Climate Change Disclosure - Heads I Win, Tails You Lose?

Apr 14, 2014

Reading Time : 2 min

Nevertheless, in the face of shareholder petitions seeking to compel ExxonMobil to prepare and issue an analysis of the risk that its fossil fuel assets will be stranded, the company agreed to undertake the requested analysis. Earlier this month, ExxonMobil released two reports, Energy and Carbon: Managing the Risks and Energy and Climate, click here, outlining ExxonMobil’s plans for capital expenditures, policies limiting greenhouse gas emissions and efforts to reduce such emissions.

ExxonMobil assessed the global demand for energy and the relationship between energy supply and economic growth, likely scenarios for future constraints on carbon and the risks from climate change. ExxonMobil concluded that “none of our hydrocarbon reserves are now or will become ‘stranded.’” Energy and Carbon: Managing the Risks at 1.

Sustainability and disclosure activities expressed disappointment and pledged to continue pushing for disclosure of stranded assets.

  • “Shareholders need more in-depth information about how Exxon is positioned to withstand climate risk. We will continue working with Exxon and other fossil fuel companies to increase disclosures about these critical issues, including how companies analyze value of capital investments across a range of scenarios, including the worst-case scenario.” Danielle Fugere, president of As You Sow;
  • “While Exxon asserts that we will face social upheaval if carbon-based fuels are limited, we believe the greatest social disruption will come from climate change itself in the form of physical displacement and food scarcity—as outlined in today’s release of the IPCC report.” Natasha Lamb, director of Equity Research and Shareholder Engagement, Arjuna Capital.

The stock market reacted differently to ExxonMobil’s reports. “Markets Unmoved by Exxon Mobil's Fracking [sic] Disclosure,” EnergyWire, 4/7/14, click here.

Given the nature and scope of the uncertainties ExxonMobil evaluated in preparing its reports, as well as the unpredictable nature of future global agreements to reduce emissions, if any, ExxonMobil’s conclusion is eminently reasonable. Investors surely have available to them information sufficient to understand that ExxonMobil’s primary business is the exploration, production and sale of fossil fuels. “ExxonMobil is the world’s largest publicly traded international oil and gas company. We hold an industry-leading inventory of global oil and gas resources. We are the world’s largest refiner and marketer of petroleum products, and our chemical company ranks among the world’s largest.” Click here.

Those who make investment decisions based in whole or in part on sustainability principles surely have the information necessary to make such decisions regarding ExxonMobil securities. Indeed, it remains unclear how groups pushing for disclosures such as those made by ExxonMobil believe that the disclosures provide meaningful information on which shareholders may decide whether to buy, hold or sell securities. 

Share This Insight

Previous Entries

Speaking Energy

July 8, 2026

On June 18, 2026, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC or the Commission) issued an order to ISO New England Inc. (ISO-NE) directing ISO-NE and ISO-NE participating transmission owners to show cause as to why ISO-NE’s tariff should not be found to be unjust and unreasonable (ISO New England Inc., 195 FERC ¶ 61,215 (2026) (Order)) because it fails to sufficiently:

...

Read More

Speaking Energy

July 7, 2026

On June 29, 2026, the Supreme Court granted a petition for certiorari in Leonard Hoffmann v. WBI Energy Transmission, Inc. (Hoffmann), which presents the question whether section 7 of the Natural Gas Act (NGA) requires pipeline companies using federal eminent domain authority to pay landowners’ attorney’s fees in states where landowners can recover those fees under state law. In the decision giving rise to the Supreme Court’s review, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit held that a group of ranchers were not entitled to recover their $383,300 in attorney’s fees incurred while negotiating their compensation—creating a circuit split with four other courts of appeals. Hoffmann will be heard during the Court’s October 2026 Term, and marks the second time in five years that the Court has agreed to interpret NGA section 7.

...

Read More

Speaking Energy

July 6, 2026

On June 29, 2026, the United States Supreme Court issued Trump v. Slaughter, fundamentally reshaping presidential removal authority over independent regulatory agencies. The decision overruled a 90-year-old precedent established in Humphrey’s Executor v. United States, which had upheld the constitutionality of commissioner removal protections in the Federal Trade Commission Act (FTC Act). As written, the FTC Act permits a commissioner’s removal “only for inefficiency, neglect of duty, or malfeasance in office.” In Slaughter, the Court was asked to reevaluate this standard following the President’s removal of a Democratic-appointed FTC commissioner from office in 2025 without cause. Finding for the President, the Court held that removal was permissible because the FTC Act’s for-cause removal protections for commissioners violate the separation of powers, specifically, the President’s removal power under Article II. The Court explained that the FTC exercises executive power because it promulgates binding rules, investigates and enforces those rules through administrative adjudications, and brings civil enforcement actions in federal court. It found that because it exercises these executive powers, its commissioners “must therefore be controlled by the Chief Executive, in whom such power is vested.” While previous recent cases addressing the scope of the Removal Power, Seila Law LLC v. Consumer Financial Protection Bureau and Collins v. Yellen purported to preserve some kernel of Humphrey’s, the Court made clear that “[i]f anything more is left of Humphrey’s, we overrule it.”

...

Read More

Speaking Energy

June 25, 2026

On June 18, 2026, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC or the Commission) issued an order to the California Independent System Operator Corporation (CAISO) directing CAISO and CAISO transmission owners to show cause as to why CAISO’s tariff should not be found to be unjust and unreasonable (California Indep. Sys. Operator Corp., 195 FERC ¶ 61,214 (2026) (the Order)) because it fails to sufficiently:

...

Read More

© 2026 Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP. All rights reserved. Attorney advertising. This document is distributed for informational use only; it does not constitute legal advice and should not be used as such. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Akin is the practicing name of Akin Gump LLP, a New York limited liability partnership authorized and regulated by the Solicitors Regulation Authority under number 267321. A list of the partners is available for inspection at Eighth Floor, Ten Bishops Square, London E1 6EG. For more information about Akin Gump LLP, Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP and other associated entities under which the Akin Gump network operates worldwide, please see our Legal Notices page.