Founded
: November 30, 1999 - date of merger of Exxon and Mobil
Primary industry/service : Extracting,
refining, and selling petroleum
Total revenue:
For the 3 months ended 12/31/1999, total revenues were $55.961 billion
Net revenue : For the 3 months ended 12/31/1999, net revenue
was $2.284 billion
Current CEO : Lee Raymond
CEO salary : Unavailable
Philanthropy :
In 1998 Exxon gave $2.5 million in
1998 to environmental charities (less than one tenth of a percent of its
net income in 1998 [.04%]), $1.2 million (.018% of its net income in 1998)
to "women and minority contributions," and $24.9 million to schools and
educational programs. In total, this amounts to .4% of the total net income
in 1998 for Exxon ($6.37 billion).
Many of Exxon's educational donations
have come under criticism as being a means of advertising rather than charity
and have the effect of 'slanting' the education process (see discussion
below on the Exxon Educational contributions). For this reason, we have
listed these categories separately.
Checklist :
The Good
[ ] one of top 50 best companies for minorities
[ ] one of top 100 companies for working
mothers
[ ] Has a non-discrimination policy that
includes sexual orientation
To Be Improved
[X] - sites in non-democratic nations
[ ?] - child labor violations in last five years
[X] - environmental violations in last five years
Environment
Fossil fuels have played and continue to play a central role in our society’s industrial growth. However, recent developments in renewable energy technologies and evidence of the threat of global warming from greenhouse gases have begun to point toward the wisdom of reducing our dependence on fossil fuels. According to many environmental groups, ExxonMobil has become entrenched in its fossil-fuel-centric views and lags far behind other energy companies, both in acknowledgment of the problem of global warming and in the pursuit of renewable energy solutions.
However, in a March 1999 report, the Council for Economic Priorities ranked Exxon as the 2nd most environmentally sound oil company. Mobil was ranked 9th. There were 15 companies surveyed in total. The ranking was based on environmental impact (60% weight), environmental management systems (30% weight), and corporate environmental reporting (10% weight). Please note that the Council for Economic Priorities does not employenvironmental scientists or engineers, and they only use statistical analysis in their ranking system, comparing data from the companies themselves on leaks, spills, emissions, etc. A more in-depth analysis is not reflected in CEP's ranking system.
ExxonMobil
and Global Warming
The Intergovernmental
Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), a UN-sponsored group of over 2,000
climate scientists convened to study the issue of global warming, stated
in 1995 after a seven year review of every piece of available information
about climate, that "the balance of evidence points to the fact that there
is a discernible human influence on global climate." In the years
since, many more studies have been published adding to the base of knowledge
that indicates our consumption of fossil fuels is causing global warming.
(see references) But despite the consensus in the scientific community
that global warming is a real threat and deserves our attention, ExxonMobil
does not acknowledge its role in the issue.
In fact, ExxonMobil has invested its resources in misleading the public and policy-makers about the truth of global warming. Most visibly, ExxonMobil is a member of the Global Climate Coalition (GCC), an industry front group that gives financial and moral support to a small handful of scientists who vocally dispute the reality of global warming and the necessity of taking action to combat it. In Exxon’s brochure, "Global Climate Change: Everyone’s Debate," CEO Lee Raymond writes, "Our analysis indicates that the current state of climate science is too uncertain to provide clear answers to many key questions about global climate change. Even if global warming were a proven threat – which it is not – targets agreed upon in Kyoto, Japan, [see discussion about The Kyoto Protocol below] fail to provide a fair, practical or cost-effective solution."
ExxonMobil’s actions are not merely a symptom of the industry. Other energy companies, such as BP/Amoco and Royal Dutch/Shell, have dropped out of the GCC, issued statements acknowledging the seriousness of global warming, and made commitments to reduce their greenouse gas emissions and invest in renewable energy alternatives. DuPont, Ford, Daimler/Chrysler and other major companies have also recently taken similar steps. Interestingly, Exxon lists its contributions to researching climate change as a charitable environmental contribution on its webpage (www.exxon.com - select About ExxonMobil - Communities and Sponsorships).
The Kyoto Protocol
Acting on its denial of global warming,
Exxon’s recent efforts to weaken an international effort to reduce greenhouse
gases, known as the Kyoto Protocol, proved quite effective. Lee Raymond
urged developing nations to increase their use of fossil fuels as the only
means to economic advancement, while his company simultaneously argued
to industrialized nations that they should not sign on to any treaty that
did not also require significant emissions cutbacks from the Third World.
Their support of completely opposing policies has effectively stalled the
adoption of the most ambitious effort to date to combat the growing threat
of global warming.
The Alaska Incident
News of the Exxon Valdez oil spill
off the coast of Alaska ten years ago, and of its devastating ecological
impacts, is by now familiar to all. But it is also worth noting Exxon’s
more recent behavior with regard to the event’s continuing aftermath. In
1994, courts ordered Exxon to pay $5.3 billion in compensatory damages
to fishers, Native Americans, and others whose lives and livelihoods were
disrupted by the spill. So far, however, Exxon has refused to pay the judgment,
stalling by filing appeals while the Alaskans must overcome their financial
losses from their own pockets. Even if Exxon is eventually required to
pay the fine plus late fees, it will profit financially by holding on to
the money and earning interest on it as long as possible.
