We have strengthened the algorithm for discounting the impact older evidence on an organization's top-line metrics. Evidence from within the last two years is weighted the strongest and then gradually weighted out of the scoring calculations as it gets older. All evidence that is 5 years or older is completely removed from the scoring calculations. Users will still be able to view older evidence items that are archived the scoring matrix below, but these will not be impacting the organization's current scores.
We have expanded the list of climate policies we assess company engagement with to incorporate land-use related policy, referring to legislative or regulatory measures to enhance and protect ecosystems and land where carbon is being stored. Assessments under this category are currently underweighted in terms of their contribution to the overall company metrics. This weighting will be progressively increased over the next 6 months.
In this section, we depict graphically the relationships the corporation has with trade associations, federations, advocacy groups and other third parties who may be acting on their behalf to influence climate change policy. Each of the columns above represents one relationship the corporation appears to have with such a third party. In these columns, the top, dark section represents the strength of the relationship the corporation has with the influencer. For example if a corporation's senior executive also held a key role in the trade association, we would deem this to be a strong relationship and it would be on the far left of the chart above, with the weaker ones to the right. Click on these grey shaded upper sections for details of these relationships. The middle section contains a link to the organization score details of the influencer concerned, so you can see the details of its climate change policy influence. Click on the middle sections for for details of the trade associations. The lower section contains the organization score of that influencer, the lower the more negatively it is influencing climate policy.
Climate Policy Engagement Overview: Marathon Petroleum’s engagement on US climate change policy is largely negative. While its top-line messaging is varied, with Marathon making both positive and negative statements at times, it has generally opposed specific climate-related policies, and does not appear to support the energy transition. In addition, Marathon holds high-level memberships in numerous industry associations that continue to advocate negatively on climate policy in the US, such as the American Petroleum Institute (API) and National Association of Manufacturers (NAM).
Top-line Messaging on Climate Policy: Marathon has some positive and some negative top-line messaging on climate policy. In its 2022 Climate Report, Marathon recognizes some of the science of climate change, however, it places Unclear if supporting IPCC need for drastic action unclear timelines on preferred GHG emissions reductions. Marathon's 2022 Sustainability report notes its support for the goals of the Paris Agreement, and this position was reiterated in its 2023 CDP Report.
Engagement with Climate-Related Regulations: Marathon's engagement with climate change policy has been limited and mostly negative. In July 2023, Marathon advocated for relaxing the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)’s Light and Medium Duty Vehicle emissions standards, while also suggesting the integration of renewable liquid fuels. Earlier in April 2023, in comments to the EPA on the US Renewable Fuel Standard (RFS), the company opposed a request from US states to remove waivers, which would’ve removed the ability for small refineries to be exempt from regulatory enforcement.
Positioning on Energy Transition: Marathon appears to oppose transitioning the energy mix. In February 2024, Marathon submitted comments to the California Air Resources Board's Advanced Clean Cars II Regulations, advocating against a waiver of preemption for electric vehicles (EVs). In August 2023, Marathon, in comments with the Midwest Ozone Group, opposed the Environmental Protection Agency's proposed power plant rules, arguing that the EPA's suggested best system for emission reduction—carbon capture and storage (CCS) or hydrogen co-firing—exceeds its legal authority. In August 2023, Marathon, in comments with the Midwest Ozone Group, opposed the EPA's proposed power plant rules, arguing that the EPA's suggested best system for emission reduction—carbon capture and storage (CCS) or hydrogen co-firing—exceeds its legal authority. In their June 2022 Climate Report, Marathon supported a sustained role for gas with CCS in the energy mix, lacking clarity on timelines for deploying CCS.
Industry Association Governance: Marathon discloses a list of its industry association memberships and states broadly that it may not always agree with the groups’ positions on climate policy. It lists the climate policy positions of each association without providing a clear description of how it is engaging with them. Marathon maintains high-level memberships to several groups actively opposing US climate policy, including board-level membership with the American Fuel & Petrochemical Manufacturers (AFPM), American Petroleum Institute (API), Western States Petroleum Association (WSPA), and National Association of Manufacturers (NAM).
A detailed assessment of the company's corporate review on climate policy engagement can be found on InfluenceMap's CA100+ Investor Hub here.
InfluenceMap collects and assesses evidence of corporate climate policy engagement on a weekly basis, depending on the availability of information from each specific data source (for more information see our methodology). While this analysis flows through to the company’s scores each week, the summary above is updated periodically. This summary was last updated in Q3 2024.