"Gentlemen, I'm pleased to report we've joined the climate metrics club," announces our compensation committee chair, sliding glossy presentation decks across the mahogany boardroom table. "54% of S 500 companies now include climate metrics in executive compensation. We simply couldn't remain outliers."
The CEO nods approvingly while exchanging knowing glances with the CFO. "Excellent. The investors have been asking about this for years."
"And the timing couldn't be better," adds the committee chair. "Our industry is actually leading the charge – 68% of energy companies now have climate metrics in compensation packages, according to The Conference Board's latest survey. We're part of an impressive trend."
"What exactly did Shell do again?" asks a newer board member, still operating under the quaint assumption that transparency matters in these discussions.
"They were early adopters – linked 10% of executive bonuses to greenhouse gas management back in 2016," explains the sustainability officer. "Very forward-thinking."
The CFO smiles thinly. "And they've received excellent press coverage for their leadership."
"Precisely," the compensation chair continues. "Our surveys show 78% of boards plan to change how they use ESG metrics in executive incentive plans. We're simply keeping pace with market expectations."
The CEO leans forward. "And the beauty is, we control exactly how these metrics work." He gestures to the CFO with the casual confidence of someone who's mastered a profitable illusion. "Show them how we've perfected the percentage game."
The Percentage Game: How 15% Looks Like 100% in Press Releases
"Let me walk you through the structure," says the CFO, flipping to a detailed pie chart. "Shell recently increased their climate action weighting from 10% to 15% in their executive bonus structure. We're proposing a similar approach."
"So 15% of compensation is tied to climate performance?" asks the new board member.
"15% of the annual bonus component," clarifies the CFO with practiced precision. "Which itself represents about 20% of total compensation. The long-term incentives – where the real money is – remain primarily tied to production growth and shareholder returns."
"To put this in perspective," interjects the compensation consultant, "BP links 30% of executive pay to production growth metrics despite their emissions reduction pledges. ExxonMobil has 41% linked to production growth."
"And variable pay constitutes approximately 71% of executive total compensation in Europe and 73% in North America," adds the HR director. "That's where the real behavioral incentives lie."
"So what percentage of total compensation is actually tied to climate performance?" persists the new board member.
The CFO smiles. "About 3% when all is said and done. But the press release will highlight our commitment to linking executive compensation to climate goals."
"The beauty is in the framing," nods the communications director, already mentally drafting the press release. "We don't specify the percentage in external communications – we simply announce that executive compensation is now tied to climate performance. The sustainability blogs will praise our leadership without ever asking for the decimal point."
"And that's technically true," the CEO concludes with satisfaction.
The Measurement Magic: Defining Success Until You Achieve It
"Now for the fun part," says the sustainability consultant, advancing to a slide titled 'Metric Design Options.' "We have considerable flexibility in how we define climate 'success.'"
"I assume absolute emissions reductions would be problematic?" asks the CEO.
"Absolutely not recommended," the consultant replies. "Most companies use 'intensity' metrics rather than absolute emissions reductions. Shell's 'energy transition condition' is linked to emissions intensity rather than absolute reductions."
"Remind me of the difference?" asks a board member.
"Intensity measures emissions per unit of production," explains the sustainability officer. "So if we reduce emissions by 10% but increase production by 20%, our intensity improves while our total emissions actually increase."
"ExxonMobil aims for a 30% reduction in emissions intensity by 2030," notes the consultant. "This approach allows for production growth while still meeting climate targets."
"What about baseline years?" asks the CFO. "Can we choose those strategically?"
"Absolutely," nods the consultant. "We recommend selecting a baseline year with particularly high emissions. 2019 was excellent for many companies due to high production levels before the pandemic."
"And boundary setting is another opportunity," continues the consultant. "We can focus on operational emissions where we have more control, rather than including end-use emissions from our products."
"Which represent about 85% of our total carbon footprint," murmurs the sustainability officer.
"Details, details," waves the CEO dismissively. "The point is, we have options."
The Verification Illusion: When You Grade Your Own Climate Homework
"What about verification?" asks the risk officer. "Who confirms we've met these metrics?"
"Research from MIT Sloan shows companies that use third-party auditors initially report higher emissions – about 13.7% higher – but achieve greater reductions over time," notes the sustainability officer.
