#ethics

Ethics, that is why it is crooked

Here's something I genuinely don't understnd. We had two openings for testing and QA roles that required basic test automation skills. Nothing particularly complex. Anyone with a reasonable technical background could probably learn what we needed within a month, possibly faster with today's AI tools.

I'd imagine there are 100s, if not 1000s, of unemployed American workers with these skills who would have been interested. The compensation was excellent, and the work itself was fairly interesting.

Instead, we hired two H1B workers whose technical abilities have been questionable so far. Both also struggle with communication and interpersonal skills, which matters because the positions involve some customer interaction.

What I don't understand is why we didn't properly advertise these positions and give qualified domestic candidates a fair opportunity. Was there a genuine shortage of available talent, or was there some other incentive to hire through the H1B program?

I'm genuinely curious how these hiring decisions get made because, from where I'm sitting, none of this makes sense.

I've been hearing rumors that it's common practice for large DSD brands to incentivize Managers, RBLs, RVPs and higher with personal gifts & monetary gift cards to execute their vision in stores. This seems very unethical and wondering how it will be received when/if a public company (Kroger) takes over. It's concerning if these "leaders" are receiving tens of thousands of dollars in monetary gifts to sell-out the company. Wasn't someone just fired a few years ago for doing similar?

Has anyone heard/seen anything similar in your stores?

The summit this week to reset the E&I Department is less of a strategic breakthrough and more of a desperate exercise in corporate CYA. After twelve long months of toxic management, ignored warnings, and immense personal strain placed on frontline staff, leadership is attempting to sweep a year of chaos under the rug with a single meeting. But true ethical leadership isn't about deflecting blame when things collapse, it requires genuine responsibility. You cannot hold an honest reset while refusing to acknowledge how we got here, who enabled the crisis, or who is still sitting at the table.

Hosting a reset meeting is a farce when leadership ignores the actual timeline of events. For an entire year, investigators were pushed to their absolute limits under unrealistic deadlines, while HR took months of internal and external reviews just to conclude what everyone on the ground already knew: CJM was a terrible fit. To add insult to injury, every employee who bravely raised a concern was met with zero follow-up and total silence.

How does it make any sense to host a reset summit when the very leaders who enabled and drove this toxic environment (SV, LW, MZ) are sitting right there in attendance? While frontline team members faced retaliation and targeted pressure for speaking up, CJM, SV, LW, MZ operated with full protection. You simply cannot repair a broken culture alongside the people who broke it.

What happened here is every company’s worst-case scenario: employees crying out for help while leadership turns a blind eye. Team members endured horrific psychological strain, spending sleepless nights wondering if they would even have a job tomorrow. Meanwhile, executives sat back protected, collected their paychecks, and cashed out their stock options while money and a full year of progress went down the drain.

This was an executive leadership failure from the top down, starting with CK. If leadership actually wants to heal this department then CK must open the summit with a real apology, admit he protected a so-called expert at the expense of the team, and step aside if he can't fix it. The new interim E&I Officer must be given unfiltered access to every complaint directly, bypassing executive summaries.

Ultimately, an institutional "reset" cannot be considered credible when it refuses to address the root causes of the crisis, the leadership failures that enabled it, or the continued presence of those responsible at the decision-making table. True organizational restoration requires more than performative gestures; it demands full transparency, decisive corrective action, and executive-level accountability. Until leadership moves beyond empty rhetoric and confronts these systemic failures directly, this summit remains a superficial exercise in damage control rather than a genuine path toward structural reform.

I know it doesn’t take too much time in the whole scheme of things but why would we have another mandatory training/exercise this time of year? Didn’t we just do this?

The head of the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC) declared Wednesday that his agency uncovered "irrefutable evidence that the nation's largest banks have denied, debanked and discriminated against customers and lawful businesses," including over political views.

Comptroller of the Currency Jonathan Gould made the remark after the OCC said it investigated debanking activities at the nine largest banks it supervises: JPMorgan Chase Bank, Bank of America, Citibank, Wells Fargo Bank, U.S. Bank, Capital One, PNC Bank, TD Bank and BMO Bank. The practice of debanking is the denial, restriction or closure of an individual’s or organization’s access to banking services.

The 47-page OCC report found that in February 2021, under the Biden administration, "a payment processor owned by one bank closed the account of a merchant that sold merchandise promoting President Trump and the Make America Great Again (MAGA) brand." And two years later, "one bank declined to provide financial services to a public education organization due to its partisan leanings — namely, the organization’s political arm’s endorsement of solely Democratic candidates."

https://www.foxbusiness.com/politics/us-regulator-accuses-nations-largest-banks-debanking-customers-over-political-views

The tech hiring at Citi is flooded by rampant immigration fraud, and remote interviewing is completely enabling it.

