Phillips 66
Performance Band
Performance Band (A+ to F) is a full measure of a company’s climate policy engagement, combing the assessment of both its direct engagement (Organisation Score) and that of its industry associations (Relationship Score). Grades from A+ to B indicate broad support for Paris-aligned climate policy, with grades from D to F indicating increasingly obstructive climate policy engagement. Where InfluenceMap's analysis detects both limited direct and indirect engagement with climate policy, a Performance Band is not computed and, in this case, it is indicated as N/A. Further details can be found here.
Organisation Score
The Organisation Score (expressed as a percentage from 0 to 100) is a measure of how supportive or obstructive the company’s direct policy engagement is towards Paris-Agreement aligned climate policy, with 0 being fully opposed and 100 being fully supportive. If the company's Engagement Intensity is below 5% (that is, limited direct policy engagement from the entity being scored) InfluenceMap does not compute an Organisational Score and, in this case, it is indicated as N/A. Further details can be found here.
Relationship Score
The Relationship Score (expressed as a percentage score from 0 to 100) is a measure of how supportive or obstructive the company’s industry associations are towards climate policy aligned with the Paris Agreement, with 0 being fully opposed and 100 being fully supportive. If there is limited evidence of a company's links to industry associations engaging on climate policy, InfluenceMap does not compute a Relationship Score and, in this case, it is indicated as N/A. Further details can be found here.
Engagement Intensity
The engagement intensity (EI) is a metric of the extent to which the company is engaging on climate change policy matters, whether positively or negatively. It is a number from 0 (no engagement at all) to 100 (full engagement on all queries/data points). EI scores over 13 indicate some active engagement on climate policy streams, EI scores over 25 indicate increasingly strategic engagement.
Relationship Score, December 2020
A new batch of industry associations has been uploaded onto the InfluenceMap system and the relationship scores recalculated accordingly.
Updated terminology, February 2021
We adjusted the terminology used to describe the queries running down the left-hand side of our scoring matrix and added additional explanatory text to the info-boxes. This has no impact on the scores and methodology. It has been done following user feedback to improve clarity.
- Details of Organization Score
-
What do the 0,1,2 and NSs, NAs mean?
Each cell in the organization's matrix presents a chance for us to assess each data source against our column of climate change policy queries. We score from -2 to 2, with negative scores representing evidence of obstructive influence. "NA" means "not applicable" and "NS" means "not scored" - that is we did not find any evidence either way. In both cases, the cell's weighting is re-distributed over others. Red and blue cells represent highly interesting negative or positive influence respectively. Full details can be found here.
- Details of Relationship Score
-
What is the Relationship Score
A corporation, as well as its organizational score will have a relationship score. It is computed by aggregating the organizational scores of the Influencers (trade bodies etc.) it has relationships with, weighted by both the strength of these relationships and the relative importance of the Influencers towards climate change policy. Full details can be found here.
|
QUERIES
|
DATA SOURCES | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Main Web Site
The main organizational Web site of the company and its direct links to major affiliates and attached documents. |
Social Media
We search other media and sites funded or controlled by the organization, such as social media (Twitter, Facebook) and direct advertising campaigns of the organization. |
CDP Responses
We assess and score responses to two questions from CDP's climate change information request (12.3 a & 12.3c) related to political influence questions (currently these are not numerically scored by the CDP process). |
Legislative Consultations
Comments from the entity being scored on governmental regulatory consultation processes, including those obtained by InfluenceMap through Freedom of Information requests. |
Media Reports
Here we search in a consistent manner (the organization name and relevant query search terms) a set of web sites of representing reputable news or data aggregations. Supported by targeted searches of proprietary databases. |
CEO Messaging
