Why is Amnesty International concerned about ExxonMobil?
Amnesty International has documented many cases around the world where oil
exploration and extraction is fueling armed conflict and contributing to human
rights abuses, such as through the use of security forces to protect oil company
staff and assets; violent repression of protest; and forcible displacement of
large populations of local people. Examples include Sudan,
Nigeria and Colombia.
It is largely within this context that Amnesty International USA is concerned
about ExxonMobil Corporation’s human rights impact - it is the largest
energy company in the world with interests in over 150 countries, including
operations in many countries where Amnesty International has documented significant
human rights abuses. ExxonMobil leads a consortium of investors who initially
developed and are now operating the Chad-Cameroon
oil pipeline project that runs from the oil fields in Doba in southern Chad
to the Atlantic coast of Cameroon, and the company also operates in Nigeria.
In Indonesia, the company
has been accused of complicity in human rights abuses through their contract
with the Indonesian military to provide security for a natural gas project in
the province of Aceh, northern Sumatra. Grave human rights abuses have been
reported in Aceh, where the Indonesian military has been carrying out military
operations against the Free Aceh Movement (GAM), an armed pro-independence group.
Amnesty, along with coalition partners, has also raised other areas of concern
with ExxonMobil, including the human rights implications of legal agreements
underpinning large foreign investment projects, labor rights issues, and gaps
in internal corporate policies which could lead to abuses, such as the lack
of an explicit policy on sexual orientation non-discrimination.
To help address these issues, in 1998, Amnesty International USA began actively
engaging in campaigning and dialogue with Mobil Oil around these issues. Following
the merger between Mobil and Exxon in 1999, AIUSA continued this approach with
ExxonMobil. Today, we continue this work with many partners in the US and abroad.
How have we pushed for change?
Our first goal was to persuade ExxonMobil to develop and adopt a comprehensive and transparent human rights policy that included an explicit commitment to support and uphold the principles and values contained in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Moreover, AIUSA believes that any adequate company human rights policy should also include:- A policy on the use of security personnel, both private security and security forces provided by the government of a host country, that is based upon and consistent with internationally accepted human rights norms.
- A policy requiring a human rights and social impact assessment be conducted prior to the company’s decision to invest in countries that are experiencing civil conflict or which have poor human rights records such as Chad or Indonesia.
- A plan for implementing these commitments and policies throughout the company’s global operations that provides for a secure and independent complaint mechanism, provisions for consultation with local affected communities about human rights and environmental concerns, provisions for social auditing by credible independent agencies, and annual public reporting of performance under these policies.
In response to our resolution, the ExxonMobil Board of Directors advised shareholders to vote against AIUSA’s proposal on the grounds that its current “Standards of Business Conduct” and other documents and procedures provide “a comprehensive approach to implementing actions and policies that guide worldwide operations, including actions necessary to ensure appropriate regard for human rights in all locations where the company and its affiliates operate.”
In fact, ExxonMobil’s Standards of Business Conduct make no mention whatsoever of human rights. The company’s policies state only that the company is committed to the vague and general goals of being a “good corporate citizen” and striving to maintain “the highest ethical standards.” While such general statements do not contradict anything in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, neither do they constitute a specific commitment to observe and promote the human rights principles and values contained in this document, as called for in AIUSA’s resolution. Therefore, we did not believe that simply saying this provided an adequate substitute for a comprehensive and verifiable human rights policy whose purpose is to prevent the company from being complicit in such abuses as may arise from oil exploration and extraction. The company in effect asked shareholders to “Trust us.” AIUSA, along with a sizable number of concerned investors, believed that “Trust, but verify,” is a better policy. This was reflected in the vote tally, in which AIUSA’s resolution garnered 6.8% of the vote, a respectable percentage for a first time resolution.
Have we seen any improvements?
After the shareholder vote ExxonMobil started to take some small steps towards amending its policies. In May 2002, ExxonMobil published its “Corporate Citizenship” report, which included the statement that “ExxonMobil condemns human rights violations in any form.” The company also began participating in the Voluntary Principles on Security and Human Rights, something it had earlier refused to do. However, this response was still inadequate. In October 2002, AIUSA joined with several other nongovernmental organizations and concerned shareholders in a meeting with officials of ExxonMobil to discuss how the company could improve its policies and practices on human rights and the environment.In 2003, AIUSA launched a campaign to demand accountability from ExxonMobil for its relationship with the Indonesian military and we filed our shareholder resolution again calling on the company to adopt a comprehensive and transparent human rights policy. Amnesty activists deluged ExxonMobil CEO Lee Raymond with postcards supporting the aims of the resolution. Activists around the country organized vigils, teach-ins, and protests, and on Valentine’s Day, sent homemade Valentine’s Day cards to the company, asking ExxonMobil to “have a heart for human rights.” Again, the resolution garnered a respectable percentage of votes, and more importantly, gained the attention of the company’s senior executives.