Candidates are using AI, lip-syncing to cheat through screens, while others lie about holding Green Cards to secure interviews.

All Citi locations in Texas, Florida, the UK, Ireland, and India must stop falling for this 'known' scam. 😁

Automated tests like Karat are useless.

The fix is simple: mandate in-person interviews and demand "physical" passports, degrees, and H1B, H4 EAD, or OPT paperwork on-site. Put them in front of a physical whiteboard with a marker. Let’s see them show off their real "cooking skills". They will definitely get cooked. I bet most of the candidates do not even show up for the interviewa!

Posted on the MPC site, but it certainly applies here

Started to think about our executive leadership team’s compensation, especially our CEO’s, while sitting at my desk eating lunch today. MPC stock is over $470 per share!

My first inclination is that it is due to superior capital allocation, fiscal responsibility and smart creative acquisitions. Then I realized it is more likely due to large stock buybacks, Trump’s illegal war with Iran, Trump’s inability to end the Russia-Ukraine war the first day he was in office as he bragged he would do, and Wallstreet fund managers chasing the MPC momentum trade.

Since the latter reasons are most accurate, it leads me to conclude our executive leadership team’s outrageous compensation, driven by their incentive stock options, is mostly ill-gotten and unearned while lowly engineers like me make our facilities run smoothly day in and day out with little recognition.

Nonetheless life isn’t fair! We live in a time of morally bankrupt grift exhibited by our politicians, tech oligarchs, corporate leaders, and Wallstreet financiers. Remember to vote November 3rd

Is anyone else staring to suspect the numbers are cooked?

It's taken from the wall street discriminates and reproduced below without any editing. Whoever wrote this, is absolutely bang on the money and most likely got managed out because had enough skillset and knowledge to be hired elsewhere, didn't need to k1ss @ss and for this reason was probably branded 'difficult to manage' and managed out. The last line is very telling of the present circumstances in a few different palaces in the US

Yes, indeed. Citi MDs are entitled, lazy, bossy, and selfish. For the uninformed reader, let me explain what that means.

Entitled. Citi MDs think the title is an anointment in recognition of their talent. It’s just the opposite. They were chosen for being the biggest followers of all, the ones who blindly implement imbecilic instructions from the top, ethics and right-doing be damned.

Lazy. Citi MDs (and directors) don’t do the work. They’re middle managers who relay orders without creating any value, a buffer between senior executives and the people doing the work.

Many insist you go through their EA just to get on their calendar. That process props up their sense of superiority and lets them dodge hard conversations and any accountability for giving you the runaround.

One Risk MD blamed her unresponsiveness on not having a Chief of Staff. Never mind that those roles were cut in the reorg, or that she was never senior enough to have one. It was a cop-out for poor time management, a skill she should have mastered as a VP.

Bossy. Citi MDs lack vision and subject-matter knowledge. They can’t inspire you or coach you on your work. They issue an edict and expect it to be carried out like gospel. They won’t follow up or notice you’re struggling. But once someone points a finger, they know exactly where to go to pile on.

Selfish. Citi MDs care about one thing: their next promotion. They create the illusion of success while adding no value to the bank.

Many of them are proud to call themselves “institutionalized.” That may be the best explanation for why transformation has failed. You can’t change how an organization works with the same people who embody the behaviors and mindsets that need to change.

When a clown moves into a palace, he doesn’t become a king. The palace becomes a circus. Truth.

now pay the 1.21 big billion plus losing face in having to admit being a wilfully complicit by having weak controls and unskilled people

https://www.cnn.com/2026/10/13/investing/bank-of-america-billion-dollar-fine

India has abused H1B openly. Just look around you….how come no one will put a stop to this and ask why thousands of people come on H1B, ask your company this question.

Corporate slogan update. America is aware of your racket.

What is the policy about it? A tm in my store does it all the time. Also, the tm is one of the favorites. So nothing has happened. Yet.

Put your answer in the comments

Maybe they need to learn how to treat their employees better?

I would like to see an audit of the miles expense leaders are claiming. The policy states you must deduct your miles from home to your Report location.

Hope you haven’t been submitting miles for your local commute.Report your directors and Sr managers if you know something.

