2007 Refining Sector Analysis Pacific Sustainability Index Scores

J. Emil Morhardt Elgeritte Adidjaja William P. Alston Ata Kahn Jason Clark Peter Gregory Weisberg Elicia Whittlesey Meghan Wilson Claremont McKenna College Roberts Environmental Center

The Roberts Environmental Center publishes analyses of corporate environmental and social reports—together called sustainability reports—on the web and in special Contents reports. Page We also write books about environmental and Company Rankings 3 sustainability reporting, the first of which is Clean, Green, and Read All Over: Ten Rules for Corporate Environmental Summary 4 and Sustainability Reporting, available from ASQ Press, and publish articles in academic technical journals. Case Study 5 All of our sector reports are available for free download Lead Analyst's Comments 7 at www.roberts.cmc.edu/PSI/SectorReports.asp. Printed copies are available for purchase from the same site. Director's Foreword 8 Airline (2007) The Pacific Sustainability Index in a Nutshell 9 Chemicals (2004, 2006, 2007) College and Universities (2006) Scoring Criteria 10 Computer, Office Equipment, and Services (2007) Consumer Food, Beverages, Food Production (2005, 2007) Environmental Intent Element of the PSI Scores 11 Electronics, Semiconductor, and Peripherals (2004, 2006) Energy (2005, 2006) Environmental Reporting Element of the PSI Scores 12 Entertainment (2007) Forbes 25 Largest Private and Public Companies (2007) Social Intent Element of the PSI Scores 13 Food Services (2007) Forest and Paper Products (2005, 2007) Social Reporting Element of the PSI Scores 14 Fortune 1000 Companies in California (2007) General Merchandisers (2007) Environmental Scores Ranking 15 Homebuilders (2007) Industrial and Farm Equipment (2006) Social Scores Ranking 16 Metals (2006) Mining, Crude-Oil Production (2006, 2007) Summary of Depth of Environmental Topic Discussion 17 Motor Vehicles and Parts (2004, 2006) Oil and Gas Equipment and Services (2007) Summary of Depth of Social Topic Discussion 18 Pharmaceuticals (2004, 2006, 2007) Petroleum and Refining (2004, 2007) Visual Cluster Analysis 19 Railroads (2007) Scientific, Photo, and Control Equipment (2007) Relationship between overall PSI Score and Companies' 20 Economic Indicators Questions should be addressed to:

Endorsements of World's Sustainability Guidelines 22 Dr. J. Emil Morhardt, Director ([email protected]) Company Rankings based on the Number of goals 23 Roberts Environmental Center Reported Claremont McKenna College 925 N. Mills Ave. Company Rankings Based on the Better Performance 24 Claremont, CA 91711-5916, USA Reported Direct line: (909) 621-8190 Elgeritte Adidjaja, Research Fellow: (909) 621-8698 Company Rankings Based on the Number of preferable 26 ([email protected]) Performance Reported Departmental secretaries: (909) 621-8298

Analysts’ Comments, alphabetically listed by company 27 name

The goal of corporate report analysis conducted by the Roberts Environmental Center is to acquaint students with environmental and social issues facing the world’s industries, and the ways in which industry approaches and resolves these issues. The data presented in this report were collected by student research assistants and a research fellow at the Roberts Environmental Center. Copyright 2007 © by J. Emil Morhardt. All rights reserved. www.roberts.cmc.edu 2 2007 Petroleum Refining Industry Report Claremont McKenna College Roberts Environmental Center

Petroleum Refining Sector Corporate Environmental and Sustainability Reporting Company Rankings Overall Grade

Repsol YPF 61.22 A+ Repsol YPF (Spain) ConocoPhillips 58.11 A ConocoPhillips (U.S.) Total 54.78 Idemitsu Kosan 54.67 A Total (U.S.) Chevron 49.39 BP 44.32 A Idemitsu Kosan (Japan) Sunoco 42.08 A- Chevron (U.S.) Statoil ASA 41.43 SK 40.89 B+ BP (U.K.) Hess 40.13 Cosmo Oil 39.62 B Sunoco (U.S.) Shell 39.26 B Statoil ASA () Cepsa (Compañía Española de Petróleos, S.A) 36.80 OMV Group 34.78 B SK (South ) Exxon Mobil 34.58 B Hess (U.S.) Nippon Oil 34.06 Nippon Mining Holdings 33.91 B Cosmo Oil (Japan) Eni 33.56 Petrobrás 32.78 B Shell (Netherlands) Lukoil 30.33 B- Cepsa (Compañía Española Reliance Industries 28.99 de Petróleos, S.A) (Spain) Sinopec 22.13 (a.k.a. Petroliam Nasional Berhad) 20.99 B- OMV Group (Austria) Pemex 20.03 Marathon Oil 16.78 B- Exxon Mobil (U.S.) Indian Oil 15.67 B- Nippon Oil (Japan) PTT (PTT Public Company Limited) 15.40 PDVSA 11.78 B- Nippon Mining Holdings Valero Energy 8.22 (Japan) China National Petroleum 1.33 B- Eni (Italy) 0 25 50 75 100 C+ Petrobrás (Brazil) C+ Lukoil () This report is an analysis of the voluntary environmental and social reporting C+ Reliance Industries (India) of companies on the 2006 Global and Fortune 500 Petroleum Refining sector C- Sinopec (China) lists. Data were collected from corporate websites during the initial analysis C- Petronas (a.k.a. Petroliam period (dates shown below). A draft sector report was then made available Nasional Berhad) (Malaysia) online and letters were sent to all companies inviting them to review the C- Pemex (Mexico) analysis, to identify anything missed by our analysts, and to post additional D+ Marathon Oil (U.S.) material on their websites if they wished to improve their scores. Seventeen D+ Indian Oil (India) of the 30 companies responded and 11 improved their grades and rankings. D+ PTT (PTT Public Company Limited) () Analysis Period: 9/18/2006through 5/25/2007 D PDVSA () Draft sector report available for review: 6/6/2007through 7/23/2007 D Valero Energy (U.S.) F China National Petroleum (China)

www.roberts.cmc.edu 3 2007 Petroleum Refining Industry Report Claremont McKenna College Roberts Environmental Center

Summary Highest Overall Scores Repsol YPF ConocoPhillips Idemitsu Kosan Lowest Overall Scores China National Petroleum Valero Energy PDVSA Highest Environmental Reporting Scores Repsol YPF Idemitsu Kosan ConocoPhillips Highest Social Reporting Scores Chevron ConocoPhillips Repsol YPF Most Frequent Environmental Reporting Topic Vision

Most Frequent Environmental Performance Topic Water

Most Frequent social reporting Topic Vision

Most Frequent Social Performance Topic Human Rights

www.roberts.cmc.edu 4 2007 Petroleum Refining Industry Report Claremont McKenna College Roberts Environmental Center

Case Study

The Future of Petroleum Companies: Cleaner and Greener? Consider Repsol YPF.

