Carbon Footprint — Operations: How does ConocoPhillips score?

ConocoPhillips reports Scope 1 (~15.5 Mt) and Scope 2 (~0.93 Mt) emissions in its 2024 Sustainability Report, with LRQA limited assurance. Data follows GHG Protocol, with multi-year tracking and granular breakdown by asset. Gross operated GHG emissions were 16.4 Mt in 2024, a 5.7% decrease from 2023. However, limited (not reasonable) assurance, and net equity emissions rose 5% in 2024 to 20.8 Mt CO₂e due to the Surmont acquisition.

Carbon Footprint — Supply Chain: How does ConocoPhillips score?

ConocoPhillips quantifies Scope 3 emissions at approximately 239 Mt CO₂e (2024), with 'Use of Sold Products' representing ~90% of Scope 3. Multiple categories are covered using life cycle analysis methodologies. However, Scope 3 emissions increased in 2024 in line with rising net production. No active supplier engagement programme to reduce Scope 3 emissions is disclosed, and the company has no Scope 3 reduction target despite a 58% shareholder vote in 2021 requesting one.

Emissions Trajectory: How does ConocoPhillips score?

ConocoPhillips uses intensity-based targets (50-60% GHG intensity reduction by 2030 from 2016 baseline) rather than absolute reduction targets. While gross operated GHG emissions fell 5.7% in 2024, net equity emissions rose 5% and Scope 3 emissions increased with production growth. Reclaim Finance assessed that ConocoPhillips' production trajectory is 71% above levels required by the IEA NZE scenario. Intensity improvements masking absolute growth with Marathon Oil acquisition and Willow project

Energy Source: How does ConocoPhillips score?

ConocoPhillips is not an RE100 member and does not report renewable power generation investments. The company did not retire any voluntary carbon offsets or RECs in 2025 per its own disclosure. Its renewable energy position statement speaks only of 'evaluating and supporting development of technologies for renewable energy' without concrete commitments. As a major energy consumer in exploration and production operations, the absence of any renewable energy strategy warrants the lowest tier for a

Nature & Biodiversity Impact: How does ConocoPhillips score?

ConocoPhillips has TNFD-aligned disclosure with nature risk assessments, biodiversity monitoring (seabird/mangrove monitoring in Australia, species GPS tagging in Lower 48, Alaska field studies), and proactive conservation programmes. However, the Willow Project in the Arctic National Petroleum Reserve poses documented risks to caribou migration, polar bears, and permafrost ecosystems, as found by the BLM environmental impact statement. Operations in multiple ecologically sensitive areas includi

Resource Use & Waste: How does ConocoPhillips score?

ConocoPhillips reports spill metrics and waste data. Produced water recycling is active in Permian and Montney assets, reducing freshwater withdrawal and disposal volumes. However, the core business is fundamentally extractive and linear — oil and gas extraction with no circular economy approach. No comprehensive circularity programme or supplier sustainability requirements disclosed. Basic waste management and some recycling initiatives, but resource extraction is the primary business activity.

Water Impact: How does ConocoPhillips score?

ConocoPhillips operates the Global Water Sustainability Center (GWSC) in Qatar focused on produced water treatment and recycling. Comprehensive water metrics are disclosed: freshwater withdrawal, consumption, and water stress exposure (8.2% of freshwater withdrawal in high-stress regions). The company uses WRI Aqueduct Risk Atlas for portfolio screening. Produced water recycling is used in Permian and Montney. Active research on beneficial reuse and desalination. However, hydraulic fracturing op

Targets & Commitments: How does ConocoPhillips score?

ConocoPhillips has set intensity-based targets: 50-60% GHG intensity reduction by 2030 (Scope 1 and 2, from 2016 baseline) and net-zero operational emissions by 2050 (Scope 1 and 2 only). No Scope 3 reduction target exists despite a 58% shareholder vote requesting one. The SBTi currently excludes oil and gas companies, so no SBTi validation is possible. No offsets used, which is notable. However, intensity targets are penalised per rubric (deduct 2 from equivalent absolute level), the net-zero a

Transparency & Accountability: How does ConocoPhillips score?

ConocoPhillips publishes an annual sustainability report with LRQA limited assurance, covering GRI, SASB, ISSB and TCFD/TNFD frameworks. CDP disclosure is annual. Board Public Policy Committee has oversight of sustainability issues. Sustainability is integrated into enterprise risk management. Comprehensive online performance metrics portal with report builder. However, assurance is limited (not reasonable), executive compensation is not publicly linked to absolute emissions targets, and disclos

Controversies & Red Flags: How does ConocoPhillips score?

Starting at 8. California AG Rob Bonta filed a major greenwashing lawsuit (2023, amended 2024) naming ConocoPhillips alongside ExxonMobil, Shell, Chevron, and BP, seeking disgorgement of profits (-2). The Willow Project in Arctic Alaska — described by NRDC as 'climate sabotage' — is expected to produce 287 million tons of CO₂ over 30 years, with documented impacts on threatened polar bears and caribou; ongoing legal challenges from multiple environmental groups (-1). InfluenceMap ranked ConocoPh

ConocoPhillips Sustainability Score: 17/100

Recently scored: Dentsu, Omnicom, Publicis Groupe, WPP

507 companies scored·4 score updates this week

ConocoPhillips·Oil & Gas·Houston, US·Founded 1875·Last verified 21 April 2026

out of 100

Significant gapsPending Review

ConocoPhillips uses intensity-based targets masking absolute emissions growth, with Scope 3 rising alongside production expansion. The Willow Project epitomizes the contradiction: Arctic drilling producing 287 Mt CO₂ over 30 years while the company claims climate commitment. Active lobbying against EPA and clean energy regulations, plus a California greenwashing lawsuit, expose misalignment between disclosure and behaviour.

No challenges currently filed

The calculation

Every score shows its working.

Same formula for every company. No curve. No private weighting.

SINK = (0.3 × Base + 0.7 × Performance) × Scale

Industry base impact

Oil & Gas sector ceiling.

20 / 100

Performance score

Sum of the 10 rubric questions, scored 0–10 each.

33 / 100

Raw score

Weighted average before scale penalty.

(0.3 × 20) + (0.7 × 33) = 29.1

Scale penalty

Multiplier based on absolute emissions volume — physics-first.

× 0.6

Final score

Rounded. Significant gaps.

17 / 100

The ten questions

Where ConocoPhillips is strong, and where it isn't.

Strongest on Carbon Footprint — Operations and Carbon Footprint — Supply Chain (6/10, 5/10). Weakest on Controversies & Red Flags and Energy Source (1/10, 1/10).

Where the evidence comes from

Every document used, listed.

18 sources used in this assessment. All publicly available. Each row shows which rubric questions it informed.

[1]Self-reported

ConocoPhillips GHG Target and Metrics

Ongoing

Q1Q3Q8

Every score shows its working.

Where ConocoPhillips is strong, and where it isn't.

Every document used, listed.

Where ConocoPhillips sits among oil & gas peers.

ConocoPhillips's score over time.

This score is not currently being contested.

Related companies worth a look.

We'll let you know when the score moves.

Which companies moved this week, and why.