2011, the Company’s stockholders had the opportunity to cast an advisory vote on our executive compensation program (the “say-on-pay” proposal). Over 95% of the votes cast voted in favor of the proposal. The Committee believes this affirms stockholders’ support of the Company’s approach to executive compensation. Although the stockholder vote is non-binding, the Committee considered the results of the vote in its review of our Executive Program and determined not to implement substantial changes to our 2011 compensation program as a result of the say-on-pay vote. The Committee will continue to consider the outcome of the Company’s say-on-pay vote when making future compensation decisions for the NEOs.

In connection with the say-on-pay proposal, the Company also provided its stockholders with the opportunity to cast a separate advisory vote on whether the say-on-pay vote should occur every one, two or three years (the “say-on-when” proposal). Over 94% of the votes cast voted in favor of an annual vote. The Company has decided to accept the advisory vote of its stockholders and, will hold an advisory say-on-pay vote annually until the next required say-on-when vote.

Pay Mix

The Committee believes strongly in the importance of assessing each pay element in relation to the other pay elements in the Executive Program. To determine optimal pay mix, the Committee reviews executive salary progression, historic equity grants, target and actual bonus levels by year, competency levels, job responsibilities and contributions to the organization, and general market information. Consistent with our compensation philosophy to tie total compensation closely to — and make it heavily dependent upon — achievement of Company goals and individual performance, we emphasize “variable” compensation (i.e., bonus and equity-based awards) over “fixed” compensation (i.e., base salary). Accordingly, actual total compensation in a given year may vary well above or below our targeted compensation relative to Median levels, based principally on the Company’s attainment of its financial and operating goals and individual performance.

The 2011 compensation for our NEOs resulted in the following pay mixes:

31

Table of Contents

Pay Elements

Base Salaries

Base salaries provide a fixed level of cash compensation for the individual’s performance of day-to-day responsibilities. Our executives’ base pay levels are reviewed and changes are determined annually in the first quarter of the year based upon numerous factors, including individual performance, job responsibilities, impact on the development and achievement of our strategic initiatives, the state of the labor market, benchmarking data and our ability to attract and retain critical executives. In considering these factors, the Committee approved base pay increases in 2011, effective as of April 1, 2011. The 2011 base salaries for our NEOs represented between 13% and 27% of total direct compensation for these individuals, and, on average, approximated the Median (5% below Median). Commentary regarding the base salary increase for each executive follows:

The following chart summarizes the annualized base salary changes from 2010 to 2011 for the NEOs.

32

Table of Contents

Annual Incentive/Bonus Program

Our annual incentive program creates a strong link between pay and performance. With respect to Mr. Herrick’s annual incentive, the Committee establishes a non-discretionary, objective, performance-based bonus metric in which his bonus is determined based on Sapient’s performance against a fiscal year non-GAAP² operating profit target. Mr. Herrick’s 2011 bonus is intended to qualify as performance-based compensation under Section 162(m) of the Internal Revenue Code (“Section 162(m)”) and is administered pursuant to our 1998 Stock Incentive Plan, as amended (the “1998 Plan”). Both our 1998 Plan and 2011 Plan enable cash and equity awards granted under the plan to qualify for tax benefits available under Section 162(m). Mr. Herrick’s 2011 bonus is more fully described below under the heading “CEO Compensation Determination.”

With respect to our NEOs other than Mr. Herrick (the “Other NEOs”), our annual incentive program rewards the executives for their achievement of short-term financial and operational goals as well as their promotion, and contributions toward the achievement, of our Strategic Context. The Other NEO’s 2011 bonuses are more fully described below under the heading “Other NEO Compensation Determinations.” Additionally, the annual bonus plan focuses our people on the achievement of individual performance goals. Consequently, unlike the non-discretionary, objective, performance-based metrics for Mr. Herrick’s annual incentive, many of the metrics used to assess the Other NEOs’ performance are qualitative as well as quantitative and require the Committee to exercise discretion in determining payments.

The Other NEOs’ bonuses are administered pursuant to our Global Performance Bonus Plan (the “Global Plan”). In the first quarter of each fiscal year, Sapient management sets business and financial objectives that our Board reviews and approves. These objectives translate into financial targets, and associated bonus pool funding targets under the Global Plan, for the payment of the Other NEO and other Sapient employee bonuses. For 2011, our bonus pool funding was based upon Sapient’s achievement of non-GAAP operating profit against a non-GAAP operating profit target. Once the bonus pool has been funded, available bonus pool funds are first applied to payment of associate and senior associate bonuses, which are paid at 100% of those employees’ target bonuses, depending on individual performance. The resulting bonus pool funding, from which bonuses are paid to the Other NEOs and non-executive employees, is defined as the “Bonus Pool Fund Percentage.”

