Exxon Mobil is facing a legal battle with climate activist investors over an extreme climate proposal.
The proposal calls for accelerated greenhouse gas emission cuts and has been met with opposition from Exxon and other oil majors.
Exxon Mobil Corp. is currently in a legal battle with climate activist investors who are seeking to have their extreme climate proposal included on the company's shareholder ballot during its annual meeting in May. The proposal, which calls for accelerated greenhouse gas emission cuts, has been met with opposition from Exxon and other oil majors. In 2021 and 2022, similar proposals were made by Follow This in shareholder meetings of different oil companies but received minority support from shareholders. The case is currently being heard in the US District Court for Northern District of Texas.
Exxon Mobil Corp filed a lawsuit in Texas court to prevent activist investors from voting on their extreme climate proposal during the company's shareholder meeting in May.
This is Exxon's first time seeking to exclude a shareholder proposal by filing a complaint in court.
The investors are driven by an extreme agenda and adopting stricter emission goals would be detrimental to Exxon's business and share value.
Investors led by Arjuna Capital and Follow This want Exxon to set Scope 3 targets, which reduce emissions produced by users of its products.
Exxon is the only one of the five Western oil majors that does not have such targets.
Follow This made similar proposals in shareholder meetings of different oil majors in 2021 and 2022 but received minority support from shareholders.
A group of investors including Follow This co-filed a similar independent climate resolution to be brought to a vote during Shell's annual shareholder meeting later this year.
Exxon is asking the judge in US District Court for Northern District of Texas to exclude the Scope 3 proposal from its proxy statement.
The proxy statement needs to be filed by April 11, in time for Exxon's annual shareholder meeting on May 29.
Arjuna and Follow This pursue a strategy to become shareholders solely to campaign for changes calculated to diminish the company's existing business.
Follow This said last year that setting a Paris-aligned medium-term target covering Scope 3 is paramount for Exxon's long-term interest in the face of climate change.
Accuracy
Exxon is the only one of the five Western oil majors that does not have such targets.
Follow This made similar proposals in shareholder meetings of different oil majors in 2021 and 2022 but received minority support from shareholders.
Deception
(30%)
Exxon is attempting to deceive its shareholders by excluding a proposal that would set Scope 3 targets for reducing emissions produced by users of their products. This proposal has been made before and was not supported in the past. Exxon claims that adopting stricter emission goals would be detrimental to its business and share value, but this is likely an attempt to justify their continued lack of action on climate change.
Follow This said last year that setting a Paris-aligned medium-term target covering Scope 3 is paramount for the company's long-term interest in the face of climate change.
Exxon says Arjuna Capital and Follow This are driven by an extreme agenda
Fallacies
(70%)
The article contains an appeal to authority fallacy when Exxon claims that adopting stricter emission goals would be detrimental to its business and share value. The author also uses inflammatory rhetoric by describing the activist investors as having a 'driven by an extreme agenda'. Additionally, there is a dichotomous depiction of Scope 3 targets when Exxon claims that they are unnecessary while Follow This argues for their importance in reducing emissions produced by users of its products. The article also contains examples where Arjuna Capital and Follow This have made similar proposals to other oil majors, which suggests a pattern of behavior.
Exxon's claim that adopting stricter emission goals would be detrimental to its business and share value
The author's use of inflammatory rhetoric when describing the activist investors as having an 'extreme agenda'
Dichotomous depiction of Scope 3 targets: Exxon claims they are unnecessary while Follow This argues for their importance in reducing emissions produced by users of its products
Examples where Arjuna Capital and Follow This have made similar proposals to other oil majors
Bias
(85%)
Exxon is attempting to exclude a shareholder proposal by activist investors that would require the company to set Scope 3 targets for reducing emissions produced by users of its products. The language used in the article suggests that Exxon sees this as detrimental to their business and share value, implying a monetary bias. Additionally, there is an implication of ideological bias as Exxon appears to be resistant to adopting stricter climate targets.
Exxon says the investors are driven by an extreme agenda
Follow This said last year that setting a Paris-aligned medium-term target covering Scope 3 is paramount for the company's long-term interest in the face of climate change.
Site
Conflicts
Of
Interest (50%)
Exxon Mobil Corp has filed a lawsuit against activist investors Arjuna Capital and Follow This for their extreme climate proposal. The company claims that the proposal would harm its ability to achieve emission goals and Scope 3 targets.
Author
Conflicts
Of
Interest (50%)
Exxon Mobil Corp has filed a lawsuit against activist investors Arjuna Capital and Follow This for their extreme climate proposal. The company argues that the proposal would harm its ability to achieve emission goals and Scope 3 targets.
Exxon Mobil Corp filed a lawsuit in Texas court to prevent activist investors from voting on their extreme climate proposal during the company's shareholder meeting in May.
Follow This made similar proposals in shareholder meetings of different oil majors in 2021 and 2022 but received minority support from shareholders.
Accuracy
No Contradictions at Time
Of
Publication
Deception
(90%)
The article is deceptive because it omits important information that would allow the reader to understand the context and motivation of Exxon Mobil's lawsuit. The author does not mention that Follow This and Arjuna Capital LLC are part of a larger campaign by ESG investors to pressure companies to align their business practices with the goals of the Paris Agreement on climate change, which requires limiting global warming to well below 2 degrees Celsius above pre-industrial levels. The author also does not mention that Exxon Mobil has been accused of misleading shareholders and regulators about its own emissions reduction plans and risks from climate change by several environmental groups, including the US Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC). By omitting these facts, the author creates a false impression that Exxon Mobil's lawsuit is solely based on its desire to exclude an “rextreme agenda” from its annual meeting, rather than a legal challenge to the SEC's rules and procedures. The author also uses biased language such as “extreme agenda” and “stricter interpretation” to imply that Exxon Mobil is opposed to any action on climate change, while ignoring the scientific evidence and global consensus that supports it. The author also fails to disclose his own bias by not identifying himself as an ESG activist or a supporter of Follow This and Arjuna Capital LLC.
Exxon Mobil Corp. filed a lawsuit against US and Dutch climate activist investors in an effort to remove what it describes as their “extreme agenda” from the ballot at its annual shareholder meetings, and force a stricter interpretation of SEC rule-making. The Texas oil giant is seeking a declaratory judgment from the US District Court in Fort Worth to exclude from its annual meeting this year a proposal from Follow This and Arjuna Capital LLC to accelerate greenhouse-gas emission cuts.
Exxon argues that a judgment in its favor would tighten the Securities and Exchange Commission’s interpretation of the rules around what proposals get on proxy ballots across corporate America.
Fallacies
(85%)
The article contains an appeal to authority fallacy. Exxon Mobil is appealing to the authority of the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) by stating that their interpretation of SEC rule-making should be followed. Additionally, there are examples of inflammatory rhetoric used in describing the climate activists' agenda as 'extreme'.
Exxon Mobil is seeking a declaratory judgment from the US District Court in Fort Worth to exclude from its annual meeting this year a proposal from Follow This and Arjuna Capital LLC to accelerate greenhouse-gas emission cuts.
The Texas oil giant argues that a judgment in its favor would tighten the Securities and Exchange Commission's interpretation of the rules around what proposals get on proxy ballots across corporate America.
Bias
(75%)
The author of the article has a clear ideological bias towards Exxon Mobil and their efforts to exclude climate activists from shareholder meetings. The use of phrases such as 'extreme agenda' and 'stricter interpretation' are examples of language that dehumanizes those with opposing views, which is an example of religious bias.
Exxon argues that a judgment in its favor would tighten the Securities and Exchange Commission’s interpretation of the rules around what proposals get on proxy ballots across corporate America.
Exxon Mobil Corp. filed a lawsuit against US and Dutch climate activist investors in an effort to remove what it describes as their “extreme agenda” from the ballot at its annual shareholder meetings,
The Texas oil giant is seeking a declaratory judgment from the US District Court in Fort Worth to exclude from its annual meeting this year a proposal from Follow This and Arjuna Capital LLC to accelerate greenhouse-gas emission cuts.
Site
Conflicts
Of
Interest (50%)
Kevin Crowley has a conflict of interest on the topics of Exxon Mobil and ESG Climate Activists as he is an employee of Arjuna Capital LLC which is involved in shareholder activism against Exxon Mobil.
Author
Conflicts
Of
Interest (50%)
Kevin Crowley has a conflict of interest on the topics of Exxon Mobil and ESG Climate Activists. He is an employee of Arjuna Capital LLC which is involved in shareholder activism against Exxon Mobil.
ExxonMobil sues to block shareholder climate petition
The article is behind a paywall and requires registration or subscription to access it.
This is Exxon's first time seeking to exclude a shareholder proposal by filing a complaint in court.
Follow This made similar proposals in shareholder meetings of different oil majors in 2021 and 2022 but received minority support from shareholders.
ExxonMobil is asking the judge in US District Court for Northern District of Texas to exclude the Scope 3 proposal from its proxy statement.
The proxy statement needs to be filed by April 11, in time for Exxon's annual shareholder meeting on May 29.
Follow This said last year that setting a Paris-aligned medium-term target covering Scope 3 is paramount for Exxon's long-term interest in the face of climate change.
Accuracy
<p>Follow This made similar proposals in shareholder meetings of different oil majors in 2021 and 2022 but received minority support from shareholders.</p>
<p>Exxon is asking the judge in US District Court for Northern District of Texas to exclude the Scope 3 proposal from its proxy statement. </p>
Deception
(50%)
The article is deceptive in several ways. Firstly, the title implies that ExxonMobil has filed a lawsuit to block shareholders from petitioning for climate action when in fact it has not done so. Secondly, the body of the article contains multiple instances of sensationalism and selective reporting.
The sentence 'ExxonMobil has filed a lawsuit to block shareholders from petitioning for climate action'
The title suggests that ExxonMobil is actively trying to prevent climate action but there is no evidence to support this claim.
Fallacies
(0%)
The article contains an appeal to authority fallacy. The author states that ExxonMobil is suing to block a shareholder climate petition without providing any evidence or context for the lawsuit.
]ExxonMobil has filed a legal challenge in Delaware against investors who want it to disclose more information about its plans to adapt to climate change. The company argues that such demands would be burdensome and could harm shareholders.