Because economic success and environmental concerns often clash, it is sometimes difficult to find a compromise. Often, the relationship between environmental activists and large corporations, particularly those in the petroleum industry, is not very warm. However, there are some cases where a company will voluntarily exceed minimum requirements, both environmental and social, and truly shine as a progressive organization.

Clearly, petroleum companies are not non-profits, and thus cannot channel all of their effort towards environmental concerns. However, the true leaders in the field stress transparency, mitigation and reclamation. By utilizing these and other various initiatives, companies such as Repsol YPF, a petroleum company based in Madrid, Spain which received the highest score for the sector, can minimize their environmental and social impact, as well as provide safe, healthy environments for their employees and neighbors.

Transparency is a critical component of environmental and social progress for large organizations such as Repsol YPF. For example Repsol YPF reports its annual carbon dioxide, methane, NOx, and SOx production in its annual environmental report. However, this is certainly the exception. These numbers are difficult or impossible to find for some companies and without this first step in reporting, analyses of mitigation and reduction are almost impossible.

In his statement in the company’s 2007 Corporate Responsibility Report, Chairman and CEO Antonio Brufau expressed his belief that, “In Repsol YPF, we are very aware of our business’ social function and our aim for the societies in which we are present, is for them to have accessible, sustainable and safe energy. At the same time, we are conscious that the characteristics of our activities, linked to natural resources, cause great social interest. For us, to be observed by society constitutes a stimulus to work toward attaining a more sustainable business model.” In addition to the transparency necessary for investors to see the breadth of Repsol YPF’s contribution, trust and cooperation are also values that push environmental issues forward. By working with other companies, NGOs, and governments, large corporations can effectively invest in their own environmental future. For those like Repsol YPF, which are clearly dedicated to emphasizing environmental concerns while still conducting business, having a strong network of environmental investments and affiliations can make them very appealing to investors looking for a more environmentally conscious choice.

Repsol YPF also takes a firm stance on global warming, “In spite of uncertainties, Repsol YPF believes it necessary to apply the precautionary principle, limiting emissions of so-called Greenhouse Gases (GHG) into the atmosphere with technical viability and economical efficiency criteria.” In its annual report, Repsol YPF also cites some instances in which it has taken action to reduce GHG and toxic organic material abundances at several of its operating locations. This, combined with efforts to reduce waste, conserve and protect water from contamination, and find other applications for toxic materials, has allowed Repsol YPF to create a new standard of environmental consciousness in an industry which often is thought of as a major source of pollutants.

In addition to its improvements in dealing with GHG, Repsol YPF has made progress on other fronts. For example, in order to conserve energy during the water purification process, it replaced ion exchange water treatment devices with reverse osmosis units. This meant a much shorter boiling period for its industrial water, since most of the toxic salts were initially removed. This increase in efficiency led to lower power usage and consequently lower carbon emissions.

A new process to use paraffin waste created from sealing containers from production has also led to efficiency in waterproofing buildings.

Repsol YPF recently spent $62,637 on a project to reorganize pipes and systems for a gas combustion engine exhaust outlet, which has not only saved it over $400,000 in costs, but also reduced its CO2 output by 3,505 metric tons. All three of these programs are good examples of money saving techniques which offer environmental benefits as well.

Two other projects include recovery of tire dust for asphalt and recovery of torch gas through the use of liquid ring www.roberts.cmc.edu 5 2007 Petroleum Refining Industry Report Claremont McKenna College Roberts Environmental Center

compressors. Due to these technological and efficiency advancements, Repsol YPF was able to reduce its environmental impact while at the same time reducing its annual expenditures. This is the perfect combination for a company looking to progress environmentally and socially.

Of course there are challenges along the way, and according to Bill Gartland, the Deputy Director of External Relations at Repsol YPF, the company has in place environmental policies to deal with its impacts. However, there are a few areas which “require greater attention on the company side”. These include protecting biodiversity, minimizing residual generation, and, a constant challenge for all companies, conserving natural resources by using less water and energy.

When asked how the company manages to respond to challenges in a quick and effective way, the answer is involvement of upper level management. This includes having an Executive Environmental Management Committee which works to transfer strategy into action. According to Mr. Gartland, having an environmental management system where employees are involved all the way up to the COO, and which includes departmentalized sectors such as climate change, is important to facilitating solutions. In addition, Repsol YPF has a “sole environmental policy, signed by the Chairman & CEO, permanently adapted to the new environmental challenges and commitments that arise.” This helps eliminate confusion and strengthens a single vision of environmental progress, allowing the company to move forward with a goal in mind.

Repsol YPF is a good example of a large petroleum company experimenting with new techniques to reduce its impact on the communities it serves. However, many other large petroleum, mining, and natural gas companies are starting to follow the trend of a more transparent business plan, while also participating in social and environmental initiatives. This is encouraging, since a solution to environmental degradation will not come overnight. Creating trends towards environmentally benign business is an important step on what will likely be a long road to an acceptable balance between the demand for natural resources and the stability of our planet’s environment.

William P. Alston Pitzer College '09 Claremont, California 11/30/2007

www.roberts.cmc.edu 6 2007 Petroleum Refining Industry Report Claremont McKenna College Roberts Environmental Center

Lead Analyst's Comments

What distinguishes a petroleum-refining company as environmentally or socially conscious? The PSI considers a company’s transparency in reporting environmental and social policies and quantitative performance. This is not the whole picture.

Reporting in the petroleum refining sector entails a greater responsibility than in other, less politically charged industries. Petroleum-refining is at the heart of politicians’, environmentalists’ and every day citizens’ worries over energy, specifically the local and regional pollution associated with the refining process, the lack of cheap substitutes for conventional crude oil that is running out, loss of energy security due to an increased dependence upon the politically instable Middle East, and global warming and the international community’s inability to stabilize the concentration of greenhouse gasses in the atmosphere. Responsible petroleum refiners need to discuss these issues, with corporate social responsibility reports as their forum.

Some companies do address these fundamental energy concerns. Two of the top scoring Petroleum Refiners, specifically Repsol YPF and Idemitsu Kosan, far exceed the requirements of the PSI in their extensive discussion of global warming policies and initiatives, however the PSI grants only two points for discussing climate change policy, meaning that some companies’ extensive discussion is unrewarded by the scoring system. BP is one of these companies. Their report centers itself on fundamental energy questions (global warming and others), but scores only a B- because it fails to report the basic quantitative environmental data required by the PSI.

