Environ. Res. Lett. 12 (2017) 084019
https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/aa815f
LETTER
OPEN ACCESS
Assessing ExxonMobil’s climate change communications
(1977–2014)
RECEIVED
22 June 2017
Geoffrey Supran1 and Naomi Oreskes
REVISED
Department of the History of Science, Harvard University, Cambridge, MA 02138, United States of America
1
Author to whom any correspondence should be addressed.
17 July 2017
ACCEPTED FOR PUBLICATION
21 July 2017
PUBLISHED
23 August 2017
Original content from
this work may be used
under the terms of the
Creative Commons
Attribution 3.0 licence.
Any further distribution
of this work must
maintain attribution to
the author(s) and the
title of the work, journal
citation and DOI.
E-mail: gjsupran@fas.harvard.edu
Keywords: anthropogenic global warming, climate change, ExxonMobil, disinformation, content analysis, climate communication,
advertorial
Supplementary material for this article is available online
Abstract
This paper assesses whether ExxonMobil Corporation has in the past misled the general public about
climate change. We present an empirical document-by-document textual content analysis and
comparison of 187 climate change communications from ExxonMobil, including peer-reviewed and
non-peer-reviewed publications, internal company documents, and paid, editorial-style advertisements
(‘advertorials’) in The New York Times. We examine whether these communications sent consistent
messages about the state of climate science and its implications—specifically, we compare their
positions on climate change as real, human-caused, serious, and solvable. In all four cases, we find
that as documents become more publicly accessible, they increasingly communicate doubt. This
discrepancy is most pronounced between advertorials and all other documents. For example,
accounting for expressions of reasonable doubt, 83% of peer-reviewed papers and 80% of internal
documents acknowledge that climate change is real and human-caused, yet only 12% of advertorials
do so, with 81% instead expressing doubt. We conclude that ExxonMobil contributed to advancing
climate science—by way of its scientists’ academic publications—but promoted doubt about it in
advertorials. Given this discrepancy, we conclude that ExxonMobil misled the public. Our content
analysis also examines ExxonMobil’s discussion of the risks of stranded fossil fuel assets. We find the
topic discussed and sometimes quantified in 24 documents of various types, but absent from
advertorials. Finally, based on the available documents, we outline ExxonMobil’s strategic approach to
climate change research and communication, which helps to contextualize our findings.
1. Introduction
In 2016, Attorneys General (AGs) of 17 US states and
territories announced that they ‘are exploring working
together on key climate change-related initiatives, such
as ongoing and potential investigations’ into whether
ExxonMobil Corporation and other fossil fuel
companies may have violated, variously, racketeering,
consumer protection, or investor protection statutes
through their communications regarding anthropogenic global warming (AGW) [1, 2]. (Unless specified
otherwise, we refer to ExxonMobil Corporation,
Exxon Corporation, and Mobil Oil Corporation as
‘ExxonMobil’.) As part of a probe that began in 2015,
New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman has
issued multiple subpoenas to ExxonMobil under the
© 2017 The Author(s). Published by IOP Publishing Ltd
state’s Martin Act and alleged that the company’s
accounting of climate risk ‘may be a sham’ [3–6].
Massachusetts Attorney General Maura Healey is
simultaneously investigating ExxonMobil, stating,
‘Fossil fuel companies that deceived investors and
consumers about the dangers of climate change should
be held accountable’ [7, 8]. US Virgin Islands Attorney
General Claude Walker has said that he is investigating
ExxonMobil for potentially violating the territory’s
anti-racketeering law [9]. Also in 2016, the US
Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) began a
federal investigation into whether ExxonMobil
appropriately discloses the business risks of AGW,
and how it values its assets and reserves [10]. We
offer no view on the legal issues raised by ongoing
investigations.