Companies that replace American workers with cheaper labor in India are prioritizing profits over people, undermining the livelihoods of hardworking families and contributing to the decline of the American middle class. This practice not only exploits foreign workers but also betrays the trust of American employees who deserve fair opportunities.

Our department got a low engagement results on our annual survey. This year our director told everyone that we own the results and need to fix it at our monthly safety meeting. Not sure if he is suggesting we need to score higher or lie next year to help the department!

Is this ethical?

Just like Adobe was banned today regarding the green card ban, Intuit should’ve also been on that list as well.

Look at the engineer org, pick any manager, look at the team he/she has. It’s not a coincidence, we hired around 8-10 ppl in the past 2-3 months. All were on visa.

Also I’m too afraid to report any of that to HR so spilling my guts here.

That'd be it. Stop the abuse. Finally. It's all over the news... "The U.S. Department of Labor announced that PERM labor certification processing has been suspended for eight technology and IT services companies: Capgemini, Infosys, Adobe, HCL Technologies, Microsoft, Tata Consultancy Services, Cognizant and Wipro. The suspension covers both new and pending applications."

The government cracked down on MSFT and its persistently outrageous abuse of visas. What about XOM? Are we so afraid to do do something and let everything die while planning for early retirement?

Well, holy shiatballs NoCenteam Nation!!!

Yesterday, Florida's First District Court of Appeal ordered the entire 116-page Hope Florida grand jury report expunged! The grand jury had called the movement of $10 million from Centene's Medicaid settlement a "sophisticated scheme" and said the money was misappropriated. The appellate court basically said not so fast nope: the grand jury could not declare conduct unlawful, name people responsible, decline to indict them, and then publish the accusations anyway. It also found serious disclosure problems and concluded that the $10 million was not an identified Medicaid overcharge and never became State of Florida property.[1]

That's a big deal. If we've cited the grand jury as proof somebody committed a crime, that part just got blown up. No indictments were returned, the appellate court rejected the report's central legal theory, and the ruling expressly says third-party settlement payments like this were not prohibited by the Florida statutes the grand jury relied upon.[1]

But here's where this gets a he-l of a lot more interesting. The court ordered the report expunged. It did not erase the transaction. Centene's original settlement draft sent the entire roughly $67 million to Florida. Then AHCA briefed the governor's office on September 10, 2024. The next day a new draft contained a $5 million Hope Florida payment. On September 12 that payment got a special seven-day deadline while Florida could wait up to 45 days for its first payment. On September 13 the Hope Florida amount doubled to $10 million, with no explanation in the email record for why. Florida's own Chief Deputy Attorney General wrote that the payment section was "different than I have seen in a settlement with Medicaid monies."[2]

And Centene's lawyers weren't asleep at the wheel. They inserted language making clear Centene was "directed by the state" to make the payment and that Centene had no authority over the state's allocation or subsequent distribution of the settlement money.[3]

(That's actually pretty smart lawyering.)

More importantly, Centene's lawyers clearly considered the payment's authorization important enough to negotiate specific protections around it.

So here's the question nobody should let disappear just because the grand jury report did:

What did Centene's Legal, Compliance, executive leadership, and anyone responsible for government-contract risk actually review before approving this?

Because as we discussed in my last post, Centene tells employees that "Compliance is Everyone's Responsibility." It requires ethics and compliance training at hire and annually. Every employee completes annual Fraud, Waste and Abuse training. We were quizzed and had to attest to it. Very thoroughly, I might add! The company says employees should be vigilant, think critically, report concerns, and protect taxpayer dollars. They really love that part and hammer it home in multiple areas. Centene even tells CMS that MCOs need better information sharing so they can eliminate fraud blind spots.[4][5]

So here's a pretty simple governance question:

How much scrutiny does a $10 million politically sensitive settlement payment go through?

It gets better.

Florida officials have confirmed that when the state calculated what it owed the federal government from the settlement, it used the full $67 million, including the $10 million sent directly to Hope Florida.[6]

So follow this carefully:

For federal Medicaid settlement accounting, Florida treated the full $67 million as the basis for reimbursement.

BUT...

The appellate court says the $10 million sent to Hope Florida never became public money.[1][6]

Those two things may have a completely legitimate legal explanation. Federal Medicaid accounting rules and Florida property law are not necessarily the same thing.

Great. Somebody please take the mic and explain it.

Because "legal under this Florida statute" and "nothing to see here" are not remotely the same sentence.

Then there's what happened next. Hope Florida sent the $10 million to two nonprofits. Those nonprofits subsequently sent $8.5 million to Keep Florida Clean, the political committee fighting Amendment 3.[2] Centene says it had "no part in or knowledge of" Hope Florida's subsequent use of the money, and I have seen no evidence proving otherwise.[3]

That distinction really matters here.

So don't accuse Centene of secretly funding a political campaign. The evidence doesn't establish that.

Ask the much harder question:

Why did one of America's largest Medicaid contractors agree to an unusual $10 million third-party payment inside a Medicaid settlement, what diligence was performed, who signed off internally, and what documentation exists showing the risk was reviewed?

And now the process used to challenge and ultimately expunge the grand jury report is generating its own questions.

Florida Trident reports that the appeal which eliminated the report proceeded with no party arguing in defense of the report, while taxpayers have paid more than $300,000 to two law firms involved in the grand-jury matter, plus additional publicly funded legal work by a third firm. The ruling arrived 27 days before Attorney General James Uthmeier's election and is not final until any rehearing proceedings are resolved.[7]

That does prove political interference not prove political interference.

But if you're a reporter, legislator, auditor, shareholder, or analyst, you'd have to be working pretty hard not to have follow-up questions.

And don't forget the IRS!

The IRS Whistleblower Office has acknowledged a submission concerning the Hope Florida money trail and assigned it a claim number. That does not mean the IRS has opened an examination, much less found wrongdoing. But federal tax questions surrounding the foundation are separate from the Florida appellate court's ruling and remain unresolved.[8]

Which brings us to Wall Street...

CNC is trading around $65, roughly 7% below its September 52-week high. There is no evidence the market is pricing Hope Florida as a material financial event today. Frankly, investors have bigger immediate concerns: Medicaid margins, Marketplace risk, Medicare retrenchment, membership losses, and hundreds of millions in restructuring expenses.

Centene has told investors it expects roughly $315-$365 million of additional severance costs during the remainder of 2026, on top of enterprise-optimization and contract-exit costs already incurred. Q2 Medicaid HBR was 93.9%. Management nevertheless raised 2026 adjusted EPS guidance to greater than $4.80.[9]

And Centene reports Q3 earnings on October 27 at 8:30 a.m. ET.[10]

So, analysts, here's some free homework before everybody asks another question about basis points:

1. Did Centene's Audit and Compliance, Quality and Compliance, or any other board-level committee review the Hope Florida settlement or its $10 million third-party payment?

2. What internal compliance, legal, reputational-risk, or government-affairs review was performed before Centene agreed to the Hope Florida provision?

3. Who inside Centene had final authority to approve an unusual third-party payment in a settlement involving one of its largest Medicaid states?

4. Has Centene received any subpoena, inquiry, document request, whistleblower-related communication, or other contact from the IRS, DOJ, HHS OIG, CMS, Florida officials, or any other authority concerning Hope Florida?

5. Has the company determined that no disclosure relating to this matter is required under its SEC risk-factor, litigation, regulatory, or contingency obligations? If so, why?

6. With hundreds of millions being spent on severance and "enterprise optimization," what controls are in place to make sure institutional compliance knowledge isn't walking out the door while Centene simultaneously asks regulators for greater authority to police everyone else's fraud, waste, and abuse?

That last one matters beyond Florida.

Centene's own 2026 shareholder materials say:

"We do what is right, not what is easy."[11]

Centene also says "Every dollar lost to FWA is a dollar unavailable for member care."[5]

Those are pretty strong standards.

And to be crystal clear, the appellate court did NOT find that Centene misdirected funds, knowingly financed political activity, or participated in an illegal scheme. Neither am I saying that.

I'm pointing out the gap between Centene's very public emphasis on compliance, transparency, FWA controls, and protecting taxpayer dollars and the unanswered questions surrounding an unusual $10 million third-party provision in a Medicaid settlement.

Maybe Centene's controls worked perfectly.

Maybe Legal documented every concern.

Maybe Compliance blessed it.

Maybe leadership asked exactly the right questions and concluded the payment was appropriate.

Fantastic.

Then this should be the easiest question Sarah London gets all quarter:

Who reviewed the $10 million, what did they conclude, and will Centene show its work?

Because after all the annual FWA training, ethics modules, SIU investigations, accountability speeches, layoffs, optimization, and lectures about protecting taxpayer dollars...

Compliance is Everyone's Responsibility.

Apparently transparency should be, too.

[1] Florida First District Court of Appeal, In re: Leon County Grand Jury Presentment, Fall of 2025, No. 1D2026-2435, Oct. 7, 2026.

[2] Florida Trident, "Hope Florida timeline: Tracing the $10 million," Oct. 2026; underlying AHCA, Attorney General, and settlement drafting records.

[3] Miami Herald/Tampa Bay Times reporting on newly released settlement drafts and Centene's "directed by the state" language; Centene settlement agreement.

[4] Centene Code of Conduct and Ethics & Compliance materials: annual FWA training, reporting obligations, ethical decision-making, and "Compliance is Everyone's Responsibility."

[5] Centene, "Combating Fraud, Waste and Abuse"; Centene's Feb. 25, 2026 FWA reform letter to CMS.

[6] PolitiFact, Aug. 13, 2026: Florida officials confirmed federal reimbursement was calculated using the full $67 million settlement.

[7] Florida Trident, Oct. 8, 2026: appellate proceeding, taxpayer-funded legal invoices, and absence of an adversary defending the report.

[8] Florida Trident/WUSF, Oct. 2, 2026: IRS Whistleblower Office acknowledgment concerning the Hope Florida transactions.

[9] Centene Q2 2026 Form 10-Q and earnings release.

[10] Centene Investor Relations: Q3 2026 earnings call scheduled Oct. 27, 2026, 8:30 a.m. ET.

[11] Centene 2026 Proxy Statement/2025 Annual Report.

Next is Oracle

Court filings by the Massachusetts attorney general’s office include previously undisclosed documents, revealing new details about internal deliberations at the oil giant.

By Nicholas Kusnetz
October 7, 2026

If there was a year the world began waking up to climate change, it might have been 1988. That June, the NASA climatologist James Hansen testified to Congress that the climate was warming and would continue to do so as long as humans pumped fossil fuel pollution into the atmosphere. Months later, the United Nations established the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.

And, just weeks before the U.N. vote, Frank Sprow of Exxon’s corporate research department warned his colleagues in an internal memo, “If a worldwide consensus emerges that action is needed to mitigate against Greenhouse gas effects, substantial negative impacts on Exxon could occur.”

Sprow’s memo is part of a batch of previously undisclosed documents released earlier this year without fanfare as part of an ongoing lawsuit Massachusetts filed against ExxonMobil in 2019. While the memo was quoted in a 2023 article by The Wall Street Journal, it has not been published in full. Several other documents included in the filings are being reported on here for the first time, including more recent statements from Exxon scientists challenging the company’s climate-solution claims about its work on biofuels and carbon capture and storage.

While the documents align with hundreds of confidential files that have previously come to light through reporting by Inside Climate News and other news organizations, as well as lawsuits and other sources, experts say they provide new details on internal deliberations at Exxon from the 1980s to the 2010s.

The release of the documents comes at a pivotal time for the oil industry and for efforts to hold it accountable for its role fueling climate change. This week, the U.S. Supreme Court heard arguments from Exxon and oil producer Suncor Energy that a lawsuit filed by the city and county of Boulder, Colorado, should be halted. The outcome of that decision could decide whether more than two dozen other claims against oil companies proceed.

Aaron Regunberg, director of climate accountability at the advocacy group Public Citizen, said the documents from the Massachusetts case underscore why Exxon and other companies are fighting to block the lawsuits from even proceeding to the discovery phase.

“They are really scared of the public finding out about this reality,” Regunberg said of oil companies. The Massachusetts filings, he said, suggest “that we have seen just a sliver of the evidence that they actually have that they’ve spent decades knowingly deceiving the public about this crisis. How many more reports are they sitting on?”

Most of the lawsuits assert that oil companies should help pay the escalating costs being imposed on the public by climate-fueled extreme weather because they knew the risks their products posed but worked to publicly question climate science and stymie efforts to curb emissions. Those costs have surged, topping $100 billion in the U.S. in four of the last five years. Exxon, meanwhile, reported nearly $19 billion in earnings over the first six months of this year alone.

Exxon did not respond to requests for comment, but it has denied misleading the public or investors about climate change. In its annual securities filing, the company said of the lawsuits, “We believe the legal and factual theories set forth in these proceedings are meritless and represent an inappropriate attempt to use the court system to usurp the proper role of policymakers in addressing the societal challenges of climate change.”

The case brought by the Massachusetts attorney general’s office in state court is slightly different from others, arguing that the company deceived the state’s consumers and investors into thinking it was taking action to limit warming when those efforts were more about public relations than real action. The state is seeking fines and an injunction blocking Exxon’s allegedly deceptive practices.

The new documents, filed as part of a dispute over whether Exxon should be forced to hand over more files and testimony, help lay out the state’s case.

Take biofuels. For years, Exxon ran a sustained public relations campaign touting its research into using algae to make fuel, which it said could be a sustainable alternative to petroleum.

In March, The Wall Street Journal reported on internal documents that showed Exxon’s scientists told executives the company’s targets were not feasible. The new disclosures in the Massachusetts case add to the evidence with excerpts from a deposition by an Exxon scientist who worked on the program.

Asked whether a 2018 press release, which said Exxon anticipated “10,000 barrels of algae biofuel per day could be produced by 2025,” was misleading, the scientist said “yes,” adding, “All the clauses in there are patently false.”

The scientist testified that the 10,000-barrel-per-day target was “completely impossible to achieve,” and that he told this to others at the company before the press release was issued.

In another instance, the scientist said a research development on algae that Exxon publicly claimed as a breakthrough was, in fact, “a dead end.”

Exxon later dropped its research into algae biofuels but has continued to promote carbon capture and storage as a climate solution. The documents include some statements which, according to the attorney general’s office, show Exxon knew that technology was also unlikely to present a scalable solution to cutting emissions.

A 2014 presentation on Exxon’s carbon capture portfolio included a slide listing challenges to reaching commercial scale. It noted widespread deployment would require a “massive investment” and an eventual storage rate “comparable to current oil and gas production.” It said costs were high and there were no market-based incentives.

Three years later, a different Exxon scientist was asked by a colleague to record an advertisement for the technology. He noted that the company was calling itself a leader in carbon capture but said he was “not a big fan” of the claim. At the time, Exxon’s carbon capture operations were largely restricted to gas processing plants that stripped the climate pollutant out of methane and injected it into oil or gas fields. That technology, he said, “has nothing to do” with the type of carbon capture that Exxon and others were promoting for power plants and industrial facilities.

That scientist later appeared in an ad promoting research he was conducting on carbon capture without any claim that Exxon was a leader in the technology.

Another presentation from 2017 appears to show the advertisements for algae and carbon capture were among the company’s highest performing, calling them “All-Around Winners.”

In 2021, Exxon was still promoting its work in carbon capture. An internal presentation about an advertising campaign targeting political and financial leaders said its objective was to get people to “believe ExxonMobil is committed to helping solve climate change” and to proving the company and carbon capture and storage “play an indispensable role in facilitating the transition to a lower carbon energy system.”

Under a header of “what we’re doing,” the presentation listed a proposed hub for carbon capture in Houston that Exxon no longer promotes.

While the Massachusetts case focuses on these more recent campaigns, the filings include earlier records that serve as concise roadmaps for what would become Exxon’s climate strategy in the following decades, said Geoffrey Supran, an associate professor of environmental science and policy at the University of Miami. He has published studies comparing Exxon’s public statements with its internal documents and is a consulting expert on some climate-related legal actions.

It was November 1988, five months after Hansen’s congressional testimony, when Sprow filed his draft memo.

With the threat of climate action looming, he wrote, the company’s research and development on “Greenhouse” should have two primary goals: “Protect the value of our resources (oil, gas, coal),” and “Preserve Exxon’s business options.”

Sprow then laid out an agenda for how to achieve those ends.

With modeling critical to climate science, he wrote, “it could be considered important to be at the forefront of this modeling effort.” Sprow proposed “supporting a person on staff at one of the leading modeling centers (e.g. Princeton) or by sending one of our people to work in such a center.”

Sprow also recommended monitoring alternative energy technologies, including nuclear, solar and biofuels, to understand their viability as alternatives to fossil fuels or, eventually, for possible business development. Finally, he added, Exxon could look for “a research breakthrough” in one of these areas that would align with the company’s business.

Sprow did not respond to requests for comment from Inside Climate News, but he told The Wall Street Journal that his memo was adopted as corporate policy.

“This is the playbook all in one place.”

— Geoffrey Supran, University of Miami associate professor
By the late 1990s, Exxon and other oil companies were working assertively to convince the public and government officials that enacting policies to limit climate pollution would impose grave costs on society.

One newly published Exxon memo summarizing a 1997 meeting of a climate steering group at the American Petroleum Institute, a trade group, outlines many key elements of the strategy.

With governments poised to negotiate an international climate agreement in Kyoto, the steering group would recommend that API “continue to question the scientific basis and cite the high economic cost” of policies to address climate change and “avoid pressures to negotiate a compromise.”

The memo cited polling about which arguments would “resonate with the public.”

It also said Exxon was planning to fund a climate change project by Jonathan Adler of the free-market oriented Competitive Enterprise Institute, who had come to the meeting seeking support. Exxon asked Adler to “focus their project more narrowly” on the impacts of climate policy proposals on individuals and trade competitiveness. The memo outlined a grassroots campaign and efforts with labor unions, and said API continued to work with the American Enterprise Institute, another conservative think tank, to arrange a seminar about a letter written by economists. The goal was to “prevent its misuse by advocates or near-term action.”

“These are sophisticated strategies to use and we-ponize experts in order to perpetuate their denial,” said Supran, who co-authored an amicus brief supporting Boulder in the case against Exxon and Suncor. “This is the playbook all in one place.”

In an interview, Adler rejected the argument that he was promoting climate denial. “I can’t speak to what API or Exxon’s motivations were,” said Adler, now a professor at William & Mary Law School. “What I can say is the work we did at CEI at the time was very much focused on what was accurate and correct and consistent with the principles the organization was founded on.”

He said it was natural for his organization to seek funding from companies and entities that also supported limited government regulation.

This year, Adler wrote a brief supporting Boulder in the case before the Supreme Court, arguing that its claims were not preempted by federal law and should be allowed to proceed in state court. He did not take a position on the merits of Boulder’s claims.

By 2005, when Exxon was facing public criticism for its support for groups that questioned climate science, a company spokesperson told Mother Jones magazine that Exxon believed “the scientific evidence on greenhouse gas emissions remains inconclusive and that studies must continue.” She also said Exxon had devoted large sums to university research programs, including a planned $100 million to Stanford University’s Global Climate and Energy Project.

The following year, documents from the Massachusetts case now show, a colleague arranged a meeting for the spokesperson with two self-identified global warming skeptics.

By the 2010s, Exxon’s public position on climate change had evolved. It was no longer questioning science, a position that became harder to maintain as scientists’ conclusions grew stronger and the United States joined the Paris Agreement in 2015. In fact, following Sprow’s advice, the company had one of its research scientists contributing to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.

Exxon was fending off concerns from shareholders that it was failing to prepare its business for the risks posed by climate change, so it began work on a “climate risk matrix,” the documents show. In 2016, the Exxon scientist who contributed to the U.N. climate panel warned colleagues of the risk of climate tipping points, the probability of which were “poorly understood but probability is expected to rise with temperature change.” He noted that failure to limit emissions would have a growing influence on temperatures beyond 2040 and cited concerns that the impacts of hitting tipping points “would be significantly larger” than the direct effects of heat.

And yet, the Massachusetts case shows, Exxon continued to promote solutions that its own scientists said were unlikely to reach commercial scale. The vast majority of its money instead went to oil and gas, the production of which Exxon plans to expand more than 15 percent by 2030.

This story was updated Oct. 7, 2026, to clarify that Jonathan Adler is now a professor at William & Mary Law School.

https://insideclimatenews.org/news/07102026/exxonmobil-climate-deception-new-evidence/

Layoff discussions and fearmongering exists at SAP not because the company doesn't have money to pay the employees. It exists because the company doesn't have enough money to satisfy the personal greed of the executive board and career politicians. We need less dragons and more knights at SAP. And I am extremely disappointed with employees who get distracted by nonsensical issues such as trans people at SAP, CK fans who support CK no matter what, managers who have not written a single line of code in their life but manage technical architects, hatred towards Indians at Signavio, SAP employees at WDF and ROT who don't want anyone in other locations to grow, the spineless supervisory board that only wants to maximize executive bonuses, the even more spineless works council members that protect pedophiles and SA abusers but not the victims, performance management which disrespectfully treats employees as children and only managers as adults, the AI token count duck measuring competition that is not helping the business one bit, etc. WHEN WILL THIS END?

If you ever feel you where
a)Ill-treated
b)Under-Payed
c)Not-Promoted
d)Your salaries remained stagnant but an H1B employer received higher salary
e)You weren’t promoted while a team consists of more H1 leaders and subsequent H1B promotions
f)Abuse by H1 employers to American protected workers (Citizens, Residents and asylum seekers)
g)A company unfairly hired more H1Bs

Report this to the below link
https://tips.uscis.gov/
Include below details to the fullest:

• Managers full Name
• Managers exact title
• H1 Employees who received promotions or had their H1s filed (if you find their LCAs pin them too)
• H1 Employees who had their PERMs applied while you were discriminated in your team
• Your Directors name who initiated PERM

Include all these details and submit the petition.
Never limit your details. Fellow Patriots if you feel you faced the abuse and discrimination report immediately. Investigation awaiting !

If you want to climb the corporate ladder at Intel, you’re going to need to learn to lie, cheat and steal. Ethics and integrity are all just virtue signaling.

Has anyone ever filed an ethics complaint with the company ethics hotline?

If so, did anything come of it? Were you able to remain truly anonymous?

My department is making some changes as part of "Lead to One" and several of us believe they possibly blur ethical and legal boundaries. The concern is not only that it's unfair to the members, but could also potentially result in legal action against the company, and/or possibly even individual employees.

The plan is still in the works and constantly changing, so for now I'm waiting to see how out it actually plays out. But if they implement it as it's being described now, I'm seriously considering escalating the concerns.

As always, I’m here to point out hypocrisy as it relates to Centene and give other POVs than praising the stock price. Here’s another one to chew on, Centene is VERY concerned about fraud, waste, and abuse, which is rich.

Texas: $165.6 million settlement
CMS: $2 million penalty
CMS again: $380,785 penalty

And now Centene wants to lecture the industry about protecting taxpayer dollars. Accountability. Audacity with a compliance department.

Pretty ballsy to call yourself the watchdog when your own name keeps showing up in the enforcement paperwork.

I’m looking for perspectives from others who have used an internal Ethics/Compliance reporting process at their workplace.

In our situation, multiple concerns regarding perceived favoritism and workplace behavior were submitted through the company’s Ethics reporting channel—approximately 3–5 complaints over time. Some of the complaints were anonymous.

A review was conducted after earlier complaints, but employees were not provided details about the outcome because of the anonymous/confidential nature of the process. Since then, we have continued to observe some of the same behaviors and raised additional concerns with specific examples and individuals who can potentially provide firsthand context.

The question we are now struggling with is: What happens when employees repeatedly raise concerns through the Ethics process but do not see any apparent change?

We understand that Ethics may not be able to disclose investigation details or disciplinary actions. At the same time, employees would reasonably want to know whether their concerns were actually reviewed, whether the issues were substantiated or addressed, and what the appropriate next step is when the same concerns appear to continue.

I’m interested in hearing from others who have gone through a similar situation—particularly how the process worked after an initial investigation and what options were available when employees felt the underlying workplace issues had not changed.

Sacrificed his people’s best interests for Exxon’s money, then charging them for a book where he tries to explain that he’s just a poor victim like them!

I'm a people leader and I'm being told by my SVP and EVP I must hire only from the GCC. I can't help but feel like this is some what discrimatory , shouldn't I be able to hire who is best for the job? Not just only from the GCC? So I'm being forced to hire from the GCC all while managers onshore that look like they came from the GCC only hires ppl that also reflect people from the GCC. What is happening?

We're just Enron now right?

Please do your jobs and investigate this corporation. We want to see Executives held accountable. We want to see corrupt Executives in handcuffs!

Managers now just brazenly lie on the check ins and reviews so employees can be illegally fired for cause. Will Wells Fargo now just commit perjury in court when they are sued like they did on the fake accounts? Wells Fargo is the most corrupt company.

Does anyone know if these are two separate entities? I had an issue HR completely ignored. We received an email regarding the Ethics line. Has anyone got anywhere with this?

Do you think I gave a hoot about some damn ethics or security risk training due? Lol let alone a progress checkpoint? Kick rocks!

From HR training I am pretty sure you cannot threaten someone their job because they ask you for help.to remove an impediment. Asking any HR person on here, current or ex Fiserv. This seems like a violation. This is how they are doing rifs when they say not performance based.

Ask about this in your face to face sessions

Nazar Mohamed and his son, Azruddin, are partners in a lucrative venture to build Exxon a shore base in Guyana for its massive offshore oil operation. They also face a criminal investigation and possible U.S. sanctions.

U.S. government officials repeatedly warned Exxon Mobil to avoid doing business with two mining magnates in Guyana, who face a U.S. investigation on suspicions of money laundering, dr-g trafficking and gold smuggling, according to five people with knowledge of the matter and two intelligence reports seen by Reuters.

The Texas-based oil giant ignored the advice, which was delivered during meetings in late 2021 and early 2022, and cut a deal to build a $300 million onshore logistics base with a consortium that included the two Guyanese businessmen, Nazar Mohamed and his son, Azruddin. Exxon announced the contract award in April 2022.

• https://www.reuters.com/investigates/special-report/exxon-mobil-guyana/