The top scores in this sector come from companies with in the low and middle range of revenues: neither Repsol YPF nor Idemitsu Kosan is one of the ten largest petroleum-refining companies. Our data show no significant correlation between revenue and PSI score (see page 19), meaning big or small companies are equally likely to produce comprehensive and transparent sustainability reports. This sector is both profitable and environmentally sensitive; thus small companies also have the resources and incentive to produce quality corporate social responsibility reports.

US politicians and media have recently begun discussing pollution, peak oil, energy security and global warming on an every day basis. These issues became popular about the same time many of these scored reports were published. Given this new popularity, fundamental energy concerns should play a central role in the next drafts of Petroleum-Refining sustainability reports.

Peter Weisberg CMC '07 Claremont, California 11/30/2007

www.roberts.cmc.edu 7 2007 Petroleum Refining Industry Report Claremont McKenna College Roberts Environmental Center

The Pacific Sustainability Index (PSI) Overview

the PSI Scoring System The Pacific Sustainability Index (PSI) uses two systematic questionnaires to analyze the quality of the sustainability reporting—a base questionnaire for reports across sectors and a sector-specific questionnaire for companies within the same sector. The selection of questions is based on, and periodically adjusted to, the most frequently-mentioned topics in over 900 corporate sustainability reports analyzed from 2002 through 2007 at the Roberts Environmental Center. The Roberts Environmental Center The Roberts Environmental Center is an environmental research institute at Claremont McKenna College (CMC). Its mission is to provide students of all the Claremont colleges with a comprehensive and realistic understanding of today’s environmental issues and the ways in which they are being and can be resolved, and to identify, publicize, and encourage policies and practices that achieve economic and social goals in the most environmentally benign and protective manner. The Center is partially funded by an endowment from George R. Roberts (Founding Partner of Kohlberg Kravis Roberts Co. and CMC alumnus), other grants, and gifts, and is staffed by faculty and students from the Claremont Colleges. Methodology Student analysts download relevant English language web pages from the main corporate web site for analysis. Our scoring excludes data independently stored outside the main corporate web site or available only in hard copy. When a corporate subsidiary has its own sustainability reporting, partial credit is given to the parent company when a direct link is provided in the main corporate web site. We archive these web pages as PDF files for future reference. Our analysts use a keyword search function to search reporting of specific topics and, they fill out a PSI scoring sheet (http://www.roberts.cmc.edu/PSI/scoringsheet.asp), and track the coverage and depths of different sustainability issues mentioned in all online materials. scores and ranks When they are finished scoring, the analysts enter their scoring results into the PSI database. The PSI database calculates scores and publishes them on the Center’s web site. This sector report provides an in-depth analysis on sustainability reporting of the largest companies of the sector (up to 30), as listed in the latest and 1000 lists. Prior to publishing our sector report, we notify companies analyzed and encourage them to provide feedback and additional new online materials, which often improve their scores. What do the scores mean? We normalize all the scores to the potential maximum score. Scores of subsets of the overall score are also normalized to their potential maxima. The letter grades (A+, A, A-, B+, etc.), however, are normalized to the highest scoring company analyzed in the report. Grades of individual companies in the report might be different from grades posted online on the Roberts Environmental Center's web site, since the normalization of scores of an individual company online is not limited to the companies analyzed in the sector report, but also includes other companies of the same sector irrespective of the year of analysis. Companies with scores in the highest 4% get A+ and any in the bottom 4% get F. We assign these by dividing the maximum PSI score obtained in the sector into 12 equal parts then rounding fractional score up or down. This means that A+ and F are under-represented compared the other grades. The same technique applies to the separate categories of environmental and social scores. Thus, we grade on the curve. We assume that the highest score obtained in the sector and any scores near it represent the state of the art for that sector and deserve an A+.

8 www.roberts.cmc.edu 2007 Petroleum Refining Industry Report Claremont McKenna College Roberts Environmental Center

Scoring Criteria intent The intent category measures the coverage and company’s involvement in general environmental or social issues. The criteria for achieving a score in the Intent category are a discussion of the topic and an example of an initiative or action taken by the reporting company on the topic. reporting Reporting scores reflect transparency in publicly discussing the company’s dealings with environmental issues independent of success in making improvements. The maximum score for each topic in the Reporting category is five points, relating to both qualitative and quantative elements.

Three points are available for a qualitative topics: 1. Discussion of the topic 2. Initiative or action taken by the company on the topic 3. Demonstration of an external context that shows how performance relates to that of peer companies, to that of industry standards, or demonstrates recognition from third parties, such as awards.

Five points are available for quantitative topics:: 1. A discussion on the topic 2. An external context 3. One or more explicit numerical goals 4. A numerical measure of performance of the topic 5. One or more previous measures of numerical performance.

In addition to these scores, in the social reporting category, there is a series of 11 human rights topics that are given seven points each if they are mentioned.

Performance For quantitative topics, when the current performance is superior to that previously reported, we give one point. Another point is awarded if the latest numerical value of the quantitative performance is above the mean value of all of the performance values we have for the particular sector analyzed. Thus, individual companies cannot be scored fully independent of data from other companies in the sector.

Distribution of Scores by topics

Social, Quantitative Data Environmental, 10% Qualitative Data 22%

Social, Qualitative Data 27%

Environmental, Quantitative Data 26% Social, Human Rights Data 15%

9 www.roberts.cmc.edu 2007 Petroleum Refining Industry Report Claremont McKenna College Roberts Environmental Center

Petroleum Refining Environmental Intent Element of the PSI Scores

Environmental management system

Environmental visionary statement

Environmental structure or management

Climate change/global warming

Habitat/ecosystem conservation

Environmental policy statement

Environmental impediments and challenges

Report contact person

Stakeholder consultation

Biodiversity

Environmental education

Green purchasing

Environmental accounting

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

= Reporters = Non-reporters = Depth of discussion

The Reporters and Non-Reporters bars reflect the percentage of companies addressing the topics. The Depth of Discussion bars reflect the percentage of the total possible number of points awarded to all companies combined.

www.roberts.cmc.edu 10 2007 Petroleum Refining Industry Report Claremont McKenna College Roberts Environmental Center

Petroleum Refining Environmental Reporting Element of the PSI Scores

Water used Nitrogen oxides (NOx) Carbon dioxide (CO2) Hazardous waste produced/disposed Energy used Sulfur oxides (SOx) Waste disposed of Greenhouse gases, total Waste recycled Volatile organic carbon (VOC) Environmental expenses and/or investments Renewable energy or energy efficiency Recovery of fuel spillage Accidental spills Protection of marine ecosystem Hazardous waste released

Pipelines, monitoring and maintenance R&D on green technologies Particulate matter (dust) Environmental fines Emissions to water, total, including fuel spillage or leakage

Office recycling rate Methane (CH4) Suspended solids, total (TSS) Waste water released Carbon monoxide (CO)

Biochemical Oxygen Demand (BOD) Waste water recycled Environmental notices of violation Life Cycle Analysis (LCA) Sulfur hexafluoride (SF6)

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

= Reporters = Non-reporters = Depth of discussion

The Reporters and Non-Reporters bars reflect the percentage of companies addressing the topics. The Depth of Discussion bars reflect the percentage of the total possible number of points awarded to all companies combined.

