J &J Mobile Phone Policy and What the Research Shows

1. J&J Mobile Phone Policy and What the Research Shows Sources: National Safety Council, WHO, NHTSA Publications, and Governor’s Highway Safety Association

2. Global Road Safety…Magnitude of the Problem If nothing is done, road traffic crashes will move from #9 to #5 cause of death. • 1.3 million deaths • 20-50 million non-fatal injuries • 30% work-related • Expected to get worse • Particularly in LMICs where J&J conducts business • The world is unprepared

3. SAFE Fleet DRIVERS Worldwide 2012>100 SAFE Fleet Teams EMEA – 14,949 NA – 8,739 AP – 6,520 LAC – 3,327 • Passenger Vehicles • Two-Wheelers • Leased, Company Owned • Employee Owned (allowance) • 33,534 vehicles • >657 million miles

4. SAFE Fleet Touches Lives • J&J’s way of protecting employees, families, customers and communities from injury on the road. • Addresses the most hazardous occupation at J&J – driving on company business. • Since 1987, every work-related fatality has been associated with vehicle use or air travel. • Leading cause of LWDCs in non-operations areas. • Facilitates meeting our Credo responsibility for a safe workplace in the company vehicle.

5. Problem: J&J’s Mobile Phone Policy is not consistent across the globe • The current J&J Worldwide Fleet Safety Mobile Phone policy prohibits hand-held mobile phone use while operating a company vehicle (or personal vehicle with a car allowance). • J&J affiliates in the following countries have in place full mobile phone bans (both hand-held and hands-free use while driving is prohibited): • U.S./Puerto Rico – full ban • Canada – full ban • UK – full ban • France – full ban • Pakistan – full ban • Russia – full ban • We are concerned for the safety of all our drivers and communities where we live and work. A policy that we believe will reduce the risk of injury or fatality to our drivers or other road users should be consistent throughout the corporation, regardless of where our driver is based.

6. Worldwide Mobile Phone Policy J&J employees or Authorized drivers may not use hand-held or hands-free mobile electronic devices while operating a motor vehicle under any of the following situations: • When the employee or Authorized Driver is operating a vehicle, whether on company business or on personal time, that is owned or leased by J&J or operating a rental vehicle paid for by J&J. • When an employee is driving a personal vehicle, for which he/she receives financial subsidy (monthly allowance), in the course of company business. Employees in this category are generally regarded as part of the “fleet” audience and may include sales, marketing, service, clinical and other field-based representatives, or management personnel who are eligible for a company vehicle.

7. What does the data say about distracted driving? • The National Safety Council estimates that at least 24% of crashes in 2010 involved drivers using cell phones: • 1.1 million crashes where drivers were talking on cell phones • 160,000 crashes where drivers were texting instead of focusing on driving • Cognitive attention to driving can become secondary to a phone conversation • When driving becomes a secondary task for the brain, driving becomes impaired resulting in: • Inattention blindness (drivers “look but don’t see”) • Tunnel vision (tendency to look straight ahead) • Decrease in brain activation • The risk of a crash increases fourfold when a person is using a mobile phone – regardless of hand-held or hands-free. • More than 30 research studies have found that hands-free devices offer no safety benefit as they do not eliminate the cognitive distraction of the conversation.

8. J&J would not be the first to institute a full ban policy.Sample of Companies with Full Ban Mobile Phone Policies Companies that have instituted full ban Mobile Phone Policies: • Exxon Mobil • Shell • Chevron • BP • 3M • Abbott (in process of implementing worldwide ban) • GlaxoSmithKline • UPS • DuPont • Time Warner Cable

9. Productivity Concerns • Productivity concerns are often cited as a common barrier to total ban policies as evident in the results of the 2012 J&J Mobile Phone Survey. • Among companies with policies prohibiting both hand-held and hands-free devices, productivity decreases are rare: • 2009 survey of 469 National Safety Council members that had implemented total cell phone bans, only 1% reported that productivity decreased. • 2010 survey of Fortune 500 companies that had implemented total cell phone bans, only 7% of respondents said productivity decreased, while 19% thought productivity had actually increased.

