Marathon Oil

Marathon Oil has set scope 1 and 2 emissions intensity targets, aiming for reductions of 40% by 2022, 50% by 2025 and 70% by 2030 compared to 2019 levels. It is uncertain if the company will use offsets to achieve the targets. For this reason, the alignment of the company’s targets with a 1.5°C pathway could not be assessed. The company is, however, on track to achieve its targets, with a 40% reduction in scope 1 and 2 emissions intensity between 2019 and 2021. However, there was a peak in the company’s emissions intensity in 2019, and in 2021 the company’s emissions intensity reduced at a lower rate of 18%, in comparison with its base year 2017 levels. The company should set a long-term target encompassing scope 3 emissions and consider a more representative base year for scope 1 and 2 emissions intensity performance.

Marathon Oil achieved a 40% reduction in scope 1 and 2 emissions intensity between 2019 and 2021 through improvements in gas capture and reduced flaring. The company plans to invest USD 100 million over five years from 2021 to further reduce operational emissions intensity. However, this amount falls far short of what is needed to enable the company to transition, representing less than 7% of the company’s total capital expenditure (CapEx) in 2021 alone. Marathon Oil has no plans to invest in low-carbon business activities or phase out fossil fuel activities. Instead, its extraction activities are projected to increase, resulting in the company significantly exceeding its scope 3 carbon budget between 2022 and 2050 by at least 100%.

The company’s CEO is the chairman of the American Exploration and Production Council (AXPC), a trade association that has demonstrated opposition to climate policies. The company can increase its credibility by developing a policy for managing its membership of trade associations and withdrawing support and membership from associations that oppose climate policies.

Marathon Oil has set targets to reduce scope 1 and 2 emissions intensity by 50% by 2025 and 70% by 2030 compared to 2019. The company has also set targets to reduce methane intensity by 60% by 2025 and 80% by 2030 compared to 2019. It is unclear whether the company plans to use carbon offsets to achieve its targets. Marathon Oil has not committed to reducing scope 3 emissions.

There is no evidence that the company has a long-term transition plan or will develop low-carbon business models. Marathon Oil is concentrating on short-term actions to reduce operational emissions and plans to invest USD 100 million in emissions reduction technology between 2021 and 2026. However, this investment amounts to only 7% of the company’s total CapEx in 2021 alone. The primary focus of the investments is to mitigate methane emissions.

The company has invested in leak detection, gas capture and minimising flaring to reduce its scope 1 and 2 emissions. However, it remains fully reliant on fossil fuel activities. In 2022, Marathon Oil sold 125 million barrels of oil equivalent from across its operations in the United States and Equatorial Guinea.

Marathon Oil’s scope 1 and 2 emissions intensity decreased by approximately 5% per year on average between 2017 and 2021, aligning with the company’s 1.5°C pathway between 2021 and 2026. This trend is driven by a significant decrease in the company’s emissions intensity in 2020 and 2021, after it peaked in 2019. The company states that the recent decrease in direct emissions intensity is a result of gas capture and reduced flaring.

There is no evidence that the company plans to develop low-carbon business models and reduce scope 3 emissions. In fact, the company has stated that it does not believe scope 3 emissions data to be material information for shareholders. In addition, although the company’s oil and gas extraction peaked in 2019, it is projected to increase through ramped-up production in the Eagle Ford Shale field from 2023. As a result, the company is expected to exceed its scope 3 carbon budget between 2022 and 2050.

No evidence was found of the company’s commitment to social dialogue. There was also no evidence 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 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 training and educational opportunities for workers and affected stakeholders. For instance, it supports literacy programmes in communities and offers skill training to employees. Furthermore, the company discloses the measures it takes to embed equality of opportunity for women and vulnerable groups in these actions. It does this through support and partnership with organisations that specifically support women and minority engineers. However, no evidence was found of the company having a process for identifying skills gaps for workers and stakeholders affected by the low-carbon transition 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.

The company offers a grievance mechanism to workers and external stakeholders where human rights issues can be reported. However, no other policies or commitments of the company related to respect for human rights were found in the public domain. This includes the necessary policies and systems by which the company can ensure respect for basic human rights in its operations and supply chain.

The company commits to respecting the health and safety of its workers and discloses some information about the diversity of its workforce. However, the company can strengthen its disclosure on these subjects as well as on its living wage and working hour practices.

The company commits to protecting personal data, and it has a policy prohibiting bribery and corruption. Additionally, the company sets out its lobbying and political engagement approach and discloses its expenditures on lobbying activities. However, the company can strengthen its disclosure on these subjects. The company can strengthen its disclosure on these subjects as well as in relation to its tax strategy and taxes paid in relevant jurisdictions.