11 www.roberts.cmc.edu 2007 Petroleum Refining Industry Report Claremont McKenna College Roberts Environmental Center

Petroleum Refining Social Intent Element of the PSI Scores

Social visionary statement

Social or Health and Safety organization structure or management

Code of conduct or business ethics

Emergency preparedness program

Employee training, skills, and learning

Social policy statement

Third party validation

Supplier screening based on social or environmental performance.

Social impediments and challenges

Employment for individuals with disabilities

Demographic nature of the workforce: Age

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

= Reporters = Non-reporters = Depth of discussion

The Reporters and Non-Reporters bars reflect the percentage of companies addressing the topics. The Depth of Discussion bars reflect the percentage of the total possible number of points awarded to all companies combined.

www.roberts.cmc.edu 12 2007 Petroleum Refining Industry Report Claremont McKenna College Roberts Environmental Center

Petroleum Refining Social Reporting Element of the PSI Scores

Occupational health and safety protection

Community Development

Community Education

Social community investment

Anti-Corruption practices Equal opportunity, elimination of discrimination, promotion of diversity, or non-discrimination policy Free association and collective bargaining of employees

Recordable incident rate

Lost workday case rate

Use of illegal child labor

Forced labor of employees

Demographic nature of the workforce: Gender

Bribery

Employee volunteerism

Advancement of women

Political Contributions

Demographic nature of the workforce: Ethnicities/Race

Sexual harassment

Fair compensation of employees

Corporal punishment of employees

Serious Injuries

Fatal Injuries

Employee Satisfaction Survey

Access to health care for employees

Turnover Rate

Working hours

Health and safety fines

Health and safety citations

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

= Reporters = Non-reporters = Depth of discussion

The Reporters and Non-Reporters bars reflect the percentage of companies addressing the topics. The Depth of Discussion bars reflect the percentage of the total possible number of points awarded to all companies combined.

www.roberts.cmc.edu 13 2007 Petroleum Refining Industry Report Claremont McKenna College Roberts Environmental Center

Environmental Intent Scores Ten Highest Ranked Scores Environmental Intent Repsol YPF Shell A+ Repsol YPF Exxon Mobil ConocoPhillips Tot al A+ Shell OMV Gr oup Cepsa (Compañí a Española de Pet róleos, A ConocoPhillips Nippon Oil BP A Total Idemi t su Kosan Chevron Cosmo Oil A Exxon Mobil Sunoco Statoil ASA A BP Nippon Mining Holdings Pet robrás Eni A Cepsa (Compañía Española de SK Petróleos, S.A) Hess Pemex Lukoil A Nippon Oil Sinopec PTT (PTT Public Company Limit ed) A Idemitsu Kosan Pet ronas (a.k.a. Pet roliam Nasional Berhad) Reliance Industries Marat hon Oil Indian Oil Environmental intent scores include topics about the firm’s PDVSA products, environmental organization, vision and commitment, Valero Energy China Nat ional Pet roleum stakeholders, environmental policy and certifications, 0 25 50 75 100 environmental aspects and impacts, choice of environmental performance indicators and those used by the industry, Environmental Reporting Scores environmental initiatives and mitigations, and environmental goals and targets.

Repsol YPF Idemi t su Kosan ConocoPhillips Environmental Reporting Sunoco Chevron A+ Repsol YPF Cepsa (Compañí a Española de Pet róleos, S.A) Shell Hess A+ Idemitsu Kosan Statoil ASA Tot al A- ConocoPhillips Lukoil Nippon Oil A- Sunoco Cosmo Oil Nippon Mining Holdings BP B+ Chevron SK Eni B Cepsa (Compañía Española de Pemex Reliance Industries Petróleos, S.A) Pet robrás Pet ronas (a.k.a. Pet roliam Nasional Berhad) B- Shell Exxon Mobil Sinopec OMV Gr oup B- Hess Marat hon Oil China Nat ional Pet roleum B- Statoil ASA Indian Oil PTT (PTT Public Company Limit ed) PDVSA Environmental reporting scores are based on the degree to Valero Energy which the company discusses its emissions, energy sources 0 25 50 75 100 and consumption, environmental incidents and violations, materials use, mitigations and remediation, waste produced, and water used. They also include use of life cycle analysis, environmental performance and stewardship of products, and Environmental Performance Scores environmental performance of suppliers and contractors. Environmental Performance Repsol YPF Hess Statoil ASA A+ Repsol YPF Idemi t su Kosan Lukoil A Hess Cepsa (Compañí a Española de Pet róleos, S.A) Nippon Oil ConocoPhillips B+ Statoil ASA Pet robrás Eni B Lukoil Pet ronas (a.k.a. Pet roliam Nasional Berhad) Shell B Idemitsu Kosan Pemex BP Sunoco B- Cepsa (Compañía Española de Chevron Tot al Petróleos, S.A) SK Reliance Industries C+ Nippon Oil Nippon Mining Holdings Exxon Mobil C+ ConocoPhillips China Nat ional Pet roleum Cosmo Oil OMV Gr oup C+ Eni Sinopec Marat hon Oil Indian Oil Environmental performance scores are based on whether or not PTT (PTT Public Company Limit ed) PDVSA the firm has improved its performance on each of the topics Valero Energy discussed under the heading of environmental reporting, and on 0 25 50 75 100 whether the quality of the performance is better than that of the firm’s peers. Scoring for each topic is one point if performance is better than in previous reports, two points if better than industry peers, three points if both. www.roberts.cmc.edu 14 2007 Petroleum Refining Industry Report Claremont McKenna College Roberts Environmental Center

Social Intent Scores Ten Highest Ranked Scores

Tot al Social Intent Shell OMV Gr oup Cosmo Oil BP A+ Total Sunoco SK A Shell Idemi t su Kosan Statoil ASA A OMV Group Chevron Nippon Oil Repsol YPF A Cosmo Oil ConocoPhillips Exxon Mobil A- SK Lukoil Nippon Mining Holdings Pet robrás A- BP Cepsa (Compañí a Española de Pet róleos, S.A) Sinopec A- Sunoco Hess Pemex B+ Statoil ASA PTT (PTT Public Company Limit ed) Reliance Industries Eni B+ Idemitsu Kosan Marat hon Oil Pet ronas (a.k.a. Pet roliam Nasional Berhad) B+ Chevron Indian Oil PDVSA Valero Energy Social intent scores include topics about the firm’s financials, China Nat ional Pet roleum employees, safety reporting, social management organization, 0 25 50 75 100 social vision and commitment, stakeholders, social policy and certifications, social aspects and impacts, choice of social performance indicators and those used by the industry, social initiatives and mitigations, and social goals and targets. Social Reporting Scores Social Reporting

