No Comment, Six Questions — July 20, 2012, 12:00 pm

Private Empire: Six Questions for Steve Coll

steve_coll_author_photo-bin_ladens-_c_lauren_shay_lavin-1 Measured by revenue, ExxonMobil is the largest corporation on earth. Its operations span the globe, and it behaves like a powerful sovereign, exercising immense influence over the governments of the United States and many other nations in which it has operations. Now two-time Pulitzer Prize–winner Steve Coll has written Private Empire: ExxonMobil and American Power, an in-depth study of the company under its past two CEOs, focusing on how it effectively pursues its own foreign policy and deflects demands for fiscal and environmental accountability. I put six questions to Coll about his book:

1. Ida Tarbell published The History of the Standard Oil Company in 1904. More than a century later, you have published a corporate biography of Standard Oil’s offspring, ExxonMobil. How do you relate your work to Tarbell’s?

Without wishing to suggest that my work is of equal value, I was stimulated, as she was, by the dilemmas of concentrated power that big oil companies present. Her investigation took place in an era of monopoly power emerging from rapid industrialization. I thought of my inquiry as located in an era of globalization, limits, and environmental stresses. ExxonMobil’s concentrated power within the United States remains an important problem—the corporation does much more to shape our energy economy than our democratically elected government—but the nature of its power worldwide has changed over a century. I was drawn for example to the scale of ExxonMobil’s influence in some of the poorest African countries where it drills for oil and gas, such as Chad and Equatorial Guinea.

2. ExxonMobil has a reputation for using threats of legal action in attempts to stifle unpleasant exposés—as The New Yorker discovered when it set out to publish Sy Hersh’s work on the Kazakh oil bribery scandal, in which Mobil played a central role. Did you experience any similar pushback from the company as you were researching and writing your book?

They never threatened me. They do walk softly and carry a big stick, however. They work indirectly and they strike at times and places of their own choosing, whether through litigation or other tactics. For example, when Greenpeace got under their skin, they quietly funded a nonprofit watchdog that questioned Greenpeace’s compliance with I.R.S. rules, which ended up generating a federal audit (which Greenpeace says it passed with flying colors). As I understood ExxonMobil’s litigation and information-management strategies, I tried to adapt as best I could. They tie up many of their employees with nondisclosure agreements that are in turn tied to retirement and pension benefits, so that was a difficult knot to unravel as I tried to develop informed sources. So far, so good, but if a van pulls up and its occupants take me away, I’m sure the van will be unmarked and its license plates untraceable.

3. A good deal of your reporting in this book examines ExxonMobil’s aggressive tactics in dealing with scientific studies that have produced conclusions unfriendly to the company. As a general matter, is ExxonMobil’s science honest?

The battle between ExxonMobil and [the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration] . . . illuminated a larger, recurring aspect of the corporation’s influence over American public life. Whether the subject was the damage caused by oil and gasoline spills, climate change, the safety of chemicals ExxonMobil manufactured, or other critical matters involving public health and the environment, the corporation joined directly in scientific controversies to protect its interests. It contracted with academic scientists, and it brought staff scientists out of ExxonMobil laboratories to lobby Congress and regulatory agencies. ExxonMobil’s science bore all the hallmarks of the corporation’s worldwide strategy: It was well funded, carried out by highly competent individuals, unrelenting in its focus on core business issues, and influenced by the litigation strategies of aggressive lawyers. Even the corporation’s most ardent opponents conceded that the individual ExxonMobil staff scientists they encountered were typically ethical and professional. The question that nagged those on the receiving end of ExxonMobil’s blended campaigns of research, lawsuits, and political lobbying was whether the corporation’s science could be judged honest.

—From Private Empire: ExxonMobil and American Power.
Reprinted by permission of The Penguin Press, © 2012 Steve Coll.

I’d say that their scientists are generally honest but their science management policies are not, in the sense that those policies are ultimately controlled by litigators and lobbying arms of the company, which use science not for the pursuit of truth, but as elements in directed arguments and campaigns tailored to advance corporate interests. I would imagine that there are a fair number of scientists within ExxonMobil who feel uncomfortable about the corporation’s uses of science in public policy and litigation, but who are not in a position to express dissent openly. I was able to tease out a little bit of this perception, but I feel confident that there is much more of it than I was able to document.