AIUSA and our coalition partners continued to push for accountability in our meetings with the company. This dialogue led us to reassess whether pushing for a comprehensive human rights policy would be the most effective use of our shareholder leverage. We consulted with the shareholders who co-filed the original resolution, including AFL-CIO; the Teachers' Retirement System of New York City; Boston Common Asset Management; Paper, Allied-Industrial, Chemical and Energy Workers International Union (PACE); Walden Asset Management; and several religious investors. Together we decided that we would concentrate our efforts on improving the company’s treatment of its own workers. We reframed the shareholder resolution for 2004 to focus specifically on labor rights, defined as human rights in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the UN Norms for Business. Together we called on ExxonMobil, “to adopt and implement a company-wide workplace human rights policy based on the 1998 International Labor Organization’s Declaration on Fundamental Principles and Rights at Work (‘ILO Declaration’), and prepare a report available to shareholders concerning implementation of this policy.” Following the filing of this resolution, AIUSA, along with our shareholder partners and other concerned organizations such as Human Rights Watch and First Peoples Worldwide, again met with ExxonMobil. As a result of that meeting, the company agreed to include a statement supporting the ILO Declaration in its May 2004 Corporate Citizenship Report, and in response, the coalition agreed to withdraw the resolution.
At ExxonMobil’s May 26, 2004 Annual Shareholder’s meeting in Dallas, Texas, the current Chair of the AIUSA Board, Chip Pitts, made a statement indicating that Amnesty and other members of the coalition would be holding ExxonMobil accountable to its promises. He noted that companies such as ExxonMobil could no longer consider the move toward corporate social responsibility as optional and that it is a necessity demanded by the international investment community.
The coalition of concerned organizations and investors have continued our advocacy with ExxonMobil on their policies, pressing the company on their implementation of the ILO core labor standards and reviewing the company’s workplace human rights practices in several countries; looking at the company’s implementation of the Voluntary Principles on Security and Human Rights; and raising our concerns about the human rights situation in countries including Nigeria, Cameroon and Indonesia. Our meeting in December 2004 focused on these issues. In anticipation of the meeting, ExxonMobil further amended its report to indicate its intent to uphold the core labor standards set forth by the ILO Declaration, to which the company later added a statement of support on Labor and the Workplace.
Ongoing efforts in 2005 and beyond
In 2005, the coalition held biannual meetings with ExxonMobil, with a continued focus on implementation of the Voluntary Principles and the ILO core labor standards. At the Annual Shareholder Meeting in May, Chip Pitts again spoke on behalf of Amnesty, acknowledging our longstanding dialogue with ExxonMobil, along with our many coalition partners, but expressing two of our ongoing concerns. In his allotted 2 minutes, Chip stated:“…Discrimination, including discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation, is a human rights abuse. Exxon-Mobil claims to uphold the ILO core labor standards, among them the elimination of discrimination in the workplace. Yet the company has continually refused to explicitly prohibit such discrimination in its workplace hiring policies. Though the stated policy is zero-tolerance and supposed to be completely enforceable, the reluctance to add the words "sexual orientation" to the policy are very troubling, and put the company sadly outside the mainstream for no good reason. Considering that more than 95% of the Fortune 100 have already taken this basic step, Amnesty International does not feel confident that Exxon is doing all it can to uphold its commitment to the ILO core principles or today’s basic human rights standards.”Additionally, regarding Indonesia, he said,
“…ExxonMobil has made commendable commitments to revenue transparency through the Extractive Industries Transparency Initiative, and has begun to take steps to implement the Voluntary Principles on Security and Human Rights. Furthermore, the company’s proxy statement describes its condemnation of human rights violations, and the fact that the company has expressed these views to "governments and others around the world." Yet vague statements like these do not offer much reassurance. It would be helpful to have additional detail regarding what forums, and to whom, these concerns have been expressed. Who in the Indonesian Government, for example, has heard these concerns, and what assurances have you been provided that human rights will not be violated as security is provided for your facilities?In September 2005, as part of a new effort to address how state-investor agreements impact international law, human rights and development, Amnesty released the report “Contracting Out of Human Rights: The Chad-Cameroon Pipeline Project.” As ExxonMobil is the leader of the Chad-Cameroon oil consortium, their participation in the agreements was scrutinized, particularly in light of their recent commitments to uphold and protect human rights. The report outlines how oil pipeline contracts, signed by host governments and companies including ExxonMobil, threaten human rights and prevent Chadians and Cameroonians from obtaining justice for pipeline-related abuses. The report finds that the legal agreements governing the project place a ‘price tag’ on human rights by creating financial disincentives for the governments of these countries to protect human rights.
It is important and in the interests of all company shareholders that Exxon is both implementing, and transparently seen to be implementing, the Voluntary Principles on Security in a way that ensures that the government of Indonesia, whose military's human rights violations in Aceh have been well documented by Amnesty International, is not violating human rights in providing security for ExxonMobil’s facilities.”
Amnesty International calls on the ExxonMobil-led consortium and the governments of Chad and Cameroon to amend the relevant agreements underpinning the Chad-Cameroon pipeline project. Amnesty International is also expressing its concerns about foreign investment contracts to a number of host governments and investing companies, and has been engaging with home governments, international financial institutions such as the International Financial Corporation (IFC), export credit agencies, commercial banks, corporate lawyers and others to accomplish its goal of bringing about standards and practices to guarantee respect for human rights in the context of foreign direct investment.
Most recently, in December 2005 Amnesty joined other concerned shareholders, including Trillium Asset Management, to file a shareholder resolution with ExxonMobil on sexual orientation non-discrimination. We presented this resolution for voting at the annual meeting in May 2006. Looking ahead, we will continue to press the company to uphold human rights standards throughout its operations, within its spheres of activity and influence around the world.
