ExxonMobil says it plays “an essential role in addressing the risks of climate change.” But the oil ExxonMobil sells (when burned) emits 30 times more CO2 than the amount of emissions ExxonMobil claims to avoid emitting at its facilities. So what is actually being accomplished by the billions of dollars ExxonMobil spends “addressing the risks of climate change”? Below is my just-filed shareholder proposal.
Greenwashing Audit
Resolved:
Shareholders request that, beginning in 2020, ExxonMobil publish an annual report of the incurred costs and associated significant and actual benefits that have accrued to shareholders, the public health and the environment, including the global climate, from the company’s environment-related activities that are voluntary and that exceed U.S. and foreign compliance and regulatory requirements. The report should be prepared at reasonable cost and omit proprietary information.
Supporting Statement:
The resolution is intended to help shareholders monitor and evaluate whether the company’s voluntary activities and expenditures touted as protecting the public health and environment are producing actual and meaningful benefits to shareholders, the public health and the environment, including global climate.
Corporate managements sometimes engage in the practice of “greenwashing,” which is defined as the expenditure of shareholder assets on ostensibly environment-related activities but actually undertaken merely for the purpose of improving the company’s or management’s public image.
Such insincere “green” posturing and associated touting of hypothetical or imaginary benefits to public health and the environment may harm shareholders by wasting corporate assets, and deceiving shareholders and the public by accomplishing nothing real and significant for the public health and environment.
For example, ExxonMobil claimed in its 2019 “Energy and Carbon Summary” report that it:
- Plays “an essential role in protecting the environment and addressing the risks of climate change”;
- Reduced its operational emissions by an average of about 20 MILLION tons annually since 2000.
- Spent $9 billion since 2000 on efforts to reduce emissions.
None of these emissions reduction activities are required by law or regulation.
But in 2018 alone:
- Exxon produced about 1.4 BILLION barrels of oil which, when burned, produced about 588 MILLION tons of carbon dioxide (CO2).
- Global emissions of CO2-equivalents in 2018 were about 55.3 BILLION tons.
So:
- While ExxonMobil touts its operational reductions in CO2, it sells products that, when burned by consumers, emit almost 30 times more CO2.
- ExxonMobil’s products when burned produce CO2 emissions that amount to a mere one percent (1%) of global manmade emissions.
Although ExxonMobil’s operational emissions cuts and the emissions from its products are both meaningless in larger context ExxonMobil bizarrely, if not falsely claims that it plays “an essential role in… addressing the risks of climate change.”
So, what are the actual benefits to shareholders and the climate of ExxonMobil’s multibillion-dollar bid to reduce its CO2 emissions. By how much, in what way, and when will any of these activities reduce, alter or improve climate change, for example?
The information and honesty requested by this proposal is not already contained in any ExxonMobil report. As none of them present the actual and significant cost-benefit details requested here, they may all be reasonably suspected of being examples of don’t-look-behind-the-curtain corporate greenwashing propaganda.
ExxonMobil should report to shareholders what are the actual benefits being produced by its voluntary and highly touted environmental activities. Are they real and worthwhile, or just greenwashing?