Additionally, while the bonus pool funding for our internal operations Global Shared Services team — of which Mr. Tibbetts is a part — is directly tied to overall company performance, the bonus pool funding for our operating segments (SapientNitro North America, SapientNitro Europe, SapientNitro Asia Pacific, Sapient Global Markets, and Sapient Government Services) is subject to overall company performance as well as adjustments based on each operating segment’s performance against an operating profit target for the segment and the segment’s financial performance relative to other segments’ financial performance against their associated operating profit targets (the “Segment Performance Adjustments”). Further, the bonus calculations for our NEOs who lead the operating segments (Messrs. Wexler, Oversohl and Register) are subject to a payout “weighting” of 70% and 30% for segment and company operating performance, respectively (the “Payout

² We define “non-GAAP operating profit” as income from our operations, as reported in our publicly filed financial statements on Form 10-K, adjusted to add back all expenses (benefits) for, or relating to, matters arising directly from the ongoing review of stock-based compensation granting practices and any related restatement expenses, stock-based compensation expense due to the application of FASB ASC Topic 718, restructuring and other related charges, amortization of purchased intangible assets and any other items identified as “non-GAAP” in our earnings release financial statements or other public disclosures and to eliminate the effect of any businesses acquired or sold by the Company in the applicable fiscal year.

33

Table of Contents

Weighting”). Consequently, for a given year, depending on our Bonus Pool Fund Percentage and operating segment financial performance, and the Payout Weighting, our NEOs who lead operating segments may receive a bonus considerably less than their bonus targets.

In setting annual bonus targets for our NEOs in 2011, the Committee considered and approved changes to our NEOs’ target annual incentive opportunities in light of external market data, internal pay relationships, individual and company performance and Sapient’s compensation philosophy. The below chart summarizes the annualized target incentive opportunity changes from 2010 to 2011 for the CEO and the Other NEOs.

Taking into account 2011 base salaries and the foregoing annual incentive/bonus targets for our NEOs, the total target cash compensation opportunities for the NEOs, relative to peer NEOs, were as follows:

34

Table of Contents

The actual 2011 incentive bonus payments for our NEOs ranged from approximately 70.5% to 89.9% of the executives’ eligible annual incentive targets:

The Committee has authority to award additional discretionary bonuses (in addition to our annual incentive payments) to our NEOs based on criteria and conditions the Committee determines. In 2011, the Committee did not award any additional bonuses.

Long-Term Incentive Program

Long-term incentive opportunities are the largest element of total executive officer compensation. We use long-term incentives to balance the short-term focus of our annual incentive bonus program by tying awards to performance over multi-year periods. Additionally, these incentives are designed to motivate executive officers to make decisions supporting long-term company financial interests while also serving as the primary tool for attraction and retention.

Long-term incentive awards are typically delivered through RSUs. Once vested, each RSU represents the right to receive one share of our common stock. Because RSUs increase in value based on the market price of our stock, we believe that RSUs motivate and reward our leaders’ high performance, and simultaneously enable us to administer our equity-based incentive programs in an efficient, simple and cost effective manner.

We believe using RSUs is appropriate, particularly given our general philosophy of linking compensation to actual performance and de-emphasizing “fixed” compensation by positioning executive base salaries at or below the Median.

We typically grant equity awards to our executives once per year, on a pre-determined grant date that occurs shortly after the Committee approves the executive equity grants. The Committee reviews and approves the annual equity awards for our CEO and other executives in the first quarter. The RSU awards typically are granted on the first NASDAQ trading day of the month immediately following the Committee’s award approval date.

The Committee has developed RSU grant ranges for our senior leadership team, and, within those ranges, allocates awards to our executives based on company and individual performance during the prior year, total cash

35

Table of Contents

compensation, amount of equity needed to achieve our pay mix and pay goals relative to our target market, and historical equity grants. Further, the Committee maintains discretion to make adjustments (upward or downward) to an executive’s RSU award depending on the achievement of Company and/or individual goals. The Committee believes this framework ensures not only that each executive receives an appropriate award, but also that the awards are equitably determined for all members of our senior leadership team.

In 2011, the targeted value of the long-term incentive component of our executive RSU awards was approximately 238% of our CEO’s base salary and incentive target compensation, and approximately 142%, on average, of the Other NEOs’ base salaries and incentive target compensation. The ratio of RSUs to cash varies by level of participant, with our more senior executives receiving a higher percentage of their total compensation in the form of RSUs.

2011 Long-Term Incentive Awards

In 2011, the Committee established annual long-term equity incentive opportunities for each NEO in combinations of time-based RSUs and performance-based RSUs based on their estimated value on the date of grant. The Committee granted an aggregate of 356,800 time-based RSU awards and 264,000 performance-based RSU awards to our NEOs.

