"It's global warming, stupid!" (III) - o caso da Exxon

Aquilo que se passa na Exxon, no respeitante à contestação dos accionistas (e que accionistas) ao modo como a companhia tem actuado em resposta à problemática do aquecimento global, é significativa e instrutiva. Este assunto tem de ser cruzado com este aqui.

• Climate Feedback: Oil heirs mutiny at Exxon.

  
  "With much of the corporate world competing to be ahead of the decarbonization curve, it's not uncommon to see investors actually begging governments for more regulations, as a prominent group in the US did this week. More remarkable is witnessing oil goliath Exxon Mobil torn by a climate-driven shareholder revolt and its backlash. On fossil fuels and climate change, Exxon in the past has not so much failed to read the writing on the wall as actively attempted to efface it. That's changed, but not enough, say the heirs of John D. 'Standard Oil' Rockefeller, whose ancestral ex-monopoly forms Exxon's core. The Rockefellers are sponsoring four shareholder resolutions that will come to a vote at the company's annual shareholder meeting May 28.

  
  According to The Independent, they say Exxon needs to research how climate change will affect the developing world, fund alternative fuels, reduce its carbon footprint, and spur more managerial debate by splitting up the roles of chariman and CEO - both posts are currently held by Rex Tillerson. At last year's meeting, says The Guardian, a call to split up Tillerson's jobs got 40% yays, and addressing climate change got 30%. With a vast green tide and 19 institutional investors backing up the Rockefellers (who own only 0.006% of Exxon's stock, the company says), this year could see even greater support.

  
  But the Wall Street Journal - ever the champion of the little guy - noted in an editorial yesterday (subscription required) that blue-collar investors have struck back. According to the Journal, US police union leader Chuck Canterbury wrote to Tillerson that the resolutions would impose "rigid, ideologically-based conditions on the company's future," would nullify "the judgment of a highly successful management team," and would "undercut every project and business operation." This would "hamstring ExxonMobil's profitability and growth, thus directly harming the police officers, firefighters, teachers and public employees whose retirement savings are invested in the company."

  
  The WSJ goes on to sneer at Denise Nappier, the "ambitious" Connecticut treasurer in charge of state pensions who favors changes at Exxon: "It's more likely that the future candidate for Governor is merely angling for some easy green publicity as she and the state's pensioners continue to benefit from their investment in Exxon's substantial oil profits." Now, the Wall Street Journal may think that US$11-bilion quarterly profits should moot shareholders' ethical qualms, but that doesn't make the qualms hypocritical.
  The Rockefellers, and representatives of the good people of Connecticut too, have every reason to want Exxon to go greener, including a financial rationale: as economist Neva Rockefeller Goodwin pointed out in a press conference, today's record profits stem "from investments and decisions made many years ago, focusing on a narrow path that ignores the rapidly shifting energy landscape around the world, including developing nations".

  
  And in the event that Goodwin and the other worried Exxon investors are wrong about that rapidly shifting landscape, police pensions are hardly shackled to Exxon. Slate aptly observes that "no family in American history has possessed more wealth, or been more conflicted about the obligations and benefits it bestows, than the Rockefellers." But the stakes here go well beyond inherited oil guilt. Here's to teachers, firefighters and police officers retiring with both more wealth and a more sustainable energy economy."

• FT.com / Comment & analysis / Comment - ExxonMobil needs an independent chair By Peter O’Neill and Neva Rockefeller.

  
  " It is our hope – and the hope of 92 per cent of all living adult direct descendants of John D. Rockefeller Jr – that ExxonMobil shareholders will vote this month in favour of proxy item 5, which calls for an independent chairman. The vote will come on the heels of the impressive 40 per cent support received last year by the same proxy resolution.

  
  Why do so many favour splitting the positions of chairman and chief executive at a time of near-record profits for the company? It is because we believe this is essential to protect the long-term value of our shares. The case is compelling. To provide sound corporate oversight and direction. The role of the board is to provide independent oversight of the chief executive and management team. Under the leadership of an independent chairman, a board should provide strategic direction and represent the best interests of the shareholders. This is why the Council of Institutional Investors and The Conference Board’s Commission on Public Trust and Private Enterprise favour the model of chief executive and independent chairman as a general proposition. It is also why the independent chairman proxy item for ExxonMobil is supported by the influential proxy advisory services, RiskMetrics Group (formerly known as ISS), Glass Lewis and Proxy Governance, as well as by Calpers, the US’s largest pension fund.

  
  To make it possible for Rex Tillerson to be an even better chief executive. This proposal should not be construed as a rebuke to Mr Tillerson, the current chief. In fact, a majority of our family agree that he is an outstanding chief executive. At a time when game-changing pressures are bearing down on all big energy companies, separating the positions will enable Mr Tillerson, who has been at the company for 30 years, to focus on day-to-day operations and business planning.

  
  At the same time, this proposal will empower the chairman and the board to analyse objectively the long-term challenges and opportunities and look deeply into the company’s strategic direction. ExxonMobil is already under the gun on several critical fronts.

  
  For all of its world-class project management skills, investment discipline and operational efficiency, the company has not articulated a complete, long-term corporate response to the challenges of a rapidly changing energy environment. These include: the need for energy security on the part of consumers and national governments; global policies aimed at curbing carbon dioxide emissions and diversifying energy supplies; the severe shortage of skilled labour in the energy sector (the industry’s largest strategic risk, according to a recent Ernst & Young study); the backlash from consumers and politicians regarding “big oil”; and the difficulty of adjusting to challenges to the company’s core business, as political and environmental constraints and risks make it ever harder to replace declining reserves.

  
  Having an independent chairman is the surest way to help address these challenges, to enable the company to promote a deeper, broader review of ExxonMobil’s core strengths and weaknesses, and identify opportunities for increasing long-term shareowner value. It was not an easy decision for us to make public our concerns. We did so only after nearly five years of patient and ultimately unsuccessful efforts, working behind the scenes to have an open, two-way dialogue with the company. Our goal was, and is, to contribute a concerned but sympathetic outsider’s perspective. Other main shareholders who share this goal have been similarly frustrated.

  
  More candour benefits everyone. Greater openness results when a board can express its unvarnished views on management to an independent chairman. Using the board’s input, as well as his or her own insights, the chairman can then provide the chief executive with guidance as necessary and appropriate. Some have suggested concerned or unhappy investors should simply do “the Wall Street walk” and dump Exxon­Mobil shares. That is not an op­tion for all shareholders. It is estimated that up to 15 per cent of ExxonMobil’s shares are held in index funds. Investors in such funds are in effect wedded to the company.

  
  In addition, many US pension funds, which hold the key to the future for millions of Americans, have ExxonMobil as their number one or number two holding. Are they being asked to do the walk as well? In fact, they do not really have this option. For our part, when it comes to Exxon-Mobil, Rockefellers are owners, not traders. Well over a century after Stan­dard Oil’s founding, our family remains committed to ExxonMobil’s continued prosperity. We want to see it continue as a strong leader in a healthy global economy. This is why we and 70 other Rockefeller family members are urging ExxonMobil shareowners to join us this month in voting for this proxy item.

  Peter O’Neill is the great-great-grandson and Neva Rockefeller Goodwin is the great-granddaughter of John D. Rockefeller, the founder of Exxon and Mobil