Saving the Tiger and Other Good Deeds
ExxonMobil has contributed to several
commendable projects, including an effort to save the endangered real-life
counterparts of Exxon’s animated mascot. Exxon states on its web site that:
"Exxon and the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation, a nonprofit conservation
organization, joined forces in 1995 to launch the Save The Tiger Fund.
The fund is an international effort to help save Asia’s dwindling populations
of tigers in the wild. Exxon has pledged $9 million over eight years to
tiger conservation." Interestingly, one of the greatest threats to tiger
survival is habitat loss, a problem exacerbated by the biological stresses
of global warming.
In addition, Exxon is working with General Motors to develop fuel cell technology, a NASA invention for running highly efficient vehicles on hydrogen power. But in Exxon’s version of the fuel cell, gasoline is still the source of energy. Although vehicles will be more efficient, they will still depend on the extraction of fossil fuels and will still be environmentally damaging.
Finally, Exxon has attempted to address the issue of global warming with its brief brochure "Global Climate Change: Everyone’s Debate." In the brochure, ExxonMobil ignores the scientific consensus and claims that global warming is not a serious threat. Furthermore, ExxonMobil states that standards set forth in the Kyoto Protocol will hurt the global economy, and they invite the general public to consider the issue with a skeptical mindset.
Labor
According to ExxonMobil's homepage "Exxon Chemical's 1998 safety performance
was among the best in the industry," with recordable incident rates averaging
at 1 per 400,000 work hours among Exxon Chemical Personnel worldwide -
a rate about 10 times lower than the industry standard.
ExxonMobil has many sites in countries that have a history of having human
rights abuses - these countries include Indonesia, China, Mexico, Chad,
and Cameroon. (visit the Human Rights Watch
web page for more information on these countries - www.hrw.org)
Other
Critics which include South African Archbishop Desmond Tutu, a Nobel Peace Prize winner, wrote in a letter to the World Bank in protest of the new pipeline : "Africa has witnessed a long history of extraction of its natural resources, which has contributed little to improving the quality of life of ordinary citizens throughout the continent."
More on Exxon's
Educational Contributions
Among Exxon's biggest contributions
were towards education. Some of Exxon's contributions towards education
went towards providing schools with educational materials. The education
materials have been accused by some groups as being "commercial" rather
than educational. According to the Center for Commercial Free Public
Education, "Exxon's lesson plan about the healthy, flourishing wildlife
in Prince William Sound, Alaska, showed beautiful eagles, frolicking sea
otters, and sea birds in their habitat. In reality, the program was a public
relations vehicle designed to help Exxon clean up its image after the Valdez
oil spill."
The great majority of educational contributions from Exxon in 1998 went to the Exxon Education Foundation. This foundation primarily gives grants to non-profit organizations and makes contributions to colleges and universities. According to Exxon's web site, "We rarely contribute to endowments or make grants for construction or remodeling of facilities. We do not provide funds for equipment acquisition. We do not award scholarships." The grants are not intended "to sustain ongoing activities but, rather, to provide supplemental funds to launch new activities or to expand or improve existing activities. Grants awarded are towards research in a topic approved by Exxon Foundation staff."
As a result, Exxon has a great deal of control over where their donations to education are going, and can choose to selectively fund projects that suit their interests. Because of this, Exxon's educational contributions can be seen as more of a marketing strategy than a charitable contribution. However, not all of the contributions fit in this category such as contributions to the Mathematics Education Program whose "principal emphasis is on helping K-3 teachers change the way they teach mathematics," or support of initiatives that promise to increase the number of minority teachers in elementary schools.
Much of the Exxon Education Foundation's funds go towards colleges and universities - more than 900 colleges and universities were funded by this foundation in 1998. Among these are Stanford University and UC Berkeley.
Exxon's Contributions to Political Candidates
Exxon was among the top 100 contributors to candidates
in the 1996 presidential elections, donating $593,928. 4.2%of this went
towards Democratic candidates and 95.4% went to Republican candidates.
In 1998, Mobil and Exxon had the largest lobbying expenditures compared with all other oil companies. Mobil Oil came in first with $6,160,000 in 1998 with 16% going to Democrats and 84% going to Republicans. Exxon had $5,620,000 in lobbying expenditures in the same year with 12% going to Democrats and 88% going to Republicans.
(this data was obtained from the Center for Responsive Politics, cited at the end of this information sheet)
The Stanford Connection
Dr. Michael Boskin, a senior fellow at the Hoover Institution and an economics professor, is a member of Exxon's board. You can contact him at boskin@hoover.stanford.edu
For more information
Sternberg, Bob. The Exxon Valdez Oil Spill : Ten
years after The wounds remain raw as Alaskans try to collect $5 billion
from Exxon. Minneapolis lawyer Brian O'Neill is leading their fight.
Star Tribune: Newspaper of the Twin Cities. (Minneapolis,
MN), March 7, 1999 , p. 1A .