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  þ

Filed by a Party other than the Registrant  ¨

Check the appropriate box:

Table of Contents

Becton, Dickinson and Company

1 Becton Drive

Franklin Lakes, New Jersey 07417-1880

www.bd.com

December 19, 2013

Dear Fellow Shareholders:

You are cordially invited to attend the 2014 Annual Meeting of Shareholders of Becton, Dickinson and Company (“BD”) to be held at 1:00 p.m. EST on Tuesday, January 28, 2014 at the Four Seasons Hotel New York, 57 East 57^th Street, New York, New York.

The notice of meeting and proxy statement describe the matters to be acted upon at the meeting. We also will report on matters of interest to BD shareholders.

Your vote is important. Whether or not you plan to attend the Annual Meeting in person, we encourage you to vote so that your shares will be represented and voted at the meeting. You may vote by proxy on the Internet or by telephone, or by completing and mailing the enclosed proxy card in the return envelope provided. You may also vote in person at the Annual Meeting.

Thank you for your continued support of BD.

Sincerely,

Vincent A. Forlenza

Chairman, Chief Executive Officer and President

Table of Contents

NOTICE OF ANNUAL MEETING OF SHAREHOLDERS

Becton, Dickinson and Company

1 Becton Drive

Franklin Lakes, New Jersey 07417-1880

December 19, 2013

The 2014 Annual Meeting of Shareholders of Becton, Dickinson and Company (“BD”) will be held as follows:

Shares represented by properly executed proxies will be voted in accordance with the instructions specified therein. Shares represented by properly executed proxies that do not provide specific voting instructions will be voted in accordance with the recommendations of BD’s Board of Directors set forth in this proxy statement.

Important Notice Regarding the Availability of Proxy Materials for the 2014 Annual Meeting of Shareholders to be held on January 28, 2014. BD’s proxy statement and 2013 Annual Report, which includes BD’s consolidated financial statements, are available at www.bd.com/investors/.

Shareholders of record at the close of business on December 10, 2013 will be entitled to attend and vote at the meeting.

By order of the Board of Directors,

Gary DeFazio

Vice President and Corporate Secretary

Table of Contents

Table of Contents

Table of Contents

PROXY STATEMENT

2014 ANNUAL MEETING OF SHAREHOLDERS

Tuesday, January 28, 2014

BECTON, DICKINSON AND COMPANY

1 Becton Drive

Franklin Lakes, New Jersey 07417-1880

GENERAL INFORMATION

Proxy Solicitation

These proxy materials are being mailed or otherwise sent to shareholders of Becton, Dickinson and Company (“BD”) on or about December 19, 2013 in connection with the solicitation of proxies by the Board of Directors for BD’s 2014 Annual Meeting of Shareholders to be held at 1:00 p.m. EST on Tuesday, January 28, 2014 at the Four Seasons Hotel New York, 57 East 57^th Street, New York, New York. Important Notice Regarding the Availability of Proxy Materials for the 2014 Annual Meeting of Shareholders to be held on January 28, 2014. This proxy statement and BD’s 2013 Annual Report to Shareholders are also available at www.bd.com/investors/.

Directors, officers and other BD associates also may solicit proxies by telephone or otherwise. Brokers and other nominees will be requested to solicit proxies or authorizations from beneficial owners and will be reimbursed for their reasonable expenses. BD has retained MacKenzie Partners, Inc. to assist in soliciting proxies for a fee not to exceed $25,000 plus expenses. The cost of soliciting proxies will be borne by BD.

Shareholders Entitled to Vote; Attendance at the Meeting

Shareholders of record at the close of business on December 10, 2013 are entitled to notice of, and to vote at, the meeting. As of such date, there were 193,977,072 shares of BD common stock outstanding, each entitled to one vote.

If your shares are held in the name of a bank, broker or other nominee (also known as shares held in “street name”) and you wish to attend the meeting, you must present proof of ownership as of the record date, such as a bank or brokerage account statement, to be admitted. BD also may request appropriate identification as a condition of admission.

Quorum; Required Vote

The holders of a majority of the shares entitled to vote at the meeting must be present in person or represented by proxy to constitute a quorum. Directors are elected by a majority of the votes cast at the meeting (Proposal 1). If an incumbent director does not receive the requisite vote, he or she must tender his or her resignation, and the Board will decide whether to accept the resignation in accordance with the process described later in this proxy statement.

Approval of Proposals 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6 requires the affirmative vote of a majority of the votes cast at the meeting. Under New Jersey law, abstentions and shares that brokers do not have the authority to vote in the absence of timely instructions from the beneficial owners will not be counted as votes cast, and, accordingly, will have no effect on the outcome of the vote for any of the proposals. Proposal 2 is a “discretionary item”, and New York Stock Exchange (“NYSE”) member brokers that do not receive instructions on how to vote from beneficial owners may cast those votes in their discretion on Proposal 2.

Table of Contents

How to Vote

Shareholders of record may cast their votes at the meeting. In addition, shareholders of record may cast their votes by proxy, and participants in the BD plans described below may submit their voting instructions, by:

Votes cast through the Internet and telephone votes are authenticated by use of a personal identification number. This procedure allows shareholders to appoint a proxy, and the various plan participants to provide voting instructions, and to confirm that their actions have been properly recorded. Specific instructions to be followed are set forth on the proxy card. If you vote through the Internet or by telephone, you do not need to return your proxy card. In order to be timely processed, voting instructions submitted by participants in BD’s Global Share Investment Program (“GSIP”) must be received by 12:00 p.m. EST on January 22, 2014, and voting instructions submitted by participants in all other BD plans must be received by 12:00 p.m. EST on January 24, 2014. All proxies submitted by record holders through the Internet or by telephone must be received by 11:00 a.m. EST on January 28, 2014.

If you are the beneficial owner of shares held in “street name”, you have the right to direct your bank, broker or other nominee on how to vote your shares by using the voting instruction form provided to you by them, or by following their instructions for voting through the Internet or by telephone. In the alternative, you may vote in person at the meeting if you obtain a valid proxy from your bank, broker or other nominee and present it at the meeting.

Shares represented by properly executed proxies will be voted in accordance with the instructions specified therein. Shares represented by properly executed proxies that do not specify voting instructions will be voted in accordance with the recommendations of the Board of Directors set forth in this proxy statement.

Savings Incentive Plan (“SIP”)

Participants in SIP, BD’s 401(k) plan, are named fiduciaries. As named fiduciaries, they may instruct the SIP trustee how to vote the shares of BD common stock allocated to their SIP accounts. Shares for which no voting instructions have been received by the SIP trustee will be voted in the same proportion as those shares for which timely instructions have been received.

Participants in Other Plans

Participants in BD’s Deferred Compensation and Retirement Benefit Restoration Plan (the “Restoration Plan”), the 1996 Directors’ Deferral Plan (the “Directors Deferral Plan”), and GSIP (if so provided under the terms of the local country GSIP plan) may provide voting instructions for all shares of BD common stock allocated to their plan accounts. The trustees of these plans will vote the plan shares for which they do not receive instructions in the same proportion as the plan shares for which they do receive instructions.

Proxies representing shares of BD common stock held of record also will serve as proxies for shares held under the Direct Stock Purchase Plan sponsored and administered by Computershare Trust Company, N.A. and any shares of BD common stock allocated to participants’ accounts under the plans mentioned above, if the registrations are the same. Separate mailings will be made for shares not held under the same registrations.

2

Table of Contents

Revocation of Proxies or Change of Instructions

A proxy given by a shareholder of record may be revoked or changed at any time before it is voted by:

Participants in the plans described above may change their voting instructions by delivering new voting instructions by one of the methods described above under the heading “How to Vote.”

If you are the beneficial owner of shares held in “street name”, you may submit new voting instructions in the manner provided by your bank, broker or other nominee, or you may vote in person at the meeting in the manner described above under the heading “How to Vote.”

Other Matters

The Board of Directors is not aware of any matters to be presented at the meeting other than those set forth in the accompanying notice. If any other matters properly come before the meeting, the persons named in the proxy card will vote on such matters in accordance with their best judgment.

OWNERSHIP OF BD COMMON STOCK

Securities Owned by Certain Beneficial Owners

The following table sets forth as of September 30, 2013, information concerning those persons known to BD to be the beneficial owner of more than 5% of BD’s outstanding common stock. This information is as reported by such persons in their filings with the Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”).

Securities Owned by Directors and Management

The following table sets forth as of December 1, 2013 information concerning the beneficial ownership of BD common stock by (i) each director, (ii) the executive officers named in the Summary Compensation Table on page 39, and (iii) all nominees for director and executive officers as a group. In general, “beneficial ownership” includes those shares that a director or executive officer has the sole or shared power to vote or transfer, including shares that may be acquired under outstanding equity compensation awards or otherwise within 60 days.

3

Table of Contents

Except as indicated in the footnotes to the table, each person has the sole power to vote and transfer the shares he or she beneficially owns. BD has a policy that prohibits directors and employees from pledging BD shares or engaging in transactions that are intended to hedge against the economic risk of owning BD shares. None of BD’s directors or executive officers has pledged or hedged against any of the shares listed.

BD COMMON STOCK

Section 16(a) Beneficial Ownership Reporting Compliance

Section 16(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 requires BD’s directors and executive officers to file initial reports of their ownership of BD’s equity securities and reports of changes in such ownership with the SEC and the NYSE. Directors and executive officers are required by SEC regulations to furnish BD with copies

4

Table of Contents

of all Section 16(a) forms they file with respect to BD securities. Based solely on a review of copies of such forms and written representations from BD’s directors and executive officers, BD believes that, for the period from October 1, 2012 through September 30, 2013, all of its directors and executive officers were in compliance with the reporting requirements of Section 16(a), except that a report regarding Ellen R. Strahlman’s sign-on equity grant, and a report for one transaction by Stephen Sichak, were inadvertently filed late.

Members of our Board of Directors are elected to serve a term of one year and until their successors have been elected and qualified. All of the nominees for director have consented to being named in this proxy statement and to serve if elected. Each of the nominees is a current member of BD’s Board. Dr. Adel A.F. Mahmoud, who has reached the mandatory retirement age under BD’s Corporate Governance Principles, will retire as a member of the Board effective at the Annual Meeting. BD does not know of any reason why any nominee would be unable to serve as director. If any nominee is unable to serve, the shares represented by valid proxies will be voted for the election of such other person as the Board may nominate, or the size of the Board may be reduced.

BD directors have a variety of backgrounds, which reflects the Board’s continuing efforts to achieve a diversity of viewpoint, experience, knowledge, ethnicity and gender. As more fully discussed below, director nominees are considered on the basis of a range of criteria, including their business knowledge and background, prominence and reputation in their fields, global business perspective and commitment to strong corporate citizenship. They must also have experience and ability that is relevant to the Board’s oversight role with respect to BD’s business and affairs. Each nominee’s biography includes the particular experience and qualifications that led the Board to conclude that the nominee should serve on the Board.

NOMINEES FOR DIRECTOR

		Basil L. Anderson, 68, has been a director since 2004. From 2001 until his retirement in 2006, he served as Vice Chairman of Staples, Inc., a supplier of office products. Prior thereto, he was Executive Vice President – Finance and Chief Financial Officer of Campbell Soup Company. Mr. Anderson also is a director of Hasbro, Inc., Moody’s Corporation and Staples, Inc. He was formerly a director of CRA International, Inc.   Mr. Anderson has an extensive business and financial background as both an operating executive and as a chief financial officer of a major multinational public company. His experience includes strategic, business and financial planning and operations; international operations; and service as a director for public companies in different industries.
		Henry P. Becton, Jr., 70, has been a director since 1987. Since 2007, he has served as Vice Chairman of the WGBH Educational Foundation, a producer and broadcaster of public television, radio and Internet programs, and other educational media materials. He served as President of WGBH Educational Foundation from 1984 to 2007. Mr. Becton also serves as Lead Director of the Belo Corporation, a director of Public Radio International, and a director/trustee of various DWS mutual funds. He was formerly a director of the PBS Foundation.   Mr. Becton possesses a broad range of operational, financial and corporate governance experience developed through his professional and board-related activities in a variety of contexts. This broad background is coupled with Mr. Becton’s extensive knowledge of BD, which provides him with a unique perspective on BD.

5

Table of Contents

		Catherine M. Burzik, 63, served as President and Chief Executive Officer of Kinetic Concepts, Inc., a medical device company specializing in the fields of wound care and regenerative medicine, from 2006 until January 2012 when the company was taken private. Ms. Burzik currently serves as Chair of the Board of Directors of the American College of Wound Healing and Tissue Repair, is a member of the San Antonio Branch of the Dallas Federal Reserve Board, and is a general partner of Targeted Technology Fund II, LP. Previously, Ms. Burzik served as President of Applied Biosystems and as President of Ortho-Clinical Diagnostics, Inc., a Johnson & Johnson company, and held senior executive roles at Eastman Kodak Company. Ms. Burzik was formerly a director of Allscripts Healthcare Solutions, Inc. and VitaPath Genetics, Inc.   Ms. Burzik is a seasoned executive in the healthcare industry, having led major medical device, diagnostic, diagnostic imaging and life sciences businesses. She contributes strong strategic and leadership expertise, and extensive knowledge of the global healthcare field.
		Edward F. DeGraan, 70, has been a director since 2003. In 2006, he retired as Vice Chairman – Gillette of the Procter & Gamble Company, a manufacturer of consumer products. Prior thereto, he was Vice Chairman of The Gillette Company, and served as its President and Chief Operating Officer from 2000 until 2003. He also served as Acting Chief Executive Officer of Gillette from October 2000 to February 2001. Mr. DeGraan also is a director of Amica Mutual Insurance Company and a Senior Advisor of Centerview Partners, L.P.   Mr. DeGraan brings extensive operational, manufacturing and executive experience in a consumer industry with a strong manufacturing base. He possesses a broad background in strategic, business and financial planning and operations, deepened by his global perspective developed through his long tenure with a multinational company.
		Vincent A. Forlenza, 60, has been a director since October 2011, and became BD’s Chairman in July 2012. He was elected BD’s Chief Executive Officer in October 2011 and has served as its President since January 2009. He also served as BD’s Chief Operating Officer from July 2010 to October 2011, and prior thereto, served as Executive Vice President.   Mr. Forlenza has been with BD for over 30 years in a number of different capacities, including strategic planning, marketing, general management in all three of BD’s segments, and overseas roles. Mr. Forlenza brings to the Board extensive business and industry experience, and provides the Board with a unique perspective on BD’s strategy and operations, particularly in the area of new product development.
		Claire M. Fraser, Ph.D., 58, has been a director since 2006. Since 2007, she has been Director of the Institute for Genome Sciences and a Professor of Medicine at the University of Maryland School of Medicine in Baltimore, Maryland. From 1998 to 2007, she served as President and Director of The Institute for Genomic Research, a not-for-profit center dedicated to deciphering and analyzing genomes. Dr. Fraser also serves on the Board of the American Association for the Advancement of Science.   Dr. Fraser is a prominent scientist with a strong background in infectious diseases and molecular diagnostics, including the development of novel diagnostics and vaccines. She also brings considerable managerial experience in her field.

6

Table of Contents

		Christopher Jones, 58, has been a director since 2010. Mr. Jones retired in 2001 as Chief Executive Officer of JWT Worldwide (previously known as J. Walter Thompson), an international marketing firm. Since 2002, Mr. Jones has been Operating Partner and director at Motion Equity Partners (formerly Cognetas LLP), a pan-European private equity firm. He has been the non-executive Chairman of Results International Group since 2002. He also is Chairman of the Board of The Pavilion Clinic and a member of the Health Advisory Board of The Johns Hopkins University Bloomberg School of Public Health.   Mr. Jones contributes an important international perspective based on his distinguished career as a marketing leader and head of a global marketing firm. He offers substantial marketing, strategic and managerial expertise derived from his broad range of activities in the field.
		Marshall O. Larsen, 65, has been a director since 2007. Mr. Larsen retired in 2012 as Chairman, President and Chief Executive Officer of Goodrich Corporation, a supplier of systems and services to the aerospace and defense industry. Mr. Larsen also is a director of Lowe’s Companies, Inc., United Technologies Corporation and the Federal Reserve Bank of Richmond.   As a veteran chief executive officer of a public company, Mr. Larsen offers the valuable perspective of an individual with highly-developed executive leadership and financial and strategic management skills in a global manufacturing company. These qualities reflect considerable domestic and international business and financial experience.
		Gary A. Mecklenburg, 67, has been a director since 2004. In 2006, he retired as President and Chief Executive Officer of Northwestern Memorial HealthCare, the parent corporation of Northwestern Memorial Hospital, a position he had held since 1986. He also served as President of Northwestern Memorial Hospital from 1985 to 2002. He is currently an Executive Partner of Waud Capital Partners, L.L.C., a private equity investment firm. Mr. Mecklenburg is also a director of LHP Hospital Partners, Inc., and was formerly a director of Acadia Healthcare Company, Inc.   Mr. Mecklenburg’s long tenure in hospital administration affords him a broad perspective on the many facets of the delivery of healthcare and a deep knowledge of healthcare financing and administration. As the former leader of a major teaching hospital, Mr. Mecklenburg possesses strong executive management, financial, strategic and operational knowledge as applied in a healthcare setting.
		James F. Orr, 68, has been a director since 2000. In 2007, he retired as Chairman of the Board of Convergys Corporation, a provider of customer management, employee care and outsourced billing services, a position he had held since 2000. He also served as Convergys’ Chief Executive Officer from 1998 until his retirement in 2007. Mr. Orr also is a director of Ohio National Financial Services, Inc.   Mr. Orr contributes the important insights of a former chief executive officer of a public company. His background reflects extensive managerial, strategic, operational and financial experience from the perspective of a service industry. He also possesses a depth of understanding of corporate governance and enterprise risk management.

7

Table of Contents

		Willard J. Overlock, Jr., 67, has been a director since 1999. He retired in 1996 as a partner in Goldman, Sachs & Co., where he served as a member of its Management Committee, and retains the title of Senior Director to The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. Mr. Overlock also is a trustee of Rockefeller University and a member of the Board of Directors of The Albert and Mary Lasker Foundation.   Mr. Overlock has broad financial and investment banking experience based on his senior leadership roles in these areas. He contributes financial and transactional expertise and acumen in mergers and acquisitions and complex financial transactions.
		Rebecca W. Rimel, 62, has been a director since July 2012. Since 1994, she has served as President and Chief Executive Officer of The Pew Charitable Trusts, a public charity that provides grants to improve public policy and support community service. Ms. Rimel previously served as Assistant Professor in the Department of Neurosurgery at the University of Virginia Hospital and also as Head Nurse of its medical center emergency department. Ms. Rimel also is a director of BioTelemetry, Inc. (formerly CardioNet, Inc.) and a director/trustee of various DWS mutual funds.   Ms. Rimel brings executive leadership and extensive experience in public policy and advocacy, particularly in the area of healthcare. She also offers the perspective of someone with a strong background in the healthcare field.
		Bertram L. Scott, 62, has been a director since 2002. Mr. Scott is the President and Chief Executive Officer of Affinity Health Plan. He previously served as President, U.S. Commercial of CIGNA Corporation from June 2010 to December 2011. Prior thereto, Mr. Scott served as Executive Vice President of TIAA-CREF from 2000 to 2010 and as President and Chief Executive Officer of TIAA-CREF Life Insurance Company from 2000 to 2007. Mr. Scott also is a director of AXA Financial, Inc.   Mr. Scott possesses strong strategic, operational and financial experience from the variety of executive roles in which he has served during his career. He brings experience in corporate governance and business expertise in the insurance and healthcare fields.
		Alfred Sommer, M.D., M.H.S., 71, has been a director since 1998. He is Professor of International Health, Epidemiology, and Ophthalmology at The Johns Hopkins University (“JHU”) Bloomberg School of Public Health (the “Bloomberg School”) and the JHU School of Medicine, positions he has held since 1986. He is Dean Emeritus of the Bloomberg School, having served as Dean from 1990 to 2005. He is a member of the National Academy of Sciences and the Institute of Medicine. He is a recipient of the Albert Lasker Award for Medical Research. Dr. Sommer also is a director of T. Rowe Price Group, Inc., and Chairman of the Board of Directors of The Albert and Mary Lasker Foundation.   Dr. Sommer is a renowned clinician, researcher and academic administrator with substantial and broad experience in medicine and the public health field, and has valuable board experience in the for-profit and nonprofit realms. These attributes enable him to offer deep insights into global healthcare issues and medical technology.

THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS RECOMMENDS A VOTE FOR EACH OF THE NOMINEES FOR DIRECTOR.

8

Table of Contents

BOARD OF DIRECTORS

The Board and Committees of the Board

BD is governed by a Board of Directors that currently consists of 15 members, 14 of whom have been determined by the Board to be independent. The Board has established four operating committees (the “Committees”): the Audit Committee; the Compensation and Benefits Committee (the “Compensation Committee”); the Corporate Governance and Nominating Committee (the “Governance Committee”); and the Science, Marketing, Innovation and Technology Committee. These Committees meet regularly. The Board has also established an Executive Committee that meets only as needed.

The Board has adopted written charters for each of the Committees that are posted on BD’s website at www.bd.com/investors/corporate_governance/. Printed copies of these charters, BD’s 2013 Annual Report on Form 10-K, and BD’s reports and statements filed with or furnished to the SEC, may be obtained, without charge, by contacting the Corporate Secretary, Becton, Dickinson and Company, 1 Becton Drive, Franklin Lakes, New Jersey 07417-1880, telephone 201-847-6800.

Committee Membership and Function

Set forth below is a summary description of each of the Committees.

AUDIT COMMITTEE

Function

The Board has determined that the members of the Audit Committee meet the independence and financial literacy requirements of the NYSE for audit committee members. The Board also has determined that each of Messrs. Anderson, Larsen, Orr and Scott and Ms. Burzik qualifies as an “audit committee financial expert” under the rules of the SEC.

9

Table of Contents

COMPENSATION AND BENEFITS COMMITTEE

Function

The Board has determined that each member of the Compensation Committee meets the independence requirements of the NYSE for compensation committee members.

Procedure for Determining Executive Compensation

The Compensation Committee oversees the compensation program for the named executive officers listed in the Summary Compensation Table on page 39 and for BD’s other executive officers. The Compensation Committee recommends compensation actions regarding the CEO to the other independent directors and has the authority to take compensation actions with respect to BD’s other executive officers. The Compensation Committee may not delegate these responsibilities to another Committee, an individual director or members of management.

Role of Management

The Compensation Committee’s meetings are typically attended by BD’s CEO, Senior Vice President—Human Resources and others who support the Compensation Committee in fulfilling its responsibilities. The Compensation Committee considers management’s views relating to compensation matters, including the performance metrics and targets for BD’s performance-based compensation. Management also provides information (which is reviewed by our Internal Audit department) to assist the Compensation Committee in determining the extent to which performance targets have been achieved. This includes any recommended adjustments to BD’s operating results when assessing BD’s performance. The CEO and Senior Vice President—Human Resources also work with the Compensation Committee chair in establishing meeting agendas.

The Compensation Committee meets in executive session with no members of management present for part of each of its regular meetings. The Compensation Committee also meets in executive session when considering compensation decisions regarding our executive officers.

Role of the Independent Consultant

The Compensation Committee is also assisted in fulfilling its responsibilities by its independent consultant, Pay Governance LLC (“Pay Governance”). Pay Governance is engaged by, and reports directly to, the Compensation Committee. The Compensation Committee is not aware of any conflict of interest on the part of Pay Governance or any factor that would otherwise impair the independence of Pay Governance relating to the services performed by Pay Governance for the Compensation Committee. During fiscal year 2013, Pay Governance was not engaged to perform any services for BD or BD’s management. The Compensation

10

Table of Contents

Committee has adopted a policy prohibiting Pay Governance from providing any services to BD or BD’s management without the Compensation Committee’s prior approval, and has expressed its intention that such approval will be given only in exceptional cases. No other consultant was used by the Compensation Committee with respect to the 2013 compensation of BD’s executive officers.

Pay Governance reviews all materials prepared for the Compensation Committee by management, prepares additional materials as may be requested by the Compensation Committee, and attends Compensation Committee meetings. In its advisory role, Pay Governance assists the Compensation Committee in the design and implementation of BD’s compensation program. This includes assisting the Compensation Committee in selecting the key elements to include in the program, the targeted payments for each element, and the establishment of performance targets. In particular with respect to 2013 compensation, Pay Governance assisted the Compensation Committee in its review of the performance metrics and targets under BD’s Performance Incentive Plan and performance-based equity compensation. This assistance included providing information on trends and best practices in the area of executive compensation and the compensation practices at peer companies. To assist it in developing recommendations to the Compensation Committee regarding the appropriate performance metrics under BD’s incentive compensation, BD management engaged Exequity as its advisor. Exequity advised BD management on a range of potential performance metrics and modeled payouts under various scenarios for different metrics and performance targets.

Pay Governance also provides market comparison data, which is one of the factors considered by the Compensation Committee in making compensation decisions, and makes recommendations to the Compensation Committee regarding the compensation of BD’s CEO. Pay Governance also conducts an annual review of the compensation practices of select peer companies. Based on this review, Pay Governance advises the Compensation Committee with respect to the competitiveness of BD’s compensation program in comparison to industry practices, and identifies any trends in executive compensation.

Setting Compensation

At the end of each fiscal year, the independent directors conduct a review of the CEO’s performance. At the following Board meeting, the independent directors set the compensation of the CEO after considering the results of the review, market comparison data and the recommendations of the Compensation Committee. Neither the CEO nor any other members of management are present during this session. The CEO does not play a role in determining or recommending his own compensation.

The Compensation Committee is responsible for determining the compensation of BD’s other executive officers. The CEO, in consultation with the Senior Vice President—Human Resources, reviews the performance of the other executive officers with the Compensation Committee and makes compensation recommendations for its consideration. The Compensation Committee determines the compensation for these executives, in consultation with Pay Governance, after considering the CEO’s recommendations and market comparison data regarding compensation levels among peer companies. All decisions regarding the compensation of BD’s other executive officers are made in executive session.

The Board has delegated responsibility for formulating recommendations regarding non-management director compensation to the Governance Committee, which is discussed below.

SCIENCE, MARKETING, INNOVATION AND TECHNOLOGY COMMITTEE

Function

11

Table of Contents

CORPORATE GOVERNANCE AND NOMINATING COMMITTEE

Function

The Board has determined that each member of the Governance Committee meets the independence requirements of the NYSE. As stated above, the Governance Committee reviews the compensation program for the non-management directors and makes recommendations to the Board regarding their compensation, and may not delegate these responsibilities to another Committee, an individual director or members of management. The Governance Committee has retained Pay Governance as an independent consultant for this purpose. Pay Governance’s responsibilities include providing market comparison data on non-management director compensation at peer companies, tracking trends in non-management director compensation practices, and advising the Governance Committee regarding the components and levels of non-management director compensation. The Governance Committee is not aware of any conflict of interest on the part of Pay Governance arising from these services or any other factor that would impair Pay Governance’s independence. Executive officers do not play any role in either determining or recommending non-management director compensation.

Board, Committee and Annual Meeting Attendance

The Board and its Committees held the following number of meetings during fiscal year 2013:

12

Table of Contents

The Executive Committee did not meet during fiscal year 2013.

Each director attended 75% or more of the total number of meetings of the Board and the Committees on which he or she served during fiscal year 2013. BD’s non-management directors met in executive session at each of the Board meetings held during fiscal year 2013.

The Board has adopted a policy pursuant to which directors are expected to attend the Annual Meeting of Shareholders in the absence of a scheduling conflict or other valid reason. All of the directors attended BD’s 2013 Annual Meeting of Shareholders.

Non-Management Directors’ Compensation

The Board believes that providing competitive compensation is necessary to attract and retain qualified non-management directors. The key elements of BD’s non-management director compensation are a cash retainer, equity compensation, Committee chair fees and Lead Director fees. Of the base compensation paid to the non-management directors (which does not include Committee chair and Lead Director fees), approximately two-thirds currently is equity-based compensation that directors are required to retain until they complete their service on the Board. See “Corporate Governance—Significant Governance Practices—Equity Ownership by Directors” on page 19. This retention feature serves to better align the interests of the directors and BD shareholders and ensure compliance with the director share ownership guidelines. Mr. Forlenza does not receive compensation related to his service as a director.

Cash Retainer

Each non-management director currently receives an annual cash retainer of $81,000 for services as a director. Directors do not receive meeting attendance fees.

Equity-Based Compensation

Each non-management director elected at an Annual Meeting of Shareholders is granted restricted stock units then valued at $162,000 (using the same methodology used to value awards made to executive officers). Directors newly elected to the Board receive a restricted stock unit grant that is prorated from the effective date of their election to the next Annual Meeting of Shareholders. The shares of BD common stock underlying the restricted stock units are not issuable until a director’s separation from the Board.

Committee Chair/Lead Director Fees

An annual fee of $10,000 is paid to each Committee chair, except that the fee for the Audit Committee chair is $15,000 in recognition of the Audit Committee’s responsibilities. An annual fee of $25,000 is paid to the Lead Director. No fee is paid to the chair of the Executive Committee.

Other Arrangements

BD reimburses non-management directors for travel and other business expenses incurred in the performance of their services for BD. Directors may travel on BD aircraft in connection with such activities, and, on limited occasions, spouses of directors have joined them on such flights. Per SEC rule, no compensation is attributed to the directors for these flights in the table below, since the aggregate incremental costs of spousal travel were minimal. Directors are also reimbursed for attending director education courses. BD occasionally invites spouses of directors to Board-related business events, for which they are reimbursed their travel expenses.

Directors are eligible, on the same basis as BD associates, to participate in BD’s Matching Gift Program, pursuant to which BD matches contributions made to qualifying nonprofit organizations. The aggregate annual limit per participant is $5,000.

13

Table of Contents

The following table sets forth the compensation received by BD’s non-management directors during fiscal year 2013.

Fiscal Year 2013 Non-Management Directors’ Compensation

Listed below are the aggregate outstanding restricted stock unit awards and option awards held by each non-management director at the end of fiscal year 2013. Stock options have not been issued to non-management directors since 2005.

14

Table of Contents

Changes to Non-Management Directors’ Compensation

During fiscal year 2013, the Board undertook a review of director compensation, with the assistance of Pay Governance. This review included an analysis of the director compensation practices of certain peer companies, including the forms of equity compensation used, the mix of cash and equity compensation, and total compensation. The peer group used in this analysis was the same as the peer group used for BD’s executive compensation analysis and included the following companies: Agilent Technologies, Inc.; Allergan, Inc.; C.R. Bard, Inc.; Baxter International Inc.; Boston Scientific Corporation; Covidien plc; Hospira, Inc.; Medtronic, Inc.; PerkinElmer, Inc.; St. Jude Medical, Inc.; Stryker Corporation; Thermo Fisher Scientific Inc.; and Zimmer Holdings, Inc.

As a result of its review, the Board approved the following changes to the compensation of BD’s non-management directors, effective at the conclusion of the 2014 Annual Meeting, so as to better align its compensation with the non-management director compensation being paid by the peer group companies:

Directors’ Deferral Plan

Directors may defer receipt of all or part of their annual cash retainer and other cash fees pursuant to the provisions of the Directors’ Deferral Plan. Directors may also defer receipt of shares issuable to them under their restricted stock unit awards upon leaving the Board. A general description of the Directors’ Deferral Plan appears on page 63.

Communication with Directors

Shareholders or other interested parties wishing to communicate with the Board, the non-management directors or any individual director (including complaints or concerns regarding accounting, internal accounting controls or audit matters) may do so by contacting the Lead Director either:

All communications will be kept confidential and promptly forwarded to the Lead Director, who shall, in turn, forward them promptly to the appropriate director(s). Such items that are unrelated to a director’s duties and responsibilities as a Board member may be excluded by our corporate security department, including, without limitation, solicitations and advertisements, junk mail, product-related communications, job referral materials and resumes, surveys, and material that is determined to be illegal or otherwise inappropriate.

15

Table of Contents

CORPORATE GOVERNANCE

Corporate Governance Principles

BD’s commitment to good corporate governance is embodied in our Corporate Governance Principles (the “Principles”). The Principles set forth the Board’s views and practices regarding a number of governance topics, and the Governance Committee assesses the Principles on an ongoing basis in light of current practices. The Principles are available on BD’s website at www.bd.com/investors/corporate_governance/. Printed copies of the Principles may be obtained, without charge, by contacting the Corporate Secretary, Becton, Dickinson and Company, 1 Becton Drive, Franklin Lakes, New Jersey 07417-1880, phone 201-847-6800.

Board Leadership Structure

The Board’s goal is to achieve the best board leadership structure for effective oversight and management of BD’s affairs. The Board believes that there is no single, generally accepted approach to providing board leadership, and that each possible leadership structure must be considered in the context of the individuals involved and the specific circumstances facing a company. Accordingly, what the Board believes is the right board leadership structure may vary as circumstances warrant.

At the present time, the Board believes that the most effective leadership structure for BD is for our CEO to also serve as Chairman. This combined role allows one person to speak for and lead the company and the Board, creates clear lines of authority and accountability, and provides the necessary leadership to execute BD’s strategy. Mr. Forlenza’s over 30 years of experience at BD and knowledge of its complex businesses, along with his extensive industry expertise, also make him uniquely qualified to lead the Board on the most important issues facing the company.

At the same time, the role of Lead Director, currently being served by Henry P. Becton, Jr., allows the non-management directors to provide effective, independent Board leadership and oversight of management. The Principles provide for the appointment of a Lead Director from among the independent directors whenever the Chairman is not independent. Under the Principles, the Lead Director:

The Board believes that having an independent Lead Director provides independent oversight of management, including risk oversight, while avoiding the risk of confusion regarding the Board’s oversight responsibilities and the day-to-day management of the business. As such, this structure provides independent Board leadership and engagement, while deriving the benefit of having the CEO also serve as Chairman.

16

Table of Contents

Board’s Oversight of Risk

BD’s management engages in a process referred to as enterprise risk management (“ERM”) to identify, assess, manage and mitigate a broad range of risks across BD’s businesses, regions and functions and to ensure alignment of our risk assessment and mitigation efforts with BD’s corporate strategy. The Audit Committee, through the authority delegated to it by the Board of Directors, is primarily responsible for overseeing BD’s ERM activities to determine whether the process is functioning effectively and is consistent with BD’s business strategy. At least twice a year, senior management reviews the results of its ERM activities with the Audit Committee, including the process used within the organization to identify risks, management’s assessment of the significant categories of risk faced by BD (including any changes in such assessment since the last review), and management’s plans to mitigate the potential exposures. On at least an annual basis, the significant risks identified through BD’s ERM activities and the related mitigation plans are reviewed with the full Board. Particular risks are then often reviewed in-depth with the Audit Committee or the full Board at subsequent meetings.

In addition, the full Board reviews the risks associated with BD’s strategic plan and discusses the appropriate levels of risk in light of BD’s objectives. This is done through an annual strategy review process, periodically throughout the year as part of its ongoing review of corporate strategy, and otherwise as necessary. The full Board also regularly oversees other areas of potential risk, including BD’s capital structure, acquisitions and divestitures, and succession planning for BD’s CEO and other members of senior management.

The various Committees of the Board are also responsible for monitoring and reporting on risks associated with their respective areas of oversight. The Audit Committee oversees BD’s accounting and financial reporting processes and the integrity of BD’s financial statements, BD’s processes to ensure compliance with laws, and its hedging activities and insurance coverages. The Compensation Committee oversees risks associated with BD’s compensation practices and programs, and the Governance Committee oversees risks relating to BD’s corporate governance practices, including director independence, related person transactions and conflicts of interest. In connection with its oversight responsibilities, each Committee often meets with members of management who are primarily responsible for the management of risk in their respective areas, including BD’s Chief Financial Officer, Senior Vice President–Human Resources, General Counsel, Senior Vice President–Regulatory Affairs, Chief Ethics and Compliance Officer and other members of senior management.

Risk Assessment of Compensation Programs

With respect to our compensation policies and practices, BD’s management has reviewed our policies and practices to determine whether they create risks that are reasonably likely to have a material adverse effect on BD. In connection with this risk assessment, management reviewed the design of BD’s compensation and benefits programs (in particular, our performance-based compensation programs) and related policies, potential risks that could be created by the programs, and features of our programs and corporate governance generally that help to mitigate risk. Among the factors considered were the mix of cash and equity compensation, and of fixed and variable compensation, paid to our associates; the balance between short- and long-term objectives in our incentive compensation; the performance targets, mix of performance metrics, vesting periods, threshold performance requirements and funding formulas related to our incentive compensation; the degree to which programs are formulaic or provide discretion to determine payout amounts; caps on payouts; our clawback and share ownership policies; and our general governance structure. Based on this review, we believe that our compensation policies and practices do not create risks that are reasonably likely to have a material adverse effect on BD.

Director Nomination Process

The Governance Committee reviews potential director candidates and recommends nominees for director to the full Board for approval. In making its recommendations, the Governance Committee assesses the overall composition of the Board, including diversity, age, skills, international background, and experience and prominence in areas of importance to BD. The Board seeks to achieve among its directors a diversity of viewpoint, experience, knowledge, ethnicity and gender that fits the needs of the Board at that particular time.

17

Table of Contents

When considering individual director candidates, the Governance Committee will seek individuals with backgrounds and qualities that, when combined with those of BD’s other directors, provide a blend of skills and experience that will further enhance the Board’s effectiveness. From time-to-time, the Governance Committee has retained an executive search firm to assist it in its efforts to identify and evaluate potential director candidates.

The Governance Committee believes that any nominee for director must meet the following minimum qualifications:

The Governance Committee assesses the characteristics and performance of incumbent director nominees against the above criteria as well, and, to the extent applicable, considers the impact of any change in the principal occupations of such directors during the last year. Upon completion of the individual director evaluation process, the Governance Committee reports its conclusions and recommendations for nominations to the full Board.

It is the Governance Committee’s policy to consider referrals of prospective nominees for the Board from other Board members and management, as well as shareholders and other external sources, such as retained executive search firms. The Governance Committee utilizes the same criteria for evaluating candidates irrespective of their source.

To recommend a candidate for consideration, a shareholder should submit a written statement of the qualifications of the proposed nominee, including full name and address, to the Corporate Secretary, Becton Dickinson and Company, 1 Becton Drive, Franklin Lakes, New Jersey 07417-1880.

Significant Governance Practices

Described below are some of the significant corporate governance practices that have been instituted by the BD Board.

Annual Election of Directors

BD’s directors are elected annually. The Board believes that annual elections of directors reflect a corporate governance best practice, as it provides shareholders the opportunity to express their views on the performance of the entire Board each year.

Voting for Directors

Under our By-Laws, in uncontested elections (where the number of nominees does not exceed the number of directors to be elected), nominees for director must receive the affirmative vote of a majority of the votes cast in order to be elected to the Board of Directors. Any incumbent director who fails to receive the requisite affirmative vote is required to offer to submit his or her resignation to the Board following the shareholder vote. The Governance Committee will consider and recommend to the Board whether to accept the resignation offer. The Board will act on such recommendation and publicly disclose its decision within 90 days following the shareholder vote. This structure allows the Board the opportunity to identify and assess the reasons for the vote, including whether the vote is attributable to dissatisfaction with a director’s overall performance or is the result of shareholder views on a particular issue, and enables it to avoid undesirable and disruptive governance consequences.

18

Table of Contents

Board Self-Evaluation

Each year the Board conducts a self-evaluation of its performance and effectiveness. As part of this process, each director completes an evaluation form on specific aspects of the Board’s role, organization and meetings. The collective comments are then presented by the chair of the Governance Committee to the full Board. As part of the evaluation, the Board assesses the progress in the areas targeted for improvement a year earlier, and develops actions to be taken to enhance the Board’s effectiveness over the next year. The Board’s evaluation covers many areas (a complete list is available on BD’s website at www.bd.com/investors/corporate_governance). Additionally, each Committee conducts an annual self-evaluation of its performance through a similar process.

Equity Ownership by Directors

The Board believes that directors should hold meaningful equity ownership positions in BD. To that end, a significant portion of non-management director compensation is in the form of restricted stock units that are not distributable until a director completes his or her service on the Board. The Board believes that these equity interests help to better align the interests of the non-management directors with shareholders. Under the Board’s share ownership guidelines, each non-management director is required to own shares of common stock (which includes restricted stock units) valued at five times the annual cash retainer and must comply with the guidelines within three years of joining the Board. All of our non-management directors either have achieved the required share ownership or are within the three-year grace period.