Chevron Repsol YPF A+ Chevron ConocoPhillips BP A+ Repsol YPF Tot al Exxon Mobil OMV Gr oup A ConocoPhillips Idemi t su Kosan Cosmo Oil A BP Statoil ASA Hess A Total Sunoco Nippon Mining Holdings SK A- Exxon Mobil Reliance Industries Shell A- OMV Group Cepsa (Compañí a Nippon Oil B+ Idemitsu Kosan Eni Sinopec Pet robrás B+ Cosmo Oil Lukoil PTT (PTT Public Company B+ Statoil ASA Marat hon Oil Pet ronas (a.k.a. Indian Oil Pemex Social reporting scores are based on the degree to which the PDVSA Valero Energy company discusses various aspects of its dealings with its China Nat ional Pet roleum employees and contractors. They also include social costs and 0 25 50 75 100 investments. Social Performance A+ ConocoPhillips Social Performance Scores A+ OMV Group A BP ConocoPhillips OMV Gr oup A Chevron Chevron BP Repsol YPF A Repsol YPF Idemi t su Kosan Tot al A Idemitsu Kosan Exxon Mobil Cosmo Oil A- Total Statoil ASA Hess Reliance Industries A- Exxon Mobil SK Shell B+ Cosmo Oil Sunoco Eni Cepsa (Compañí a Española de Pet róleos, B+ Statoil ASA Sinopec Nippon Mining Holdings Nippon Oil Pet robrás Social performance scores are based on improvement, Lukoil Indian Oil performance better than the sector average, or statements of Pet ronas (a.k.a. Pet roliam Nasional Berhad) PTT (PTT Public Company Limit ed) compliance with established social standards. Marat hon Oil PDVSA Valero Energy Pemex China Nat ional Pet roleum

0 25 50 75 100

www.roberts.cmc.edu 15 2007 Petroleum Refining Industry Report Claremont McKenna College Roberts Environmental Center

Petroleum Refining Summary of the Depth of Environmental Topic Discussions The thicker lines are the percentages of total average scores for all companies combined. The thinner lines are the total possible scores (100%). Environmental Intent

Accountability 100

80

60

40

20

Vision 0 Management

Policy

Environmental Reporting and Performance

Emissions to air 100

80 60 Water Energy 40

20 0

Waste Management and Misc.

Recycling

www.roberts.cmc.edu 16 2007 Petroleum Refining Industry Report Claremont McKenna College Roberts Environmental Center

Petroleum Refining Summary of the Depth of Social Topic Discussions The thicker lines are the percentages of total average scores for all companies combined. The thinner lines are the total possible scores (100%). Social Intent

Accountability 100

80

60 40 Vision Management 20 0

Social Demographic Policy

Social Reporting and Performance

Human Rights 100

80 60

40

20 Quantitative Social 0 Management

Qualitative Social

www.roberts.cmc.edu 17 2007 Petroleum Refining Industry Report Claremont McKenna College Roberts Environmental Center

Visual Cluster Analysis Visual cluster analysis multivariate data of the sort produced by the PSI are difficult to summarize. Here we have created radar diagrams of the performance of each company analysed in the sector by its environmental and social intent, reporting, and performance sorted by company ranking. Maximum scores will match the outer sides of the hexagon which total up to 100 percent.

EI = Environmental Intent, ER = Environmental Reporting, EP = Environmental Performance SI = Social Intent, SR = Social Reporting, SP = Social Performance

ER ER ER ER ER 100 100 100 100 100

75 75 75 75 75

EI 50 EP EI 50 EP EI 50 EP EI 50 EP EI 50 EP

25 25 25 25 25

0 0 0 0 0

SI SP SI SP SI SP SI SP SI SP

SR SR SR SR SR Repsol YPF ConocoPhillips Total Idemitsu Kosan Chevron ER ER ER ER ER 100 100 100 100 100

75 75 75 75 75

EI 50 EP EI 50 EP EI 50 EP EI 50 EP EI 50 EP

25 25 25 25 25

0 0 0 0 0

SI SP SI SP SI SP SI SP SI SP

SR SR SR SR SR BP Sunoco Statoil ASA SK Hess ER ER ER ER ER 100 100 100 100 100

75 75 75 75 75

EI 50 EP EI 50 EP EI 50 EP EI 50 EP EI 50 EP

25 25 25 25 25

0 0 0 0 0

SI SP SI SP SI SP SI SP SI SP

SR SR SR SR SR Cosmo Oil Shell Cepsa (Compañía OMV Group Exxon Mobil Española de Petróleos, S.A) ER ER ER ER ER 100 100 100 100 100

75 75 75 75 75

EI 50 EP EI 50 EP EI 50 EP EI 50 EP EI 50 EP

25 25 25 25 25

0 0 0 0 0

SI SP SI SP SI SP SI SP SI SP

SR SR SR SR SR Nippon Oil Nippon Mining Eni Petrobrás Lukoil Holdings ER ER ER ER ER 100 100 100 100 100

75 75 75 75 75

EI 50 EP EI 50 EP EI 50 EP EI 50 EP EI 50 EP

25 25 25 25 25

0 0 0 0 0

SI SP SI SP SI SP SI SP SI SP

SR SR SR SR SR Reliance Industries Sinopec Petronas (a.k.a. Pemex Marathon Oil Petroliam Nasional Berhad) ER ER ER ER ER 100 100 100 100 100

75 75 75 75 75

EI 50 EP EI 50 EP EI 50 EP EI 50 EP EI 50 EP

25 25 25 25 25

0 0 0 0 0

SI SP SI SP SI SP SI SP SI SP

SR SR SR SR SR Indian Oil PTT (PTT Public PDVSA Valero Energy China National Company Limited) Petroleum

18 www.roberts.cmc.edu 2007 Petroleum Refining Industry Report Claremont McKenna College Roberts Environmental Center

Relationships Between Overall PSI Score and Companies' Economic Indicators

70

61.22 60 58.11

54.67 54.78

50 49.39

2 42.08 R = 0.0322 40.89 41.43 40 39.6240.13 39.26 36.80 34.78 34.58 33.91 34.06 33.56 32.78 30.33 30 28.99 Overall PSI Scores PSI Overall 22.13 20.99 20 20.03 16 . 7 8 15 . 415 0 . 6 7

