Unidentified subject!

[Daniel Kronemann <kron4155@uidaho.edu>]

Sexual-Orientation Resolution Gains Traction Among ExxonMobil Shareholders

By Kipp Cheng C 2002 DiversityInc.com May 31, 2002

Wednesday's 23.5 percent vote among ExxonMobil shareholders in favor of
including sexual orientation in the oil company's Equal Employment
Opportunity (EEO) anti-discrimination policy will not likely result in
changes in the near future. After all, the resolution is non-binding, so
even a majority vote of shareholders would not be enforceable.

However, the increase in the percentage of shareholders voting in favor of
amending ExxonMobil's policy is significant, up 81 percent from last
year's vote of 13 percent on the same resolution. The number has steadily
increased over the last four proxy votes, with only 3 percent of
shareholders supporting the measure the first time it was up for
consideration. Equal-rights advocates said the 23.5 percent vote is
indicative of the growing sentiment among institutional investors and
shareholders that establishing explicitly inclusive anti-discrimination
policies is good not only for public relations but also for business.

"ExxonMobil's leadership -- and CEO [Lee Raymond] in particular -- has
demonstrated that he doesn't like to be told what to do," said Kim Mills,
education director for the Human Rights Campaign (HRC). "But when it comes
to these resolutions, again and again, we've seen leaders at smart
companies say, 'We don't discriminate, let's change our policy.' "

When ExxonMobil was created in the merger between Exxon and Mobil in 1999,
it became the first major corporation to rescind its policy protecting gay
and lesbian employees. Prior to the merger, Mobil Corp. has existing
policies protecting gay and lesbian employees, as well as domestic-partner
benefits.

Those voting in favor of the resolution represent shareholders that own
$63.75 billion in ExxonMobil stock, according to estimates by the HRC.
Shareholders were mobilized to vote for the proxy resolution by a
consortium of groups, led by The New York City Employees' Retirement
System, The Equality Project and the HRC, among other groups.
Institutional Shareholder Services, a Rockville, Md.-based provider of
proxy voting and corporate governance services with more than 950 clients,
also encouraged a "yes" vote from its constituents.

Still, despite shareholder activism, the leadership at Dallas-based
ExxonMobil -- the nation's largest oil company -- has consistently
resisted including sexual orientation as a protected category within EEO
policies, Mills said. In written statements, executives at ExxonMobil
claimed existing anti-discrimination policies were inclusive of all
groups, and it was not necessary to name sexual orientation as a protected
category.

The Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) disagreed with ExxonMobil,
and in March denied the oil company's request to exclude the resolution
regarding sexual orientation from its proxy ballot.

Mills said the company has thus far done a fair amount in educating
employees and senior management about gay, lesbian, bisexual and
transgender concerns via communications and training programs. However,
"because there is no central place where employees and investors can find
an explicit policy," all of the education and outreach is in vain, she
said. Indeed, it is still legal in 38 states to fire an employee based on
his or her sexual orientation.

Repeated calls to ExxonMobil by DiversityInc.com were not returned, but in
a statement released following the SEC ruling, ExxonMobil reiterated its
position that its EEO policies were inclusive without the need of
explicitly naming sexual orientation.

The increasing number of ExxonMobil shareholders who expressed their
concerns through the proxy vote is an encouraging sign, said Shelley
Alpern, vice president at Trillium Asset Management, one of the co-filers
in the resolution.

"The worst thing that can happen is the current leadership of ExxonMobil
will decide to ignore the vote," said Alpern. "However, optimistically,
the next leadership team will seek to change the policy and put this
[issue] behind them."

While no single member of ExxonMobil's executive board has come forward in
support of amending the oil company's policies to include protection for
sexual orientation, Alpern said she believes there are sympathetic board
members who are waiting for the opportunity for change.

She added that ExxonMobil's reluctance to heed the wishes of a growing
number of shareholders is shortsighted, especially as industry peers such
as BP, Shell and ChevronTexaco have adopted non-discrimination policies
that specifically reference sexual orientation.

A total of 81 companies in the Fortune 100 have EEO policies that
expressly ban discriminations on the basic of sexual orientation,
according to data from the HRC. Fifty companies in the Fortune 100 offer
domestic-partner benefits for same-sex partners.

Mills cited candy-maker Tootsie Roll and investment holding company
Berkshire Hathaway -- headed by investment tycoon Warren Buffett -- as
companies that have recently updated employee policies to include sexual
orientation.

"The leadership at these companies have said, 'This is senseless [to
exclude sexual orientation]," Mills said. She added, "Buffett is widely
regarded as one of the greatest investment minds in the world. If Warren
Buffett believes a non-discrimination policy protecting [gay and lesbian
employees] is good for business, why doesn't everybody do this?"