"That sounds problematic," frowns the CEO.
"Not necessarily," interjects the consultant. "We can select verification partners who understand our business model. ExxonMobil's emissions data is verified by Environmental Resources Management – a consultant they've worked with for years."
"And we control what information they receive," adds the CFO. "The verification process only examines what we choose to disclose."
"Companies with third-party assurance show a year-over-year decline in total emissions of 7.5% and carbon intensity of 3.3%," continues the sustainability officer. "It actually looks better for us long-term to have verification."
"As long as we're defining the metrics and controlling the process," nods the CEO. "I'm comfortable with that."
"The verification report makes excellent material for the sustainability report," adds the communications director. "It signals rigor without actually constraining our operations."
The Bonus Paradox: Getting Paid for Climate While Emissions Rise
"Let's talk results," says the compensation chair. "What can executives expect from these new metrics?"
"The news is excellent," smiles the consultant. "Major oil companies awarded executives nearly £15 million in bonuses for meeting climate targets last year, despite ongoing fossil fuel production."
"ExxonMobil provided the highest environmental bonuses – approximately £5.4 million," adds the CFO admiringly.
"But what if we miss our Paris Agreement alignment?" asks the new board member.
The room erupts in laughter.
"No major oil and gas producer is close to being Paris-aligned," explains the sustainability officer once the laughter subsides. "Carbon Tracker's assessment gave most companies failing grades. BP's grade actually fell from 'D' to 'F' after they abandoned their production curtailment target."
"Yet they still paid climate bonuses," notes the compensation chair.
"That's the beauty of the system," says the CEO. "We design metrics we can achieve regardless of our Paris alignment. The metrics measure progress against our own targets, not external benchmarks."
"A study in PLOS ONE found that oil majors have dramatically increased discourse on climate and clean energy but lack substantial action," adds the sustainability officer. "Despite pledges for decarbonization, actual investments in clean energy remain minimal."
"Perfect," nods the CEO. "That's exactly the balance we're aiming for."
The Climate Metric That Actually Matters
"Just as a thought experiment," ventures the new board member, "what would a compensation structure that genuinely aligned with climate goals look like?"
An uncomfortable silence falls across the boardroom. The CEO's expression hardens slightly, revealing the calculating executive beneath the polished veneer.
"Theoretically," the sustainability officer finally responds, "it would reverse our current structure. Climate performance would dominate financial incentives rather than serving as a minor modifier. Production growth metrics would be eliminated entirely."
"That would fundamentally threaten our business model," states the CEO flatly.
"Precisely," nods the sustainability officer. "Which is why no major oil company has implemented such a structure, despite all the climate metrics fanfare."
The CFO leans back with visible relief. "Our current approach maintains the perfect balance – enough climate metrics to satisfy stakeholder expectations while preserving the incentive structures that actually drive our business."
"So we proceed with the plan as outlined?" confirms the compensation chair.
"Absolutely," the CEO concludes. "15% of the annual bonus tied to carefully crafted climate metrics, verified by our preferred consultants, communicated as a major commitment to sustainability. It's the perfect balance."
"And next year," adds the CFO with a knowing smile, "we can announce we're increasing it to 20%."
The new board member sits quietly, finally understanding that they've witnessed not climate action, but its most sophisticated simulation.
Things to follow up on...
-
SEC Climate Rules: The Securities and Exchange Commission approved its first national climate disclosure rules, requiring companies to report climate-related risks and some greenhouse gas emissions, though the rules are weaker than initially proposed and omit Scope 3 emissions requirements.
-
EPA Methane Reporting: The Environmental Protection Agency has proposed updates to greenhouse gas emissions reporting for the oil and gas sector to improve accuracy, particularly for methane emissions, as part of the Methane Emissions Reduction Program under the Inflation Reduction Act.
-
TCFD Framework Transition: The Task Force on Climate-related Financial Disclosures disbanded in November 2023, transferring oversight of climate-related disclosures to the IFRS Foundation after years of developing frameworks for climate-related financial reporting.
-
Satirical Climate Communication: Research shows that satirical comedy effectively debunks climate change myths and promotes scientific expertise, with studies finding that satirical interventions can correct climate misinformation and engage audiences in meaningful discussions about climate issues.