4. As you describe it, ExxonMobil has been deeply engaged with the global-warming debate. How has it gone about influencing the issue, and how would you assess its effectiveness?

When the Kyoto Accords were signed in 1997, many American industrial corporations opposed the agreement on fairness and economic grounds. ExxonMobil, however, led an additional and often undeclared attack on the science itself. It did so through ideological communications and advocacy groups led by non-scientists in many cases. This campaigning continued until 2006, when it began to back off some. In 2009, the corporation announced its support for a carbon tax, acknowledging for the first time that the risks of global warming justified a price on carbon-based fuels to incent diminished use. However, ExxonMobil has done little to advance this idea in practical ways, and I’m confident that its executives are satisfied that such a tax looks politically implausible at the moment. The legacy of the corporation’s campaign to challenge climate science remains significant. There is a wide gap between what the public believes global-warming science to hold and what qualified scientists believe it to hold. That gap was opened at least in part by ExxonMobil’s distinctive campaigning after Kyoto.

5. You suggest that under CEO Rex Tillerson, ExxonMobil has softened its opposition to government efforts to address global warming. But in a speech at the Council on Foreign Relations a few weeks ago, Tillerson downplayed the threat generated by global warming, saying “it’s an engineering problem, and it has engineering solutions.” Is Tillerson’s position really different from that of former CEO Lee Raymond?

[T]he environment in which ExxonMobil and the Bush administration devised parallel approaches to managing science and public policy in the age of oil spills and global warming was influenced by several factors that Darwin would not have recognized. One was the prominence of lawyers and their win-for-the-client mind-sets. The tobacco industry’s near bankruptcy had demonstrated that not even talented lawyers could overcome terrible facts in a product liability matter. Yet that example had also shown how industry funding and purposeful, subtle campaigning could profitably delay a legal reckoning for a dangerous product through the manipulation of public opinion, government policy, and scientific discourse.

—From Private Empire: ExxonMobil and American Power.
Reprinted by permission of The Penguin Press, © 2012 Steve Coll.

Raymond has a personal conviction that global-warming science is wrong. I don’t see evidence that Tillerson believes differently; he has just been less assertive and has pursued different corporate tactics. His comments about adaptation at the Council were surprising. I found them tone deaf in ways I don’t typically associate with Tillerson.

6. Over the past twenty years a large global movement has arisen demanding greater transparency surrounding payments made by natural-resources companies to the governments in the developing world, where rent-seeking and corruption have historically been rampant. ExxonMobil has been a leading voice opposing measures requiring the industry to publish what it pays to these governments. Considering countries like Equatorial Guinea, what do you expect we would learn from this payment information?

privateempire_300dpi-1

ExxonMobil has supported some versions of transparency, but it is lobbying now against the Dodd-Frank rules that would make required disclosures much more detailed. The hypothesis that transparent information about payments by resource companies to host governments will reduce rent-seeking and corruption depends on the presence of local civil-society groups and democratic opposition to press accountability on the government. Unfortunately those groups are not present in Equatorial Guinea because the government has suppressed them. In other African countries where ExxonMobil operates, such as Chad and Angola, there are some civil-society groups, but they are weak. So I think it may take much more than transparent information to change conditions in these places. By locating the struggle around that issue alone, I suspect the corporations recognize they have an advantage because (a) they have the power to lobby to tailor the rules and (b) they are not accountable for anything more than disclosure. My own view is that in a country like Chad—one of the very poorest on Earth—corporate responsibility by ExxonMobil has to encompass much more.

Share
Single Page
undefined

More from Scott Horton:

Conversation August 5, 2016, 12:08 pm

Lincoln’s Party

Sidney Blumenthal on the origins of the Republican Party, the fallout from Clinton’s emails, and his new biography of Abraham Lincoln

Conversation March 30, 2016, 3:44 pm

Burn Pits

Joseph Hickman discusses his new book, The Burn Pits, which tells the story of thousands of U.S. soldiers who, after returning from Iraq and Afghanistan, have developed rare cancers and respiratory diseases.

