ExxonMobil has been accused of several unethical business practices negatively affecting the world community. ExxonMobil has further alienated many people through PR missteps and a corporate philosophy perceived as confrontational and “take no prisoners” in nature. Accusations include the following:

• Global Warming: The World’s COMPLEXXON/Gasgate 1963, post-war seizure of the European public sector by means of technology advantage (‘pipeline lock-ins’) and abusive conduct / industrial dominance in the energy-sector: the Public-Private Partnership ‘Gasunie’
• Intentional negligence and indifference to the environmental consequences of the Valdez disaster;
• Underfunding its pension plan, although Exxon Mobil currently has enough cash on hand to fund the difference several times over.
• Price gouging in the United States at a retail level;
• Indifference to the needs of homosexual employees—domestic partner benefits were ended following Mobil’s merger with Exxon. Mobil employees who already had domestic partner benefits were allowed to keep them, but other employees could not add their domestic partners to the benefit plans after the merger. ExxonMobil does offer domestic partner benefits in countries where same-sex marriage is legal.
• Shortchanging retail fuel marketing and lubricants marketing partners (known in the industry as “distributors” or “jobbers”) (The marketers won a $1.4 billion judgment against ExxonMobil for anticompetitive practices in federal court in 2003).
• Abuse of U.S. corporation law and perpetration of clever marketing schemes to avoid proper responsibility for its actions (For example, after the Valdez disaster, the company took the name “Exxon” out of its tanker shipping subsidiary, renaming it “SeaRiver Maritime,” and giving it a separate (but wholly Exxon-controlled) corporate charter and board of directors. The former Exxon Valdez is now the “SeaRiver Mediterranean” and is legally owned by a small, allegedly undercaptialized, stand-alone company, which would have minimal ability to pay out on claims in the event of a further accident.
• Human rights violations in the Indonesian territory of Aceh. In June 2001, ExxonMobil became the target of a lawsuit in the Federal District Court of the District of Columbia, under the Alien Tort Claims Act. The suit alleged that the company knowingly assisted human rights violations, including torture, murder and rape, by employing and providing material support to Indonesian military forces, who committed the alleged offenses in Aceh. Human rights complaints involving ExxonMobil’s relationship with the Indonesian military first arose in 1992; the company denies these accusations and has filed a motion to dismiss the suit, which is still pending as of 2005;
• Violation of the Bribes & Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (ExxonMobil controls concessions covering 11 million acres (44,500 km²) off the coast of Angola that hold an estimated 7.5 billion barrels (1.2 km³) of crude. Questions have been raised about ExxonMobil’s actions in securing these concessions—Forbes Magazine alleging that “ExxonMobil handed hundreds of millions of dollars to the corrupt regime of President José Eduardo dos Santos in the late 1990s”.; and
• Trade in violation of economic sanctions against regimes hostile to the United States (In 2003, the Office of Foreign Assets Control reported that ExxonMobil engaged in illegal trade with Sudan and along with dozens of other companies had to settle with the United States government for US$50,000.)
• In August of 2006, the Wall Street Journal alleged DCI Group, a marketing firm with ties to ExxonMobil, was the creator of an astroturfed YouTube video disparaging Al Gore and An Inconvenient Truth.

—Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ExxonMobil