11. 7 8 10 8.22

1. 3 3 0 0 50000 100000 150000 200000 250000 300000 350000 400000 Revenue ($M) Company Name Overall Revenue Net Income Net Profit Number End Score ($million) ($million) Margin* of Fiscal Employees Year Repsol YPF 61.22 $60,457.70 $3,388.60 0.06 35909 Dec 2005 ConocoPhillips 58.11 $183,364.00 $13,529.00 0.07 35600 Dec 2005 Total 54.78 $145,228.80 $13,735.50 0.09 112877 Dec-05 Idemitsu Kosan 54.67 $23,198.10 $35.40 0.00 6306 Dec 2005 Chevron 49.39 $198,200.00 $14,099.00 0.07 59000 Dec 2005 Sunoco 42.08 $33,777.00 $974.00 0.03 13800 Dec 2005 Statoil ASA 41.43 $58,011.50 $4,532.70 0.08 25644 Dec 2005 SK 40.89 $21,469.70 $1,652.30 0.08 5201 Dec 2005 Hess 40.13 $23,255.00 $1,242.00 0.05 11610 Dec 2005 Cosmo Oil 39.62 $15,296.50 $245.80 0.02 5793 2005 Shell 39.26 $306,731.00 $26,261.00 0.09 109000 Dec 2005 Cepsa (Compañía Española de Petró 36.80 $15,650.00 $808.20 0.05 10640 2005 OMV Group 34.78 $18,449.80 $1,771.60 0.10 49919 2005 Exxon Mobil 34.58 $370,680.00 $36,130.00 0.10 83700 Dec 2005 Nippon Oil 34.06 $45,784.90 $1,222.90 0.03 13424 Mar-05 Nippon Mining Holdings 33.91 $23,268.60 $470.30 0.02 9274 Mar 2005 Eni 33.56 $88,268.60 $8,981.30 0.10 72258 Dec 2005 Petrobrás 32.78 $56,324.00 $10,344.00 0.18 53904 Dec 2005 Lukoil 30.33 $55,774.00 $6,443.00 0.12 145400 Dec 2005 Reliance Industries 28.99 $15,210.90 $1,742.30 0.11 12113 Mar 2005 Sinopec 22.13 $103,161.00 $5,529.00 0.05 364528 Dec 2005 Petronas (a.k.a. Petroliam Nasional 20.99 $36,056.80 $9,354.80 0.26 33944 Mar 2005 Pemex 20.03 $87,279.40 ($7,079.20) -0.08 139171 Dec 2005 Marathon Oil 16.78 $63,673.00 $3,032.00 0.05 27756 Dec 2005 Indian Oil 15.67 $30,067.50 $1,249.20 0.04 30430 Mar 2005 PTT (PTT Public Company Limited) 15.40 $22,675.80 $2,085.90 0.09 7843 Dec-05 PDVSA 11.78 $63,200.00 $0.00 0.00 2005 Valero Energy 8.22 $82,162.00 $3,590.00 0.04 22068 Dec 2005 China National Petroleum 1.33 $83,556.50 $12,950.00 0.15 1090232 2005 Source: Latest available data for all companies of the same year from Hoovers.com (*calculated) Data with no month on the End Fiscal Year column were extracted and converted to US Dollar from the companies' annual reports

19 www.roberts.cmc.edu 2007 Petroleum Refining Industry Report Claremont McKenna College Roberts Environmental Center

70

61.22 60 58.11 54.67 54.78

50 49.39

42.08 40.8941.43 40 39.6240.13 39.26 36.80 33.9134.0634.7834.58 32.7833.56 30.33 30 28.99

Overall PSI Scores PSI Overall 22.13 20.99 20 20.03 16 . 7 8 15 . 415 0 . 6 7

10 8.22

2 R = 0.201 1. 3 3 0 0 200000 400000 600000 800000 1000000 1200000 Number of Employees

70

61.22 60 58.11 54.67 54.78

50 49.39

42.08 40.8941.43 40 39.62 40.13 39.26 36.80 33.9134.06 34.7834.58 33.56 32.78 30.33 30 28.99 R2 = 0.0261

Overall PSI Scores PSI Overall 22.13 20.99 20.03 20 16 . 7 8 15 . 6 7 15 . 4 0

10 8.22

1. 3 3 0 -1.00E-01 -5.00E-02 0.00E+00 5.00E-02 1.00E-01 1.50E-01 2.00E-01 2.50E-01 3.00E-01 Net Profit Margin

70

61.22 60 58.11 54.67 54.78

50 49.39

42.08 2 40.89 41.43 R = 0.0247 40 39.6240.13 39.26 36.80 33.9134.0634.78 34.58 33.5632.78 30.33 30 28.99 Overall PSI Scores PSI Overall 22.13 20.99 20.03 20 16 . 7 8 15 . 615 7 . 4 0 11. 7 8 10 8.22

1. 3 3 0 -10000 -5000 0 5000 10000 15000 20000 25000 30000 35000 40000 Net Income ($M)

20 www.roberts.cmc.edu 2007 Petroleum Refining Industry Report Claremont McKenna College Roberts Environmental Center

Endorsements of World's Sustainability Guidelines The table below is based on mention of these organizations in the company material we scored. We cannot always determine the level of endorsement or participation, or legitimacy of the inclusion of a company in the financial index mentioned, and thus do not attempt in this table to represent membership or specific levels of involvement. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

1 BP 2 Cepsa (Compañía Española de Petróleos, S.A) 3 Chevron 4 China National Petroleum 5 ConocoPhillips 6 Cosmo Oil 7 Eni 8 Exxon Mobil 9 Hess 10 Idemitsu Kosan 11 Indian Oil 12 Lukoil 13 Marathon Oil 14 Nippon Mining Holdings 15 Nippon Oil 16 OMV Group 17 PDVSA 18 Pemex 19 Petrobrás 20 Petronas (a.k.a. Petroliam Nasional Berhad) 21 PTT (PTT Public Company Limited) 22 Reliance Industries 23 Repsol YPF 24 Shell 25 Sinopec 26 SK 27 Statoil ASA 28 Sunoco 29 Total 30 Valero Energy

1 AA1000, AccountAbility 10 Global Reporting Initiative (GRI) 19 Transparency International 2 ASPI Index 11 Global Village Energy Partnership (GVEP) 20 UNEP (United Nations Environment 3 Business for Social Responsibility (BSR) 12 ILO Core Labor Standards Programme) 4 Centre for Environmental Assessment of 13 ISO14001 Environmental Management System 21 United Nations Global Compact, Universal Product Material (CPM) 14 OECD Guidelines for Multi-National Enterprises Declaration of Human Rights 5 Domini Social Index (DSI 400) 15 Oikos International 22 World Business Council for Sustainable 6 Dow Jones Sustainability Index 16 Pew Center on Global Climate Change Development 7 FTSE4Good 17 SA8000, Social Accountability International 23 World Energy Council 8 Global Business Coalition on HIV/AIDS 18 The World Fuel Cell Council 24 World Environment Center (WEC) 9 Global Environmental Management Initiative 25 World Wide Fund for Nature (WWF) (GEMI)

www.roberts.cmc.edu 21 2007 Petroleum Refining Industry Report Claremont McKenna College Roberts Environmental Center

