Engine No. 1 Activist Presentation Deck
ExxonMobil's attacks on our nominees cannot withstand
scrutiny
ExxonMobil Claim
"Two of the candidates
don't have CEO
experience at any
company ..."
"None of Engine No.
1's candidates have
experience at
companies even close
to the complexity or
scale of ExxonMobil."
Our Response
The Board has long used having held the CEO role in an unrelated industry as
primary criteria, despite a decade of underperformance
• Following our campaign, ExxonMobil itself added three new board members
with no public company CEO experience
• Two of our nominees do have prior CEO experience and ExxonMobil still
refused to even meet them, undermining the credibility of this excuse
●
Successful track records and transferability of skill sets matter as much as
experience with large companies in completely unrelated industries
None of our nominees are expected to recreate their prior executive roles, just
as no one on the Board is expected to develop new drugs
Generating outsized returns in energy and demonstrating industry foresight are
highly valuable abilities for a Board that has demonstrated neither ability for over
a decade, including missing industry trends such as the shale revolution, the
shift to focusing on project returns over chasing production growth, and the need
to gradually prepare for rather than ignore the energy transition
Even on its face this argument falls flat given current Board composition: Anthem
(-$19B market cap at end of tenure of CEO now on Board), State Street
(~$24B), Xerox (~$7B) vs. Andeavor (acquired for $23B), Neste (~$26B in 2019,
now ~$40B), Vestas (~$18B in 2019, now -$46B)
Quote Sources for this page and next: ExxonMobil letter to shareholders, filed March 16, 2001. ExxonMobil letter to shareholders, filed March 31, 2001.
REENERGIZE
EXXON//
60View entire presentation