11. Employer Responsibilities • Companies that are committed to safety excellence know that their safety systems and policies often exceed regulations because they often prescribe minimum standards, not best-in-class safety. • Designing safety policies that only comply with country regulations often leave employees vulnerable to injury and employers vulnerable to liability. • Knowing the risks and allowing cell phone use may be viewed as negligent and willful. • An employer may be held legally accountable for negligent employee actions if the employee was acting within the scope of his or her employment, or using an employer provided vehicle or phone at the time of a crash.

12. May 31, 2012 Coca Cola Clarifies Details Regarding Lawsuit In Distracted Driving Case Coca Cola issued a statement and provided clarification regarding the details of the case where a jury awarded $21 million to Vanice Chatman-Wilson, an individual whose automobile was reportedly struck by a Coca Cola employee driving a company-owned vehicle.The company said the Coca Cola driver, AraceliVenessa Cabral, was driving a car, not a truck, and worked in a sales role, rather than as a delivery driver, as originally reported by law firm Thomas J. Henry Injury Attorneys. The original statement by the law firm described the incident as a “trucking accident case involving a distracted delivery driver.” In addition, a Coca Cola spokesperson said the driver was using a hands-free device at the time of the accident, not a cell phone.

13. Education and awareness will need to be a critical part of the implementation strategy • SAFE Fleet Survey sent to all drivers in EMEA, LAC, AP to obtain input regarding mobile phone use/behavior and opinions about mobile phone policies. • 6,478 respondents /26% response rate • Survey sent out in 14 languages • Key Findings: • 97% of respondents use a mobile phone for company business • 50% use a hands-free mobile phone while driving 1-10 times per day • 44% of drivers admit to complying to the WW Cell Phone policy with occasional lapses • 46% of drivers said they feel their productivity will be somewhat impacted by a total ban, 32% believe it will not make an impact at all, 22% believe it will dramatically impact their productivity • 39% of drivers believe J&J should have a policy banning both hand held and hands-free devices, however 34% stated NO because it’s not enforceable and people will use their phone anyway

14. Supplemental Information

15. Driver Distraction is the diversion of attention away from activities critical for safe driving towards a competing activity. • Distracted driving is not restricted to high-income countries. • Action needs to be taken globally. *Mobile Phone Use: A Growing Problem of Driver Distraction (WHO, NHTSA)

16. Visual – eyes on the road • Mechanical – hands on the wheel • Cognitive – mind on driving • More than “eyes on the road, hands on the wheel.” • Visual and mechanical distractions can be short-lived. • Cognitive distractions tend to last longer.

17. When brains are overloaded by two cognitive tasks, people switch attention (without realizing it) • One task becomes primary; the other task becomes secondary • Cognitive attention to driving can become secondary to a phone conversation • When driving becomes a secondary task for the brain, driving becomes impaired resulting in: • Inattention blindness (drivers “look but don’t see”) • Tunnel vision (tendency to look straight ahead) • Decrease in brain activation

18. “Tunnel Vision”

19. Role of Mobile Phones in Motor Vehicle Crashes Resulting in Hospital Attendance. • Based on study by Suzanne P. McAvoy, Mark R. Stevenson, Anne T. McCartt, et al 2004 • Findings: • Likelihood of crashing increases by 4x • Risk was elevated regardless of whether a hand-held or hands-held device was used.

20. Hands-free devices do not reduce crash risk • National Safety Council • National Transportation Safety Board • World Health Organization • Insurance Institute for Highway Safety • Governors Highway Safety Association • 30+ studies reported substantial negative effects of cell-phone use on driving tasks for hand held and hands-free phones. • Similar effects in reaction time, speed, headway, and lateral lane position, for both hand-held and hands-free phones.

21. A decrease in brain activation is associated with driving and listening. • Based on a study by Carnegie Mellon University, Center for Cognitive Brain Imaging - 2008

22. The parietal activation associated with driving decreases substantially (by 37%) with sentence listening.

23. Rules, regulations and LawsInternational • Most European countries have legislation banning the use of hand-held devices while driving. • In October of 2010, Morocco increased the penalty associated with the use of hand-held phones. • Portugal extended bans on mobile phones to include hands-free kits. • The state of New Delhi has extended the ban on mobile phones when driving to include use with a hands-free unit and text messaging. • Some countries ban all young or inexperienced drivers from mobile phone use. • All states and territories in Australia ban the use of mobile hand-held phones while the vehicle is moving (or stationary, but not parked).