Here we search in a consistent manner (the CEO/Chairman, organization name and relevant query search terms) a set of web sites of representing reputable news or data aggregations. Supported by targeted searches of proprietary databases. |
Financial Disclosures
We search 10-K and 20-F SEC filings where available, and non US equivalents where not. . |
|
|
Communication of Climate Science
Is the organization transparent and clear about its position on climate change science? |
0
|
NS | NA | NS | NS | NS |
0
|
|
Alignment with IPCC on Climate Action
Is the organization supporting the science-based response to climate change as set out by the IPCC? (the IPCC) |
0
|
1
|
NA | NS |
1
|
1
|
NS |
|
Supporting the Need for Regulations
To what extent does the organization express the need for regulatory intervention to resolve the climate crisis? |
-1
|
NS | NS | NS | NS | NS | NS |
|
Support of UN Climate Process
Is the organization supporting the UN FCCC process on climate change? |
NS | NS | NA | NS | NS |
1
|
0
|
|
Transparency on Legislation
Is the organisation transparent about its positions on climate change legislation/policy and its activities to influence it? |
-1
|
NA |
-2
|
NA | NA | NA | NS |
|
Carbon Tax
Is the organisation supporting policy and legislative measures to address climate change: carbon tax. |
NS | NS | NS | NS |
-2
|
0
|
0
|
|
Emissions Trading
Is the organisation supporting policy and legislative measures to address climate change: emissions trading. |
NS | NS | NS | NS | NS | NS |
-1
|
|
Energy and Resource Efficiency
Is the organization supporting policy and legislative measures to address climate change: energy efficiency policy, standards, and targets |
NS | NS | NS | NS |
-2
|
NS | NS |
|
Renewable Energy
Is the organization supporting policy and legislative measures to address climate change: Renewable energy legislation, targets, subsidies, and other policy |
NS | NS | NS |
-1
|
NS | NS | NS |
|
Energy Transition & Zero Carbon Technologies
Is the organization supporting an IPCC-aligned transition of the economy away from carbon-emitting technologies, including supporting relevant policy and legislative measures to enable this transition? |
-1
|
-1
|
NS | NS |
-2
|
-1
|
-1
|
|
GHG Emission Regulation
Is the organization supporting policy and legislative measures to address climate change: GHG emission standards and targets. Is the organization supporting policy and legislative measures to address climate change: Standards, targets, and other regulatory measures directly targeting Greenhouse Gas emissions |
NS | NS | NS |
-2
|
-2
|
NS |
-1
|
|
Disclosure on Relationships
Is the organization transparent about its involvement with industry associations that are influencing climate policy, including the extent to which it is aligned with these groups on climate? |
0
|
NS |
-2
|
NA | NA | NA | NS |
InfluenceMap Data Point on Corporate - Influencer Relationship
(1 = weak, 10 = strong)
InfluenceMap Comment:
CEO Greg Garland is Chairman of API's Board of Directors for a two-year term (Jan 22nd 2020 - Jan 2022)
Greg Garland
Open PDF file of Data Source
InfluenceMap Data Point on Corporate - Influencer Relationship
(1 = weak, 10 = strong)
InfluenceMap Comment:
CEO Greg Garland is on the board and executive committee of the American Petroleum Institute
Greg Garland
InfluenceMap Data Point on Corporate - Influencer Relationship
(1 = weak, 10 = strong)
InfluenceMap Comment:
CEO of Phillips 66 is finance chair of API's board of directors
GREG GARLAND
InfluenceMap Data Point on Corporate - Influencer Relationship
(1 = weak, 10 = strong)
InfluenceMap Comment:
CEO Greg Garland is Chairman of API's Board of Directors for a two-year term (Jan 22nd 2020 - Jan 2022)
Greg Garland
InfluenceMap Data Point on Corporate - Influencer Relationship
(1 = weak, 10 = strong)
InfluenceMap Comment:
CEO Greg Garland is on the board and executive committee of the American Petroleum Institute
Greg Garland
InfluenceMap Data Point on Corporate - Influencer Relationship
(1 = weak, 10 = strong)
InfluenceMap Comment:
CEO of Phillips 66 is finance chair of API's board of directors
GREG GARLAND
InfluenceMap Data Point on Corporate - Influencer Relationship
(1 = weak, 10 = strong)
InfluenceMap Comment:
Phillips 66 Executive Vice President of Refining serves as AFPM Vice Chairman, while CEO Mark Lashier sits on the Executive Committee as well. Phillips 66 executives also chair 6 AFPM committees (Correct as of October 2021)
Robert A. Herman; Mark Lashier
InfluenceMap Data Point on Corporate - Influencer Relationship
(1 = weak, 10 = strong)
InfluenceMap Comment:
Two Phillips 66 employees are chairs of AFPM standing committees. (Up to date as of Jan 2021).