The following table sets forth the RSUs granted to our NEOs in 2011:

The time-based RSUs granted to NEOs in 2011 vest 25% on each anniversary of the grant date over a four-year period. The performance-based RSU awards, which are also subject to time-based vesting, may be earned in annual one-third increments based on the Company’s achievement of specified revenue growth and operating margin performance measures in each of fiscal years 2011, 2012 and 2013 (each, an “RSU Performance Year”), provided the NEO remains continuously employed by the Company through the service completion date of April 1, 2014. Performance measures are established by the Committee in the first quarter of each RSU Performance Year. For the 2011 RSU Performance Year, the target performance measures were 28% revenue growth and 14% non-GAAP operating margin³. Once earned, the performance-based RSUs awards vest in full on the third anniversary of the grant date.

³ “Non-GAAP operating margin” is defined as non-GAAP operating profit (defined in footnote 1 under “Annual Incentive/Bonus Program” above) expressed as a percentage of service revenues, as reported in our publicly filed financial statements on Form 10-K.

36

Table of Contents

The following table sets forth the performance-based RSU award performance measures and actual achievement in 2011:

The following table sets forth the RSUs earned for the 2011 RSU Performance Year by each NEO:

Benefits and Perquisites

Our executives are eligible to participate in all Company-sponsored benefit programs on the same basis as other full-time employees, including health and welfare benefits (e.g., medical/dental plans, disability plans and life insurance) and our 401(k) Plan (or its equivalent for senior leadership team members located outside of the United States).

We do not offer any “tax gross-ups” for our executives. Additionally, while our executives from time to time receive certain immaterial personal benefits from Sapient, in 2011 the value of these perquisites did not exceed $10,000 for any executive. Consistent with our company-wide philosophy of promoting internal equity among all of our employees and not affording certain compensatory benefits only to an exclusive group of employees, and except as noted below regarding Dr. Oversohl, we do not offer any supplemental executive health and welfare or retirement programs, or provide any other supplemental benefits or perquisites, to our executives.

As part of his overall compensation, Dr. Oversohl receives an annual internet allowance, and the Company makes a premium contribution for his benefit in the amount of 20,000 Euros per year into a retirement support fund that is a legally independent fund and thus not subject to the control of Germany’s Insurance Supervisory Authority (BaFin) (the “Support Fund”). At the time these benefits for Dr. Oversohl were provided, we engaged two international benefits consulting firms: Sentinel Benefits Group, Inc. and Towers Perrin (together, the “International Consultants”). The International Consultants advised that German employers commonly make payments into retirement support funds for the benefit of their employees, particularly executives/managing directors. In light of these benefits norms in Germany, Dr. Oversohl’s senior executive position with Sapient, and our desire to provide Dr. Oversohl industry-standard benefits intended to promote his retention and continued commitment to Sapient, the Committee deemed it appropriate to make payments into a Support Fund.

37

Table of Contents

CEO Compensation Determination

In March 2011, the Committee approved a new compensation package for Mr. Herrick based on Mercer’s assessment of the market competitiveness of, and recommendation concerning changes to, Mr. Herrick’s compensation package for 2011. The Committee increased Mr. Herrick’s 2011 base salary from $575,000 to $615,000 and target bonus from $776,250 to $830,250 (i.e., 135% of his 2011 base salary). These changes position Mr. Herrick’s base salary at a Median approximate position (5% below Median) and his target cash compensation (base salary plus target annual incentive opportunity) above the Median (9% above Median).

Regarding Mr. Herrick’s 2011 annual bonus target, the Committee determined that the bonus payment should directly correlate with our financial performance. In light of this goal, and to qualify Mr. Herrick’s 2011 annual incentive bonus as performance-based compensation under Section 162(m), the Committee established a performance-based, non-discretionary bonus target tied to Sapient’s 2011 non-GAAP operating profit. Mr. Herrick’s 2011 annual incentive target of $830,250 (the “2011 Incentive Target”) was payable in full if Sapient achieved a non-GAAP operating profit target of approximately $158.71 million (the “2011 Profit Target”). Depending on actual profit achievement as a percentage of the 2011 Profit Target (the “Profit Achievement Percentage”), Mr. Herrick was eligible to receive an annual incentive payment equal to the result obtained by multiplying the 2011 Incentive Target by the Profit Achievement Percentage. The potential incentive payment was capped at $2 million, and Mr. Herrick was ineligible to receive an incentive payment if the Profit Achievement Percentage was less than 20% (i.e., $31.74 million). Based on our actual 2011 non-GAAP operating profit of $134.072 million and a Profit Achievement Percentage of 84.476%, Mr. Herrick was entitled to receive a 2011 annual incentive payment equal to $701,362.

The Committee also granted Mr. Herrick 160,800 time-based RSUs, which will vest 25% annually over a four year period, and 134,000 performance-based RSUs, which are subject to the performance measures and other conditions as described under “2011 Long-Term Incentive Awards” above.

Accordingly, and in summary, Mr. Herrick’s total direct compensation for 2011 was as follows:

38

Table of Contents

Other NEO Compensation Determinations

The Committee approved increases to base salaries and/or annual incentive bonus targets for the Other NEOs in 2011. As a result, the cash compensation paid, equity-based awards granted, and total direct compensation provided to these NEOs for 2011, as described more fully below, were as follows: