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 17, 2015

Dear Fellow Shareholders:

You are cordially invited to attend the 2016 Annual Meeting of Shareholders of Becton, Dickinson and Company (“BD”) to be held at 1:00 p.m. EST on Tuesday, January 26, 2016 at the Four Seasons Hotel New York, 57 East 57^th Street, New York, New York.

The accompanying 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 17, 2015

The 2016 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 the accompanying proxy statement.

Important Notice Regarding the Availability of Proxy Materials for the 2016 Annual Meeting of Shareholders to be held on January 26, 2016. BD’s proxy statement and 2015 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 4, 2015 will be entitled to attend and vote at the meeting.

By order of the Board of Directors,

Gary DeFazio

Senior Vice President and Corporate Secretary

Table of Contents

Table of Contents

Table of Contents

PROXY STATEMENT

2016 ANNUAL MEETING OF SHAREHOLDERS

Tuesday, January 26, 2016

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 17, 2015 in connection with the solicitation of proxies by the BD Board of Directors for BD’s 2016 Annual Meeting of Shareholders (the “2016 Annual Meeting”) to be held at 1:00 p.m. EST on Tuesday, January 26, 2016 at the Four Seasons Hotel New York, 57 East 57^th Street, New York, New York.

BD’s directors and its officers and other 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.

Important Notice Regarding the Availability of Proxy Materials for the 2016 Annual Meeting of Shareholders to be held on January 26, 2016. This proxy statement and BD’s 2015 Annual Report to Shareholders are also available at www.bd.com/investors/.

Shareholders entitled to vote; Attendance at the 2016 Annual Meeting

Shareholders of record at the close of business on December 4, 2015 are entitled to notice of, and to vote at, the meeting. As of such date, there were 212,165,747 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 may request appropriate identification for any person seeking to attend the meeting 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 offer to submit 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 and 4 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 (the “GSIP”) must be received by 12:00 p.m. EST on January 20, 2016, and voting instructions submitted by participants in all other BD plans must be received by 12:00 p.m. EST on January 22, 2016. All proxies submitted by record holders through the Internet or by telephone must be received by 11:00 a.m. EST on January 26, 2016.

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 your nominee, 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 (the “SIP”)

Participants in the 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 are 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 the 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.

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:

2

Table of Contents

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, 2015, 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 based on filings made by such persons with the Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”).

3

Table of Contents

Securities owned by directors and management

The following table sets forth as of December 7, 2015 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 40, 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 dispose of, including shares that may be acquired under outstanding equity compensation awards or otherwise within 60 days. Except as indicated in the footnotes to the table, each person has the sole power to vote and dispose of the shares he or she beneficially owns.

BD has a policy that prohibits directors, officers 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

4

Table of Contents

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 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, 2014 through September 30, 2015, all of its directors and executive officers were in compliance with the reporting requirements of Section 16(a).

Members of our Board 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. Messrs. Henry P. Becton and Edward F. DeGraan, who have reached the mandatory retirement age under BD’s Corporate Governance Principles, will retire as members of the Board effective at the conclusion of the 2016 Annual Meeting. Mr. Becton has been appointed Director Emeritus, effective following the 2016 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, 70, 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.   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.

5

Table of Contents

		Catherine M. Burzik, 65, served as President and Chief Executive Officer of Kinetic Concepts, Inc., a medical device company specializing in the fields of woundcare and regenerative medicine, from 2006 until January 2012 following the sale of the company. Ms. Burzik currently serves as Chair of the Board of Directors of the American College of Wound Healing and Tissue Repair, Chair of the San Antonio Branch of the Dallas Federal Reserve Board, General Partner of Targeted Technology Fund II, LP, and Chair of StemBioSys, Inc., a Targeted Technology portfolio company. Previously, Ms. Burzik was President of Applied Biosystems; 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.   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.
		Vincent A. Forlenza, 62, has been a director since 2011, and became BD’s Chairman in 2012. He was elected BD’s Chief Executive Officer in 2011 and has served as its President since 2009. He also served as BD’s Chief Operating Officer from July 2010 to October 2011. Mr. Forlenza also is Chairman of the Advanced Medical Technology Association (AdvaMed), an international medical technology trade organization. He is a member of the Board of Trustees of The Valley Hospital and The Valley Health System, a member of the Board of Directors of the Quest Autism Foundation, and a member of the Board of Trustees of Lehigh University and of the Advisory Board for the P.C. Rossin College of Engineering and Applied Sciences at Lehigh.   Mr. Forlenza has been with BD for over 35 years in a number of different capacities, including strategic planning, business development, research and development leadership and general management in each of BD’s segments and in 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, 60, 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 and the Maryland Technology Development Corporation (TEDCO).   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, 60, 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, a member of the Health Advisory Board of The Johns Hopkins University Bloomberg School of Public Health and a member of the Board of Directors of the Albert and Mary Lasker Foundation.   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, 67, 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 Air Lease Corporation, Lowe’s Companies, Inc. and United Technologies Corporation.   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, 69, 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 Group, 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.

7

Table of Contents

		James F. Orr, 70, has been a director since 2000. From 2000 until his retirement in 2007, he served as Chairman of the Board of Convergys Corporation, a provider of customer management services, and which formerly also provided employee care and outsourced billing services. 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.
		Willard J. Overlock, Jr., 69, 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 is a Special Partner at Cue Ball Capital, and a member of the Cue Ball Group Board of Directors. Mr. Overlock is also a member of the Board of Directors of Evercore Partners, Inc., a trustee of Rockefeller University, and Chairman 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.
		Claire Pomeroy, 60, has been a director since 2014. Since 2013, she has served as the President of the Albert and Mary Lasker Foundation, a private foundation that seeks to improve health by accelerating support for medical research through recognition of research excellence, public education and advocacy. Prior thereto, Dr. Pomeroy served as Dean of the University of California, Davis (“UC Davis”) School of Medicine, and CEO of the UC Davis Health System. Dr. Pomeroy is also a member of the Board of Directors of Expanesthetics, Inc., and the Sierra Health Foundation. She is a member of the Board of Trustees of the Morehouse School of Medicine and the Board of Directors of the Foundation for Biomedical Research.   Dr. Pomeroy is an expert in infectious diseases, with broad experience in the area of healthcare delivery, health system administration, higher education, medical research and public health. She brings to the Board important perspectives in the areas of patient care services, global health and health policy.

8

Table of Contents

		Rebecca W. Rimel, 64, has been a director since 2012. Since 1994, she has served as President and Chief Executive Officer of The Pew Charitable Trusts, a public charity that works to improve public policy and inform the public. 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. and a director/trustee of various Deutsche 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, 64, has been a director since 2002. Mr. Scott is Senior Vice President of Population Health of Novant Health. He previously served as President and Chief Executive Officer of Affinity Health Plan, and as President, U.S. Commercial of CIGNA Corporation. Prior thereto, Mr. Scott served as Executive Vice President of TIAA-CREF and as President and Chief Executive Officer of TIAA-CREF Life Insurance Company. Mr. Scott also is a director of AXA Financial, Inc., Lowe’s Companies, Inc. and Tufts Health Plan.   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.

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

9

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 14 members, 13 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 Management Development Committee (the “Compensation Committee”); the Corporate Governance and Nominating Committee (the “Governance Committee”); and the Science, Marketing, Innovation and Technology Committee (the “SMIT 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 2015 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 and Scott and Ms. Burzik qualifies as an “audit committee financial expert” under the rules of the SEC.

10

Table of Contents

COMPENSATION AND MANAGEMENT DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE

Function

The Board has determined that each member of the Compensation Committee meets the independence requirements of the NYSE for compensation committee members. Each member also qualifies as an “outside director” under Section 162(m) of the Internal Revenue Code, and as a “non-employee director” under Section 16 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

Procedure for determining executive compensation

The Compensation Committee oversees the compensation program for the executive officers listed in the Summary Compensation Table on page 40 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, Executive Vice President and Chief Human Resources Officer 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 Chief Human Resources Officer 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

11

Table of Contents

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 2015, Pay Governance was not engaged to perform any services for BD or BD’s management. The Compensation 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 fiscal year 2015 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.

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 meet in executive session to set the compensation of the CEO after considering the results of its review, market comparison data and the recommendations of the Compensation Committee. 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 Chief Human Resources Officer, 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 for comparable positions at 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

12

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 director 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 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 2015:

13

Table of Contents

The Executive Committee did not meet during fiscal year 2015. BD’s non-management directors met in executive session at each of the Board meetings held during fiscal year 2015.

During fiscal year 2015, all directors attended at least 75% of the total number of meetings of the Board of Directors and Committees on which he or she served.

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. One director was unable to attend BD’s 2015 Annual Meeting of Shareholders due to illness, and three directors were unable to attend due to severe weather conditions. All of the other directors were present at the meeting.

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. See “Corporate Governance—Significant governance practices—Equity ownership by directors” on page 20. 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 $92,000 for services as a director. Directors do not receive meeting attendance fees.

Equity award

Each non-management director elected at an Annual Meeting of Shareholders is granted restricted stock units then valued at $189,000 (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 restricted stock units vest and are distributable one year from grant, unless deferred at the election of a director.

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 rules, 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 limit per participant is $5,000 per calendar year.

14

Table of Contents

The following table sets forth the compensation earned or received by BD’s non-management directors during fiscal year 2015.

Fiscal Year 2015 Non-Management Directors’ Compensation

Listed below are the aggregate outstanding restricted stock unit awards held by each non-management director at the end of fiscal year 2015.

15

Table of Contents

Changes to non-management directors’ compensation

During fiscal year 2015, 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 plc.; C.R. Bard, Inc.; Baxter International Inc.; Boston Scientific Corporation; Medtronic plc; PerkinElmer, Inc.; St. Jude Medical, Inc.; Stryker Corporation; Thermo Fisher Scientific Inc.; and Zimmer Biomet Holdings, Inc.

Following this review, no change was made to the annual retainer or annual equity award. However, the Board approved the following changes to the compensation of the Committee chairs and Lead Director, effective at the conclusion of the 2016 Annual Meeting, so as to better align the Board’s compensation practices with those of 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. A general description of the Directors’ Deferral Plan appears on page 62.

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.

16

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. The Board believes 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 35 years of experience at BD and knowledge of our 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 Principles provide for the appointment of a Lead Director from among the independent directors whenever the Chairman is not independent. The establishment of the Lead Director role allows the non-management directors to provide effective, independent Board leadership and oversight of management. Marshall O. Larsen currently serves as Lead Director.

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

17

Table of Contents

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.

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, and from time to time throughout the year as part of the Board’s ongoing review of corporate strategy. 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 to the full Board 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 regarding 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, among others, BD’s Chief Financial Officer, Chief Human Resources Officer, General Counsel, and senior regulatory, IT and compliance officers.

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.

18

Table of Contents

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, background, 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.

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. To aid in this process, each director completes an annual evaluation of all the other directors on the Board. 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.

Other significant governance practices

Described below are some of the other 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.

19

Table of Contents

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 the Board to avoid undesirable and disruptive governance consequences.

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. A complete list of the areas covered by the Board evaluation 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. The Board believes that these equity interests help to better align the interests of the non-management directors with our 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.

Shareholder engagement

Our relationship with our shareholders and their views about BD are important to us, and the Board recognizes the value of director engagement with BD’s major shareholders. To that end, the Board has established a process by which shareholders can request direct engagement with our non-management directors regarding executive compensation, corporate governance, board and CEO succession, risk management oversight and other matters within the purview of the Board. This process can be found on our website at www.bd.com/investors/corporate_governance/. The Board may also initiate direct communications with BD shareholders at any time, in its discretion.

Director Emeritus

The Board may, from time to time, appoint a former director as Director Emeritus. A Director Emeritus serves as a consultant to the Board, and may be invited to attend Board or Committee meetings. Director Emeritus is an honorary position, and a Director Emeritus will not receive any compensation for serving in that role or have a vote on any matter coming before the Board or any Committee. It is the Board’s intention that the appointment of a Director Emeritus will occur only in exceptional cases.

20

Table of Contents

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 during the preceding fiscal year in an amount of $10,000 or more to organizations affiliated with any director or executive officer. The Contributions Report includes a discussion of BD’s contributions philosophy and the alignment of BD’s philanthropic activities with this 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. 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 committee comprised of members of senior management oversees these activities. Another key element of this program is training. This includes 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 an exception is approved by the CEO and the General Counsel. To date, no exceptions have been sought or approved. If an exception is approved, it may only be granted without regard to the personal political affiliations or views of any individual BD associate at any level across the organization.

As permitted under U.S. law, BD operates a political action committee. The BD PAC is a mechanism to enable eligible U.S. associates to voluntarily support candidates for elected office who share BD’s perspectives and approaches to public policy issues. BD provides administrative support to the PAC, as permitted under federal law.

In all cases, BD policy prohibits directors and employees from using company resources to promote their personal political views, causes or candidates, and specifies that the company will not directly or indirectly reimburse any personal political contributions or expenses.

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 Life Sciences Association. 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.

21

Table of Contents

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 have a relationship, which 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 directors 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, Gary A. Mecklenburg, James F. Orr, Willard J. Overlock, Jr., Claire Pomeroy, Rebecca W. Rimel, and Bertram L. Scott. 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 these directors is independent, the Board reviewed BD’s transactions or other dealings with organizations with which a director may be affiliated, such as service by the director as an employee of the organization or as a member of a governing or advisory board of the organization. Based on 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 was such that it would not constitute a material relationship or otherwise impair the director’s independence.

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

Related person 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.

There were no transactions involving BD’s executive officers or directors, or their immediate families, in 2015 that were subject to the Policy. During fiscal year 2015, BD paid affiliates of State Street Corporation (“State Street”), a beneficial owner of more than 5% of BD common stock, approximately $1,210,000 for serving as trustee of BD’s 401(k) plan 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.

22

Table of Contents

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.

23

Table of Contents

REPORT OF THE COMPENSATION

AND MANAGEMENT DEVELOPMENT 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, earnings per share 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 Committee has established the following compensation principles to meet this objective:

The Compensation 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, 2015 and in this proxy statement.

24

Table of Contents

COMPENSATION AND MANAGEMENT DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE

Marshall O. Larsen—Chair

Basil L. Anderson

Edward F. DeGraan

Gary A. Mecklenburg

James F. Orr

Bertram L. Scott

25

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 (who we refer to as the “named executive officers”) on page 40. All references in this section to years are references to our fiscal year, which ends on September 30, unless otherwise noted.

In this section, while discussing Performance Unit payouts and awards under our Performance Incentive Plan (the “PIP”), we refer to certain financial measures that do not conform to generally accepted accounting principles (“GAAP”). Appendix A to this proxy statement contains reconciliations of these non-GAAP measures to the comparable GAAP financial measures.

Executive Summary

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 and rewarding performance is key to delivering long-term shareholder returns, and that a competitive compensation program 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.

Approximately 95% of the shares voted at last year’s annual meeting were cast in support of BD’s advisory vote on named executive officer compensation. The Compensation Committee views the results of this vote as broad general shareholder support for our executive compensation program. Based on our say-on-pay vote and the Compensation Committee’s ongoing benchmarking of our compensation policies and practices, the Compensation Committee believes that our compensation program effectively aligns the interests of our named executive officers with the long-term goals of BD and our shareholders. Accordingly, the Compensation Committee did not make any significant changes from 2014 as a result of our say-on-pay vote.

Our compensation practices

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

26

Table of Contents

2015 operating performance and executive compensation decisions

Operating Performance

2015 was a transformational year for BD, as we signed and closed the acquisition of CareFusion Corporation (“CareFusion”), the largest acquisition in BD’s history, which positions BD as a global leader in medication management. While the acquisition and integration of CareFusion required significant management attention throughout the year, BD still delivered strong financial and operational performance in 2015 that exceeded our internal expectations. Highlights of our performance for the year include:

Compensation decisions

Salary. Mr. Forlenza, our CEO, received a salary increase during the year from $1,000,000 to $1,060,000 in order to keep his salary competitive with the median of peer companies. The other named executive officers received salary increases that were in line with increases at BD generally.

27

Table of Contents

PIP awards. For 2015, we met or exceeded each of the performance targets set under the PIP. This resulted in available funding for PIP awards at 112% of target. The PIP award made to Mr. Forlenza was 112% of his target award opportunity, and awards ranged from 114% to 147% of target opportunity for our other named executive officers. We believe that the 2015 PIP awards appropriately reflected senior management’s role in the successful acquisition and integration to date of CareFusion, as well as 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 total compensation in 2015. Among the changes in equity compensation awards in 2015 was an increase in Mr. Forlenza’s award value based on performance and to move his target equity compensation closer to the median of select peer companies.

Change to our compensation program in 2015

In November 2014, our equity compensation plan was amended to move from “single-trigger” to “double-trigger” vesting in the event of a change in control. As a result, equity compensation awards made after January 1, 2015 that either continue or are replaced by similar awards following a change in control will not automatically vest unless the participant (including our named executive officers) is subsequently terminated within two years of the change in control. This change aligns BD’s plan with what the Compensation Committee believes are best practices in this area.

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 the creation of 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 our executive officers. The Compensation Committee recommends compensation actions regarding the CEO for approval by independent members of the Board, and sets the compensation of the other named executive officers. The Compensation Committee is assisted in fulfilling its responsibilities by its independent consultant, Pay Governance, and BD’s senior management. Additional information about our process for setting executive compensation, including the roles of Pay Governance and management, is found on pages 11-12.

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 2015.

28

Table of Contents

The use of market comparison data

The Compensation Committee considers a number of factors in structuring our program, determining pay components 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 and are companies that we believe we compete with for executive talent. The Compensation Committee reviews the composition of the Comparison Group at least annually. The companies in the Comparison Group for 2015 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.

Comparison Group Data

We attempt to set the compensation of the named executive officers at levels that are competitive with the companies listed above, and use market comparison data regarding these companies as a guide. The Compensation Committee estimates the median salary, annual cash incentive and equity compensation (and the combined total of these elements) of persons holding the same or similar positions at the companies mentioned above, based on available data. The Compensation Committee (and the independent directors in the case of our CEO) 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. The use of market comparison data, however, is just one of the tools used to determine executive compensation, and the Compensation Committee and the independent directors retain the flexibility to set target compensation at levels deemed 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 2015 approximated median competitive levels.

Because each compensation element is reviewed 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 peer companies, we do not establish any fixed relationship between the amount of compensation paid to our CEO and that paid to the other named executive officers.

29

Table of Contents

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 scenarios, including retirement or following a change in 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 their retentive value.

The Key Elements of Our Compensation Program

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

30

Table of Contents

Our Emphasis on Pay-for-Performance

Performance-based compensation

Performance-based compensation represents a significant portion of the named executive officers’ compensation. The charts below show the performance-based portion of 2015 target compensation for Mr. Forlenza and the other named executive officers.

2015 Total Target Compensation*

How our performance metrics support BD’s strategy

BD’s strategy is focused on becoming a global provider of innovative healthcare solutions. To this end, our strategic objectives include increasing revenue from our core products, increasing investments in research and innovation, growing our operations in emerging markets and improving operating effectiveness and productivity. The Compensation Committee believes it is important that our compensation program reinforce and reward behaviors that support these business objectives. In addition, the Compensation Committee believes executive compensation should be based in part on how BD’s performance compares to peer companies facing the same market conditions as BD. These considerations inform the Compensation Committee’s selection of the performance measures for BD’s performance-based compensation.

Performance Period and Metrics for

Performance-based Compensation

PIP. We evaluate corporate performance under the PIP against the following metrics:

31

Table of Contents

These three measures combined provide a balanced set of performance targets that focus on growth, profitability and operating efficiency. EPS performance is weighted 50%, and revenue and free cash flow as a percentage of sales are each weighted 25%. Because EPS is the primary basis on which we set our performance expectations for the year, it is more heavily weighted than the other measures.

PIP performance targets are based on BD’s business plan for the fiscal year. Performance is measured on a currency-neutral basis. This means that BD’s actual performance is adjusted for the impact of changes in foreign currency exchange rates during the year, whether favorable or unfavorable to BD, compared to our budgeted rates when the targets are set. We eliminate this impact of foreign currency translation so that only BD’s underlying performance is considered in determining PIP awards.

Equity compensation. Equity compensation links executive compensation to BD’s performance against three-year performance goals and stock price appreciation. For the Performance Units granted in 2015, two metrics were used to measure performance, each weighted 50%:

How performance goals are set

When setting performance targets for the PIP and Performance Units, the Compensation Committee considers the environment in which BD is operating. The healthcare industry continues to face challenges, and the Compensation Committee seeks to reward what it deems to be superior performance by management in light of current industry conditions and growth trends. The Compensation Committee sets what it believes are reasonably achievable performance targets for BD at the time, and structures payouts so that they are aligned with BD’s performance against those targets.

Our risk analysis of performance-based compensation

While a significant portion of our 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 practices with BD’s long-term strategy and attempts to avoid short-term rewards for management decisions that could pose long-term risks to BD. This includes:

32

Table of Contents

How PIP Awards Are Made

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.

Award targets

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 2015” table on page 42 shows the range of possible awards under the PIP for 2015, based on certain assumptions.

The factors the Compensation Committee and the independent directors consider when setting actual PIP awards include BD’s overall performance against the pre-set performance targets and the resulting available funding (discussed below), the executive’s target award and the executive’s individual performance. Our CEO’s performance is measured against the individual goals for the year established by the Board. For our other executive officers, performance is measured against the performance objectives set for the businesses, regions 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 independent directors use their business judgment to determine the appropriate PIP award to recognize BD’s performance and the executive’s contribution to that performance.

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.

The performance factors for the three measures are then weighted to arrive at an overall funding factor. Actual awards, as a percentage of a named executive officer’s target, may be more or less than the overall funding factor.

33

Table of Contents

When comparing BD’s operating results against the performance targets, the Compensation Committee has the discretion to adjust BD’s results to account for unbudgeted acquisitions and divestitures during the year, and for other unbudgeted 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 by or rewarded for these types of events.

How Equity Compensation Awards Are Made

We use a mix of equity compensation vehicles to promote the objectives of our program.

Because they are equity-based and subject to vesting, each award also serves to align the interests of our executives with those of our shareholders and to promote executive retention.

Award values

The Compensation Committee determines the total grant date dollar value of the equity compensation to be paid to a named executive officer. SAR, Performance Unit and TVU awards are then made to the executive 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 values given to equity compensation awards are only estimates and actual amounts realized from these awards may differ from these estimated values.

Performance Unit payout formula

The performance measures used for the Performance Units granted in 2015 were average annual ROIC and relative TSR, each weighted 50%. A payout factor for each measure is calculated to determine a final share payout, which can range anywhere from zero to 200% of target.

ROIC. The payout factor for ROIC performance is determined by a scale, with threshold performance set at 5% below the ROIC target (resulting in a 50% payout factor), and maximum performance set at 5% above target (resulting in a 200% payout factor). Performance below the threshold level results in a zero payout factor for the ROIC measure.

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

In the event BD has a negative absolute TSR for the performance period, the factor assigned to relative TSR may not be more than 100%, regardless of BD’s TSR relative to the TSR Group. The Compensation Committee believes that in instances where BD has a negative absolute TSR, BD’s executives should still be rewarded for superior relative TSR performance, but that it is appropriate that the payout be limited.

34

Table of Contents

Similar to the PIP, the Compensation Committee has the discretion to adjust BD’s average ROIC performance for acquisitions and divestitures and other items not considered part of our ordinary operations, and to remove companies from the TSR Group, or adjust the TSR of companies within the TSR Group or of BD, to account for acquisitions or mergers or other significant events, such as a changes in capital structure.

2015 Compensation Actions

Below is a discussion of compensation actions taken in 2015 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, 2015, Mr. Forlenza’s salary was increased from $1,000,000 to $1,060,000 in order to keep his salary competitive with the median of the Comparison Group. The other named executive officers received salary increases that were in line with increases at BD generally.

PIP awards

The threshold performance, target performance and maximum performance under the PIP for 2015, along with BD’s adjusted performance during the year, are set forth below.

The EPS and revenue targets set at the beginning of 2015 were $6.80 and $8.638 billion, respectively. These targets were adjusted upwards following our acquisition of CareFusion to account for the expected contribution of the CareFusion business for the balance of 2015. As BD owned CareFusion for a little over half of 2015, the Compensation Committee believed it appropriate to measure PIP performance for 2015 based on the performance of the combined company rather than just on BD stand-alone results. Including CareFusion’s operating results also ensured management focus on running the businesses as an integrated company.

In reviewing BD’s 2015 performance, the Compensation Committee made adjustments for:

35

Table of Contents

The Committee made these adjustments so that the PIP funding factor appropriately reflected BD’s underlying operating results and was not impacted by acquisition-related factors and items not considered to be part of BD’s ordinary operations. These adjustments increased our currency-neutral EPS results for the year for purposes of the PIP by $3.81, and increased revenues by a net $13 million. The adjustments made by the Compensation Committee are consistent with the way in which management communicated BD’s 2015 financial performance to the financial community.

The following table shows the PIP awards granted for 2015. These awards are also set forth in the Summary Compensation Table on page 40 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 reflected in the PIP performance factor of 112%. Except for Mr. Kozy, no individual’s actual award, as a percentage of the executive’s award target, exceeded the PIP performance factor by more than 5%. In making these awards, the Compensation Committee considered BD’s performance during the year and individual contributions to that performance. In particular, the Compensation Committee noted management’s role in completing the acquisition of CareFusion and the substantial progress made during the year in integrating the CareFusion business, including the fact that, as a result of management’s efforts, BD was able to raise its estimate of the cost synergies it believes can be achieved from the transaction. The Compensation Committee also considered BD’s strong financial performance for the year, despite the significant management attention required by the CareFusion transaction and integration. This included revenue and earnings growth that exceeded our internal expectations, both for the combined company and the legacy BD business, and significant improvement in BD’s underlying margins as a result of management’s integration efforts and BD’s operating effectiveness and efficiency initiatives.

With respect to Mr. Kozy, the Compensation Committee authorized a PIP award of 147% of his target (inclusive of the 112% performance factor) to recognize Mr. Kozy’s role following the CareFusion acquisition in leading the business integration efforts on behalf of BD, and the success he achieved in that role during the year.

The Compensation Committee believes the PIP awards made to the named executive officers appropriately reflect their efforts during the year and are consistent with our pay-for-performance philosophy.

Equity compensation awards

The Compensation Committee made the equity compensation awards to the named executive officers shown in the Summary Compensation Table on page 40 in November 2014. Mr. Forlenza’s target award value was increased compared to 2014 to reflect Mr. Forlenza’s performance and to move his target award value closer to the median of the Comparison Group.

The Performance Units included in the awards to our named executive officers cover the 2015-2017 performance period, and originally had a target ROIC of 22% (with threshold performance at 17% and maximum performance of 27%) along with the relative TSR performance metric discussed earlier. Following the CareFusion acquisition, the ROIC target for these Performance Units was changed to 15.6% to reflect the ROIC of the combined company over the performance period. (At the same time, the ROIC target for the Performance Units granted in 2014 was reduced to 18.1% from 22.9%.) The decrease in the ROIC target of the combined company is primarily attributable to the increase in BD’s asset base that resulted from the transaction. The relative TSR metric for the Performance Units was not changed.

