EOG Resources

EOG is aiming to reduce its scope 1 emissions intensity to 13.5 tonnes of carbon dioxide equivalent per thousand barrels of oil equivalent (tCO2e/mboe) by 2025, equivalent to a 10% reduction compared to 2019. However, the ambition of this target is not sufficient to align with its 1.5°C pathway. The company also reports an “ambition” to reach zero scope 1 and 2 emissions by 2040. The company should, however, develop a long-term target that covers its scope 1, 2 and 3 emissions and aligns with its 1.5°C pathway. Additionally, the company should set intermediate targets no more than five years apart to incentivise near-term action on its long-term goals.

The company has not developed a low-carbon transition plan or demonstrated an intention to develop one in the future. The company should establish a time-bound action plan that outlines how it will transition to a low-carbon economy. In addition to medium- and long-term targets, the plan should include verifiable and quantifiable key performance indicators and financial commitments. The plan should also be informed by climate scenario analysis to ensure its ambition is sufficient to align with a 1.5°C pathway.

EOG has a review process in relation to trade associations with a commitment to review its memberships at least annually. However, the company remains a member of and continues to provide funding to nine trade associations, including the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and the New Mexico Oil & Gas Association, that are reported to have opposed climate-aligned policies. In 2022, EOG paid USD 500,000 to the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, which opposed both the Inflation Reduction Act and the Security and Exchange Commission’s proposals for mandatory climate disclosures.

EOG has a target to reduce its scope 1 and 2 emissions intensity by 10% by 2025 compared to 2019. The company also reports an ambition to achieve zero scope 1 and 2 emissions by 2040. However, the company does not have any targets for its scope 3 emissions, which account for the majority of the company’s total emissions.

EOG has not developed a low-carbon transition plan. There is also no evidence that the company intends to develop one in the near future. The company’s long-term plans focus on reducing operational emissions through technological improvements, implementing carbon capture and storage (CCS) and using offsets.

EOG has not developed a transition plan. The company outlines some short-term actions focused on reducing scope 1 and 2 emissions through reducing its methane emissions and improving operational efficiency. The company is launching a CCS pilot project and evaluating options to offset emissions. However, it provides no details of the actions it plans to take in the medium and long term to reduce its emissions.

The company has successfully reduced its scope 1 and 2 emissions intensity from 2017 to 2021 at a rate sufficient to align with its 1.5°C pathway. This has primarily been achieved through reductions in the company’s methane emissions. EOG has also reduced its scope 1, 2 and 3 emissions intensity between 2017 and 2021, however not at a rate sufficient to align with its 1.5°C pathway. This reduction has resulted from a higher proportion of gas in the company’s energy mix; however, the company has no intention to significantly transition away from oil production.

EOG has not developed a transition plan and is not intending to take any significant actions to reduce its scope 3 emissions. Although the company has made some progress in reducing its emissions intensity, it is continuing to explore for new oil and gas reserves and is projected to exceed its 1.5°C carbon budget by over 100% for the period 2022 to 2050.

No evidence was found of the company’s commitment to social dialogue or of the categories of stakeholders the company engages with on a just transition. Furthermore, no evidence was found to demonstrate the company’s ongoing social dialogue and meaningful engagement with affected stakeholders. No evidence was found of the company undertaking low-carbon transition planning to mitigate the social impacts of the transition on workers, affected stakeholders and its business relationships. Additionally, no evidence was found to demonstrate the company’s engagement in social dialogue and with stakeholders in its just transition planning.

No public commitment by the company was found stating its intention to create and support access to green and decent jobs as part of the low-carbon transition. The company provides equality of opportunity for women and vulnerable groups by partnering with student and university organisations that focus on underrepresented groups. However, no evidence was found of the company’s actions to provide or support access to green and decent jobs for workers and affected stakeholders. Additionally, no relevant disclosure was found of the company’s assessment of employment dislocation risks. The company discloses the actions it takes to provide training opportunities for workers and affected stakeholders. For instance, it provides employees and contractors trainings on a variety of topics, including environmental stewardship, and invests financial contributions in initiatives that increase access to science, technology, engineering and mathematics (STEM) education across the communities. However, no relevant disclosure was found of the company embedding equality of opportunity for women and vulnerable groups in these actions. Furthermore, no evidence was found of the company having a process for identifying skills gaps for workers and affected stakeholders or a public commitment to help workers displaced by the transition to re- or up-skill.

No relevant disclosure was found to show if the company identifies impacts of the low-carbon transition on social protection for workers and affected stakeholders, nor how it contributes to social protection. Additionally, no evidence was found that the company expects its business relationships to contribute to the social protection of their workers and affected stakeholders. No relevant disclosure was found to show how the company identifies any misalignment of its lobbying activities with policies and regulations that support the just transition, nor of the measures it takes to address misalignment. Furthermore, no evidence was found that the company lobbies for policies and regulations for green and decent job creation; retention, education and reskilling; and social protection for workers.

While the company commits to respecting human rights and the ILO fundamental rights at work, no evidence was found that it expects its business relationships to respect the ILO fundamental rights at work. No evidence was found of the company’s process to identify, assess and mitigate salient human rights risks in its own operations and in its supply chain. Moreover, no evidence was found of the company disclosing the stakeholders whose human rights have been affected by its activities. The company does, however, have a grievance mechanism available to workers and external stakeholders.

While the company expects its business relationships to commit to respecting the health and safety of its workers, no evidence was found that it demonstrates the same commitment. Further, no evidence was found of the company having a time-bound target for paying all workers a living wage. While the company discloses the proportion of its direct workforce covered by collective bargaining agreements, no relevant disclosure was found of the company’s required working hours. The company discloses the race/ethnicity and gender of its workforce by employee category. No evidence was found that the company commits to gender equality and women’s empowerment.

No evidence was found that the company commits to protecting personal data and that it has a privacy statement regarding the collection, sharing and access to personal data. No relevant disclosure was found of the company’s global tax strategy and the corporate income tax it pays in each relevant jurisdiction. The company does have a policy prohibiting bribery and corruption, and it includes corresponding clauses in its business relationship contracts. While the company also has a lobbying and political engagement policy, no evidence was found that it specifies that it does not make political contributions. No relevant disclosure was found of the company’s expenditure on lobbying activities.