Categories: Climate Change

Exxon And Chevron Climate Change Votes – What Is 33% Of Investors?

An interesting question here – just what is 33% of the vote at a corporate meeting? My suspicion is that we’ve got some malarkey going on with our definitions. But I am willing to admit to error on this.

The report is that some 33% of the vote at a Chevron shareholder meeting was in favour of summat about climate change. And, well, dunno.

[perfectpullquote align=”full” bordertop=”false” cite=”” link=”” color=”” class=”” size=””]Shareholders also defeated measures calling for a special board committee on climate change and for a report on the risks of climate change to Exxon’s U.S. Gulf Coast chemical plants.[/perfectpullquote]

Well, OK, shareholders own the company, what they want to do with it is up to them. But I’ve also received an email which says this:

[perfectpullquote align=”full” bordertop=”false” cite=”” link=”” color=”” class=”” size=””]San Ramon, California—May 29, 2019—Today, 33% of investors at Chevron Corporation’s annual meeting voted in support of a shareholder resolution asking the company to report on how it plans to reduce its full range of greenhouse gas emissions and transition its business model to align with a decarbonizing energy market. Also today, at Exxon’s annual meeting, 25% of investors voted in support of a shareholder resolution asking the company to issue a report assessing the public health risks of expanding petrochemical operations in areas increasingly prone to climate change-induced storms, flooding, and sea level rise. Both resolutions were filed by As You Sow.[/perfectpullquote]

Well, yes. So, what are our definitions here? 33% of the equity, each share having one vote? That would be amazing. 33% of shareholders – including whatever number of people who have bought one share in order to be able to protest? That would be less amazing. 33% of shareholders who actually turned up to the annual meeting? Those one piece of stock people who are willing to go there to protest?

I have asked the people producing the press release what they mean. Don’t actually expect a clarification but, you know, maybe.

And I have an answer:

[perfectpullquote align=”full” bordertop=”false” cite=”” link=”” color=”” class=”” size=””]
Thanks for your interest. The answer to your question is:
33% of voted shares were in favor.
Many shares are voted in advance of the meeting – physical presence is not necessary. And yes, large investors have more shares with which to vote.
[/perfectpullquote]
Which is the point at which I say I am surprised. Still, their company, they do as they wish.

 

0 0 votes
Article Rating
Tim Worstall

Share
Published by
Tim Worstall

Recent Posts

The BBC and terrorism

The language we use matters - it provides clarity to our own thoughts and enables…

3 years ago

We Should Pay Medical Personnel For Each Procedure They Perform

It is now generally acknowledged that the structure of the NHS needs to be overhauled…

3 years ago

The Scrubbers Are Failing

In the film Apollo 13, a loss of oxygen causes the crew to start inadvertently…

3 years ago

Wondering whether an idea is actually correct or not

There's an idea out there which seems intuitive but then so many ideas do seem…

4 years ago

Is Cryptocurrency Our Revolution, Or Theirs?

When we think about the darkly opaque goals of modern central bankers as they relate…

4 years ago

Playing The Mischief With Us

As the papers recently filled with the distressing images of desperate souls looking to escape…

4 years ago