Number of Explicit numerical goals Reported

Chevron 14 Shell 9 Repsol YPF 9 Pemex 6 Idemitsu Kosan 6 ConocoPhillips 5 Sunoco 5 BP 5 Total 5 Exxon Mobil 4 Cosmo Oil 3 Statoil ASA 3 Reliance Industries 3 PTT (PTT Public Company Limited) 1 Petrobrás 1 Nippon Oil 1 Lukoil 1 OMV Group 1

0 5 10 15

Explicit Goals Most Frequently Reported 111Lost workday case rate 29Renewable energy or energy efficiency 38Energy used 48Recordable incident rate 57Social community investment 67Water used 74Carbon dioxide (CO2)

www.roberts.cmc.edu 22 2007 Petroleum Refining Industry Report Claremont McKenna College Roberts Environmental Center

Number of Topics Showing Performance Improvement over Previous Year Data

BP 15 Cepsa (Compañía Española de Petróleos, 12 Statoil ASA 12 Hess 11 Chevron 11 OMV Group 9 Petronas (a.k.a. Petroliam Nasional Berhad) 8 Exxon Mobil 8 Sunoco 7 Idemitsu Kosan 7 Shell 5 Lukoil 5 Repsol YPF 4 Total 4 ConocoPhillips 4 Nippon Mining Holdings 3 Pemex 3 Nippon Oil 3 Eni 3 Petrobrás 2 Reliance Industries 2 SK 2 Cosmo Oil 2 Indian Oil 1 Marathon Oil 1 0 5 10 15 20

Topics Most Frequently Reported as Having Improvements over previous year data 112Recordable incident rate 211Lost workday case rate 310Occupational health and safety protection 410Social community investment 58Community Development 68Environmental expenses and/or investments 78Water used 87Energy used 96Greenhouse gases, total 10Community Education 6 11Waste recycled 5 12Nitrogen oxides (NOx) 5 13Waste disposed of 5 14Hazardous waste 4 produced/disposed 15Accidental spills 4 16Carbon dioxide (CO2) 4 17Environmental fines 3 18Sulfur oxides (SOx) 3 19Employee Satisfaction Survey 3 20Volatile organic carbon (VOC) 3 21Protection of marine ecosystem 2 22Recovery of fuel spillage 2 23Serious Injuries 2 www.roberts.cmc.edu 23 2007 Petroleum Refining Industry Report Claremont McKenna College Roberts Environmental Center

24Access to health care for 1 employees 25Hazardous waste released 1 26Renewable energy or energy 1 efficiency 27Social or Health and Safety 1 organization structure or management 28Health and safety fines 1 29Environmental visionary statement 1 30Turnover Rate 1 31Methane (CH4) 1 32Particulate matter (dust) 1 33Suspended solids, total (TSS) 1 34R&D on green technologies 1 35Fatal Injuries 1 36Employee volunteerism 1

www.roberts.cmc.edu 24 2007 Petroleum Refining Industry Report Claremont McKenna College Roberts Environmental Center

Number of Topics in which Performance was Better than Sector Average*

Hess 10 Nippon Oil 8 Repsol YPF 6

Pemex 6

Statoil ASA 5 Reliance Industries 4

Sunoco 3

Shell 3 Petrobrás 3 ConocoPhillips 3

Chevron 3

Exxon Mobil 2 Marathon Oil 2

Lukoil 2

Eni 2 Total 2 PDVSA 1

China National Petroleum 1

Sinopec 1 SK 1

Idemitsu Kosan 1

024681012

*Sector averages are calculated from the materials scored for this report.

www.roberts.cmc.edu 25 2007 Petroleum Refining Industry Report Claremont McKenna College Roberts Environmental Center

E = Total Environmental Score, ESA = Environmental Sector Average Score, S = Total Social Score, SSA = Social Sector Average Score

BP BP Sustainability Report 2006 CSR B+ The 2006 sustainability report excels in its thorough discussion of safety, climate Comparison with change, alternative energy and social development. Despite the company’s clear environmental commitment, the report lacks basic environmental data. BP’s focus sector averages Source of points on basic energy issues, not environmental performance, is not rewarded by the PSI. The social side, in contrast, is well balanced. It incorporates most of the E E qualitative and quantitative requirements of the PSI. ESA 38% ~ Clark S S SSA 62% 0255075

Environmental Intent Question Category Score General Comment Accountability 100 Excellent Management 75 Excellent Policy 80 Excellent Vision 100 Excellent Environmental Reporting Question Category Score General Comment Emissions to air 29 Needs improvement Emissions to water 14 Needs substantial improvement Energy 29 Needs improvement Management 0 Needs substantial improvement Management and Misc. 16 Needs substantial improvement Materials usage 0 Needs substantial improvement Recycling 19 Needs substantial improvement Waste 19 Needs substantial improvement Water 57 Good Social Intent Question Category Score General Comment Accountability 100 Excellent Management 67 Good Policy 100 Excellent Social Demographic 50 Good Vision 75 Excellent Social Reporting Question Category Score General Comment Human Rights 82 Excellent Management 29 Needs improvement Qualitative Social 60 Good Quantitative Social 39 Needs improvement

www.roberts.cmc.edu 26 2007 Petroleum Refining Industry Report Claremont McKenna College Roberts Environmental Center

E = Total Environmental Score, ESA = Environmental Sector Average Score, S = Total Social Score, SSA = Social Sector Average Score

Cepsa (Compañía Cepsa 2006 Corporate Responsibility Report Española de B- Cepsa covers many topics in its 2006 CRR and provides quantitative data, which Petróleos, S.A) date back at least 3 years, for many of its emissions. In many of these cases there has been improvement in the amount of emissions. Also, the company keeps records of their community investments, and is affiliated with numerous Comparison with external organizations. Overall they did a respectable job of summarizing their sector averages Source of points environmental impacts and social initiatives.

