Home

Reports

Climate Policy Engagement

Finance and Climate Risk

Energy Policy

Sustainable Finance

Japan

Social Media

Australia

Automotive and Transport

Fossil Fuels

Electric Power

Korea

Technology

United States

Europe

About

About Us

FAQ

Methodology

Media

CA100+ Company Profiles

guest

ExxonMobil

InfluenceMap Score
D-
Performance Band
46%
Organisation Score
44%
Relationship Score

Relationship Score, December 2020

A new batch of industry associations has been uploaded onto the InfluenceMap system and the relationship scores recalculated accordingly. 

Updated terminology, February 2021

We adjusted the terminology used to describe the queries running down the left-hand side of our scoring matrix and added additional explanatory text to the info-boxes. This has no impact on the scores and methodology. It has been done following user feedback to improve clarity.

Sector:
Energy
Head​quarters:
Irving, United States
Brands and Associated Companies:
Esso, Mobil, Exxon
Official Web Site:
www.exxonmobil.com
Wikipedia:
ExxonMobil

Climate Lobbying Overview: ExxonMobil appears unsupportive of most forms of climate regulation whilst promoting an energy policy agenda to accelerate fossil fuel development. The company retains an extensive network on memberships to industry associations actively opposing climate-related policy globally.

Top-line Messaging on Climate Policy: In January 2021, the organization has disclosed support for the Paris Agreement in its Sustainability Report. It has also supported "society’s ambition to achieve net zero emissions by 2050" in a consultation submission in March 2021. However, in its Energy & Carbon Summary from April 2021, Exxon appeared to support limiting temperature increase to 2ºC rather than the more ambitious target of 1.5ºC. Additionally, in October 2020, as reported by the corporate’s newsroom, CEO Darren Woods has stressed that “given the size, complexity and existing infrastructure, the energy transition will require significant time.”

Engagement with Climate-Related Regulations: As reported by Forbes in March 2021, ExxonMobil has stated support for an economy-wide carbon tax in the US. The company also backed a carbon dividend plan initiated by the Climate Leadership Council (CLC) in its 2020 Energy & Carbon Summary. This plan, however, comes with a number of caveats, which previously included the rollback of the US Clean Power Plan. In 2020, the CLC carbon dividend plan continues to advocate for 'significant regulatory simplification'. This position is in contrast to scientific advice from the IPCC which clearly states the need for a range of robust policy interventions to deliver on the Paris Agreement’s goals. Additionally, evidence from leaked videos of senior Exxon officials reported by Channel 4 in June 2021 suggests that ExxonMobil's public support for a carbon tax is qualified by the belief that a tax will never be political viable and it is purely a "talking point" as opposed to genuine support. Furthermore, evidence from a FOI request revealed that, in February 2021, Exxon has opposed the introduction of a national carbon tax in the Netherlands in an email to the country’s Vice President’s Cabinet.

In terms of emissions regulation, in its 2020 Energy & Carbon Summary, ExxonMobil disclosed its support for methane emissions regulations in the US and advocated for governments to include methane reduction in their Nationally Determined Contributions. Though in a press release in March 2020, the company proposed its own framework for methane emissions regulation in the US, which are weaker than many of the state-level methane regulations and the EPA's original federal regulation.

Positioning on Energy Transition: ExxonMobil strongly supports the long-term use of oil and gas in the energy mix and makes extensive use of social media advertising to communicate this position. Notes obtained by freedom of information requests (FOI) reveal that in February 2020, ExxonMobil lobbied UK policymaker for greater recognition of the role of gas as transitional fuel, without clear reference to the need for CCS. The company has also directly engaged in a range of policy and legislative items impacting the energy mix, including donating $1 million to oppose an Alaskan oil tax ballot initiative in 2020 and privately lobbying the US Congress against some climate provisions in President Biden’s Infrastructure Bill in 2021. A document obtained following FOI rules suggests ExxonMobil has lobbied in support of Ohio legislation, known as Senate Bill 33, which would criminalize protests against fossil fuel infrastructure, as reported by Drilled News in January 2021. In the EU, ExxonMobil lobbied to water down the focus on renewable hydrogen in the EU hydrogen strategy to focus instead on hydrogen generated from natural gas in July 2020. In Australia, the company pressed policymakers for additional financial support for the refinery sector in light of the COVID-19 pandemic in October 2020, and argued for deregulation to encourage further investment into oil and gas exploration and development in Australia in a consultation submission in November 2020.

Industry Association Governance: ExxonMobil has not disclosed in detail regarding its indirect influence over climate policy via industry associations. Although the company is known to retain memberships of numerous industry associations actively lobby against climate policy (i.e. the American Petroleum Institute, the American Fuel & Petrochemical Manufacturers, the Australian Petroleum Production & Exploration Association, the Western States petroleum Association and others), they have not produced dedicated, clearly identifiable disclosure explaining any influence they have on climate policy through these relationships

QUERIES
DATA SOURCES
0NSNSNS-1-1NS
01NS2-10-1
-11NS-1001
11NA1211
0NA-2NANANANS
10NS-200-1
1NSNSNS11NS
1NSNSNS-1NSNS
-10NS-2-2NSNS
-1-1NS-1-10-1
10NS001NS
0NS-2NANANANS
Strength of Relationship
STRONG
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
WEAK
 
American Petroleum Institute (API)
23%
 
American Petroleum Institute (API)
23%
 
National Association of Manufacturers (NAM)
27%
 
National Association of Manufacturers (NAM)
27%
 
Natural Gas Supply Association (NGSA)
41%
 
Natural Gas Supply Association (NGSA)
41%
 
European Chemical Industry Council (Cefic)
57%
 
European Chemical Industry Council (Cefic)
57%
 
Australian Petroleum Production & Exploration Association (APPEA)
39%
 
Australian Petroleum Production & Exploration Association (APPEA)
39%
 
American Fuel & Petrochemical Manufacturers (AFPM)
21%
 
American Fuel & Petrochemical Manufacturers (AFPM)
21%
 
UKPIA
60%
 
UKPIA
60%
 
Wirtschaftsverband Fuels und Energie (en2x)
62%
 
Wirtschaftsverband Fuels und Energie (en2x)
62%
 
International Association of Oil and Gas Producers (IOGP)
50%
 
International Association of Oil and Gas Producers (IOGP)
50%
 
VNO-NCW
59%
 
VNO-NCW
59%
 
BusinessEurope
42%
 
BusinessEurope
42%
 
Western States Petroleum Association (WSPA)
30%
 
Western States Petroleum Association (WSPA)
30%
 
Business Roundtable
51%
 
Business Roundtable
51%
 
FuelsEurope
48%
 
FuelsEurope
48%
 
Consumer Energy Alliance
25%
 
Consumer Energy Alliance
25%
 
Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers (CAPP)
35%
 
Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers (CAPP)
35%
 
US Chamber of Commerce
27%
 
US Chamber of Commerce
27%
 
Australian Industry Greenhouse Network
47%
 
Australian Industry Greenhouse Network
47%
 
Papua New Guinea Chamber of Mines and Petroleum
34%
 
Papua New Guinea Chamber of Mines and Petroleum
34%
 
International Air Transport Association (IATA)
36%
 
International Air Transport Association (IATA)
36%
 
Japan Chemical Industry Association (JCIA)
45%
 
Japan Chemical Industry Association (JCIA)
45%
 
Oil and Gas UK (OGUK)
53%
 
Oil and Gas UK (OGUK)
53%
 
Australian Institute of Petroleum
34%
 
Australian Institute of Petroleum
34%
 
International Chamber of Commerce (ICC)
67%
 
International Chamber of Commerce (ICC)
67%
 
Georgetown Chamber of Commerce and Industry
45%
 
Georgetown Chamber of Commerce and Industry
45%
 
German Association of the Automotive Industry (VDA)
38%
 
German Association of the Automotive Industry (VDA)
38%
 
Eurelectric
74%
 
Eurelectric
74%
 
GasNaturally
63%
 
GasNaturally
63%
 
American Chemistry Council (ACC)
58%
 
American Chemistry Council (ACC)
58%
 
Ghana Upstream Petroleum Chamber
43%
 
Ghana Upstream Petroleum Chamber
43%
 
Mouvement des Entreprises de France (MEDEF)
45%
 
Mouvement des Entreprises de France (MEDEF)
45%
 
Verband der Chemischen Industrie (VCI)
44%
 
Verband der Chemischen Industrie (VCI)
44%
 
Australian Pipelines and Gas Association
51%
 
Australian Pipelines and Gas Association
51%
 
Federation of German Industries (BDI)
43%
 
Federation of German Industries (BDI)
43%

How to Read our Relationship Score Map

In this section, we depict graphically the relationships the corporation has with trade associations, federations, advocacy groups and other third parties who may be acting on their behalf to influence climate change policy. Each of the columns above represents one relationship the corporation appears to have with such a third party. In these columns, the top, dark section represents the strength of the relationship the corporation has with the influencer. For example if a corporation's senior executive also held a key role in the trade association, we would deem this to be a strong relationship and it would be on the far left of the chart above, with the weaker ones to the right. Click on these grey shaded upper sections for details of these relationships. The middle section contains a link to the organization score details of the influencer concerned, so you can see the details of its climate change policy influence. Click on the middle sections for for details of the trade associations. The lower section contains the organization score of that influencer, the lower the more negatively it is influencing climate policy.