ExxonMobil and Chairman/CEO Darren Woods have spent several years capitulating to the climate alarmism narrative. Now they’re eating the consequences. According to Bloomberg:
Exxon Mobil Corp. called for European leaders to repeal a new climate and human rights law that would fine corporations and is threatening to become a flashpoint in US-EU trade negotiations.
Designed to root out human rights abuses and improve environmental standards, critics say the European Union’s Corporate Sustainability Due Diligence Directive has evolved into a sweeping set of regulations that make net zero plans mandatory and apply outside Europe to companies’ entire global supply chains.
“It’s the worst piece of legislation I’ve seen since I’ve been in this job,” Exxon’s Chief Executive Officer Darren Woods said in an interview. “Given the perspective I have around the world, that says quite a bit.”
Responding to proposed weaker versions of the Directive:
Woods says the concessions do not go far enough.
“We’re concerned about the fact that they’re killing the manufacturing sector and frankly smothering economic growth driven primarily by the desire and effort to kill oil and gas as a way of addressing climate change,” he said.
Violations could result in penalties 5% of a company’s global revenue “which frankly would be bone-crushing to any company,” Woods said. “We’re concerned that frankly, there are few people who understand the implications of this.”
NLPC has repeatedly warned ExxonMobil that attempting to play both sides of the climate change debate would ultimately harm the company. We filed a shareholder proposal in 2024 urging the company to drop executive incentives for reducing greenhouse gas emissions, a goal reliant on Inflation Reduction Act subsidies for carbon capture and storage projects. We correctly forecasted that these projects would be in jeopardy if President Trump (still a candidate at the time) was re-elected. Instead, Mr. Woods doubled and tripled down on climate hysteria, calling for President Trump to keep the US in the Paris Agreement. Ironic, considering the EU Directive he’s now critiquing is grounded in the Paris Agreement:
The Directive sets out an obligation for large companies to adopt and put into effect, through best efforts, a transition plan for climate change mitigation aligned with the 2050 climate neutrality objective of the Paris Agreement as well as intermediate targets under the European Climate Law.
Apparently whether or not a company supports or opposes an international agreement’s policy depends on the audience you are doing business with, and whether that respective audience intends to reward or punish you related to it.
