Johnson & Johnson – Independent Board Chair (2020)

Outcome: 41.8%

RESOLVED: Shareholders request the Board of Directors adopt as policy, and amend the bylaws as necessary, to require henceforth that the Chair of the Board of Directors, whenever possible, be an independent member of the Board. This independence policy shall apply prospectively so as not to violate any contractual obligations. If the Board determines that a Chair who was independent when selected is no longer independent, the Board shall select a new Chair who satisfies the requirements of the policy within a reasonable amount of time. Compliance with this policy is waived if no independent director is available and willing to serve as Chair.
Supporting Statement
We believe:
• The role of the CEO and management is to run the company.
• The role of the Board of Directors is to provide independent oversight of management and the CEO.
• There is a potential conflict of interest for a CEO to have an inside director act as Chair.
In our view, shareholders are best served by an independent Board Chair who can provide a balance of power between the CEO and the Board. We believe that Johnson & Johnson’s Board should adopt best practice governance policies, including having an independent board chair. Taking this step is in the long-term interests of shareholders and will promote effective oversight of management.
As of October 2018, 50% of the S&P 500 have separated the role of Chair and CEO approximately 30% of S&P 500 firms have an independent chair. McKesson, Cardinal Health and AmerisourceBergen have reached agreements to separate their chair and CEO positions.
In August 2019, a judge in Oklahoma made a factual finding that Johnson & Johnson had intentionally played down the dangers and oversold the benefits of opioid treatment for chronic pain. The judge also concluded that the company‘s behavior caused a “public nuisance,” finding that had it had developed “false, misleading, and dangerous marketing campaigns” that had “caused exponentially increasing rates of addiction, overdose deaths” and babies born exposed to opioids.
The company’s recent controversies also extend to claims that its talcum powder contained asbestos and caused cancer; it failed to warn that its blood-thinner Xarelto increased the risk of internal bleeding; and it did not adequately disclose the risks of its vaginal mesh implant. In July 2019, the U.S. Department of Justice launched a criminal probe into whether the Company lied about the possible cancer risks of its talcum powder. In October 2019, a Philadelphia jury reached a $8 billion verdict over the company’s marketing of the anti-psychotic drug Risperdal.
In October 2019, the Wall Street Journal reported that at the time JNJ was “facing lawsuits from more than 100,000 plaintiffs over its product safety and marketing tactics.”
According to PWC’s 2019 survey of over 700 directors, 57% of directors surveyed who sit on a board with a chair/CEO say it is difficult to voice dissent.