36

Table of Contents

Payout of Performance Unit awards

During fiscal year 2015, Performance Units covering the fiscal 2012-2014 performance period vested. The payout of these awards is reflected in the “SAR Exercises and Stock Vested in Fiscal Year 2015” table on page 46. These awards had performance targets of 4.3% average annual revenue growth (currency-neutral) and 24% average ROIC. Our average annual revenue growth and average ROIC over the performance period were 5% and 21.6%, respectively. To account for the impact of acquisitions during the period, average annual revenue growth was adjusted down to 4.8%. Consistent with the Compensation Committee’s past practices, ROIC for the performance period was adjusted for a number of items, including acquisitions and divestitures (and related costs), litigation matters and other items are not considered part of our ordinary operations. These items are identified on Appendix A. These adjustments increased average ROIC for the period to 23.8%. These adjustments to revenue growth and ROIC resulted in a modified payout of the awards at 104% of the share target.

Other Benefits Under Our Executive Compensation Program

Company transportation

Mr. Forlenza is encouraged to use BD aircraft for both personal and business travel in order to make more efficient use of his travel time, for personal security and to reduce business continuity risk. Mr. Forlenza has entered into a time-sharing arrangement under which he makes payments to BD for his personal use of BD aircraft. For 2015, Mr. Forlenza’s time-share payments exceeded BD’s incremental costs relating to his personal flights. Additional information on the time-sharing arrangement is set forth in the notes to the Summary Compensation Table on page 41.

Deferred compensation

Our Restoration Plan, an unfunded, nonqualified plan, allows eligible associates to defer receipt of cash compensation and shares issuable under certain equity compensation awards on a pre-tax basis in addition to what is allowed under the SIP, our tax-qualified 401(k) plan. The plan is offered as part of a competitive compensation program. We do 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 Restoration Plan begins on page 48.

Pension benefits

We offer retirement benefits for all of our BD U.S. associates. Because the Internal Revenue Code limits the maximum annual benefit that may be paid to an individual under our qualified Retirement Plan, we provide additional retirement benefits through our Restoration Plan. Together, the Retirement Plan and Restoration Plan are designed to provide a market-competitive level of income replacement for our retirement-eligible associates and reduce associate turnover. 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 in control agreements

We have entered into agreements with the named executive officers relating to their employment following a change in control. These agreements provide the executives with continued employment for a period of two years following a change in 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 in control agreements begins on page 50.

37

Table of Contents

General purpose. Our change in control agreements are intended to retain the executives and provide continuity of management in the event of an actual or potential change in control of BD. These change in 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 in 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 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 in 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 in control, since a double trigger is consistent with the purpose of encouraging the continued employment of the executive following a change in 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 the agreements with Messrs. Forlenza, Kozy and Sherman, 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 the 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 in control agreements that we enter into with executive officers will not contain these provisions.

Other change in control provisions

Upon a change in control, outstanding equity compensation awards granted to our associates prior to January 1, 2015, including the named executive officers, immediately vest. Unlike the “double trigger” discussed above, no termination of 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.

In November, 2014, we amended our equity compensation plan to include a “double-trigger” vesting provision upon a change in control. Under this provision, awards made after January 1, 2015 will not automatically vest upon a change in control if the awards are either continued or replaced with similar awards. In those instances, the awards will automatically vest only if the associate is terminated without “cause” or the associate terminates employment for “good reason” (as such terms are defined in the plan) within two years of the change in control.

Significant Policies and Additional Information Regarding Executive Compensation

Clawback policy

We have a policy that gives the Board the discretion to require a member of the BD Leadership Team (which includes 87 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 to 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.

38

Table of Contents

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 a member of the BD Leadership Team. They are subject to these requirements until they achieve and maintain the required ownership level. The required ownership levels are:

Shares held directly, shares held indirectly through our SIP and Restoration Plan, and TVUs are included in determining a person’s share ownership. Messrs. Forlenza, Kozy, and Sherman have holdings in excess of their ownership requirement. Dr. Strahlman and Mr. Reidy, each of whom has been with BD for less than three years, have not yet attained their required ownership level.

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.

Equity award policy

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 an 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 tax deductibility of executive 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.

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.

39

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 2015.

Fiscal Year 2015 Summary Compensation Table

The amounts included in the “Stock Awards” column for the Performance Units awarded in 2015 reflect the grant date fair values of these awards at target payout, which we believe is the most probable outcome based on the applicable performance conditions. Below are the grant date fair values of these awards, assuming a maximum payout of 200% of target: