latest version of Adobe Reader or GoodReader. - ExxonMobilcdn.exxonmobil.com/~/media/global/files/investor-reports/2016/2016... · Adobe 11 or newer; for mobile devices use the

Before you cast your vote on Management Resolution Item 3 – Advisory Vote to Approve Executive Compensation, please consider the following:

ExxonMobil conducts business in a volatile commodity price environment and positions itself to achieve industry-leading returns regardless of industry conditions. We continue to create value for our shareholders by confidently and prudently investing through the price cycle to meet long-term energy demand growth. Our integrated business enables us to optimize economic returns across the oil and gas value chain. The Corporation’s success requires a strong culture of performance, a long-term orientation, and constancy of purpose among senior executives, all of which are reinforced by the design of our compensation program.

Please review the content of this Overview, as well as the more detailed information included in the Compensation Discussion and Analysis, compensation tables, and narrative in ExxonMobil’s 2016 Proxy Statement.

Jeffrey J. Woodbury Vice President, Investor Relations and Secretary

vote

For optimal viewing on computer, please use Adobe 11 or newer; for mobile devices use the latest version of Adobe Reader or GoodReader.

If you want to download a printable version of this Overview click here.

Continue

2016

Executive Compensation Overview

Start

http://cdn.exxonmobil.com/~/media/global/files/investor-reports/2016/2016_Executive_Compensation_Overview.pdf

How did we perform?

Executive Summary

Previous Footnotes | Frequently Used TermsNext

How do we linkperformance and pay?

How did we pay?

How do we manage risk?

Home

How do we link performance and pay?How did we perform? How did we pay? How do we manage risk?

• Leading safety performance

• Earnings of $16.2 billion

• Distributed $15.1 billion to shareholders

• Industry-leading ROCE of 7.9 percent

• Resilience and value of integrated business model reinforced by relative performance during industry downturn

• Strongest balance sheet among industry peers

• Relative performance across 7 key metrics and over time periods aligned with investment lead times of the business determines the level of individual long-term stock and bonus awards

• Overall CEO reported pay down 18 percent and realized pay down 15 percent, reflective of industry downturn

• CEO realized and unrealized pay at 39th percentile of benchmark companies over tenure [view chart]

• Ultimate value of long-term stock awards determined by share price at vest

• Vesting periods that are 3 times longer than competitors

• Significant stock holding requirement through long vesting periods

• Unvested stock is at risk of forfeiture and cannot be used as collateral for any purpose, including during retirement

• No change-in-control arrangements

• No employment contracts

• Strong bonus clawback policy

• Solid business performance through the commodity cycle relative to industry peers

• Compensation is based on significant performance differentiation

• Program design includes extended risk profile and is aligned with the Company's business model and the interests of long-term shareholders

Key Messages and Why Vote "For" Say-On-Pay? | Shareholder Engagement and Prior Say-On-Pay Vote | 2015 Say-On-Pay

Key Messages Why Vote "For" Say-On-Pay?

Key Messages and Why Vote "For" Say-On-Pay?Executive Summary

Executive Summary

> > >

How did we perform?

Executive Summary



How did we pay?


Home

How do we link performance and pay?How did we perform? How did we pay? How do we manage risk?

• Leading safety performance

• Earnings of $16.2 billion

• Distributed $15.1 billion to shareholders

• Industry-leading ROCE of 7.9 percent

• Resilience and value of integrated business model reinforced by relative performance during industry downturn

• Strongest balance sheet among industry peers

• Relative performance across 7 key metrics and over time periods aligned with investment lead times of the business determines the level of individual long-term stock and bonus awards

• Overall CEO reported pay down 18 percent and realized pay down 15 percent, reflective of industry downturn

• CEO realized and unrealized pay at 39th percentile of benchmark companies over tenure [view chart]

• Ultimate value of long-term stock awards determined by share price at vest

• Vesting periods that are 3 times longer than competitors

• Significant stock holding requirement through long vesting periods

• Unvested stock is at risk of forfeiture and cannot be used as collateral for any purpose, including during retirement

• No change-in-control arrangements

• No employment contracts

• Strong bonus clawback policy

• Solid business performance through the commodity cycle relative to industry peers

• Compensation is based on significant performance differentiation

• Program design includes extended risk profile and is aligned with the Company's business model and the interests of long-term shareholders


Key Messages Why Vote "For" Say-On-Pay?

Key Messages and Why Vote "For" Say-On-Pay?Executive Summary

Executive Summary

> > >

14. Realized and Unrealized Pay(4)

• CEO’s combined realized and unrealized pay over his tenure is at the 39th percentile of compensation benchmark companies

• With pension value and nonqualified deferred compensation included, the orientation is between the 38th and 74th percentiles, depending on the method of quantifying pension values

ExxonMobil CEO’s Tenure 2006 to 2014 Percentile Position

Realized Pay 26% 10 of 13

Combined Realized and Unrealized Pay 39% 8 of 13

PU1

How did we perform?

Executive Summary



How did we pay?


Home

• Shareholder engagement strategy focuses on wide-ranging dialogue between numerous shareholders and management. For 2015, this included:

- Individual conference calls on multiple occasions throughout the year with the Company’s largest shareholders; and,

- Webcast on May 14, 2015, available to all shareholders.

• These engagements provided an excellent opportunity to discuss alignment between performance and pay, as well as the Company’s long-standing philosophy that executive compensation should be based on long-term performance, aligned with the investment lead times of the business, as our Proxy materials demonstrate.

• In assessing the executive compensation program, the Compensation Committee on multiple occasions:

- Evaluated alternate methods of granting compensation;

- Carefully considered the results of the 2015 advisory vote on executive compensation and the insights gained from this extensive dialogue; and,

- Discussed this subject with its independent consultant.

• Based on this assessment, the Committee confirmed that the current compensation program best ensures an unwavering focus on the long-term performance of the business, which the Committee expects will continue generating strong operating and financial results for the benefit of the Company’s long-term shareholders.

• The Committee respects all shareholder votes, both “For” and “Against” our compensation program, and is committed to continued engagement with shareholders to ensure a full understanding of diverse viewpoints.


Shareholder Engagement and Prior Say-On-Pay Vote

Shareholder Engagement and Prior Say-On-Pay Vote

Executive Summary

How did we perform?

Executive Summary



How did we pay?


Home

• Say-On-Pay Results: 90.1 percent “For”

• We heard positive feedback from shareholders on:

- Extensive shareholder engagement

- New disclosure on the 7 key performance metrics that determine the number of long-term stock awards at grant

- Long-term vesting as a unique design feature that requires stock holding through the commodity cycle

- Market orientation based on realized and unrealized pay

• We also identified two improvement opportunities from our dialogue with shareholders:

- Further clarify how, in our program, performance criteria at grant (versus vest) strengthen the linkage between performance and pay, and allow for longer vesting periods. The combination of performance criteria at grant and longer vesting results in alignment with shareholder interests in a way that exceeds more traditional performance shares

- Increase disclosure on how the performance award matrix determines the level of individual stock and bonus awards


2015 Say-On-Pay

2015 Say-On-Pay

Executive Summary

How did we perform?

Executive Summary



How did we pay?


Home

How did we perform? Safety and ROCE

Industry-leading performance across companies within the oil and gas industry of similar scale and complexity formed the basis for compensation decisions made by the Compensation Committee in 2015

25

20

15

10

5

0

–5ExxonMobil ShellChevron BPTotal

(percent)

"2015" "11-15" "06-15""Exxon" 7.9 18.2 22.7"Chevron" 2.4 13.4 16.6"Shell" 2.2 9.4 12.5"Total" 4.3 8.3 11.1 "BP" -2.5 7.7 10.2

DATA AS OF 02/12/2016

-5

0

5

10

15

20

2506-15

11-15

2015

BPTotalShellChevronExxon

CH

AR

TO

WN

ER NAME

G. Langston

AR

TB

OO

K Eric Whetstone • Whetstone Design studio/cell: 214-412-8000fax: [email protected]

ED

ITO

R Clark Fertitta • Investor RelationsExxon Mobil Corporation, Irving, TXOffice: 972.444.1135Cell: 832-803-4316 [email protected]

Carol Zuber-Mallison • ZM Graphics, Inc.studio/cell: 214-906-4162 • fax: [email protected]

Usage: Exclusive rights within ExxonMobil

AT

TE

NT

ION

: OW

NE

R Data list is used to drive the black and white chart, which is then used as a template for the color chart. Bars and lines are cut and pasted from the black and white template and are highly accurate. However, the color chart is NOT linked to the database and is NOT “driven” by the data; it is a piece of artwork buiilt by a human. Therefore, the editor needs to thoroughly proof the final artwork, not JUST the data list .

VE

RS

ION AS OF

APPROVED BY

Feb. 28, 2016

G. Langston

FILE

IN

FO

LAST FILE CHANGE MADE BY

02 14XOMECO-ROCE.ai

Carol Eric Bill

IN EXECUTIVE COMPENSATION REPORT

EXECUTIVECOMPENSATION

Chart 02

!CHART

IS IN

BOTHFO and EOC

alsoF02B

2015 5-Year Average 10-Year Average

CH

AR

TO

WN

ER NAME

SSHE: Tyler

AR

TB

OO


ED

ITO




AT

TE

NT

ION

: OW

NE


VE

RS

ION AS OF

APPROVED BY

Feb. 29, 2016

SSHE: Tyler

FILE

IN

FO


01 15XOMECO-Safety.ai

Carol Eric Bill



Chart 01alsoS37A

(incidents per 200,000 work hours)

ExxonMobil Workforce(1) U.S. Petroleum Industry Benchmark(2)

0.30

0.25

0.20

0.15

0.10

0.05

008 102006 07 09 11 1312 14 2015

(1) Employees and contractors. Includes XTO Energy Inc. data beginning in 2011.(2) Workforce safety data from participating American Petroleum Institute companies (2015 industry data not available at time of publication).

DATA as of 01/25/2015:

2015 API data not availableuntil April/May timeframe

"XOM" "Benchmark"“06” 0.051 0.22“07” 0.048 0.19“08” 0.051 0.18“09” 0.041 0.12“10” 0.038 0.13"11" 0.077 0.12“12” 0.046 0.11“13” 0.044 0.12“14” 0.031 0.11“15” 0.034

0.00

0.05

0.10

0.15

0.20

0.25

0.30Benchmark

XOM

“15”“14”“13”“12”11“10”“09”“08”“07”“06”

Lost-Time Injuries and Illnesses Rate:

!CHART

IS IN

BOTHSAR and EOC

1. Safety and Operations Integrity

• Leading safety performance; results are a leading indicator of business performance and underscore safety as a core value

How did we perform?

Safety and ROCE | Shareholder Returns | Free Cash Flow and Shareholder Distributions | Strategic Business Results

2. Return on Average Capital Employed (ROCE)(3)

• Balanced and highly competitive portfolio of resources, assets, and products in each business segment, resulting in industry-leading ROCE

How did we perform?

Executive Summary



How did we pay?


Home



25

20

15

10

5

0


(percent)


DATA AS OF 02/12/2016

-5

0

5

10

15

20

2506-15

11-15

2015


CH

AR

TO

WN

ER NAME

G. Langston

AR

TB

OO


ED

ITO




AT

TE

NT

ION

: OW

NE


VE

RS

ION AS OF

APPROVED BY

Feb. 28, 2016

G. Langston

FILE

IN

FO


02 14XOMECO-ROCE.ai

Carol Eric Bill



Chart 02

!CHART

IS IN

BOTHFO and EOC

alsoF02B


CH

AR

TO

WN

ER NAME

SSHE: Tyler

AR

TB

OO


ED

ITO




AT

TE

NT

ION

: OW

NE


VE

RS

ION AS OF

APPROVED BY

Feb. 29, 2016

SSHE: Tyler

FILE

IN

FO



Carol Eric Bill



Chart 01alsoS37A



0.30

0.25

0.20

0.15

0.10

0.05

008 102006 07 09 11 1312 14 2015


DATA as of 01/25/2015:


"XOM" "Benchmark"“06” 0.051 0.22“07” 0.048 0.19“08” 0.051 0.18“09” 0.041 0.12“10” 0.038 0.13"11" 0.077 0.12“12” 0.046 0.11“13” 0.044 0.12“14” 0.031 0.11“15” 0.034

0.00

0.05

0.10

0.15

0.20

0.25

0.30Benchmark

XOM

“15”“14”“13”“12”11“10”“09”“08”“07”“06”


!CHART

IS IN

BOTHSAR and EOC



How did we perform?




(1) Employees and contractors; includes XTO Energy Inc. data beginning in 2011.

F1-P6

How did we perform?

Executive Summary



How did we pay?


Home



25

20

15

10

5

0


(percent)


DATA AS OF 02/12/2016

-5

0

5

10

15

20

2506-15

11-15

2015


CH

AR

TO

WN

ER NAME

G. Langston

AR

TB

OO


ED

ITO




AT

TE

NT

ION

: OW

NE


VE

RS

ION AS OF

APPROVED BY

Feb. 28, 2016

G. Langston

FILE

IN

FO


02 14XOMECO-ROCE.ai

Carol Eric Bill



Chart 02

!CHART

IS IN

BOTHFO and EOC

alsoF02B


CH

AR

TO

WN

ER NAME

SSHE: Tyler

AR

TB

OO


ED

ITO




AT

TE

NT

ION

: OW

NE


VE

RS

ION AS OF

APPROVED BY

Feb. 29, 2016

SSHE: Tyler

FILE

IN

FO



Carol Eric Bill



Chart 01alsoS37A



0.30

0.25

0.20

0.15

0.10

0.05

008 102006 07 09 11 1312 14 2015


DATA as of 01/25/2015:


"XOM" "Benchmark"“06” 0.051 0.22“07” 0.048 0.19“08” 0.051 0.18“09” 0.041 0.12“10” 0.038 0.13"11" 0.077 0.12“12” 0.046 0.11“13” 0.044 0.12“14” 0.031 0.11“15” 0.034

0.00

0.05

0.10

0.15

0.20

0.25

0.30Benchmark

XOM

“15”“14”“13”“12”11“10”“09”“08”“07”“06”


!CHART

IS IN

BOTHSAR and EOC



How did we perform?




(2) Workforce safety data from participating American Petroleum Institute (API) companies; 2015 industry data not available at time of publication.

F2-P6

How did we perform?

Executive Summary



How did we pay?


Home



25

20

15

10

5

0


(percent)


DATA AS OF 02/12/2016

-5

0

5

10

15

20

2506-15

11-15

2015


CH

AR

TO

WN

ER NAME

G. Langston

AR

TB

OO


ED

ITO




AT

TE

NT

ION

: OW

NE


VE

RS

ION AS OF

APPROVED BY

Feb. 28, 2016

G. Langston

FILE

IN

FO


02 14XOMECO-ROCE.ai

Carol Eric Bill



Chart 02

!CHART

IS IN

BOTHFO and EOC

alsoF02B


CH

AR

TO

WN

ER NAME

SSHE: Tyler

AR

TB

OO


ED

ITO




AT

TE

NT

ION

: OW

NE


VE

RS

ION AS OF

APPROVED BY

Feb. 29, 2016

SSHE: Tyler

FILE

IN

FO



Carol Eric Bill



Chart 01alsoS37A



0.30

0.25

0.20

0.15

0.10

0.05

008 102006 07 09 11 1312 14 2015


DATA as of 01/25/2015:


"XOM" "Benchmark"“06” 0.051 0.22“07” 0.048 0.19“08” 0.051 0.18“09” 0.041 0.12“10” 0.038 0.13"11" 0.077 0.12“12” 0.046 0.11“13” 0.044 0.12“14” 0.031 0.11“15” 0.034

0.00

0.05

0.10

0.15

0.20

0.25

0.30Benchmark

XOM

“15”“14”“13”“12”11“10”“09”“08”“07”“06”


!CHART

IS IN

BOTHSAR and EOC



How did we perform?




(3) Competitor data estimated on a consistent basis with ExxonMobil and based on public information. For definitions and more information, see page 44 of the Summary Annual Report included with the 2016 Proxy Statement.

F3-P6

How did we perform?

Executive Summary



How did we pay?


Home


3. 10-Year Cumulative Returns(4)

• Superior relative returns through a range of economic environments and business cycles

• Maintaining leadership position despite industry downturn

ExxonMobil Industry Group Average(5) Brent Price(6)

(dollars per barrel)(percent)

120

100

80

60

40

20

0

120

100

80

60

40

20

0

Cumulative Shareholder Returns:

12 201507 092006 08 10 11 13 14

CH

AR

TO

WN

ER NAME

G. Langston

AR

TB

OO


ED

ITO




AT

TE

NT

ION

: OW

NE


VE

RS

ION AS OF

APPROVED BY

Feb. 29, 2016

G. Langston

FILE

IN

FO


03 15XOMECO-1-YrCmReturns.ai

Carol Eric Bill



Chart 03

Ind Grp Avg XOM Brent“2006” 18.7 39.2 65.16“2007” 43.3 73.0 72.44“2008” 1.3 50.3 96.94“2009” 22.4 31.4 61.74“2010” 24.8 44.7 79.61“2011” 38.9 71.7 111.26“2012” 42.7 79.9 111.57“2013” 68.3 116.1 108.56“2014” 54.1 103.0 98.97“2015” 27.1 77.5 52.32

0

20

40

60

80

100

120XOM

Ind Grp Avg

“2015”“2014”“2013”“2012”“2011”“2010”“2009”“2008”“2007”“2006”0

20

40

60

80

100

120

Brent

“2015”“2014”“2013”“2012”“2011”“2010”“2009”“2008”“2007”“2006”

DATA AS OF 01/19/2016

4. Total Shareholder Return (TSR)(4)

• Leading the industry in TSR in all performance periods, most notably over time periods aligned with long investment lead times of our business

(percent)

ExxonMobil Industry Group Average(5)

30 Years20 Years10 Years5 Years1 Year 3 Years

15

10

5

0

–5

–10

–15

–20

CH

AR

TO

WN

ER NAME

G. Langston

AR

TB

OO


ED

ITO




AT

TE

NT

ION

: OW

NE


VE

RS

ION AS OF

APPROVED BY

Feb. 10, 2016

G. Langston

FILE

IN

FO


04 15XOMECO-ShrhldrReturns.ai

Carol Eric Bill



!CHART

IS IN

BOTHSFO, SAR and EOC

alsoC01B, S05DChart 04

DATA as of 01/19/2016

XOM Integrated

1 Year -12.6 -17.5

3 Years -0.4 -3.8

5 Years 4.2 0.4

10 Years 5.9 2.4

20 Years 9.7 7.2

30 Years 12 11.2

-20

-15

-10

-5

0

5

10

15

Integrated

XOM

30 Years20 Years10 Years5 Years3 Years1 Year

NOTE:

These numbers provided

on 1/19/2016 but still awaiting

numbers for FO/SAR version.

Carol

How did we perform?


Shareholder Returns

How did we perform?

Executive Summary



How did we pay?


Home







120

100

80

60

40

20

0

120

100

80

60

40

20

0


12 201507 092006 08 10 11 13 14

CH

AR

TO

WN

ER NAME

G. Langston

AR

TB

OO


ED

ITO




AT

TE

NT

ION

: OW

NE


VE

RS

ION AS OF

APPROVED BY

Feb. 29, 2016

G. Langston

FILE

IN

FO



Carol Eric Bill



Chart 03


0

20

40

60

80

100

120XOM

Ind Grp Avg

“2015”“2014”“2013”“2012”“2011”“2010”“2009”“2008”“2007”“2006”0

20

40

60

80

100

120

Brent

“2015”“2014”“2013”“2012”“2011”“2010”“2009”“2008”“2007”“2006”

DATA AS OF 01/19/2016



(percent)



15

10

5

0

–5

–10

–15

–20

CH

AR

TO

WN

ER NAME

G. Langston

AR

TB

OO


ED

ITO




AT

TE

NT

ION

: OW

NE


VE

RS

ION AS OF

APPROVED BY

Feb. 10, 2016

G. Langston

FILE

IN

FO



Carol Eric Bill



!CHART

IS IN



DATA as of 01/19/2016

XOM Integrated

1 Year -12.6 -17.5

3 Years -0.4 -3.8

5 Years 4.2 0.4

10 Years 5.9 2.4

20 Years 9.7 7.2

30 Years 12 11.2

-20

-15

-10

-5

0

5

10

15

Integrated

XOM


NOTE:




Carol

How did we perform?


Shareholder Returns

(4) Cumulative (chart 3) and Annualized (chart 4) returns assuming dividends are reinvested when paid.

C3

How did we perform?

Executive Summary



How did we pay?


Home







120

100

80

60

40

20

0

120

100

80

60

40

20

0


12 201507 092006 08 10 11 13 14

CH

AR

TO

WN

ER NAME

G. Langston

AR

TB

OO


ED

ITO




AT

TE

NT

ION

: OW

NE


VE

RS

ION AS OF

APPROVED BY

Feb. 29, 2016

G. Langston

FILE

IN

FO



Carol Eric Bill



Chart 03


0

20

40

60

80

100

120XOM

Ind Grp Avg

“2015”“2014”“2013”“2012”“2011”“2010”“2009”“2008”“2007”“2006”0

20

40

60

80

100

120

Brent

“2015”“2014”“2013”“2012”“2011”“2010”“2009”“2008”“2007”“2006”

DATA AS OF 01/19/2016



(percent)



15

10

5

0

–5

–10

–15

–20

CH

AR

TO

WN

ER NAME

G. Langston

AR

TB

OO


ED

ITO




AT

TE

NT

ION

: OW

NE


VE

RS

ION AS OF

APPROVED BY

Feb. 10, 2016

G. Langston

FILE

IN

FO



Carol Eric Bill



!CHART

IS IN



DATA as of 01/19/2016

XOM Integrated

1 Year -12.6 -17.5

3 Years -0.4 -3.8

5 Years 4.2 0.4

10 Years 5.9 2.4

20 Years 9.7 7.2

30 Years 12 11.2

-20

-15

-10

-5

0

5

10

15

Integrated

XOM


NOTE:




Carol

How did we perform?


Shareholder Returns

(4) Cumulative (chart 3) and Annualized (chart 4) returns assuming dividends are reinvested when paid.

C4

How did we perform?

Executive Summary



How did we pay?


Home







120

100

80

60

40

20

0

120

100

80

60

40

20

0


12 201507 092006 08 10 11 13 14

CH

AR

TO

WN

ER NAME

G. Langston

AR

TB

OO


ED

ITO




AT

TE

NT

ION

: OW

NE


VE

RS

ION AS OF

APPROVED BY

Feb. 29, 2016

G. Langston

FILE

IN

FO



Carol Eric Bill



Chart 03


0

20

40

60

80

100

120XOM

Ind Grp Avg

“2015”“2014”“2013”“2012”“2011”“2010”“2009”“2008”“2007”“2006”0

20

40

60

80

100

120

Brent

“2015”“2014”“2013”“2012”“2011”“2010”“2009”“2008”“2007”“2006”

DATA AS OF 01/19/2016



(percent)



15

10

5

0

–5

–10

–15

–20

CH

AR

TO

WN

ER NAME

G. Langston

AR

TB

OO


ED

ITO




AT

TE

NT

ION

: OW

NE


VE

RS

ION AS OF

APPROVED BY

Feb. 10, 2016

G. Langston

FILE

IN

FO



Carol Eric Bill



!CHART

IS IN



DATA as of 01/19/2016

XOM Integrated

1 Year -12.6 -17.5

3 Years -0.4 -3.8

5 Years 4.2 0.4

10 Years 5.9 2.4

20 Years 9.7 7.2

30 Years 12 11.2

-20

-15

-10

-5

0

5

10

15

Integrated

XOM


NOTE:




Carol

How did we perform?


Shareholder Returns

(5) Chevron, Royal Dutch Shell, Total, and BP weighted by market capitalization; shareholder return data for Total available from 1992.

C3-b

How did we perform?

Executive Summary



How did we pay?


Home







120

100

80

60

40

20

0

120

100

80

60

40

20

0


12 201507 092006 08 10 11 13 14

CH

AR

TO

WN

ER NAME

G. Langston

AR

TB

OO


ED

ITO




AT

TE

NT

ION

: OW

NE


VE

RS

ION AS OF

APPROVED BY

Feb. 29, 2016

G. Langston

FILE

IN

FO



Carol Eric Bill



Chart 03


0

20

40

60

80

100

120XOM

Ind Grp Avg

“2015”“2014”“2013”“2012”“2011”“2010”“2009”“2008”“2007”“2006”0

20

40

60

80

100

120

Brent

“2015”“2014”“2013”“2012”“2011”“2010”“2009”“2008”“2007”“2006”

DATA AS OF 01/19/2016



(percent)



15

10

5

0

–5

–10

–15

–20

CH

AR

TO

WN

ER NAME

G. Langston

AR

TB

OO


ED

ITO




AT

TE

NT

ION

: OW

NE


VE

RS

ION AS OF

APPROVED BY

Feb. 10, 2016

G. Langston

FILE

IN

FO



Carol Eric Bill



!CHART

IS IN



DATA as of 01/19/2016

XOM Integrated

1 Year -12.6 -17.5

3 Years -0.4 -3.8

5 Years 4.2 0.4

10 Years 5.9 2.4

20 Years 9.7 7.2

30 Years 12 11.2

-20

-15

-10

-5

0

5

10

15

Integrated

XOM


NOTE:




Carol

How did we perform?


Shareholder Returns

(5) Chevron, Royal Dutch Shell, Total, and BP weighted by market capitalization; shareholder return data for Total available from 1992.

C4-b

How did we perform?

Executive Summary



How did we pay?


Home







120

100

80

60

40

20

0

120

100

80

60

40

20

0


12 201507 092006 08 10 11 13 14

CH

AR

TO

WN

ER NAME

G. Langston

AR

TB

OO


ED

ITO




AT

TE

NT

ION

: OW

NE


VE

RS

ION AS OF

APPROVED BY

Feb. 29, 2016

G. Langston

FILE

IN

FO



Carol Eric Bill



Chart 03


0

20

40

60

80

100

120XOM

Ind Grp Avg

“2015”“2014”“2013”“2012”“2011”“2010”“2009”“2008”“2007”“2006”0

20

40

60

80

100

120

Brent

“2015”“2014”“2013”“2012”“2011”“2010”“2009”“2008”“2007”“2006”

DATA AS OF 01/19/2016



(percent)



15

10

5

0

–5

–10

–15

–20

CH

AR

TO

WN

ER NAME

G. Langston

AR

TB

OO


ED

ITO




AT

TE

NT

ION

: OW

NE


VE

RS

ION AS OF

APPROVED BY

Feb. 10, 2016

G. Langston

FILE

IN

FO



Carol Eric Bill



!CHART

IS IN



DATA as of 01/19/2016

XOM Integrated

1 Year -12.6 -17.5

3 Years -0.4 -3.8

5 Years 4.2 0.4

10 Years 5.9 2.4

20 Years 9.7 7.2

30 Years 12 11.2

-20

-15

-10

-5

0

5

10

15

Integrated

XOM


NOTE:




Carol

How did we perform?


Shareholder Returns

(6) Annual data calculated as average of daily prices from U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA).

C3-c

How did we perform?

Executive Summary



How did we pay?


Home

5. Free Cash Flow(7)

• Superior cash flow provides capacity for investments and shareholder distributions

• Generated $346.8 billion since 2006

6. Shareholder Distributions(8)

• Leading shareholder distributions through the cycle

• Distributed 54 cents of every dollar of cash flow generated from 2006 to 2015


"2015" "5-year avg" "10-year avg"“XOM” 6.5 19.7 34.7"CVX" -4.5 4.4 7.4“RDS” 7.8 13.6 10.9"TOT" -0.5 2.6 5.4“BP” 3 7.7 11.9

DATA AS OF 02/29/2016

-5

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

3510-year avg

5-year avg

2015

“BP”TOT“RDS”CVX“XOM”

35

30

25

20

15

10

5

0

–5

(dollars in billions)


ExxonMobil ShellChevron BPTotal

CH

AR

TO

WN

ER NAME

G. Langston

AR

TB

OO


ED

ITO




AT

TE

NT

ION

: OW

NE


VE

RS

ION AS OF

APPROVED BY

Feb. 29, 2016

G. Langston

FILE

IN

FO


05 15XOMECO-FreeCashFlow.ai

Carol Eric Bill



Chart 05

(yield, percent)

2015 5-Year Average

"2015" "5-year avg" "10-year avg""Exxon" 3.9 6.3 7"Chevron" 3.8 5 5.6"Shell" 4.6 4.7 5.4"Total" 2.4 5.1 5.2"BP" 5.8 5.5 5.9

DATA AS OF 02/12/2016

8

7

6

5

4

3

2

1

0ExxonMobil ShellChevron BPTotal

CH

AR

TO

WN

ER NAME

G. Langston

AR

TB

OO


ED

ITO




AT

TE

NT

ION

: OW

NE


VE

RS

ION AS OF

APPROVED BY

Feb. 28, 2016

G. Langston

FILE

IN

FO


06 15XOMECO-CashDistrbutYld.ai

Carol Eric Bill



Chart 06

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

810-year avg

5-year avg

2015


10-Year Average

How did we perform?

How did we perform?


Free Cash Flow and Shareholder Distributions

How did we perform?

Executive Summary



How did we pay?


Home









DATA AS OF 02/29/2016

-5

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

3510-year avg

5-year avg

2015


35

30

25

20

15

10

5

0

–5




CH

AR

TO

WN

ER NAME

G. Langston

AR

TB

OO


ED

ITO




AT

TE

NT

ION

: OW

NE


VE

RS

ION AS OF

APPROVED BY

Feb. 29, 2016

G. Langston

FILE

IN

FO



Carol Eric Bill



Chart 05

(yield, percent)

2015 5-Year Average


DATA AS OF 02/12/2016

8

7

6

5

4

3

2

1


CH

AR

TO

WN

ER NAME

G. Langston

AR

TB

OO


ED

ITO




AT

TE

NT

ION

: OW

NE


VE

RS

ION AS OF

APPROVED BY

Feb. 28, 2016

G. Langston

FILE

IN

FO



Carol Eric Bill



Chart 06

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

810-year avg

5-year avg

2015


10-Year Average

How did we perform?

How did we perform?



Competitor data estimated on a consistent basis with ExxonMobil and based on public information. (7) BP excludes impact of GOM spill, TNK-BP divestment, and 2013 Rosneft investment. For definitions and more information, see page 45 of the Summary Annual Report included with the 2016 Proxy Statement.

C5

How did we perform?

Executive Summary



How did we pay?


Home









DATA AS OF 02/29/2016

-5

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

3510-year avg

5-year avg

2015


35

30

25

20

15

10

5

0

–5




CH

AR

TO

WN

ER NAME

G. Langston

AR

TB

OO


ED

ITO




AT

TE

NT

ION

: OW

NE


VE

RS

ION AS OF

APPROVED BY

Feb. 29, 2016

G. Langston

FILE

IN

FO



Carol Eric Bill



Chart 05

(yield, percent)

2015 5-Year Average


DATA AS OF 02/12/2016

8

7

6

5

4

3

2

1


CH

AR

TO

WN

ER NAME

G. Langston

AR

TB

OO


ED

ITO




AT

TE

NT

ION

: OW

NE


VE

RS

ION AS OF

APPROVED BY

Feb. 28, 2016

G. Langston

FILE

IN

FO



Carol Eric Bill



Chart 06

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

810-year avg

5-year avg

2015


10-Year Average

How did we perform?

How did we perform?



Competitor data estimated on a consistent basis with ExxonMobil and based on public information. (8) Total shareholder distributions divided by market capitalization. Shareholder distributions consist of cash dividends and share buybacks. For more information, see page 45 of the Summary Annual Report included with the 2016 Proxy Statement.

C6

How did we perform?

Executive Summary



How did we pay?


Home


7. Strategic Business Results and Project Execution(9)

A. Upstream: Capital-Efficient Resource Developments

• Quality resource base, investment discipline, innovative designs, and superior project execution deliver a capital-efficient portfolio

• Start-up of 22 major projects since 2012, adding almost 1 million oil-equivalent barrels per day of working interest capacity, with plans to bring another 10 major projects online by 2017

• Leading track record of proved reserves replacement; replaced 115 percent since 2006

B. Downstream and Chemical: Value of Premier Integrated Businesses

• Generating superior results and solid cash flow through the cycle

• Full value-chain market view and integrated facilities enable more effective response to business environment

• 80 percent of refining capacity integrated with chemical or lube basestock manufacturing facilities

• Strategically investing at advantaged sites to enhance performance

C. Unparalleled Financial Flexibility

• Capacity to execute business strategy through the cycle

• Substantial flexibility to respond to opportunities

• Result of prudent financial management

• Unmatched access to capital on the most attractive terms

• Stable, attractive partner and capable investor of resources

CH

AR

TO

WN

ER NAME

G. Langston

AR

TB

OO


ED

ITO




AT

TE

NT

ION

: OW

NE


VE

RS

ION AS OF

APPROVED BY

Feb. 29 7.09pm, 2016

G. Langston

FILE

IN

FO


07C 15XOMECO-TotalCapLevrg.ai

Carol Eric Bill



Chart 07C

(Total Capitalization, dollars in billions) (10)

400

300

200

100

05 1510 2520

DATA AS OF 02/29 7pm/2016

Total Cap Leverage

XOM 359 9.75

CVX 197 13.96

Shell 174 15.66

Total 138 24.37

BP 125 23.3

0 5 10 15 20 250

100

200

300

400

Total Cap

ExxonMobil

Shell

Chevron

BPTotal

(Leverage, percent) (10)

How did we perform?

How did we perform?


Strategic Business Results

How did we perform?

Executive Summary



How did we pay?


Home


















CH

AR

TO

WN

ER NAME

G. Langston

AR

TB

OO


ED

ITO




AT

TE

NT

ION

: OW

NE


VE

RS

ION AS OF

APPROVED BY

Feb. 29 7.09pm, 2016

G. Langston

FILE

IN

FO



Carol Eric Bill



Chart 07C


400

300

200

100

05 1510 2520


Total Cap Leverage

XOM 359 9.75

CVX 197 13.96

Shell 174 15.66

Total 138 24.37

BP 125 23.3

0 5 10 15 20 250

100

200

300

400

Total Cap

ExxonMobil

Shell

Chevron

BPTotal


How did we perform?

How did we perform?



Competitor data estimated on a consistent basis with ExxonMobil and based on public information. (9) More information on Strategic Business Results is included in the CD&A, see page 45.

C7-A

How did we perform?

Executive Summary



How did we pay?


Home


















CH

AR

TO

WN

ER NAME

G. Langston

AR

TB

OO


ED

ITO




AT

TE

NT

ION

: OW

NE


VE

RS

ION AS OF

APPROVED BY

Feb. 29 7.09pm, 2016

G. Langston

FILE

IN

FO



Carol Eric Bill



Chart 07C


400

300

200

100

05 1510 2520


Total Cap Leverage

XOM 359 9.75

CVX 197 13.96

Shell 174 15.66

Total 138 24.37

BP 125 23.3

0 5 10 15 20 250

100

200

300

400

Total Cap

ExxonMobil

Shell

Chevron

BPTotal


How did we perform?

How did we perform?



Competitor data estimated on a consistent basis with ExxonMobil and based on public information. (10) Total Capitalization defined as “Net Debt + Market Capitalization”; and Leverage defined as “Net Debt / Total Capitalization.”

C7-B

How did we perform?

Executive Summary



How did we pay?


Home


















CH

AR

TO

WN

ER NAME

G. Langston

AR

TB

OO


ED

ITO




AT

TE

NT

ION

: OW

NE


VE

RS

ION AS OF

APPROVED BY

Feb. 29 7.09pm, 2016

G. Langston

FILE

IN

FO



Carol Eric Bill



Chart 07C


400

300

200

100

05 1510 2520


Total Cap Leverage

XOM 359 9.75

CVX 197 13.96

Shell 174 15.66

Total 138 24.37

BP 125 23.3

0 5 10 15 20 250

100

200

300

400

Total Cap

ExxonMobil

Shell

Chevron

BPTotal


How did we perform?

How did we perform?



Competitor data estimated on a consistent basis with ExxonMobil and based on public information. (10) Total Capitalization defined as “Net Debt + Market Capitalization”; and Leverage defined as “Net Debt / Total Capitalization.”

C7-C

How did we perform?

Executive Summary



How did we pay?


Home

Compensation program that rewards outstanding performance, promotes retention, and encourages long-term business decisions

Performance Differentiation

• Overall level of individual stock and bonus award grants is determined by the relative performance of the business

• Each executive’s total compensation is highly differentiated by individual performance [view chart]

Career Orientation

• Effective leadership results from broad range of experiences across the business cycle – CEO and other Named Executive Officers have career service

with ExxonMobil ranging from 23 to more than 40 years

• Focus on attracting and retaining best talent available for a lifelong career

• Requires a compensation program that promotes retention by delaying majority of annual compensation and placing it at risk of forfeiture

Succession Planning and Continuity of Leadership

• Strong belief that executive talent should be developed and promoted from within

• Continuity of leadership helps achieve critically important sustainable risk management

Design Objectives | Compensation Committee Decisions | Highest Performance Standards | Scale and Complexity

Design Objectives How do we link performance and pay?

Design Objectives


How did we perform?

Executive Summary



How did we pay?


Home

Compensation program that rewards outstanding performance, promotes retention, and encourages long-term business decisions

Performance Differentiation

• Overall level of individual stock and bonus award grants is determined by the relative performance of the business

• Each executive’s total compensation is highly differentiated by individual performance [view chart]

Career Orientation

• Effective leadership results from broad range of experiences across the business cycle – CEO and other Named Executive Officers have career service

with ExxonMobil ranging from 23 to more than 40 years

• Focus on attracting and retaining best talent available for a lifelong career

• Requires a compensation program that promotes retention by delaying majority of annual compensation and placing it at risk of forfeiture

Succession Planning and Continuity of Leadership

• Strong belief that executive talent should be developed and promoted from within

• Continuity of leadership helps achieve critically important sustainable risk management


Design Objectives How do we link performance and pay?

Design Objectives


Industry-Leading Performance in All 7 Key Areas:

• Safety and Operations Integrity

• Return on Average Capital Employed (ROCE)

• Total Shareholder Return (TSR)

• Free Cash Flow

• Shareholder Distributions

• Strategic Business Results

• Project Execution

CH

AR

TO

WN

ER NAME

G. Langston

AR

TB

OO


ED

ITO




AT

TE

NT

ION

: OW

NE


VE

RS

ION AS OF

APPROVED BY

Feb. 19, 2016

G. Langston

FILE

IN

FO


08 15XOMECO-AwardMatrix.ai

Carol Eric Bill



CEO

QuintileStock Award

Bonus

ManagementCommittee

Presidents

Executives

1100%

280%

350%

430%

50%

Performance

Pay

Gra

de Different awardby quintile and by pay grade

100% 80% 60% 50% 0%

Performance Award Matrix

8. Performance Criteria and Award Matrix

C8-DO

How did we perform?

Executive Summary



How did we pay?


Home

• Industry-leading performance over investment lead times of the business required in the following 7 key areas to achieve a top quintile bonus and long-term stock award:

- Safety and Operations Integrity

- Return on Average Capital Employed (ROCE)

- Total Shareholder Return (TSR)

- Free Cash Flow

- Shareholder Distributions

- Strategic Business Results

- Project Execution

• Experience and level of responsibility are also key factors in assessing the contributions of individual executives

• Tally sheets and pension modeling provide detailed information, by pay element, and allow for assessment against publicly available data for similar positions at comparator companies

Benchmarking

• Evaluation of level of compensation requires comparison against other U.S. companies that generally have large scale and complexity, capital intensity, international operations, and proven sustainability over time

• Assessment of business and individual performance requires comparison against companies of similar scale and complexity in the same industry


Compensation Committee Decisions

Compensation Committee Decisions

Chevron Royal Dutch Shell Total BP

AT&T Ford Motor Company Pfizer Boeing General Electric Procter & Gamble Caterpillar IBM United Technologies Chevron Johnson & Johnson Verizon


How did we perform?

Executive Summary



How did we pay?


Home

• Performance must be high in all 7 key areas for executive officers to receive an overall superior evaluation

– Outstanding performance in one area will not cancel out poor performance in another

• Annual performance assessment through well-defined process, covering executive officers and more than 1,700 executives worldwide across multiple business lines and staff functions

• Performance assessments are spread across 5 quintiles, each of which corresponds to an award level, widely differentiated between highest and lowest quintile

• Chart 8 illustrates distribution of stock and bonus awards by individual performance category (quintile) and pay grade, with awards for quintiles 2 through 5 expressed as a percentage of the highest quintile target

• All 21 executive officers are expected to perform at the highest level or they are replaced

• If it is determined that another executive would make a stronger contribution than the current officer, a succession plan is implemented and the incumbent is reassigned or separated


High Performance Standards

Highest Performance Standards






• Free Cash Flow




CH

AR

TO

WN

ER NAME

G. Langston

AR

TB

OO


ED

ITO




AT

TE

NT

ION

: OW

NE


VE

RS

ION AS OF

APPROVED BY

Feb. 19, 2016

G. Langston

FILE

IN

FO



Carol Eric Bill



CEO

QuintileStock Award

Bonus

ManagementCommittee

Presidents

Executives

1100%

280%

350%

430%

50%

Performance

Pay

Gra


100% 80% 60% 50% 0%



How did we perform?

Executive Summary



How did we pay?


Home

9. Scale of ExxonMobil vs. Benchmark Companies(1)

• Chart illustrates scale of ExxonMobil and each business segment on the basis of 2015 revenue

• All 3 business segments on a stand-alone basis would rank among other large companies based on revenue

• ExxonMobil far exceeds the median of compensation benchmark companies based on revenue (2.9x), market capitalization (1.8x), total assets (2.5x), net income (2.2x), and capital expenditures (8.5x)

• Furthermore, ExxonMobil is positioned between the 90th and 100th percentiles in each of these dimensions

• The Compensation Committee considers scale and complexity as relevant factors in assessing the appropriateness of pay levels


Scale and Complexity

ExxonMobil Downstream

CH

AR

TO

WN

ER NAME

G. Langston

AR

TB

OO


ED

ITO




AT

TE

NT

ION

: OW

NE


VE

RS

ION AS OF

APPROVED BY

March 02, 2016

G. Langston

FILE

IN

FO


09 15XOMECO-XOMvsBnchmrkCos.ai

Carol Eric Bill



Chart 09

(2015 Revenue, dollars in billions)

ExxonMobil

300

250

200

150

100

50

0

0 1 20

1000

2000

3000

ExxonMobil ChemicalExxonMobil Upstream

XOM 2594.88 1Ford 1495.58 1AT&T 1468.01 1Verizon 1316.2 1Chevron 1299.25 1GE 1151.59 1Boeing 961.14 1IBM 817.41 1P&G 787.56 1J&J 700.74 1United 610.47 1Pfizer 488.51 1Caterpillar 470.11 1Downstream 2072.93 2Upstream 240.53 2Chemical 281.34 2

DATA AS OF 03/02/2016

Ford Motor Company

PfizerUnited TechnologiesJohnson & JohnsonProcter & GambleIBMBoeingGeneral ElectricChevronVerizonAT&T

Caterpillar



How did we perform?

Executive Summary



How did we pay?


Home

9. Scale of ExxonMobil vs. Benchmark Companies(1)

• Chart illustrates scale of ExxonMobil and each business segment on the basis of 2015 revenue

• All 3 business segments on a stand-alone basis would rank among other large companies based on revenue

• ExxonMobil far exceeds the median of compensation benchmark companies based on revenue (2.9x), market capitalization (1.8x), total assets (2.5x), net income (2.2x), and capital expenditures (8.5x)

• Furthermore, ExxonMobil is positioned between the 90th and 100th percentiles in each of these dimensions

• The Compensation Committee considers scale and complexity as relevant factors in assessing the appropriateness of pay levels



ExxonMobil Downstream

CH

AR

TO

WN

ER NAME

G. Langston

AR

TB

OO


ED

ITO




AT

TE

NT

ION

: OW

NE


VE

RS

ION AS OF

APPROVED BY

March 02, 2016

G. Langston

FILE

IN

FO


09 15XOMECO-XOMvsBnchmrkCos.ai

Carol Eric Bill



Chart 09

(2015 Revenue, dollars in billions)

ExxonMobil

300

250

200

150

100

50

0

0 1 20

1000

2000

3000

ExxonMobil ChemicalExxonMobil Upstream

XOM 2594.88 1Ford 1495.58 1AT&T 1468.01 1Verizon 1316.2 1Chevron 1299.25 1GE 1151.59 1Boeing 961.14 1IBM 817.41 1P&G 787.56 1J&J 700.74 1United 610.47 1Pfizer 488.51 1Caterpillar 470.11 1Downstream 2072.93 2Upstream 240.53 2Chemical 281.34 2

DATA AS OF 03/02/2016

Ford Motor Company

PfizerUnited TechnologiesJohnson & JohnsonProcter & GambleIBMBoeingGeneral ElectricChevronVerizonAT&T

Caterpillar



(1) Benchmark company data based on public information. Revenues represent the financial year ending in 2015, and include sales-based taxes and revenues from discontinued operations where disclosed. Intersegment revenues are excluded.

C9

How did we perform?

Executive Summary



How did we pay?


Home

Three performance factors determine the annual bonus and focus executives on sustainable growth in shareholder value:

1. Size of annual bonus pool determined by a formula, aligned with change in annual earnings

Programs applied consistently for the past 14 years to all executives worldwide, including the CEO

2. Individual grant levels determined by business and individual performance [view chart]

3. Half of annual bonus delayed until cumulative earnings per share (EPS) reach a specified level; EPS threshold at $6.50 in 2014/2015

2015 bonus represents 9 percent of CEO’s reported pay and is down 35 percent versus 2014, in line with change in earnings in 2015

CH

AR

TO

WN

ER NAME

G. Langston

AR

TB

OO


EDIT

OR Clark Fertitta • Investor Relations

Exxon Mobil Corporation, Irving, TXOffice: 972.444.1135Cell: 832-803-4316 [email protected]



AT

TEN

TIO

N: O

WN

ER

Data list is used to drive the black and white chart, which is then used as a template for the color chart. Bars and lines are cut and pasted from the black and white template and are highly accurate. However, the color chart is NOT linked to the database and is NOT “driven” by the data; it is a piece of artwork buiilt by a human. Therefore, the editor needs to thoroughly proof the final artwork, not JUST the data list .

VER

SIO

N AS OF

APPROVED BY

Feb. 16, 2016

G. Langston

FILE

INFO


10A 15XOMECO-EarningsChange.ai

Carol Eric Bill



Chart 10A

Annual Percent Change in Earnings

Percent Change in Bonus Program

Two-Thirds(1)

(percent)

13 141204 082002 06 10 1103 0705 09 2015

Bonus ProgramExxonMobil Earnings

100

80

60

40

20

0

–20

–40

–60

Earnings Bonus"2002" -25 -20 88 65"2004" 18 10 43 25"2006" 9 7.5 3 0"2008' 11 10 -57 -40"2010" 58 40 35 30"2012" 9 5“2013” -27 -20“2014” -0.2 0“2015” -35

DATA as of 02/07/2016

-50

-60

-40

-20

0

20

40

60

80

100

Bonus

Earnings

20152014“2013”201220102008'200620042002

CH

AR

TO

WN

ER NAME

G. Langston

AR

TB

OO


ED

ITO




AT

TE

NT

ION

: OW

NE


VE

RS

ION AS OF

APPROVED BY

Feb. 28, 2016

G. Langston

FILE

IN

FO


10B 15XOMECO-EarnVsBonus.ai

Carol Eric Bill



Chart 10

10. Change in Earnings vs. Change in Bonus Program

Bonus Program | Equity Program | CEO Compensation | CEO Pay vs. Benchmark Companies

Bonus Program How did we pay?

Bonus Program

How did we pay?

How did we perform?

Executive Summary



How did we pay?


Home







CH

AR

TO

WN

ER NAME

G. Langston

AR

TB

OO


EDIT





AT

TEN

TIO

N: O

WN

ER


VER

SIO

N AS OF

APPROVED BY

Feb. 16, 2016

G. Langston

FILE

INFO



Carol Eric Bill



Chart 10A



Two-Thirds(1)

(percent)

13 141204 082002 06 10 1103 0705 09 2015


100

80

60

40

20

0

–20

–40

–60

Earnings Bonus"2002" -25 -20 88 65"2004" 18 10 43 25"2006" 9 7.5 3 0"2008' 11 10 -57 -40"2010" 58 40 35 30"2012" 9 5“2013” -27 -20“2014” -0.2 0“2015” -35

DATA as of 02/07/2016

-50

-60

-40

-20

0

20

40

60

80

100

Bonus

Earnings

20152014“2013”201220102008'200620042002

CH

AR

TO

WN

ER NAME

G. Langston

AR

TB

OO


ED

ITO




AT

TE

NT

ION

: OW

NE


VE

RS

ION AS OF

APPROVED BY

Feb. 28, 2016

G. Langston

FILE

IN

FO



Carol Eric Bill



Chart 10




Bonus Program

How did we pay?

(1) The purpose of the two-thirds adjustment is to mitigate the impact of commodity price swings on short-term earnings performance.

Two Thirds

How did we perform?

Executive Summary



How did we pay?


Home







CH

AR

TO

WN

ER NAME

G. Langston

AR

TB

OO


EDIT





AT

TEN

TIO

N: O

WN

ER


VER

SIO

N AS OF

APPROVED BY

Feb. 16, 2016

G. Langston

FILE

INFO



Carol Eric Bill



Chart 10A



Two-Thirds(1)

(percent)

13 141204 082002 06 10 1103 0705 09 2015


100

80

60

40

20

0

–20

–40

–60

Earnings Bonus"2002" -25 -20 88 65"2004" 18 10 43 25"2006" 9 7.5 3 0"2008' 11 10 -57 -40"2010" 58 40 35 30"2012" 9 5“2013” -27 -20“2014” -0.2 0“2015” -35

DATA as of 02/07/2016

-50

-60

-40

-20

0

20

40

60

80

100

Bonus

Earnings

20152014“2013”201220102008'200620042002

CH

AR

TO

WN

ER NAME

G. Langston

AR

TB

OO


ED

ITO




AT

TE

NT

ION

: OW

NE


VE

RS

ION AS OF

APPROVED BY

Feb. 28, 2016

G. Langston

FILE

IN

FO



Carol Eric Bill



Chart 10




Bonus Program

How did we pay?





• Free Cash Flow




CH

AR

TO

WN

ER NAME

G. Langston

AR

TB

OO


ED

ITO




AT

TE

NT

ION

: OW

NE


VE

RS

ION AS OF

APPROVED BY

Feb. 19, 2016

G. Langston

FILE

IN

FO



Carol Eric Bill



CEO

QuintileStock Award

Bonus

ManagementCommittee

Presidents

Executives

1100%

280%

350%

430%

50%

Performance

Pay

Gra


100% 80% 60% 50% 0%



C8-BP

How did we perform?

Executive Summary



How did we pay?


Home

Three design principles in combination result in performance and risk profiles aligned with the returns of long-term shareholders:

1. Number of shares at grant determined by business and individual performance [view chart]

2. Value of shares at vest determined by share price at vest

3. Time between grant and vest aligned with investment lead times of the business

Vesting periods for senior executives far exceed typical three-year vesting that is common across most industries

• Stock awards vest 50 percent in 5 years from grant date and 50 percent in 10 years or retirement, whichever is later; these stock holding requirements are not accelerated upon retirement

• Better aligns with time frames over which business decisions affect long-term shareholder value


Equity Program

Equity Program


Example – Stock Award Grant vs. Vest Period for CEO, assuming retirement in 2017

Performance criteria at grant allow ExxonMobil to have long vesting periods while maintaining a significant award performance basis

CH

AR

TO

WN

ER NAME

G. Langston

AR

TB

OO


ED

ITO




AT

TE

NT

ION

: OW

NE


VE

RS

ION AS OF

APPROVED BY

Feb. 10, 2016

G. Langston

FILE

IN

FO


10C 15XOMECO-AwardVsVew.ai

Carol Eric Bill



Chart 10C

2006 201607 08 09 10 2011 12 13 14 15 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 2026

Awards GRANTED based on business and individual performance

Awards VEST valued at share price when vested

2006 201607 08 09 10 2011 12 13 14 15 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 2026



How did we pay?

2015 stock award represents 67 percent of CEO’s reported pay; number of shares granted is consistent with 2014, reflective of ExxonMobil’s industry-leading performance in all 7 key areas over investment lead times of the business

How did we perform?

Executive Summary



How did we pay?


Home

Three design principles in combination result in performance and risk profiles aligned with the returns of long-term shareholders:

1. Number of shares at grant determined by business and individual performance [view chart]

2. Value of shares at vest determined by share price at vest

3. Time between grant and vest aligned with investment lead times of the business

Vesting periods for senior executives far exceed typical three-year vesting that is common across most industries

• Stock awards vest 50 percent in 5 years from grant date and 50 percent in 10 years or retirement, whichever is later; these stock holding requirements are not accelerated upon retirement

• Better aligns with time frames over which business decisions affect long-term shareholder value


Equity Program

Equity Program


Example – Stock Award Grant vs. Vest Period for CEO, assuming retirement in 2017

Performance criteria at grant allow ExxonMobil to have long vesting periods while maintaining a significant award performance basis

CH

AR

TO

WN

ER NAME

G. Langston

AR

TB

OO


ED

ITO




AT

TE

NT

ION

: OW

NE


VE

RS

ION AS OF

APPROVED BY

Feb. 10, 2016

G. Langston

FILE

IN

FO


10C 15XOMECO-AwardVsVew.ai

Carol Eric Bill



Chart 10C

2006 201607 08 09 10 2011 12 13 14 15 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 2026



2006 201607 08 09 10 2011 12 13 14 15 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 2026



How did we pay?

2015 stock award represents 67 percent of CEO’s reported pay; number of shares granted is consistent with 2014, reflective of ExxonMobil’s industry-leading performance in all 7 key areas over investment lead times of the business

Ref1





• Free Cash Flow




CH

AR

TO

WN

ER NAME

G. Langston

AR

TB

OO


ED

ITO




AT

TE

NT

ION

: OW

NE


VE

RS

ION AS OF

APPROVED BY

Feb. 19, 2016

G. Langston

FILE

IN

FO



Carol Eric Bill



CEO

QuintileStock Award

Bonus

ManagementCommittee

Presidents

Executives

1100%

280%

350%

430%

50%

Performance

Pay

Gra


100% 80% 60% 50% 0%



C8-EP

How did we perform?

Executive Summary



How did we pay?


Home


CEO Compensation

11. Reported Pay

• Pay granted to CEO in 2015 is down 18 percent versus 2014

• Change reflective of industry downturn and resulting primarily from decrease in annual bonus and share price

CH

AR

TO

WN

ER NAME

G. Langston

AR

TB

OO


ED

ITO




AT

TE

NT

ION

: OW

NE


VE

RS

ION AS OF

APPROVED BY

Feb. 28, 2016

G. Langston

FILE

IN

FO


11 15XOMECO-ReportedPay.ai

Carol Eric Bill



Chart 11

DATA AS OF 01/19/2016

(dollars)

Total Reported Pay:

All Other Compensation

Salary Bonus Stock Awards

Change in Pension Value(1)(2)

Salary Bonus Stockbased Other Change

"2013" 2.717000 3.670000 21.254625 .496704 0

"2014" 2.867000 3.670000 21.420000 .455420 4.683892

"2015" 3.047000 2.386000 18.288000 .540291 3.036167

0

10

20

30

40Change

Other

Stockbased

Bonus

Salary

201520142013

$28,138,329

2013

$2,717,000

$3,670,000

$496,704

$21,254,625

$33,096,312

2014

$2,867,000

$3,670,000

$21,420,000

$455,420

$4,683,892

$27,297,458

2015

–18%

$3,047,000

$2,386,000

$18,288,000

$540,291$3,036,167

12. Reported Pay vs. Realized Pay

• Realized pay represents on average 47 percent of total reported pay over CEO’s tenure

• Delta results from large portion of reported pay in equity with long vesting periods

CH

AR

TO

WN

ER NAME

G. Langston

AR

TB

OO


ED

ITO




AT

TE

NT

ION

: OW

NE


VE

RS

ION AS OF

APPROVED BY

Feb. 28, 2016

G. Langston

FILE

IN

FO


12 15XOMECO-ReportedVsReal.ai

Carol Eric Bill



Chart 12

(dollars in millions)

Realized PayReported Pay

40

35

30

25

20

15

10

5

02006 07 08 09 10 11(3) 12 13 14 2015

30% 47% 32% 31% 49% 71% 39% 56% 55% 57%Realized Pay as a Percentage of Reported Pay:

Reported Pay Realized Pay"2006" 22440.8 6712.44"2007” 27172.3 12884.3"2008" 32211.1 10212.1"2009" 27168.3 8530.17"2010" 28952.6 14229.6"2011" 34920.5 24637.2"2012" 40266.5 15561.2"2013" 28138.3 15768.8"2014" 33096.3 18253.2"2015" 27297.5 15601.8

0

5000

10000

15000

20000

25000

30000

35000

40000

Realized Pay

Reported Pay

201520142013201220112010200920082007”2006

DATA AS OF 01/19/2016

CEO Compensation

How did we pay?

How did we perform?

Executive Summary



How did we pay?


Home


CEO Compensation

11. Reported Pay



CH

AR

TO

WN

ER NAME

G. Langston

AR

TB

OO


ED

ITO




AT

TE

NT

ION

: OW

NE


VE

RS

ION AS OF

APPROVED BY

Feb. 28, 2016

G. Langston

FILE

IN

FO



Carol Eric Bill



Chart 11

DATA AS OF 01/19/2016

(dollars)

Total Reported Pay:





"2013" 2.717000 3.670000 21.254625 .496704 0

"2014" 2.867000 3.670000 21.420000 .455420 4.683892

"2015" 3.047000 2.386000 18.288000 .540291 3.036167

0

10

20

30

40Change

Other

Stockbased

Bonus

Salary

201520142013

$28,138,329

2013

$2,717,000

$3,670,000

$496,704

$21,254,625

$33,096,312

2014

$2,867,000

$3,670,000

$21,420,000

$455,420

$4,683,892

$27,297,458

2015

–18%

$3,047,000

$2,386,000

$18,288,000

$540,291$3,036,167




CH

AR

TO

WN

ER NAME

G. Langston

AR

TB

OO


ED

ITO




AT

TE

NT

ION

: OW

NE


VE

RS

ION AS OF

APPROVED BY

Feb. 28, 2016

G. Langston

FILE

IN

FO



Carol Eric Bill



Chart 12



40

35

30

25

20

15

10

5

02006 07 08 09 10 11(3) 12 13 14 2015



0

5000

10000

15000

20000

25000

30000

35000

40000

Realized Pay

Reported Pay

201520142013201220112010200920082007”2006

DATA AS OF 01/19/2016

CEO Compensation

How did we pay?

For definitions of the terms “Reported Pay,” “Realized Pay,” and “Unrealized Pay” as used in this Overview, as well as a list of our compensation benchmark companies, see Frequently Used Terms link below. (1) Interest rate changes: from 2.5% for 2012 to 3.5% for 2013; to 3.0% for 2014; to 2.75% for 2015.

C11

How did we perform?

Executive Summary



How did we pay?


Home


CEO Compensation

11. Reported Pay



CH

AR

TO

WN

ER NAME

G. Langston

AR

TB

OO


ED

ITO




AT

TE

NT

ION

: OW

NE


VE

RS

ION AS OF

APPROVED BY

Feb. 28, 2016

G. Langston

FILE

IN

FO



Carol Eric Bill



Chart 11

DATA AS OF 01/19/2016

(dollars)

Total Reported Pay:





"2013" 2.717000 3.670000 21.254625 .496704 0

"2014" 2.867000 3.670000 21.420000 .455420 4.683892

"2015" 3.047000 2.386000 18.288000 .540291 3.036167

0

10

20

30

40Change

Other

Stockbased

Bonus

Salary

201520142013

$28,138,329

2013

$2,717,000

$3,670,000

$496,704

$21,254,625

$33,096,312

2014

$2,867,000

$3,670,000

$21,420,000

$455,420

$4,683,892

$27,297,458

2015

–18%

$3,047,000

$2,386,000

$18,288,000

$540,291$3,036,167




CH

AR

TO

WN

ER NAME

G. Langston

AR

TB

OO


ED

ITO




AT

TE

NT

ION

: OW

NE


VE

RS

ION AS OF

APPROVED BY

Feb. 28, 2016

G. Langston

FILE

IN

FO



Carol Eric Bill



Chart 12



40

35

30

25

20

15

10

5

02006 07 08 09 10 11(3) 12 13 14 2015



0

5000

10000

15000

20000

25000

30000

35000

40000

Realized Pay

Reported Pay

201520142013201220112010200920082007”2006

DATA AS OF 01/19/2016

CEO Compensation

How did we pay?

For definitions of the terms “Reported Pay,” “Realized Pay,” and “Unrealized Pay” as used in this Overview, as well as a list of our compensation benchmark companies, see Frequently Used Terms link below. (2) In 2013, the change in pension value was negative (-$6.24 million), but under SEC reporting rules, a negative change in pension value must be shown in the Summary Compensation Table as zero.

C12

How did we perform?

Executive Summary



How did we pay?


Home


CEO Compensation

11. Reported Pay



CH

AR

TO

WN

ER NAME

G. Langston

AR

TB

OO


ED

ITO




AT

TE

NT

ION

: OW

NE


VE

RS

ION AS OF

APPROVED BY

Feb. 28, 2016

G. Langston

FILE

IN

FO



Carol Eric Bill



Chart 11

DATA AS OF 01/19/2016

(dollars)

Total Reported Pay:





"2013" 2.717000 3.670000 21.254625 .496704 0

"2014" 2.867000 3.670000 21.420000 .455420 4.683892

"2015" 3.047000 2.386000 18.288000 .540291 3.036167

0

10

20

30

40Change

Other

Stockbased

Bonus

Salary

201520142013

$28,138,329

2013

$2,717,000

$3,670,000

$496,704

$21,254,625

$33,096,312

2014

$2,867,000

$3,670,000

$21,420,000

$455,420

$4,683,892

$27,297,458

2015

–18%

$3,047,000

$2,386,000

$18,288,000

$540,291$3,036,167




CH

AR

TO

WN

ER NAME

G. Langston

AR

TB

OO


ED

ITO




AT

TE

NT

ION

: OW

NE


VE

RS

ION AS OF

APPROVED BY

Feb. 28, 2016

G. Langston

FILE

IN

FO



Carol Eric Bill



Chart 12



40

35

30

25

20

15

10

5

02006 07 08 09 10 11(3) 12 13 14 2015



0

5000

10000

15000

20000

25000

30000

35000

40000

Realized Pay

Reported Pay

201520142013201220112010200920082007”2006

DATA AS OF 01/19/2016

CEO Compensation

How did we pay?

For definitions of the terms “Reported Pay,” “Realized Pay,” and “Unrealized Pay” as used in this Overview, as well as a list of our compensation benchmark companies, see Frequently Used Terms link below. (3) Exercised last stock options granted in 2001 that would have expired in 2011. No stock options granted since 2001.

C12B

How did we perform?

Executive Summary



How did we pay?


Home


CEO Pay vs. Benchmark Companies

13. Realized Pay vs. Benchmark Companies(4)

• CEO’s realized pay is below the median of benchmark companies for most of his tenure

• In 2014, CEO’s realized pay ranked 8 of 13



CH

AR

TO

WN

ER NAME

G. Langston

AR

TB

OO


ED

ITO




AT

TE

NT

ION

: OW

NE


VE

RS

ION AS OF

APPROVED BY

Feb. 19, 2016

G. Langston

FILE

IN

FO


13 15XOMECO-RealVsBnchmrk.ai

Carol Eric Bill



Chart 13

2006 07 08 09 10 11(3) 12 13 2014

ExxonMobil

Compensation Benchmark Company: HighestMedian


80

60

40

20

0

DATA as of 02/07/2016: “XOM” “Comp Co Median” “Comp Co Max”“2006” 6712 13484 49012“2007” 12884 15446 68647“2008” 10212 13480 47557“2009” 8530 12563 30933“2010” 14230 19593 51757“2011” 24637 14343 68248“2012” 15561 21415 68443“2013” 15769 16189 40816“2014” 18253 21193 80862

0

20000

40000

60000

80000

“Comp Co Max”

“Comp Co Median”

“XOM”

“2014”“2013”“2012”“2011”“2010”“2009”“2008”“2007”“2006”


CEO Compensation




How did we pay?

How did we perform?

Executive Summary



How did we pay?


Home








CH

AR

TO

WN

ER NAME

G. Langston

AR

TB

OO


ED

ITO




AT

TE

NT

ION

: OW

NE


VE

RS

ION AS OF

APPROVED BY

Feb. 19, 2016

G. Langston

FILE

IN

FO



Carol Eric Bill



Chart 13

2006 07 08 09 10 11(3) 12 13 2014

ExxonMobil



80

60

40

20

0


0

20000

40000

60000

80000

“Comp Co Max”


“XOM”

“2014”“2013”“2012”“2011”“2010”“2009”“2008”“2007”“2006”


CEO Compensation




How did we pay?

For definitions of the terms “Reported Pay,” “Realized Pay,” and “Unrealized Pay” as used in this Overview, as well as a list of our compensation benchmark companies, see Frequently Used Terms link below. (4) 2015 benchmark company data not available at time of publication.

C13

How did we perform?

Executive Summary



How did we pay?


Home








CH

AR

TO

WN

ER NAME

G. Langston

AR

TB

OO


ED

ITO




AT

TE

NT

ION

: OW

NE


VE

RS

ION AS OF

APPROVED BY

Feb. 19, 2016

G. Langston

FILE

IN

FO



Carol Eric Bill



Chart 13

2006 07 08 09 10 11(3) 12 13 2014

ExxonMobil



80

60

40

20

0


0

20000

40000

60000

80000

“Comp Co Max”


“XOM”

“2014”“2013”“2012”“2011”“2010”“2009”“2008”“2007”“2006”


CEO Compensation




How did we pay?

For definitions of the terms “Reported Pay,” “Realized Pay,” and “Unrealized Pay” as used in this Overview, as well as a list of our compensation benchmark companies, see Frequently Used Terms link below. (4) 2015 benchmark company data not available at time of publication.

C14

How did we perform?

Executive Summary



How did we pay?


Home








CH

AR

TO

WN

ER NAME

G. Langston

AR

TB

OO


ED

ITO




AT

TE

NT

ION

: OW

NE


VE

RS

ION AS OF

APPROVED BY

Feb. 19, 2016

G. Langston

FILE

IN

FO



Carol Eric Bill



Chart 13

2006 07 08 09 10 11(3) 12 13 2014

ExxonMobil



80

60

40

20

0


0

20000

40000

60000

80000

“Comp Co Max”


“XOM”

“2014”“2013”“2012”“2011”“2010”“2009”“2008”“2007”“2006”


CEO Compensation




How did we pay?

C14B

For definitions of the terms “Reported Pay,” “Realized Pay,” and “Unrealized Pay” as used in this Overview, as well as a list of our compensation benchmark companies, see Frequently Used Terms link below. (3) Exercised last stock options granted in 2001 that would have expired in 2011. No stock options granted since 2001.

How did we perform?

Executive Summary



How did we pay?


Home

Resulting in extensive stock holding through the commodity cycle

Long Vesting Through The Cycle How do we manage risk?

15. Integration of Industry Environment and Compensation Program Design

• Chart depicts cumulative vested shares year on year, as compared to Brent price as an indicator of oil and gas industry performance

• Illustrates that a program with shorter term vesting enables an opportunity to monetize and diversify investment of realized pay at a much faster pace

• In this example, in 2013, on the eve of a greater than 50 percent crude price decline, an alternate formula-based program with three-year vest resulted in payout of 84 percent of awards granted versus ExxonMobil program where only 19 percent of awards granted had vested

ExxonMobil’s vesting periods far exceed competitors, are strongly integrated with our business model, and are aligned with long-term shareholder interests

CH

AR

TO

WN

ER NAME

G. Langston

AR

TB

OO


ED

ITO




AT

TE

NT

ION

: O

WN

ER Data list is used to drive the black and

white chart, which is then used as a template for the color chart. Bars and lines are cut and pasted from the black and white template and are highly accurate. However, the color chart is NOT linked to the database and is NOT “driven” by the data; it is a piece of artwork buiilt by a human. Therefore, the editor needs to thoroughly proof the final artwork, not JUST the data list .

VE

RS

ION AS OF

APPROVED BY

Feb. 18, 2016

G. Langston

FIL

E I

NF

O


15 15XOMECO-IntgrtIndComp.ai

Carol Eric Bill



Chart 15

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200Formula

XOM

2624222018161412100820060

20

40

60

80

100

120

Brent

262422201816141210082006

Year Brent"2006" 65.16 72.44"08" 96.94 61.74"10" 79.61 111.26"12" 111.57 108.56"14" 98.97 52.32"16" "18" "20" "22" "24" "26"

Year XOM Formula"2006" 0 0 0 0"08" 0 0 0 200"10" 0 200 50 400"12" 100 600 150 675"14" 200 750 250 900"16" 300 900 350 900"18" 550 900 650 1100"20" 750 850 "22" 900 950 "24" 1000 1050 "26" 1100

DATA AS OF 01/19/2016

ExxonMobil(1) Alternate(2) Brent Price(3)

(number of vested shares) (dollars per barrel)

120

100

80

60

40

20

0

1,200

1,000

800

600

400

200

0

84%

19%

All awardsfully vested

2006 08 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 2507 09 11 13 15 17 19 21 23 2026

Long Vesting Periods


Long VestingThrough The Cycle

Sound Governance Practices

Long Vesting and Investment Lead Times

Periodic Assessment of Program Design | | |

How did we perform?

Executive Summary



How did we pay?


Home








CH

AR

TO

WN

ER NAME

G. Langston

AR

TB

OO


ED

ITO




AT

TE

NT

ION

: O

WN



VE

RS

ION AS OF

APPROVED BY

Feb. 18, 2016

G. Langston

FIL

E I

NF

O



Carol Eric Bill



Chart 15

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200Formula

XOM

2624222018161412100820060

20

40

60

80

100

120

Brent

262422201816141210082006

Year Brent"2006" 65.16 72.44"08" 96.94 61.74"10" 79.61 111.26"12" 111.57 108.56"14" 98.97 52.32"16" "18" "20" "22" "24" "26"

Year XOM Formula"2006" 0 0 0 0"08" 0 0 0 200"10" 0 200 50 400"12" 100 600 150 675"14" 200 750 250 900"16" 300 900 350 900"18" 550 900 650 1100"20" 750 850 "22" 900 950 "24" 1000 1050 "26" 1100

DATA AS OF 01/19/2016



120

100

80

60

40

20

0

1,200

1,000

800

600

400

200

0

84%

19%


2006 08 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 2507 09 11 13 15 17 19 21 23 2026







In both programs, 100 shares are granted each year from 2006 to 2016. (1) ExxonMobil equity program: 50 percent of an annual grant of restricted stock or restricted stock units vests in 5 years and the other 50 percent vests in 10 years or retirement, whichever is later.

C15-a

How did we perform?

Executive Summary



How did we pay?


Home








CH

AR

TO

WN

ER NAME

G. Langston

AR

TB

OO


ED

ITO




AT

TE

NT

ION

: O

WN



VE

RS

ION AS OF

APPROVED BY

Feb. 18, 2016

G. Langston

FIL

E I

NF

O



Carol Eric Bill



Chart 15

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200Formula

XOM

2624222018161412100820060

20

40

60

80

100

120

Brent

262422201816141210082006

Year Brent"2006" 65.16 72.44"08" 96.94 61.74"10" 79.61 111.26"12" 111.57 108.56"14" 98.97 52.32"16" "18" "20" "22" "24" "26"

Year XOM Formula"2006" 0 0 0 0"08" 0 0 0 200"10" 0 200 50 400"12" 100 600 150 675"14" 200 750 250 900"16" 300 900 350 900"18" 550 900 650 1100"20" 750 850 "22" 900 950 "24" 1000 1050 "26" 1100

DATA AS OF 01/19/2016



120

100

80

60

40

20

0

1,200

1,000

800

600

400

200

0

84%

19%


2006 08 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 2507 09 11 13 15 17 19 21 23 2026







In both programs, 100 shares are granted each year from 2006 to 2016. (2) Hypothetical alternate formula-based program: percent of target shares that pay out depending on ExxonMobil’s relative three-year TSR rank versus our primary competitors: Chevron, Royal Dutch Shell, Total, and BP. TSR ranking has been determined by a Monte Carlo simulation that applies equal probability to each rank position. The Monte Carlo simulation method is consistent with U.S. GAAP accounting principles for valuing performance stock awards. Payout factors as follows: 200% of target if ranked 1; 150% of target if ranked 2; 75% of target if ranked 3; and 0% of target if ranked 4 or 5.

C15-b

How did we perform?

Executive Summary



How did we pay?


Home








CH

AR

TO

WN

ER NAME

G. Langston

AR

TB

OO


ED

ITO




AT

TE

NT

ION

: O

WN



VE

RS

ION AS OF

APPROVED BY

Feb. 18, 2016

G. Langston

FIL

E I

NF

O



Carol Eric Bill



Chart 15

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200Formula

XOM

2624222018161412100820060

20

40

60

80

100

120

Brent

262422201816141210082006

Year Brent"2006" 65.16 72.44"08" 96.94 61.74"10" 79.61 111.26"12" 111.57 108.56"14" 98.97 52.32"16" "18" "20" "22" "24" "26"

Year XOM Formula"2006" 0 0 0 0"08" 0 0 0 200"10" 0 200 50 400"12" 100 600 150 675"14" 200 750 250 900"16" 300 900 350 900"18" 550 900 650 1100"20" 750 850 "22" 900 950 "24" 1000 1050 "26" 1100

DATA AS OF 01/19/2016



120

100

80

60

40

20

0

1,200

1,000

800

600

400

200

0

84%

19%


2006 08 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 2507 09 11 13 15 17 19 21 23 2026







(3) Annual data calculated as average of daily prices from U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA).

C15-c

How did we perform?

Executive Summary



How did we pay?


Home


Reflective of long investment lead times and well aligned with ExxonMobil’s business model



16. Integration of Project Net Cash Flow and Compensation Program Design

• Chart depicts frequency and pace of vested shares each year, as compared to typical net cash flow of a major ExxonMobil project

• Illustrates high degree of variability and earlier payout of an alternate formula-based program, which is not aligned with the impact of project decisions spanning a longer period of time

• In this example, assuming retirement in 2017, the majority of ExxonMobil awards remain unvested, thus holding the executive accountable many years in the future for business decisions made 12 years prior

Year XOM Alternative“2005” 0 0"2006" 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 200"2010" 0 0 50 200 50 200 50 75 50 75"2015" 50 150 50 0 50 0 200 0 100 200"2020" 100 0 100 0 50 0 50 0 50 0 50 0"2026" 50 0

Year Project Cash Flow“2005” -19"2006" -149 -881 -2119 -2121"2010" -990 308 771 976 958"2015" 1156 1249 1297 1307 1105"2020" 1041 1057 1103 1118 1124 1120"2026" 1120

DATA as of 01/23/2014:

-500

-400

-300

-200

-100

0

100

200

300Alternative

XOM

20262020201520102006

CH

AR

TO

WN

ER NAME

G. Langston

AR

TB

OO


ED

ITO




AT

TE

NT

ION

: OW

NE


VE

RS

ION AS OF

APPROVED BY

Feb. 28, 2016

G. Langston

FILE

IN

FO


16 15XOMECO-Integration.ai

Carol Eric Bill



Chart 16

1.5

1.0

0.5

0

–0.5

–1.0

–1.5

–2.0

–2.5

300

200

100

0

(number of vested shares)

ExxonMobil(1) Alternate(2)


Project Net Cash Flow

-2500

-2000

-1500

-1000

-500

0

500

1000

1500

Project Cash Flow

20262020201520102006

2006 08 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 2507 09 11 13 15 17 19 21 23 2026






How did we perform?

Executive Summary



How did we pay?


Home











DATA as of 01/23/2014:

-500

-400

-300

-200

-100

0

100

200

300Alternative

XOM

20262020201520102006

CH

AR

TO

WN

ER NAME

G. Langston

AR

TB

OO


ED

ITO




AT

TE

NT

ION

: OW

NE


VE

RS

ION AS OF

APPROVED BY

Feb. 28, 2016

G. Langston

FILE

IN

FO



Carol Eric Bill



Chart 16

1.5

1.0

0.5

0

–0.5

–1.0

–1.5

–2.0

–2.5

300

200

100

0





-2500

-2000

-1500

-1000

-500

0

500

1000

1500

Project Cash Flow

20262020201520102006

2006 08 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 2507 09 11 13 15 17 19 21 23 2026






Footnote-D1

In both programs, 100 shares are granted each year from 2006 to 2016. (1) ExxonMobil equity program: 50 percent of an annual grant of restricted stock or restricted stock units vests in 5 years and the other 50 percent vests in 10 years or retirement, whichever is later.

How did we perform?

Executive Summary



How did we pay?


Home











DATA as of 01/23/2014:

-500

-400

-300

-200

-100

0

100

200

300Alternative

XOM

20262020201520102006

CH

AR

TO

WN

ER NAME

G. Langston

AR

TB

OO


ED

ITO




AT

TE

NT

ION

: OW

NE


VE

RS

ION AS OF

APPROVED BY

Feb. 28, 2016

G. Langston

FILE

IN

FO



Carol Eric Bill



Chart 16

1.5

1.0

0.5

0

–0.5

–1.0

–1.5

–2.0

–2.5

300

200

100

0





-2500

-2000

-1500

-1000

-500

0

500

1000

1500

Project Cash Flow

20262020201520102006

2006 08 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 2507 09 11 13 15 17 19 21 23 2026






Footnote-D2

In both programs, 100 shares are granted each year from 2006 to 2016. (2) Hypothetical alternate formula-based program: percent of target shares that pay out depending on ExxonMobil’s relative three-year TSR rank versus our primary competitors: Chevron, Royal Dutch Shell, Total, and BP. TSR ranking has been determined by a Monte Carlo simulation that applies equal probability to each rank position. The Monte Carlo simulation method is consistent with U.S. GAAP accounting principles for valuing performance stock awards. Payout factors as follows: 200% of target if ranked 1; 150% of target if ranked 2; 75% of target if ranked 3; and 0% of target if ranked 4 or 5.

How did we perform?

Executive Summary



How did we pay?


Home

Periodic Assessment of Program Design

The Compensation Committee periodically evaluates alternate long-term equity programs, including a methodology based on three-year relative TSR

• Charts 15 and 16 demonstrate that such a program enables a faster payout schedule, not aligned with the Company’s business model nor the interests of long-term shareholders [view charts]

• In confirming the design of our long-term equity program, the Compensation Committee took into consideration that:

– Long-term equity programs in which performance criteria apply to the vest date require greater line of sight and thus shorter vesting periods

– Earlier payout schedules entail a leveraged formula that could focus executives on short-term results at the expense of long-term sustainable growth in shareholder value

– ExxonMobil executives see a one-for-one change in compensation through share price, aligned with the experience of the long-term shareholder

– After retirement, ExxonMobil senior executives continue to have grants unvested, which are at risk of forfeiture for 10 years, and cannot be used as collateral for any purpose

A requirement to demonstrate leadership in all 7 key performance areas establishes a significant performance standard at grant which in turn allows ExxonMobil to maintain its uniquely long vesting periods







How did we perform?

Executive Summary



How did we pay?


Home


The Compensation Committee periodically evaluates alternate long-term equity programs, including a methodology based on three-year relative TSR

• Charts 15 and 16 demonstrate that such a program enables a faster payout schedule, not aligned with the Company’s business model nor the interests of long-term shareholders [view charts]

• In confirming the design of our long-term equity program, the Compensation Committee took into consideration that:

– Long-term equity programs in which performance criteria apply to the vest date require greater line of sight and thus shorter vesting periods

– Earlier payout schedules entail a leveraged formula that could focus executives on short-term results at the expense of long-term sustainable growth in shareholder value

– ExxonMobil executives see a one-for-one change in compensation through share price, aligned with the experience of the long-term shareholder

– After retirement, ExxonMobil senior executives continue to have grants unvested, which are at risk of forfeiture for 10 years, and cannot be used as collateral for any purpose

A requirement to demonstrate leadership in all 7 key performance areas establishes a significant performance standard at grant which in turn allows ExxonMobil to maintain its uniquely long vesting periods











CH

AR

TO

WN

ER NAME

G. Langston

AR

TB

OO


ED

ITO




AT

TE

NT

ION

: O

WN



VE

RS

ION AS OF

APPROVED BY

Feb. 18, 2016

G. Langston

FIL

E I

NF

O



Carol Eric Bill



Chart 15

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200Formula

XOM

2624222018161412100820060

20

40

60

80

100

120

Brent

262422201816141210082006

Year Brent"2006" 65.16 72.44"08" 96.94 61.74"10" 79.61 111.26"12" 111.57 108.56"14" 98.97 52.32"16" "18" "20" "22" "24" "26"

Year XOM Formula"2006" 0 0 0 0"08" 0 0 0 200"10" 0 200 50 400"12" 100 600 150 675"14" 200 750 250 900"16" 300 900 350 900"18" 550 900 650 1100"20" 750 850 "22" 900 950 "24" 1000 1050 "26" 1100

DATA AS OF 01/19/2016



120

100

80

60

40

20

0

1,200

1,000

800

600

400

200

0

84%

19%


2006 08 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 2507 09 11 13 15 17 19 21 23 2026







DATA as of 01/23/2014:

-500

-400

-300

-200

-100

0

100

200

300Alternative

XOM

20262020201520102006

CH

AR

TO

WN

ER NAME

G. Langston

AR

TB

OO


ED

ITO




AT

TE

NT

ION

: OW

NE


VE

RS

ION AS OF

APPROVED BY

Feb. 28, 2016

G. Langston

FILE

IN

FO



Carol Eric Bill



Chart 16

1.5

1.0

0.5

0

–0.5

–1.0

–1.5

–2.0

–2.5

300

200

100

0





-2500

-2000

-1500

-1000

-500

0

500

1000

1500

Project Cash Flow

20262020201520102006

2006 08 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 2507 09 11 13 15 17 19 21 23 2026

C15-16 PU

How did we perform?

Executive Summary



How did we pay?


Home

How our program encourages the highest performance standards:

√ Keeps executives focused on delivering industry-leading results over long periods of time, aligned with the Company’s business model

√ Holds executives accountable for many years, extending well beyond retirement

√ Aligns the financial gains or losses of each executive with the experience of long-term shareholders

√ Supports retention and continuity of leadership by encouraging a career orientation

How our program discourages inappropriate risk taking:

√ Extensive stock holding requirement through total compensation that is heavily weighted towards the equity program with long vesting periods

√ Unvested stock awards and the delayed payout of half of the annual bonus are subject to forfeiture for resignation or detrimental activity, with no accelerated payout at retirement

√ Strong bonus clawback policy

√ No employment contracts, severance agreements, or change-in-control arrangements

√ Grant decisions based on share-denominated basis (versus price basis) reinforce risk/reward profile of our program

√ No guaranteed bonuses or additional grants to balance changes in value of prior grants

Our program is applied consistently to all executives, including the CEO








How did we perform?

Executive Summary

Previous Next


How did we pay?


Home Footnotes | Frequently Used Terms

Footnotes

How did we perform? Charts 1-4: (1) Employees and contractors; includes XTO Energy Inc. data beginning in 2011. (2) Workforce safety data from participating American Petroleum Institute (API) companies; 2015 industry data not available at time of publication. (3) Competitor data estimated on a consistent basis with ExxonMobil and based on public information. For definitions and more information, see page 44 of the Summary Annual Report included with the 2016 Proxy Statement. (4) Cumulative (chart 3) and Annualized (chart 4) returns assuming dividends are reinvested when paid. (5) Chevron, Royal Dutch Shell, Total, and BP weighted by market capitalization; shareholder return data for Total available from 1992. (6) Annual data calculated as average of daily prices from U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA).

How did we perform? Charts 5-7: For the following footnotes, competitor data estimated on a consistent basis with ExxonMobil and based on public information. (7) BP excludes impact of GOM spill, TNK-BP divestment, and 2013 Rosneft investment. For definitions and more information, see page 45 of the Summary Annual Report included with the 2016 Proxy Statement. (8) Total shareholder distributions divided by market capitalization. Shareholder distributions consist of cash dividends and share buybacks. For more information, see page 45 of the Summary Annual Report included with the 2016 Proxy Statement. (9) More information on Strategic Business Results is included in the CD&A, see page 45. (10) Total Capitalization defined as “Net Debt + Market Capitalization”; and Leverage defined as “Net Debt / Total Capitalization.”

How do we link performance and pay? Chart 9: (1) Benchmark company data based on public information. Revenues represent the financial year ending in 2015, and include sales-based taxes and revenues from discontinued operations where disclosed. Intersegment revenues are excluded.

How did we pay? Formula: (1) The purpose of the two-thirds adjustment is to mitigate the impact of commodity price swings on short-term earnings performance.

How did we pay? Charts 11-14: For definitions of the terms “Reported Pay,” “Realized Pay,” and “Unrealized Pay” as used in this Overview, as well as a list of our compensation benchmark companies, see Frequently Used Terms [view page]. (1) Interest rate changes: from 2.5% for 2012 to 3.5% for 2013; to 3.0% for 2014; to 2.75% for 2015. (2) In 2013, the change in pension value was negative (-$6.24 million), but under SEC reporting rules, a negative change in pension value must be shown in the Summary Compensation Table as zero. (3) Exercised last stock options granted in 2001 that would have expired in 2011. No stock options granted since 2001. (4) 2015 benchmark company data not available at time of publication.

How do we manage risk? Charts 15-16: For both examples, and in both programs, 100 shares are granted each year from 2006 to 2016. (1) ExxonMobil equity program: 50 percent of an annual grant of restricted stock or restricted stock units vests in 5 years and the other 50 percent vests in 10 years or retirement, whichever is later. (2) Hypothetical alternate formula-based program: percent of target shares that pay out depending on ExxonMobil’s relative three-year TSR rank versus our primary competitors: Chevron, Royal Dutch Shell, Total, and BP. TSR ranking has been determined by a Monte Carlo simulation that applies equal probability to each rank position. The Monte Carlo simulation method is consistent with U.S. GAAP accounting principles for valuing performance stock awards. Payout factors as follows: 200% of target if ranked 1; 150% of target if ranked 2; 75% of target if ranked 3; and 0% of target if ranked 4 or 5. (3) Annual data calculated as average of daily prices from U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA).

Reference

How did we perform?

Executive Summary

Previous


How did we pay?


Home Footnotes | Frequently Used Terms

Reported Pay is Total Compensation reported in the Summary Compensation Table, except for years 2006 to 2008, where the grant date value of restricted stock as provided under current SEC rules is used to put all years of compensation on the same basis.

Realized Pay is compensation actually received by the CEO during the year, including salary, current bonus, payouts of previously granted Earnings Bonus Units (EBUs), net spread on stock option exercises, market value at vesting of previously granted stock-based awards, and All Other Compensation amounts realized during the year. It excludes unvested grants, change in pension value, and other amounts that will not actually be received until a future date. Amounts for compensation benchmark companies include salary, bonus, payouts of non-equity incentive plan compensation, and All Other Compensation as reported in the Summary Compensation Table, plus value realized on option exercise or stock vesting as reported in the Option Exercises and Stock Vested table. It excludes unvested grants, change in pension value, and other amounts that will not actually be received until a future date, as well as any retirement-related payouts from pension or nonqualified compensation plans.

Unrealized Pay is calculated on a different basis from the grant date fair value of awards used in the Summary Compensation Table. Unrealized Pay includes the value based on each compensation benchmark company’s closing stock price at fiscal year-end 2014 of unvested restricted stock awards; unvested long-term share and cash performance awards, valued at target levels; and the “in the money” value of unexercised stock options (both vested and unvested). If a CEO retired during the period, outstanding equity is included assuming that unvested awards, as of the retirement date, continued to vest pursuant to the original terms of the award.

Compensation Benchmark Companies consist of AT&T, Boeing, Caterpillar, Chevron, Ford Motor Company, General Electric, IBM, Johnson & Johnson, Pfizer, Procter & Gamble, United Technologies, and Verizon. For consistency, CEO compensation is based on compensation as disclosed in the Summary Compensation Table of the proxy statements as of August 31, 2015.

Statements regarding future events or conditions are forward-looking statements. Actual future results, including project plans, schedules, and results, as well as the impact of compensation incentives, could differ materially due to changes in oil and gas prices and other factors affecting our industry, technical or operating conditions, and other factors described in Item 1A “Risk Factors” in our most recent Form 10-K. References to oil-equivalent barrels and other quantities of oil and gas herein include amounts not yet classified as proved reserves under SEC rules, but which we believe will ultimately be moved into the proved category and produced.

The term “project” can refer to a variety of different activities and does not necessarily have the same meaning as in any government payment transparency reports.

Frequently Used Terms

Please also read the footnotes contained throughout this Overview for additional definitions of terms we use and other important information.

Frequently Used Terms

Documents

latest version of Adobe Reader or GoodReader. - ExxonMobilcdn.exxonmobil.com/~/media/global/files/investor-reports/2016/2016... · Adobe 11 or newer; for mobile devices use the