HF Sinclair

HF Sinclair has improved its target setting since the last (2021) assessment. The company only has a target to reduce its scope 1 and 2 emissions intensity by 25% by 2030 compared to 2020. Its target is also undermined by an unquantified use of offsets. Reducing emissions related to its operations and use of products should remain the company’s priority. Furthermore, the company should disclose the proportion of each target that will be met through direct action, rather than including offsets. HF Sinclair should develop a long-term target and additional interim targets that align with its 1.5°C pathway and cover its scope 1, 2 and 3 emissions.

HF Sinclair has first-generation biofuel activities, which can compete with food crops or accelerate land use change. The company also plans to produce low-carbon second-generation biofuels. However, the company does not disclose any capital expenditure (CapEx) investments in second-generation biofuels. Between 2016 and 2021, the company’s scope 1 and 2 emissions intensity remained stable and is expected to remain static between 2021 and 2026. To align with its 1.5°C pathway, the company is required to reduce its emissions intensity by over 6% annually.

While HF Sinclair has biofuel activities that are not considered low-carbon, the company has plans to produce low-carbon second-generation biofuels from waste sources. However, it does not disclose its overall research and development (R&D) expenditures or its R&D spending for low-carbon technologies in 2022. HF Sinclair should disclose its R&D expenditures to demonstrate its level of alignment with the sectoral expectation for a 1.5°C scenario.

HF Sinclair has lobbied directly against climate policies in the past, such as carbon fees. The company also remains on the board of trade associations, such as American Fuel and Petrochemical Manufacturers (AFPM), that are reported to have opposed climate policies. AFPM opposes the Renewable Fuel Standard and criticises the uptake of biofuels. HF Sinclair can increase its credibility by setting a clear position on climate policy and by implementing processes to withdraw from trade associations that oppose climate policies.

HF Sinclair has improved on target setting since the last (2021) assessment. The company has a target to reduce scope 1 and 2 emissions intensity by 25% by 2030 compared to 2020. HF Sinclair does not have a target covering its scope 3 emissions. The company does not have any interim targets by 2030 or any targets beyond 2030.

HF Sinclair aims to transition by mainly optimising its own operations. The company has plans to explore second-generation biofuels. Its only target relies on offsetting. Direct action to reduce emissions should remain the company’s priority.

The company is currently focusing on optimising its own operations to reduce emissions. While at present the company has first-generation biofuels, this is not considered low-carbon. In 2022, there is no evidence that HF Sinclair is investing in CapEx or R&D for low-carbon activities, including second-generation biofuels. It lacks supplier engagement strategies and client engagement strategies.

HF Sinclair’s scope 1 and 2 emissions intensity remained constant between 2016 and 2021 and is projected to remain static between 2021 and 2026. The company’s past scope 1, 2 and 3 emissions intensity between 2016 and 2021 has remained constant. The company is required to annually decrease its scope 1 and 2 emissions intensity by over 6% and its scope 1, 2 and 3 emissions intensity by over 4% to align with its 1.5°C pathway.

HF Sinclair does not conduct scenario testing and depends on second-generation biofuels, for which the company does not report any CapEx or R&D investments. It also plans to use an unquantified amount of offsets to reach its targets. This in conjunction with the lack of a scope 3 target or a net-zero target signifies that the company is not prepared for the low-carbon transition. A significant strategic and business model shift will be required to align with its 1.5°C pathway.

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 just transition planning to mitigate the social impacts of the low-carbon 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. Moreover, no evidence was found of the company’s action to promote these jobs in a way that ensures gender balance and inclusion of vulnerable groups. Additionally, no relevant disclosure was found of the company’s assessment of employment dislocation risks. The company discloses the actions it takes to provide reskilling and training opportunities for workers and affected stakeholders. For instance, it offers rotational development programs to recent graduates and financially supports continued education, professional licenses and memberships. 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 reskill or upskill.

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 supply chain. 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 respect the health and safety of its workers, no evidence was found that it demonstrates the same commitment. No evidence was found of 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. Moreover, no evidence was found of the company’s indicators of workforce diversity. Additionally, 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 or has a privacy statement regarding the collection, sharing and access to personal data. Moreover, no relevant disclosure was found of the company’s global tax strategy and the corporate income tax paid for each relevant jurisdiction. The company does have a policy prohibiting bribery and corruption, and it includes corresponding clauses in its contracts with business relationships. No evidence was found that the company has a lobbying and political engagement policy that it specifies it does not make political contributions. No relevant disclosure was found of the company’s expenditure on lobbying activities.