24. Rules, Regulations and LawsUnited States • Hand-Held Cell Phone Use Laws: 10 states, D.C., Guam and the Virgin Islands prohibit all drivers from using handheld cell phones while driving. Except for Maryland and West Virginia (until July 2013), all laws are primary enforcement—an officer may cite a driver for using a handheld cell phone without any other traffic offense taking place. • All Cell Phone Use: No state bans all cell phone use for all drivers, but many prohibit use by certain subsets: • 32 states and D.C. ban all cell phone use by novice drivers. • School bus drivers in 19 states and D.C. may not use a cell phone when passengers are present. • Text Messaging: 39 states, D.C., Guam and the Virgin Islands ban text messaging for all drivers. All but 4 have primary enforcement. • An additional 5 states prohibit text messaging by novice drivers. • 3 states restrict school bus drivers from texting.

25. Rules, Regulations and LawsUnited States • The National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) Recommendation • In December of 2011, the NTSB recommended that all 50 states and DC enact complete bans of all portable electronic devices for all drivers – including banning the use of hands-free devices. “The data are clear; the time to act is now. How many more lives will be lost before we, as a society, change our attitudes about the deadliness of distractions?” (NTSB Chairwoman Deborah Hersman) • In October of 2011, the NTSB recommended a total ban for commercial drivers. • Federal Railroad Association (FRA) Ban • In September of 2010, the FRA published a final rule banning the use of any electronic device by railroad operating employees. • Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA) and Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (HMSA) Ban • In November of 2011, the FMCSA and the HMSA banned interstate commercial motor vehicle drivers and drivers of vehicles hauling hazardous materials from using hand-held electronic devices.

26. Rules, Regulations and LawsUnited States • Executive Order 13513 • President Obama issued Executive Order 13513 prohibiting all government employees and federal contractors from texting while driving government vehicles on official government business or while using government-supplied equipment.

27. The National Safety Council today is calling on motorists to stop using cell phones and messaging devices while driving, and is urging businesses to enact policies prohibiting it and governors and legislators in all 50 states and the District of Columbia to pass laws banning the behavior. (January 12, 2009)

28. Companies that are committed to safety excellence know that their safety systems and policies often exceed regulations because they often prescribe minimum standards, not best-in-class safety. • Designing safety policies that only comply with country regulations often leave employees vulnerable to injury and employers vulnerable to liability. • Knowing the risks and allowing cell phone use may be viewed as negligent and willful.

29. According to a 2010 National Safety Council survey of Fortune 500 companies, one in five companies had a policy in place banning cell phone use while driving. • 20% had total cell phone bans. • 22% with total bans said they experienced decreases in crash rates and property damage.

31. Worldwide Injuries Per Million Miles (IPMM) 2005 - 2012 2012 IPMM Target < 0.20 43 recordable injuries 33,534 vehicles 658 million miles 2 fatalities 1 fatality 1 fatality* 1 fatality** Note: Worldwide IPMM data become available starting in 2005. In 2009, we enhanced injury reporting for the US fleet to include only recordable injuries, in alignment with Worldwide Fleet Safety reporting standards. * Personal 2-Wheeler (Fleet – Car Allowance) ** Personal Vehicle (Non-Fleet)

32. Worldwide Crashes Per Million Miles (CPMM) 1995 - 2012 2012 CPMM Target < 5.30 2015 CPMM Target < 4.70 3,832 crashes 33,534 vehicles 658 million miles 11.4% vehicles in crashes 3,862 crashes 35,382 vehicles 795 million miles 10.9% vehicles in crashes 2013 Target: Focus on all teams reducing their CPMMs by at least 10%.

34. May 31, 2012 Coca Cola Clarifies Details Regarding Lawsuit In Distracted Driving Case Coca Cola issued a statement and provided clarification regarding the details of the case where a jury awarded $21 million to Vanice Chatman-Wilson, an individual whose automobile was reportedly struck by a Coca Cola employee driving a company-owned vehicle.The company said the Coca Cola driver, AraceliVenessa Cabral, was driving a car, not a truck, and worked in a sales role, rather than as a delivery driver, as originally reported by law firm Thomas J. Henry Injury Attorneys. The original statement by the law firm described the incident as a “trucking accident case involving a distracted delivery driver.” In addition, a Coca Cola spokesperson said the driver was using a hands-free device at the time of the accident, not a cell phone.

35. June 06, 2012|By the CNN Wire Staff Massachusetts teen convicted of homicide in texting-while-driving case TEXT-MESSAGING In a landmark case for the state, Aaron Deveau, 18, was found guilty on charges of vehicular homicide, texting while driving and negligent operation of a motor vehicle in a 2011 crash that fatally injured Donald Bowley, 55, of Danville, New Hampshire, and seriously injured a passenger in Bowley's car.

36. Employers have an obligation to protect their employees (no matter where they live or work) and others with whom they share the roads. • The risk of a crash increases fourfold when a person is using a mobile phone – regardless of hand-held or hands-free. • More than 30 research studies have found that hands-free devices offer no safety benefit as they do not eliminate the cognitive distraction of the conversation. • Based on available science and research studies, the safest action for employers is to implement a total ban mobile phone policy.

37. s It’s time to adopt a consistent global mobile phone policy that addresses the safety and well-being of all employees worldwide and takes a leadership role to make our roads safer for all drivers and their families.Thank you.

38. J&J Mobile Phone Survey Summary2012

39. Johnson & Johnson Mobile Phone Driver Survey Overview • Johnson & Johnson conducted a survey across their sales and service fleets in the EMEA, LAC and AP regions to gain a better understanding of the mobile phone use of employees while driving. • The survey design allowed participants to be categorized by region, business segment, role, age, etc… The majority of the questions dealt with mobile phone use by J&J employees during the work day. The intended goal was aimed at better understanding: • How mobile phones are used during the day. • The employee’s dependency. • Is distracted driving a road safety issue. • Compliancy to the J&J mobile phone policy. • Changes needed to the policy. • Should J&J ban all mobile phone use while driving? • The final count of respondents for the Johnson and Johnson mobile survey was 6,478. The survey was presented in fourteen different languages in an effort to capture the broadest population of J&J employees.

40. Johnson & Johnson Mobile Phone Driver Survey • While many of the participants answered the survey questions as expected some responses were surprising, some unexpected and some contradictory. We do however believe the questions were answered honestly since the survey respondents were completely anonymous. The following tables provide the cumulative results for each of the questions. We have provided commentary and input on questions where we found interesting results. The tan shaded rows reflect the highest response rate in each question category. • Survey Summary • Select a region. • 52% of respondents answered EMEA • Please choose your sector. • 49% designated Pharma • Please Select your age group. • 59% were in the 26-40 range • Please let us know what job role you are in. • 68% selected Sales & Marketing • Do you use a mobile phone for company business? • 97% answered Yes

41. Johnson & Johnson Mobile Phone Driver Survey • On a daily basis, I have used a hands-free mobile phone while driving; • 50% admit to using mobile phones 1 to 10 times a day. • Do you consider Distracted Driving through the use of a mobile phone as a serious road safety issue? • 76% agree that it is a danger. • How compliant are you with the J&J WW policy around mobile phone use? • 44% report; I comply most of the time, with the occasional lapses. • What are your principal reasons for complying with the Worldwide J&J mobile phone policy? – • 68% state; I think using a mobile phone while driving is a dangerous distraction and could lead to a crash and/or could injure someone.

42. Johnson & Johnson Mobile Phone Driver Survey • To prevent people from driving while distracted using a mobile phone, Johnson & Johnson should have a policy banning the use of both hands-free and hand-held mobile phones: • 39% stated Yes • while 34% selected; No, because it is not enforceable and people will still use their phones anyway. • If Johnson & Johnson were to ban the use of hand held and hands-free mobile phone devices while driving, how would your productivity be impacted: • 46% admit that they would be “somewhat impacted” • Johnson & Johnson should continue to provide awareness and training materials on the subject of distracted driving: • 87% agree that; Yes, this information is always of value and serves as a good reminder See Appendix for additional comments submitted by respondents.