Annual Report of Charitable Contributions

In furtherance of BD’s commitment to good governance and disclosure practices, the Principles require that BD’s charitable contributions or pledges in an aggregate amount of $50,000 or more (not including contributions under BD’s Matching Gift Program) to entities with which BD’s directors and executive officers, or their families, are affiliated must be approved by the Governance Committee. In addition, BD posts on its website, at www.bd.com/investors/corporate_governance/, an Annual Report of Charitable Contributions (the “Contributions Report”) listing all contributions and pledges made by BD to organizations affiliated with any director or executive officer during the preceding fiscal year in an amount of $10,000 or more. The Contributions Report includes a discussion of BD’s contributions philosophy and the alignment of BD’s philanthropic activities with its philosophy.

Enterprise Compliance

Under the oversight of the Audit Committee, BD’s enterprise compliance function seeks to ensure that BD has policies and procedures designed to prevent and detect violations of the many laws, regulations and policies affecting its business, and that BD continuously encourages lawful and ethical conduct. Launched in 2005, BD’s enterprise compliance function supplements the various compliance and ethics functions that are also in place at BD, and seeks to ensure better coordination and effectiveness through program design, prevention, and promotion of an organizational culture of compliance. A Compliance Committee comprised of members of senior management oversees the activities of the Chief Ethics and Compliance Officer. Another key element of this program is training. Courses offered include a global on-line compliance training program focused on BD’s Code of Conduct, as well as other courses covering various compliance topics such as antitrust, anti-bribery, conflicts of interest, financial integrity, industry marketing codes and information security.

Political Contributions

We prohibit the use of BD corporate funds and assets to support any candidate, political party, ballot measure or referendum campaign, unless approved by the CEO and General Counsel. Contributions outside the United States must also be approved by the relevant country leaders. If an exception is approved, it may only be granted without regard to the personal political affiliations or views of any individual BD associates at any level across the organization.

19

Table of Contents

BD is a member of numerous trade associations that provide a venue for the medical technology sector to work together to advocate its position on issues that impact our industry. In the U.S., the major associations of which BD is a member include AdvaMed and AdvaMedDx, the Healthcare Institute of New Jersey and the California Healthcare Institute. In Europe, BD is a member of MedTech Europe and other national medical device associations. We have informed our major U.S. trade associations that they are not permitted to use any BD fees to support any candidate, political party, ballot measure or referendum campaign, unless approved by BD’s CEO and General Counsel.

Director Independence; Policy Regarding Related Person Transactions

Director Independence. Under the NYSE rules and our Principles, a director is deemed not to be independent if the director has a direct or indirect material relationship with BD (other than his or her relationship as a director). The Governance Committee annually reviews the independence of all directors and nominees for director and reports its findings to the full Board. To assist in this review, the Board has adopted director independence guidelines (“Independence Guidelines”) that are contained in the Principles. The Independence Guidelines set forth certain categories of relationships (and related dollar thresholds) between BD and directors and their immediate family members, or entities with which they are affiliated, that the Board, in its judgment, has deemed to be either material or immaterial for purposes of assessing a director’s independence. In the event that a director has any relationship with BD that is not addressed in the Independence Guidelines, the independent members of the Board review the facts and circumstances to determine whether such relationship is material. The Principles are available on BD’s website at www.bd.com/investors/corporate-governance/. The Independence Guidelines are contained in Principle No. 7.

The Board has determined that the following nominees for director are independent under the NYSE rules and our Independence Guidelines: Basil L. Anderson, Henry P. Becton, Jr., Catherine M. Burzik, Edward F. DeGraan, Claire M. Fraser, Christopher Jones, Marshall O. Larsen, Adel A.F. Mahmoud, Gary A. Mecklenburg, James F. Orr, Willard J. Overlock, Jr., Rebecca W. Rimel, Bertram L. Scott and Alfred Sommer. Vincent A. Forlenza is an employee of BD and, therefore, is not independent under the NYSE rules and the Principles.

In determining that each of the nominees is independent, the Board reviewed BD’s transactions or other dealings with organizations with which a director may be affiliated. Such affiliations included service by the director as an employee or member of a governing or advisory board. In conducting its review, the Board determined that, in each instance, the nature of the relationship, the degree of the director’s involvement with the organization and the amount involved would not impair the director’s independence under the Independence Guidelines. Accordingly, the Board determined that none of these relationships was material or impaired the director’s independence or judgment.

The types of transactions with director-affiliated organizations considered by the Board consisted of payments related to the purchase or sale of products and/or services (in the cases of Anderson, Burzik, Fraser, Jones, Larsen, Mecklenburg, Overlock, Scott, and Sommer), the licensing of intellectual property rights (in the cases of Fraser, Jones, Mahmoud and Sommer) and charitable contributions (in the cases of Messrs. Jones and Sommer).

Related Persons Transactions. The Board has also established a written policy (the “Policy”) requiring Board approval or ratification of transactions involving more than $120,000 per year in which a director, executive officer or shareholder owning more than 5% of BD’s stock (excluding certain passive investors) or their immediate family members has, or will have, a material interest. The Policy is available on BD’s website at www.bd.com/investors/corporate_governance/. The Policy excludes certain specified transactions, including certain charitable contributions and transactions available to BD associates generally. The Governance Committee is responsible for the review and approval or ratification of transactions subject to the Policy. The Governance Committee will approve or ratify only those transactions that it determines in its business judgment are fair and reasonable to BD and in (or not inconsistent with) the best interests of BD and its shareholders, and that do not impact the director’s independence.

20

Table of Contents

During fiscal year 2013, BD paid affiliates of State Street Corporation (“State Street”), a holder of more than 5% of BD common stock, $930,000 for serving as trustee of BD’s 401(k) plan, banking services and investment management of various 401(k) funds. These transactions were not required to be approved under the Policy, since State Street is considered a passive investor in BD.

Code of Conduct

BD maintains a Code of Conduct that is applicable to all directors, officers and associates of BD, including its CEO, Chief Financial Officer, principal accounting officer and other senior financial officers. It sets forth BD’s policies and expectations on a number of topics, including conflicts of interest, confidentiality, compliance with laws (including insider trading laws), preservation and use of BD’s assets, and business ethics. The Code of Conduct also sets forth procedures for the communicating and handling of any potential conflict of interest (or the appearance of any conflict of interest) involving directors or executive officers, and for the confidential communication and handling of issues regarding accounting, internal control and auditing matters.

BD also maintains an Ethics Help Line telephone number (the “Help Line”) for BD associates as a means of raising concerns or seeking advice. The Help Line is serviced by an independent contractor and is available to all associates worldwide. Associates using the Help Line may choose to remain anonymous and all inquiries are kept confidential to the extent practicable in connection with the investigation of an inquiry. All Help Line inquiries are forwarded to BD’s Chief Ethics and Compliance Officer for investigation. The Audit Committee is informed of any matters reported to the Chief Ethics and Compliance Officer, whether through the Help Line or otherwise, involving accounting, internal control or auditing matters, or any fraud involving management or persons who have a significant role in BD’s internal controls.

The Chief Ethics and Compliance Officer leads the BD Ethics Office, which administers BD’s ethics program. In addition to the Help Line, the ethics program provides for broad communication of BD’s Core Values, associate education regarding the Code of Conduct and its requirements, and ethics training sessions.

Any waivers from any provisions of the Code of Conduct for executive officers and directors will be promptly disclosed to shareholders. In addition, certain amendments to the Code of Conduct, as well as any waivers from certain provisions of the Code of Conduct given to BD’s CEO, Chief Financial Officer or principal accounting officer, will be posted at the website address set forth below.

The Code of Conduct is available on BD’s website at www.bd.com/investors/corporate_governance/. Printed copies of the Code of Conduct may be obtained, without charge, by contacting the Corporate Secretary, Becton, Dickinson and Company, 1 Becton Drive, Franklin Lakes, New Jersey 07417-1880, phone 201-847-6800.

21

Table of Contents

REPORT OF THE COMPENSATION AND BENEFITS COMMITTEE

The primary objective of the BD compensation program is to fully support the strategic business goal of delivering superior long-term shareholder returns through sustained revenue growth, EPS growth, return on capital and other metrics. As such, we intend to ensure a high degree of alignment between pay and the long-term value and financial soundness of BD. The Compensation and Benefits Committee of the Board of Directors (the “Committee”) has established the following compensation principles to meet this objective:

22

Table of Contents

The Committee has reviewed and discussed the Compensation Discussion and Analysis with management and, based on such review and discussions, has recommended to the Board of Directors that the Compensation Discussion and Analysis be included in BD’s Annual Report on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended September 30, 2013 and in this proxy statement.

COMPENSATION AND BENEFITS COMMITTEE

Edward F. DeGraan—Chair

Basil L. Anderson

Marshall O. Larsen

James F. Orr

Willard J. Overlock, Jr.

Bertram L. Scott

23

Table of Contents

COMPENSATION DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS

This section discusses our executive compensation program and the compensation actions taken with respect to the persons named in the Summary Compensation Table on page 39. All references in this section to years are references to our fiscal year, which ends on September 30, unless otherwise noted.

During fiscal year 2013, the role of Chief Financial Officer (“CFO”) was filled initially by David V. Elkins, until he left BD on November 9, 2012. Suketu Upadhyay served as BD’s Acting CFO following Mr. Elkins’ departure until Mr. Reidy joined BD as CFO on July 15, 2013. Accordingly, information regarding the compensation of Messrs. Elkins and Upadhyay is included towards the end of this section, but the focus is on our five currently active named executive officers, and references in this section to our “named executive officers” or “NEOs” are references to Messrs. Forlenza, Reidy, Kozy, Cohen and Sherman.

In this section, in discussing our operating results, awards made under our Performance Incentive Plan (the “PIP”) and the payout of Performance Units, we refer to certain non-GAAP financial measures, including earnings per share from continuing operations (“EPS”) on an adjusted, currency-neutral basis, adjusted currency-neutral revenues and adjusted free cash flow as a percentage of sales. Appendix A to this proxy statement contains reconciliations of these measures to the comparable GAAP financial measures.

This section includes a discussion of performance targets in the limited context of our executive compensation program. These targets are not statements of management’s expectations of our future results or other guidance. Investors should not use or evaluate these targets in any other context or for any other purpose.

Executive Summary

Overview of our compensation program

Our goal is to provide an executive compensation program that best serves the long-term interests of our shareholders. We believe that attracting and retaining superior talent is a key to delivering long-term shareholder returns, and that a competitive compensation plan is critical to that end. Therefore, we strive to provide a competitive compensation package to our executives that ties a significant portion of pay to performance and uses components that align the interests of our executives with those of BD’s shareholders.

The following is a summary of important aspects of our executive compensation program discussed later in this section.

24

Table of Contents

Changes to our compensation program in 2013

The Compensation Committee regularly reviews our compensation program in light of current trends and best practices in order to identify ways to improve the program. As a result of its ongoing review, the following actions were taken for 2013:

Changes to PIP

Changes to equity compensation

Overview of 2013 operating performance and executive compensation

BD achieved solid financial performance in 2013 under sustained challenging market conditions, as we continued to deliver on our long-term strategy. Our results were driven by strong underlying growth of sales in safety-engineered devices and in emerging markets, and new product launches and sales from recent acquisitions also contributed significantly to our growth.

Highlights of our performance include:

25

Table of Contents

PIP awards. For 2013, our adjusted revenues, EPS and free cash flow as a percentage of sales all met or exceeded the performance targets set under the PIP. This resulted in available funding for PIP awards at 107% of target awards. The PIP award made to our CEO was 109% of his target award opportunity, and awards ranged from 96% to 112% of target opportunity for our other named executive officers. We believe that the 2013 PIP compensation appropriately reflected our strong financial performance during the year and the individual contributions of our executive officers to that performance.

Equity compensation. Consistent with our past practice, equity compensation represented a significant component of compensation in 2013. Among the changes in equity-based compensation awards in 2013 was an increase in Mr. Kozy’s award value to recognize his appointment to the additional role of BD’s Chief Operating Officer in early 2013.

2011-2013 Performance Unit payouts. BD’s revenues during the 2011-2013 fiscal years were below target performance, and return on invested capital was below threshold performance for the performance period. This limited the payout of these Performance Units to 32% of target, continuing a trend over several years of below-target payouts for these awards.

Objectives of Our Executive Compensation Program

The objectives of our executive compensation program include:

Aligning executives with our shareholders. We seek to align the interests of our executives with those of our shareholders through equity compensation and share retention guidelines.

Linking compensation to performance. We seek to implement a pay-for-performance philosophy by tying a significant portion of pay to financial and other goals that support long-term shareholder value.

Offering competitive compensation. We seek to offer a competitive compensation package that helps us attract and retain our executives.

The Process for Setting Executive Compensation

The role of the Compensation Committee, its consultant and management

The Compensation Committee oversees the compensation program for the named executive officers and our other executive officers. The Compensation Committee is assisted in fulfilling its responsibilities by its independent consultant, Pay Governance LLC (“Pay Governance”), and BD’s senior management. Additional

26

Table of Contents

information about our process for setting executive compensation, including the roles of Pay Governance and management, may be found on pages 10-11. In order to maintain the independence of its outside consultant, the Compensation Committee has established a policy that prohibits its consultant from performing any services for BD or BD’s management without the Compensation Committee’s prior approval. In accordance with this policy, Pay Governance did not perform services for BD or BD management in 2013.

Approximately 95% of the shares voted at last year’s annual meeting were cast in support of BD’s advisory vote to approve executive compensation. The Compensation Committee viewed the results of this vote as broad general shareholder support for our executive compensation program. Based on this result and its ongoing review of our compensation policies and decisions, the Compensation Committee believes that our compensation program effectively aligns the interests of our named executive officers with the long-term goals of BD.

The use of market comparison data

The Compensation Committee considers a number of factors in determining pay components, structuring our program and making compensation decisions. This includes the compensation practices of select peer companies in the healthcare industry, which we refer to as the “Comparison Group.” These companies were chosen by the Compensation Committee after considering the recommendations of Pay Governance and management, and were selected because they have significant lines of business that are similar to BD’s. The Compensation Committee believes that reference to the Comparison Group is appropriate when reviewing BD’s compensation program because it believes that we compete with these companies for executive talent. The Compensation Committee reviews the composition of the Comparison Group at least annually. The companies in the Comparison Group for 2013 were:

In addition to the Comparison Group, compensation data regarding certain positions at Abbott Laboratories, Johnson & Johnson and Roche Diagnostics is considered by the Compensation Committee when reviewing the compensation of Mr. Kozy in order to increase the number of comparable positions for which compensation data is available. Also, because of a lack of positions within the healthcare industry that are comparable to Mr. Cohen’s role as the head of BD’s Global Health initiative, which involves, among other things, serving as a liaison to governments and non-government organizations throughout the world, we also reviewed general industry data.

The table below sets forth revenue and market capitalization information regarding the Comparison Group:

The Compensation Committee attempts to set the compensation of our executive officers at levels that are competitive with the companies listed above, and uses market comparison data regarding these companies as a guide. The Compensation Committee estimates the median salary, annual cash incentive and long-term equity

27

Table of Contents

compensation (and the combined total of these elements) of persons holding the same or similar positions at the companies listed above, based on the most recent market data available. The Compensation Committee then generally seeks to set the compensation of our executive officers for each of these elements within a competitive range of the median, assuming payout of performance-based compensation at target. An executive’s actual compensation may vary from the target amount set by the Compensation Committee based on the individual’s and BD’s performance and changes in our stock price. The use of market comparison data, however, is just one of the tools the Compensation Committee uses to determine executive compensation, and the Compensation Committee retains the flexibility to set target compensation at levels it deems appropriate for an individual or for a specific element of compensation. Based on the market data provided by Pay Governance, the Compensation Committee believes that the total target compensation set for the named executive officers in 2013 was competitive with median levels, except that the Compensation Committee continued to set Mr. Forlenza’s compensation towards the lower end of the range for CEOs at the Comparison Group companies due to his relatively short tenure as CEO.

Because the Compensation Committee reviews each compensation element individually, compensation decisions made with respect to one element of compensation generally do not affect decisions made with respect to other elements. It is also for this reason that no specific formula is used to determine the allocation between cash and equity compensation, although it is the Compensation Committee’s intent that equity compensation represent the largest portion of total target compensation. In addition, because an executive’s compensation target is set by reference to persons with similar duties at the Comparison Group companies, the Compensation Committee does not establish any fixed relationship between the amount of compensation paid to our CEO and that paid to the other named executive officers.

The use of tally sheets

The Compensation Committee is from time-to-time provided a “tally sheet” report prepared by management for each named executive officer. The tally sheet includes, among other things, total annual compensation, the value of unexercised or unvested equity compensation awards, and amounts payable upon termination of employment under various circumstances, including retirement or following a change of control. The Compensation Committee uses tally sheets to provide additional perspective on the value the executives have accumulated from prior equity awards and plan accruals and the retentive value of such awards, consider any changes to our program that may be appropriate (including the mix of compensation elements), and provide additional context for their compensation decisions.

Our emphasis on pay-for-performance

Performance-based compensation

We do not use a specific formula to determine the mix of performance-based and fixed compensation. However, performance-based compensation represents a significant portion of the compensation paid to our named executive officers. The charts below show the performance-based portion of 2013 target compensation for Mr. Forlenza and the other named executive officers (excluding Mr. Reidy, who joined BD in the last quarter of the fiscal year).

28

Table of Contents

2013 Total Target Compensation

The above charts are based on the target values of performance-based compensation. For purposes of these charts, we consider PIP awards, Performance Units and SARs as performance-based compensation. Actual amounts received (and the percentage of total compensation coming from performance-based compensation) may differ based on actual performance and BD’s stock price.

How we measure performance

Previously, BD’s compensation programs focused on key financial indicators of operating success, including revenue and EPS growth and return on invested capital (“ROIC”). Over the past few years, increased competition, changes in government healthcare and research funding, pricing pressures and other factors have affected overall healthcare utilization and, in turn, industry revenue growth rates. As a result, the strategic objectives for BD going forward will, to a greater extent, focus not only on revenues, EPS and ROIC, but also on operational efficiency, which allows BD to free up funds that can be used to invest in product development and innovation, and in geographic expansion. Therefore, the Compensation Committee believes it is important that our compensation program reinforce and reward behaviors that support a balance of growth, profitability and operating efficiency. In addition, given the market conditions BD has faced over the last few years, the Compensation Committee also believes that our program should incorporate a measure that compares BD’s performance to peer companies facing these same market conditions.

With these considerations in mind, the Compensation Committee, with input and recommendations from Pay Governance and management, conducted a review of BD’s annual and long-term incentives to identify ways to improve the design of our executive compensation program. Based on this evaluation, the Compensation Committee approved certain changes to our performance-based compensation, as discussed below.

PIP. Our compensation program is structured to provide incentives for both near-term and long-term performance. The vehicle for rewarding near-term performance is the PIP. For the past several years, we used revenues and EPS as the performance measures under this plan. The Compensation Committee uses EPS as a performance measure because it is the primary basis on which BD sets performance expectations for the year and it is a widely used measure of overall company performance. Revenue is used because it focuses management on achieving strong “top-line” growth, consistent with our business strategy. For 2013, free cash flow as a percentage of sales was added as a third measure. “Free cash flow” means cash flow from our operating activities, less capital expenditures and capitalized software. This measure was added to recognize the importance of efficient use of cash to our ability to fund ongoing investments in our business and the increased focus on this metric by the investor community. Adding this free cash flow measure also provides a more balanced set of performance targets that focus on growth, profitability and operating efficiency. The Compensation Committee believes that consistent performance in these areas will result in the creation of long-term shareholder value.

Equity compensation. The vehicle for rewarding long-term performance is equity compensation, including Performance Units. For the Performance Units granted in 2013, the two metrics used to measure performance are ROIC and relative TSR. ROIC measures profitability and how effectively company assets are being used. This

29

Table of Contents

metric requires management to effectively manage a number of different aspects of the business, including new product introductions, productivity improvements and geographic expansion. Relative TSR measures BD’s stock performance (assuming reinvestment of dividends) during the performance period against that of a group of 18 companies in the healthcare industry. Relative TSR replaced the revenue growth measure that had been used for prior Performance Unit awards. This measure compares BD’s performance, as reflected in our stock price over time, to peer companies facing similar business conditions and is directly tied to shareholder returns. A majority of Comparison Group companies that include performance-based stock units in their equity compensation report that they use relative TSR as a performance metric.

Equity compensation is also tied to our long-term performance by its linkage to the BD stock price. We believe that sustained performance should, over time, result in the creation of long-term shareholder value and be reflected in our stock price.

How performance goals are set

When setting corporate performance targets for the PIP and Performance Units, the Compensation Committee considers the environment in which BD is operating. As stated above, the healthcare industry has been facing very challenging conditions over the last several years. The Compensation Committee seeks to reward what it deems to be superior performance by management in light of these economic conditions and the growth trends in the markets that BD serves, and sets what it believes are reasonably achievable performance targets for BD at the time. The Compensation Committee also structures these plans so that payouts are aligned with BD’s performance against these targets.

Our risk analysis of performance-based compensation

While a significant portion of executive compensation is performance-based, we do not believe that our program encourages excessive or unnecessary risk-taking. While risk-taking is a necessary part of operating and growing a business, the Compensation Committee focuses on aligning BD’s compensation policies with our long-term strategy and attempts to avoid short-term rewards for management decisions that could pose long-term risks to BD. This includes:

30

Table of Contents

The Key Elements of Our Compensation Program

The key elements of our executive compensation program are summarized in the table below.

How PIP Payments and Equity Compensation Are Awarded

PIP

The PIP provides our executives an opportunity to receive a cash award for BD’s performance for the fiscal year and their contribution to that performance, as part of our pay-for-performance philosophy.

Target awards. Target PIP awards for the named executive officers are expressed as a percentage of base salary earned during the year. The “Grants of Plan-Based Awards in Fiscal Year 2013” table on page 42 shows the range of possible awards under the PIP, based on certain assumptions.

The factors that the Compensation Committee and the Board consider when setting PIP awards include BD’s overall performance for the year compared to the pre-set performance targets and the level of available funding (discussed below), as well as the executive’s target award and individual performance. Our CEO’s performance is measured against the individual goals for the year established by the Board. For the other named executive officers, the CEO provides an assessment to the Compensation Committee of how those executive officers performed against the performance objectives set for the businesses or functions they oversee. In each case, the performance objectives for a named executive officer involve a combination of quantitative and qualitative goals. However, no specific formula or weighting of individual performance objectives is used to determine a named executive officer’s PIP award, nor is the achievement of any particular individual performance objective a condition to receiving an award. Instead, the Compensation Committee and the Board use their business judgment to determine the appropriate PIP award to recognize BD’s performance and the executive’s contribution to that performance.

31

Table of Contents

Performance targets. As mentioned earlier, for 2013, the performance measures under the PIP included EPS, revenues and free cash flow as a percentage of sales targets. EPS performance is weighted 50% and the other two metrics are each weighted 25%. As previously discussed, EPS is the primary basis on which we set our performance expectations for the year, and for this reason, it is more heavily weighted than the other measures. The performance targets were based on BD’s business plan for the fiscal year. Revenues and EPS for the year are measured after eliminating the estimated effects of foreign currency translation so that only BD’s underlying performance is considered in determining available funding.

Funding for Awards. Available funding for PIP awards is determined by a formula. For each measure, the Compensation Committee reviews how BD performed against the target goal set by the Compensation Committee in order to arrive at a performance factor for that measure. For every 1% of performance above target, funding with respect to that measure is increased 5% (up to a maximum of 150%), and for every 1% below target, funding decreases 2.5%. Performance below 90% of target for revenues and EPS results in no funding for that particular measure, while performance below 80% of target will result in no funding for the free cash flow measure. The performance factors for the three measures are then weighted to arrive at a final funding amount. Because PIP awards are discretionary, actual awards, as a percentage of a named executive officer’s target, may be more or less than the overall funding factor.

When comparing BD’s operating results against the performance targets, the Compensation Committee has the discretion to adjust BD’s results to account for acquisitions and divestitures, and for items that are not considered part of our ordinary operations. This ensures that business decisions are made based on what management believes is in the best interests of BD, rather than the possible effects on compensation. This discretion is also used to make sure our executives are not unfairly penalized or rewarded by these types of events.

Long-term equity compensation

The equity compensation awards made to the named executive officers in 2013 consisted of SARs, Performance Units and TVUs. A description of each type of award is on page 43. The Compensation Committee uses this mix of equity vehicles to promote the objectives of our program. SARs are intended to reward the executives for the creation of shareholder value over the term of the award. Performance Units are intended to reward sustained long-term operating performance. TVUs, which represent the smallest portion of the awards, are used to reduce the volatility in amounts realized from equity compensation that can arise when purely performance-based equity compensation is used. All of these awards also serve to align the interests of our executives with those of our shareholders and help promote executive retention.

How equity awards are determined. The Compensation Committee determines the grant date dollar value of the award to be made to each named executive officer based on market comparison data and individual performance. SARs, Performance Unit and TVU awards are then made based on their estimated grant date values, with SARs and Performance Units each making up approximately 40% of the total award value, and TVUs the remaining 20%. The estimated value given to Performance Units and TVUs are based on a 30-day average stock price, while the estimated value of the SARs is calculated using an option valuation model that uses certain assumptions, such as stock volatility, dividend yield and the expected life of the SARs. The values given to equity compensation awards by the Compensation Committee are only estimates and actual amounts realized from these awards may differ from these estimated values.

Performance Unit targets. The performance measures used for the Performance Units granted in 2013 were average annual ROIC and relative TSR, each weighted 50%. To determine the number of shares issued under an award, a payout factor for each performance measure is calculated and then weighted to determine a final payout factor, which can range anywhere from zero (if BD fails to meet the minimum performance threshold for both measures) to 200% of the share target (if BD meets or exceeds the maximum performance threshold for each).

32

Table of Contents

The payout factor for ROIC performance is determined by a scale based on how far above or below ROIC is from target performance. Threshold performance is set at 5% below the ROIC target, and maximum performance is 5% above target.

The payout factor for relative TSR performance is determined by the following table:

In the event BD has a negative TSR for the Performance Period, the payout factor assigned to relative TSR is capped at 100%. In determining payouts, the Compensation Committee has the discretion to adjust BD’s ROIC to account for events that occur during the performance period, similar to its discretion under the PIP, and make adjustments to the peer group, or the TSR of companies within the peer group or BD, to account for acquisitions or mergers or other significant events, such as a changes in capital structure.

Compensation Actions

Below is a discussion of compensation actions taken with respect to the named executive officers.

Salary adjustments

The base salaries of the named executive officers are reviewed each November, and any adjustments go into effect on January 1 of the following calendar year. Effective January 1, 2013, Mr. Forlenza’s salary was increased about 4.4% from $900,000 to $940,000. Messrs. Kozy and Sherman received approximate 6% and 7% increases, respectively, to adjust for their performance and market practices. Mr. Reidy’s base salary was set at $675,000 when he joined BD in July 2013.

PIP awards

The threshold performance, target performance and maximum performance under the PIP for 2013, along with BD’s adjusted performance during the year, is set forth below. Adjusted currency-neutral EPS, adjusted currency-neutral revenues and adjusted free cash flow as a percentage of sales are non-GAAP financial measures. Appendix A to this proxy statement contains reconciliations of these measures to the comparable GAAP financial measure.

The EPS target of $5.61 set by the Compensation Committee represented 4.5% growth over 2012 adjusted EPS, or 7.4% on a currency-neutral basis given the anticipated impact of currency translation for the year. However, the 2013 EPS target also reflected the anticipated impact of the medical device excise tax that went into effect for the first time in January 2013 under the U.S. healthcare reform. Without the impact of this tax, our

33

Table of Contents

EPS target would represent 10.2% growth. The revenue target represented a 2.8% increase over 2012 revenues, or 4% on a currency-neutral basis, while the free cash flow as a percentage of sales target was consistent with BD’s historical performance. Our reported EPS, revenues and free cash flow as a percentage of sales for the year were $4.67, $8.054 billion and 14.0%, respectively.

In reviewing BD’s 2013 performance, the Compensation Committee made adjustments for:

The Committee makes adjustments when determining the PIP funding factor so that funding for awards appropriately reflects the Company’s underlying operating results and executives do not benefit from, and are not penalized by, unplanned events that occurred during the course of the year. To that end, the adjustment for acquisitions and the adjustments to free cash flow were made because these items were not budgeted for at the beginning of the year when the PIP performance targets were set. Also, the pension and litigation-related charges were eliminated from EPS because neither of these items relate to BD’s underlying operating performance.

The following table shows the PIP awards granted for 2013. These awards are also set forth in the Summary Compensation Table on page 39 under the heading “Non-Equity Incentive Plan Compensation.”

The PIP awards made to the named executive officers were generally in-line with our financial performance for the year, as measured against the PIP targets, and no individual’s actual award, as a percentage of his target, exceeded the performance factor by more than 5%. In making these awards, the Compensation Committee considered BD’s performance during the year and individual contributions to BD’s performance. During the year, BD experienced strong financial performance that exceeded management’s business plan in terms of revenue and EPS growth. Management continued to deliver on its strategy for growth, as evidenced by the percentage of sales coming from new products, continued strong growth in emerging markets and the significant contributions from recent acquisitions. The year was also marked by significant progress on key initiatives intended to position BD for long-term growth, including progress on the establishment of a new company-wide innovation system to enhance innovation capabilities within BD and the roll-out of management’s strategic marketing program. Significant contributions to BD’s overall performance also came from management’s operating efficiency programs, including BD’s ReLoCo program, which contributed savings of close to $50 million during the year, and the continued roll-out of our shared service centers in the U.S., Europe and Asia.

Equity compensation awards

The Compensation Committee made the equity compensation awards to the named executive officers shown on page 42. Changes in equity-based compensation paid to NEOs during 2013 compared to 2012 were based on

34

Table of Contents

individual performance, adjustments to align award values with market practices, and, in the case of Mr. Kozy, to recognize his appointment to the additional role of BD’s Chief Operating Officer in early 2013. The Performance Units included in these awards cover the 2013-2015 performance period and have a target ROIC of 21.9%.

Payout of prior Performance Unit awards

2010-2012 performance period

In November 2012, Performance Units covering the 2010-2012 performance period vested. These awards had performance targets of 7% currency-neutral revenue growth and 32% ROIC. Our revenue growth and ROIC over the performance period were 3.9% and 27.2%, respectively. Based on our results, there were no payouts for these awards.

2011-2013 performance period

In November 2013 (our 2014 fiscal year), Performance Units covering the 2011-2013 performance period vested. These awards had performance targets of 6% currency-neutral revenue growth and 30% ROIC. Our reported revenue growth and ROIC over the performance period were 4.2% and 23.3%, respectively. Revenue growth, adjusted for acquisitions and divestitures, was 3.7%. This adjusted performance reduced the payout of the awards from 38% to 32% of the share target. The Compensation Committee made adjustments for acquisitions and divestitures because these events were not contemplated at the beginning of the performance period.

Performance Unit payout trend

As stated earlier, BD has been operating in a challenging economic environment the last several years. The impact of global economic conditions on BD’s revenue growth and ROIC has been reflected in Performance Unit payouts over this period, with the last five payouts all being below target. We believe BD’s revenue growth over this time reflects slower growth in the medical technology industry generally as a result of these macroeconomic conditions, rather than weaker growth of BD relative to industry trends. However, we believe these payouts demonstrate a high degree of alignment between pay and BD’s performance against the preset targets, as shown in the table below.

35

Table of Contents

These reduced Performance Unit payouts have resulted in significant differences between the original grant date value of these awards and the amounts actually realized by the named executive officers listed below, as shown in the following table for the last three payouts.

Note: Realized values are determined based on the closing BD stock price on the vesting date and include dividend reinvestments during the vesting period. Mr. Reidy’s first Performance Unit grant was for the 2014-2016 performance cycle.

Other Compensation Actions

Compensation of Mr. Reidy. In connection with his election as CFO in July 2013, Mr. Reidy’s base salary was set at $675,000. Mr. Reidy was also guaranteed an equity compensation award in fiscal year 2014 with a grant date value of $2 million, and entered into an agreement providing for his continued employment following a change of control of BD, similar to agreements with other executive officers, which are discussed below. These terms were the result of negotiations between BD and Mr. Reidy in connection with his recruitment and were approved by the Compensation Committee as a reasonable inducement for Mr. Reidy to join BD.

Compensation of Messrs. Elkins and Upadhyay. Mr. Elkins served as CFO until he left BD in November 2012. As a result of his departure, he did not receive any equity compensation or PIP award in 2013, and he forfeited his outstanding equity compensation awards to the extent they were not vested at the time of his departure.

Mr. Upadhyay was our Acting CFO from November 10, 2012 until Mr. Reidy’s appointment. Upon Mr. Reidy’s joining BD, Mr. Upadhyay was appointed Senior Vice President-Finance, and his base salary was increased from $349,650 to 400,000. Mr. Upadhyay eventually left BD in September 2013. Because he was not employed by BD at the end of the fiscal year, Mr. Upadhyay was not eligible for a PIP award. However, in connection with his separation, he received a payment of $214,000 in recognition for his services as Acting CFO and in exchange for certain releases and covenants given to BD. Because he was not an executive officer at the beginning or end of 2013, decisions regarding Mr. Upadhyay’s compensation were not made by the Compensation Committee.

Other Benefits Under Our Executive Compensation Program

Company transportation

Mr. Forlenza is encouraged to use BD aircraft for his personal and business travel in order to make more efficient use of his travel time, for his personal security and to reduce business continuity risk. Mr. Forlenza has entered into a time-sharing arrangement with BD under which he makes payments to BD for his personal use of BD aircraft. For 2013, Mr. Forlenza’s time-share payments exceeded BD’s incremental costs relating to the one personal flight he took during the year. Additional information on the time-sharing arrangement is set forth in the notes to the Summary Compensation Table beginning on page 40.

Deferred compensation

Our Deferred Compensation and Retirement Benefit Restoration Plan (the “Restoration Plan”) is an unfunded, nonqualified plan that, among other things, allows eligible associates to defer receipt of cash compensation and shares issuable under certain equity compensation awards. The plan gives eligible associates the opportunity to defer compensation on a pre-tax basis in addition to what is allowed under our tax-qualified 401(k) plan. The plan is offered to our eligible associates as part of a competitive compensation program. We do

36

Table of Contents

not provide any guaranteed earnings on amounts deferred by the named executive officers, and earnings on these accounts are based on their individual investment elections. BD provides matching contributions on cash amounts deferred under the plan, subject to certain limits. A more complete description of the deferred compensation provisions of the plan begins on page 49.

Pension benefits

We offer retirement benefits for all of our U.S. associates. Because the Internal Revenue Code limits the maximum annual benefit that may be paid to an individual under the BD Retirement Plan, our qualified defined benefit retirement plan, we provide additional retirement benefits through our Restoration Plan. Together, these plans are designed to provide a market-competitive level of income replacement for our retirement-eligible associates, reduce associate turnover and contribute towards a competitive compensation package. The named executive officers participate in these plans on the same basis as all eligible associates. We do not include the value of equity compensation in calculating pension benefits. A more complete description of our pension benefits begins on page 46.

Change of control agreements

We have entered into agreements with the named executive officers relating to their employment following a change of control. These agreements provide the executives with continued employment for a period of two years following a change of control of BD, and provide certain benefits to the executives in the event their employment is terminated without cause or they leave their employment for “good reason” (also known as a constructive termination) during such period. Generally, these benefits include a severance payment equal to a multiple of the executive’s salary and PIP award, and certain other benefits. A more complete description of the terms and potential payouts of our change of control agreements begins on page 51.

General purpose. Our change of control agreements are intended to retain the executives and provide continuity of management in the event of an actual or potential change of control of BD. These change of control benefits are reviewed from time-to-time by the Compensation Committee to ensure that they are consistent with our compensation objectives and market practices. Based on information provided by Pay Governance, change of control arrangements are used by a substantial majority of the companies in the Comparison Group, and the terms of our agreements, including the severance multiple, are consistent with the prevailing practices at those companies. The Compensation Committee believes the benefits provided under these agreements are appropriate and are consistent with our objective of attracting and retaining highly qualified executives.

Triggering events. Our agreements contain a “double trigger”—that is, there must be a change of control of BD and a termination of the executive’s employment in order for any payments to be made. We opted for a double trigger, rather than a “single trigger” that provides for severance payments solely on the basis of a change of control, since a double trigger is consistent with the purpose of encouraging the continued employment of the executive following a change of control.

Tax reimbursement payments. In certain instances, payments made to an executive on account of his termination may be subject to a 20% excise tax. Under certain of our agreements, to offset the effect of this tax, we will reimburse the executive for any resulting excise tax. We provide for these payments because they allow the executive to recognize the full intended economic benefit of his agreement and eliminate unintended disparities between executives that the excise tax can arbitrarily impose, owing to the particular structure of this tax provision. However, while we believe these tax reimbursement provisions serve a valid purpose, in light of trends in executive compensation practices, it has been our policy since 2011 that any new change of control agreements that we enter into with executive officers will not contain these provisions. For instance, the agreement we entered into with Mr. Reidy upon his joining BD this year does not contain these provisions.

Other change in control provisions

Upon a change in control, all outstanding equity compensation awards granted to our associates, including the named executive officers, immediately vest. Unlike the “double trigger” discussed above, no termination of

37

Table of Contents

employment is required for the accelerated vesting of the awards. This “single-trigger” vesting provides our associates with the same opportunity as our shareholders to realize the value created by the transaction.

Significant Policies and Additional Information Regarding Executive Compensation

Recovery of prior compensation

We have a policy that gives the Board the discretion to require a member of the BD Leadership Team (which includes 57 senior BD leaders, including the named executive officers) to reimburse BD for any PIP award or Performance Unit payout that was based on financial results that were subsequently restated as a result of that person’s misconduct. The Board also has the discretion to cancel any equity compensation awards (or recover payouts under such awards) that were granted to such person with respect to the restated period, and require the person to reimburse BD for any profits realized on any sale of BD stock occurring after the public issuance of the financial statements that were subsequently restated.

The policy also gives the Board the authority to require members of the BD Leadership Team who were not involved in the misconduct to reimburse BD for the amount by which their PIP award or Performance Unit payouts exceeded the amount they would have received based on the restated results.

Share retention and ownership guidelines

To increase executive share ownership and promote a long-term perspective when managing our business, our executive officers and other members of the BD Leadership Team are required to retain, in shares of BD stock, 75% of the net after-tax proceeds from any equity compensation awards granted to them after they become members of the BD Leadership Team. They are subject to these requirements until they achieve the required ownership level. The required ownership levels are:

Shares held directly, shares held indirectly through our 401(k) plan and Restoration Plan, and TVUs are included in determining a person’s share ownership. Messrs. Forlenza, Kozy, Cohen and Sherman have holdings in excess of their ownership requirement. We have a policy that prohibits our directors and associates from pledging BD shares, or engaging in options, puts, calls or other transactions that are intended to hedge against the economic risk of owning BD shares.

Timing of equity award grants

The Compensation Committee has adopted a policy that prohibits the backdating of any equity compensation award and requires our annual equity compensation awards and any “off-cycle” awards approved by our CEO to be made on fixed dates. The policy also prohibits manipulating the timing of either the public release of information or the grant of an award in order to increase the value of the award. Under the policy, the exercise price of any stock option or SAR award will be the closing price of BD stock on the grant date.

Tax considerations

Section 162(m) of the Internal Revenue Code precludes BD from taking a federal income tax deduction for compensation paid in excess of $1 million to its CEO and its three other most highly-compensated executive officers other than the CFO. This limitation does not apply, however, to “performance-based” compensation. While the Compensation Committee generally attempts to maximize the deductibility of compensation, the Compensation Committee believes that the primary purpose of our compensation program is to support BD’s business strategy and the long-term interests of our shareholders. Therefore, the Compensation Committee maintains the flexibility to award compensation that may not be tax-deductible if doing so furthers the objectives of our executive compensation program.

38

Table of Contents

COMPENSATION OF NAMED EXECUTIVE OFFICERS

The following table shows the compensation provided by BD to each of the named executive officers in fiscal year 2013.

FISCAL YEAR 2013 SUMMARY COMPENSATION TABLE