Scott Willis and Terrence Martin
InfluenceMap Data Point on Corporate - Influencer Relationship
(1 = weak, 10 = strong)
InfluenceMap Comment:
A Phillips 66 executive is on the AFPM's Board of Directors and its Executive Committee. (Up to date as of Jan 2021).
Robert Herman
InfluenceMap Data Point on Corporate - Influencer Relationship
(1 = weak, 10 = strong)
InfluenceMap Comment:
Senior Executive of Phillips 66 is chairman of AFPM
Lawrence M. Ziemba
InfluenceMap Data Point on Corporate - Influencer Relationship
(1 = weak, 10 = strong)
InfluenceMap Comment:
Phillips 66 Executive Vice President of Refining serves as AFPM Vice Chairman, while CEO Mark Lashier sits on the Executive Committee as well. Phillips 66 executives also chair 6 AFPM committees (Correct as of October 2021)
Robert A. Herman; Mark Lashier
InfluenceMap Data Point on Corporate - Influencer Relationship
(1 = weak, 10 = strong)
InfluenceMap Comment:
Two Phillips 66 employees are chairs of AFPM standing committees. (Up to date as of Jan 2021).
Scott Willis and Terrence Martin
InfluenceMap Data Point on Corporate - Influencer Relationship
(1 = weak, 10 = strong)
InfluenceMap Comment:
A Phillips 66 executive is on the AFPM's Board of Directors and its Executive Committee. (Up to date as of Jan 2021).
Robert Herman
InfluenceMap Data Point on Corporate - Influencer Relationship
(1 = weak, 10 = strong)
InfluenceMap Comment:
Senior Executive of Phillips 66 is chairman of AFPM
Lawrence M. Ziemba
InfluenceMap Data Point on Corporate - Influencer Relationship
InfluenceMap Comment:
Could not find evidence that a Phillips 66 employee still sits on the board of Fuels Europe. However, they still retain a membership. (FuelsEurope, Jan 2021).
InfluenceMap Data Point on Corporate - Influencer Relationship
InfluenceMap Comment:
A Senior Executive of Phillips66 is on the Board of Directors of FuelsEurope
John Askounis
InfluenceMap Data Point on Corporate - Influencer Relationship
InfluenceMap Comment:
Could not find evidence that a Phillips 66 employee still sits on the board of Fuels Europe. However, they still retain a membership. (FuelsEurope, Jan 2021).
InfluenceMap Data Point on Corporate - Influencer Relationship
InfluenceMap Comment:
A Senior Executive of Phillips66 is on the Board of Directors of FuelsEurope
John Askounis
InfluenceMap Data Point on Corporate - Influencer Relationship
(1 = weak, 10 = strong)
InfluenceMap Comment:
No Phillips 66 employees appear to sit on the board of NAM any longer. However, they do retain membership to NAM (Phillips 66 industry associations, 2018, up to date as of Jan 2021).
InfluenceMap Data Point on Corporate - Influencer Relationship
(1 = weak, 10 = strong)
InfluenceMap Comment:
Senior Executive of Phillips 66 is Board Member of NAM
Clayton C. Reasor
InfluenceMap Data Point on Corporate - Influencer Relationship
(1 = weak, 10 = strong)
InfluenceMap Comment:
No Phillips 66 employees appear to sit on the board of NAM any longer. However, they do retain membership to NAM (Phillips 66 industry associations, 2018, up to date as of Jan 2021).
InfluenceMap Data Point on Corporate - Influencer Relationship
(1 = weak, 10 = strong)
InfluenceMap Comment:
Senior Executive of Phillips 66 is Board Member of NAM
Clayton C. Reasor
InfluenceMap Data Point on Corporate - Influencer Relationship
(1 = weak, 10 = strong)
InfluenceMap Comment:
Phillips 66 is an associate member of CAPP
not specified
InfluenceMap Data Point on Corporate - Influencer Relationship
(1 = weak, 10 = strong)
InfluenceMap Comment:
A subsidiary of Phillips 66 is an associate member of CAPP (Up to date as of Jan 2021).
not specified
InfluenceMap Data Point on Corporate - Influencer Relationship
(1 = weak, 10 = strong)
InfluenceMap Comment:
Phillips 66 is an associate member of CAPP
not specified
InfluenceMap Data Point on Corporate - Influencer Relationship
(1 = weak, 10 = strong)
InfluenceMap Comment:
A subsidiary of Phillips 66 is an associate member of CAPP (Up to date as of Jan 2021).
not specified
How to Read our Relationship Score Map
In this section, we depict graphically the relationships the corporation has with trade associations, federations, advocacy groups and other third parties who may be acting on their behalf to influence climate change policy. Each of the columns above represents one relationship the corporation appears to have with such a third party. In these columns, the top, dark section represents the strength of the relationship the corporation has with the influencer. For example if a corporation's senior executive also held a key role in the trade association, we would deem this to be a strong relationship and it would be on the far left of the chart above, with the weaker ones to the right. Click on these grey shaded upper sections for details of these relationships. The middle section contains a link to the organization score details of the influencer concerned, so you can see the details of its climate change policy influence. Click on the middle sections for for details of the trade associations. The lower section contains the organization score of that influencer, the lower the more negatively it is influencing climate policy.
Climate Lobbying Overview: Phillips 66 appears to be largely opposed to progressive climate change policy, albeit with limited engagement on specific policy measures. Despite some evidence suggesting support for ambitious action to curb emissions, the company has not expressed a clear position on the Paris Agreement or the need to limit temperature rise below a certain threshold. Phillips 66 does not appear to support the transition of the energy mix in line with IPCC advice, holding the view that fossil fuels will make up the majority of the energy mix for at least the next three decades.
Top-line Messaging on Climate Policy: Phillips 66 appears to have relatively limited top-line messaging on climate policy. It has not expressed a clear position on the Paris Agreement, and while some evidence from 2019 and 2020 suggests support for GHG emission targets in some regions it operates in, such as the United Kingdom and California, it does not appear to have clear official position on the requirement to cut emissions to net zero by 2050 or to limit temperature increase to below 1.5C. Although Phillips 66 appears to accept the need for policy in general to respond to climate change, it has stressed that regulations must also "address economic concerns" and apply nationally, rather than at the state level.
Engagement with Climate-Related Regulations: Phillips 66 shows relatively limited engagement with specific climate change policies as well as limited transparency in its climate change policy positions. In July 2020, CEO Greg Garland stated that Phillips 66 did not currently have an official position on any future carbon tax but could potentially support one if certain broad conditions were met. However, in 2018, Phillips 66 made political contributions totaling over $7 million to the 'No on 1631 campaign' which opposed the introduction of a carbon tax in Washington State. In December 2018, Phillips 66 was linked to an advertising campaign encouraging people to support the rollback of US fuel economy standards. Phillips 66 appears to have opposed ambitious renewable fuel mandates; in August 2019, it made a submission to the EPA stating "2020 proposed volumes remain too high and should be further reduced." Previously, in August 2018, Phillips 66 objected to proposed biofuel volumes for 2019 on similar grounds.
Positioning on Energy Transition: Evidence suggests Phillips 66 does not support a transition towards a low-carbon economy, stating on its website that high GHG emission energy sources are desirable in the energy mix 'for the foreseeable future'. Phillips 66 stated on Twitter in 2020 that 'Even in the most successful energy transition, the world will still need a lot of petroleum products to power the globe. And we will deliver that fuel'. Further to this, CEO Greg Garland stated in January 2020, that for “two and three decades we still see that fossil fuels are going to be a majority part of the energy mix”. Phillips 66 also appears to not support specific measures to encourage the transition of the energy mix, such as a proposed ban on ICE vehicles in California from October 2020. In May 2019, Phillips 66 also expressed support for proposed legislation that would criminalize protests against fossil fuel infrastructure projects.
Industry Association Governance: Phillips 66 has not provided a dedicated disclosure of its membership to industry associations, beyond a list of groups to which it has given funding above a certain threshold. It therefore has not disclosed any information on the extent to which it is aligned with these groups on climate change policy or how it is engaging with these groups in this area. Senior executives of Phillips 66 are board members of the National Association of Manufacturing and the American Fuel & Petrochemical Manufacturers while Phillips 66 CEO Greg Garland is on the board and executive committee of the American Petroleum Institute. These trade associations appear to be actively opposing numerous strands of climate change policy in the USA.