PBF Energy

PBF Energy has not set any emissions reduction targets and does not disclose plans to develop any. The company should develop a long-term target that aligns with its 1.5°C pathway. Additionally, it should set intermediate targets no more than five years apart to incentivise near-term actions on long-term goals. The company should also clearly report its base year emissions and any offsetting it intends to use to allow for a complete analysis of its targets and progress against them.

PBF Energy’s scope 1 and 2 emissions intensity increased annually between 2019 and 2021. This does not align with the company’s 1.5°C pathway, which requires it to reduce its scope 1 and 2 emissions intensity by about 6% per year between 2021 and 2026. The company has not committed to phasing out its oil refinery activities, and instead incentives further fossil fuel growth. This does not align with the International Energy Agency’s (IEA) Net Zero Emissions (NZE) by 2050 Scenario, which does not allow for the expansion of producing assets beyond those sanctioned prior to 2022.

PBF Energy’s scope 1, 2 and 3 emissions intensity increased annually between 2019 and 2021. This does not align with the company’s 1.5°C pathway, which requires it to reduce its scope 1, 2 and 3 emissions intensity by about 4% per year between 2021 and 2026. The company does not disclose its expected revenues over the next five years, and more importantly, the share of revenues originating from low-carbon products. Reporting this information will allow the company to demonstrate its financial commitment to transitioning to a low-carbon future.

PBF Energy does not report any positions or committees with expertise on climate change and the low-carbon transition who hold oversight of climate change issues. Moreover, there is no evidence that PBF Energy has a low-carbon transition plan. The company should establish a time-bound action plan that outlines how it will transition to a low-carbon economy. This should include medium- and long-term targets, verifiable and quantifiable key performance indicators and financial commitments. Further, the plan should be informed by climate scenario analysis to ensure that the company’s ambition is sufficient for a 1.5°C pathway.

PBF Energy has not set any emissions reduction targets. The company has not developed a vision, qualitative or quantitative, of what its business will look like in a low-carbon future.

PBF Energy does not have a low-carbon transition plan and does not intend to develop one in the near future.

PBF Energy has low-carbon business models focused on developing 320 million gallons of annual renewable diesel production capacity and on producing clean hydrogen as part of the Mid-Atlantic Clean Hydrogen Hub (MACH2) consortium. However, it is unclear what proportion of this hydrogen will be created using low-carbon production methods as the MACH2 consortium will utilise green, pink and orange hydrogen production methods. The closest PBF Energy comes to having an emissions reduction target is its partnership with third parties to recover and convert carbon dioxide into a saleable product. But it is unclear whether these products align with a low-carbon future.

Between 2019 and 2021, PBF Energy’s scope 1 and 2 emissions intensity and its scope 1, 2 and 3 emissions intensity increased annually. To align with its 1.5°C pathway, PBF Energy needs to decrease its scope 1 and 2 emissions intensity by about 6% annually and its scope 1, 2 and 3 emissions intensity by about 4% annually between 2021 and 2026.

PBF Energy’s lack of targets and transition plan suggests that the company is not committed to the low-carbon transition. Although the company aims to engage in the production and sale of renewable diesel and clean hydrogen, it does not indicate the level of financial support earmarked for these low-carbon business models. Furthermore, the presence of financial incentives provided by the company in relation to its fossil fuel activities, through its Long-Term Incentive Plan (LTIP), brings into question how committed the company is to transition to a low-carbon future.

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 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. No public commitment by the company was found stating its intention to re- and up-skill workers displaced by the transition to a low-carbon economy. Additionally, no evidence was found that the company re- and up-skills workers in a way that ensures gender balance and inclusion of vulnerable groups.

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 expects its business relationships to respect the ILO fundamental rights at work, it is unclear that the company demonstrates the same commitment. Moreover, 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. No evidence was found of the company disclosing the stakeholders whose human rights have been affected by its activities. While the company has a grievance mechanism available to workers, no evidence was found that the mechanism is also available to external stakeholders.

The company commits to respecting the health and safety of its workers and expects the same commitment of its business relationships. However, 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 gender and race/ethnicity of its workforce by employee category. However, no relevant disclosure was found of additional indicators of workforce diversity. Moreover, 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. While the company discloses the corporate income tax it pays in each relevant jurisdiction, no relevant disclosure was found of the company’s global tax strategy. The company does have a policy prohibiting bribery and corruption, and it includes corresponding clauses in its business relationship contracts. However, no evidence was found that the company has a lobbying and political engagement policy or that it specifies it does not make political contributions. No relevant disclosure was found of the company’s expenditure on lobbying activities.