Context, No Comment August 28, 2015, 12:16 pm

Beltway Secrecy

In five easy lessons

Get access to 167 years of
Harper’s for only $45.99

United States Canada

CATEGORIES

THE CURRENT ISSUE

March 2018

Nobody Knows

= Subscribers only.
Sign in here.
Subscribe here.

The Other Whisper Network

= Subscribers only.
Sign in here.
Subscribe here.

The Infinity of the Small

= Subscribers only.
Sign in here.
Subscribe here.

Empty Suits

= Subscribers only.
Sign in here.
Subscribe here.

The Great Divide

= Subscribers only.
Sign in here.
Subscribe here.

view Table Content

FEATURED ON HARPERS.ORG

Article
The Other Whisper Network·

= Subscribers only.
Sign in here.
Subscribe here.

No one would talk to me for this piece. Or rather, more than twenty women talked to me, sometimes for hours at a time, but only after I promised to leave out their names, and give them what I began to call deep anonymity. This was strange, because what they were saying did not always seem that extreme. Yet here in my living room, at coffee shops, in my inbox and on my voicemail, were otherwise outspoken female novelists, editors, writers, real estate agents, professors, and journalists of various ages so afraid of appearing politically insensitive that they wouldn’t put their names to their thoughts, and I couldn’t blame them. 

Of course, the prepublication frenzy of Twitter fantasy and fury about this essay, which exploded in early January, is Exhibit A for why nobody wants to speak openly. Before the piece was even finished, let alone published, people were calling me “pro-rape,” “human scum,” a “harridan,” a “monster out of Stephen King’s ‘IT,’?” a “ghoul,” a “bitch,” and a “garbage person”—all because of a rumor that I was planning to name the creator of the so-called Shitty Media Men list. The Twitter feminist Jessica Valenti called this prospect “profoundly shitty” and “incredibly dangerous” without having read a single word of my piece. Other tweets were more direct: “man if katie roiphe actually publishes that article she can consider her career over.” “Katie Roiphe can suck my dick.” With this level of thought policing, who in their right mind would try to say anything even mildly provocative or original? 

Illustration by Shonagh Rae
Article
Pushing the Limit·

= Subscribers only.
Sign in here.
Subscribe here.

In the early Eighties, Andy King, the coach of the Seawolves, a swim club in Danville, California, instructed Debra Denithorne, aged twelve, to do doubles — to practice in the morning and the afternoon. King told Denithorne’s parents that he saw in her the potential to receive a college scholarship, and even to compete in the Olympics. Tall swimmers have an advantage in the water, and by the time Denithorne turned thirteen, she was five foot eight. She dropped soccer and a religious group to spend more time at the pool.

Illustration by Shonagh Rae
Post
CamperForce·

= Subscribers only.
Sign in here.
Subscribe here.

After losing their savings in the stock market crash of 2008, seniors Barb and Chuck find seasonal employment at Amazon fulfillment centers.

Days after the Columbine shootings in 1999 that Eric Holder called for “regulations in how people interact on the Internet‚”:

5

The 63 percent drop in Brazil’s birth rate between 1960 and 2000 was due in part to soap operas.

US president Donald Trump, who once said it “doesn’t matter” what journalists write about him if he has a “piece of ass” that is “young,” blamed the press coverage of the abuse allegations on the White House communications director, whom Trump has reportedly called a “piece of tail” and asked to steam a pair of pants he was wearing.

Subscribe to the Weekly Review newsletter. Don’t worry, we won’t sell your email address!

HARPER’S FINEST

Report — From the June 2013 issue

How to Make Your Own AR-15

= Subscribers only.
Sign in here.
Subscribe here.

By

"Gun owners have long been the hypochondriacs of American politics. Over the past twenty years, the gun-rights movement has won just about every battle it has fought; states have passed at least a hundred laws loosening gun restrictions since President Obama took office. Yet the National Rifle Association has continued to insist that government confiscation of privately owned firearms is nigh. The NRA’s alarmism helped maintain an active membership, but the strategy was risky: sooner or later, gun guys might have realized that they’d been had. Then came the shootings at a movie theater in Aurora, Colorado, and at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Connecticut, followed swiftly by the nightmare the NRA had been promising for decades: a dedicated push at every level of government for new gun laws. The gun-rights movement was now that most insufferable of species: a hypochondriac taken suddenly, seriously ill."

Subscribe Today