E

ESA E ~ Alston S S 51% 49% SSA

0255075 Environmental Intent Question Category Score General Comment Accountability 75 Excellent Management 88 Excellent Policy 80 Excellent Vision 100 Excellent Environmental Reporting Question Category Score General Comment Emissions to air 39 Needs improvement Emissions to water 24 Needs substantial improvement Energy 36 Needs improvement Management 43 Needs improvement Management and Misc. 29 Needs improvement Materials usage 0 Needs substantial improvement Recycling 5 Needs substantial improvement Waste 33 Needs improvement Water 14 Needs substantial improvement Social Intent Question Category Score General Comment Accountability 75 Excellent Management 100 Excellent Policy 0 Needs substantial improvement Social Demographic 0 Needs substantial improvement Vision 100 Excellent Social Reporting Question Category Score General Comment Human Rights 55 Good Management 29 Needs improvement Qualitative Social 29 Needs improvement Quantitative Social 20 Needs substantial improvement

www.roberts.cmc.edu 27 2007 Petroleum Refining Industry Report Claremont McKenna College Roberts Environmental Center

E = Total Environmental Score, ESA = Environmental Sector Average Score, S = Total Social Score, SSA = Social Sector Average Score

Chevron Chevron 2006 Corporate Responsibility Report: Investing in Human Energy and 2007 web pages A- Chevron’s concise, well-organized report is impressive but, like those of so many Comparison with other petroleum refining companies, it lacks basic environmental data. A more comprehensive historical comparison would increase the report’s transparency. sector averages Source of points From this impressive beginning, expect improved reporting performance in the future. E E ESA ~ Weisberg 40% S S SSA 60%

0255075 Environmental Intent Question Category Score General Comment Accountability 50 Good Management 75 Excellent Policy 100 Excellent Vision 100 Excellent Environmental Reporting Question Category Score General Comment Emissions to air 27 Needs improvement Emissions to water 0 Needs substantial improvement Energy 64 Good Management 43 Needs improvement Management and Misc. 45 Needs improvement Materials usage 0 Needs substantial improvement Recycling 19 Needs substantial improvement Waste 14 Needs substantial improvement Water 43 Needs improvement Social Intent Question Category Score General Comment Accountability 50 Good Management 67 Good Policy 100 Excellent Social Demographic 50 Good Vision 100 Excellent Social Reporting Question Category Score General Comment Human Rights 73 Good Management 43 Needs improvement Qualitative Social 67 Good Quantitative Social 54 Good

www.roberts.cmc.edu 28 2007 Petroleum Refining Industry Report Claremont McKenna College Roberts Environmental Center

E = Total Environmental Score, ESA = Environmental Sector Average Score, S = Total Social Score, SSA = Social Sector Average Score

China National China National Petroleum 2006 web pages Petroleum The web pages contain no social or environmental data about the performance of F the company. Rather, they are a compilation of national laws and an index of links Comparison with to further information about environmental responsibility. It is unclear whether any of the steps toward good social or environmental performance as outlined by sector averages Source of points the web site have been taken by the company.

E S ESA 0% ~ Whittlesey S E SSA 100% 0255075 Environmental Intent Question Category Score General Comment Accountability 25 Needs improvement Management 0 Needs substantial improvement Policy 0 Needs substantial improvement Vision 0 Needs substantial improvement Environmental Reporting Question Category Score General Comment Emissions to air 0 Needs substantial improvement Energy 0 Needs substantial improvement Management and Misc. 14 Needs substantial improvement Recycling 0 Needs substantial improvement Waste 0 Needs substantial improvement Water 0 Needs substantial improvement Social Intent Question Category Score General Comment Accountability 0 Needs substantial improvement Management 0 Needs substantial improvement Policy 0 Needs substantial improvement Social Demographic 0 Needs substantial improvement Vision 0 Needs substantial improvement Social Reporting Question Category Score General Comment Human Rights 0 Needs substantial improvement Management 0 Needs substantial improvement Qualitative Social 0 Needs substantial improvement Quantitative Social 0 Needs substantial improvement

www.roberts.cmc.edu 29 2007 Petroleum Refining Industry Report Claremont McKenna College Roberts Environmental Center

E = Total Environmental Score, ESA = Environmental Sector Average Score, S = Total Social Score, SSA = Social Sector Average Score

ConocoPhillips ConocoPhillips 2007 Sustainability web pages A Conoco Philips seems to be new to the world of corporate responsibility reporting. Comparison with The report lacks good historical data and many basic indicators. The report is poorly organized, with connected data and ideas reported in different sections. sector averages Source of points Most topics are discussed briefly with little details to how ConocoPhillips manages and upholds standards and initiatives. Despite these weaknesses, the E data and discussion presented fit the PSI well. Conoco Philips therefore manages E ESA a respectable score. 43% S S ~ Weisberg SSA 57%

0255075

Environmental Intent Question Category Score General Comment Accountability 75 Excellent Management 88 Excellent Policy 90 Excellent Vision 100 Excellent Environmental Reporting Question Category Score General Comment Emissions to air 29 Needs improvement Energy 50 Good Management and Misc. 19 Needs substantial improvement Recycling 21 Needs substantial improvement Waste 57 Good Water 43 Needs improvement Social Intent Question Category Score General Comment Accountability 50 Good Management 67 Good Policy 100 Excellent Social Demographic 0 Needs substantial improvement Vision 100 Excellent Social Reporting Question Category Score General Comment Human Rights 91 Excellent Management 10 Needs substantial improvement Qualitative Social 69 Good Quantitative Social 29 Needs improvement

www.roberts.cmc.edu 30 2007 Petroleum Refining Industry Report Claremont McKenna College Roberts Environmental Center

E = Total Environmental Score, ESA = Environmental Sector Average Score, S = Total Social Score, SSA = Social Sector Average Score

Cosmo Oil Cosmo Oil Sustainable Report 2006 B The report provided well diagrammed information concerning the company's Comparison with environmental management and was very helpful to understand the company's organization as well as intentions in this area. Accounting of environmental sector averages Source of points expenditures, energy used, and waste produced were also reported very well. Unfortunately, the report did not mention much concerning the company’s E E position on ecosystem conservation. Plenty is done by the company to preserve ESA soil, as explained, and to prevent marine spills but there is no statement made by 37% the company concerning conservation of all other ecosystems. More detail S S should have been committed to this area. Lastly, Cosmo Oil presented much about SSA 63% its practices of non-discrimination, training employees, and supporting employee 0255075 health, but several other social components were missing. The report lacked quantitative data, such as health and safety citations, fines, and lost work days. Cosmo Oil did do a very good job though of reporting the incident that occurred in 2006 and this helped reveal the strong ethics of the company. ~ Wilson

Environmental Intent Question Category Score General Comment Accountability 75 Excellent Management 88 Excellent Policy 70 Good Vision 100 Excellent Environmental Reporting Question Category Score General Comment Emissions to air 14 Needs substantial improvement Emissions to water 0 Needs substantial improvement Energy 36 Needs improvement Management 0 Needs substantial improvement Management and Misc. 18 Needs substantial improvement Materials usage 0 Needs substantial improvement Recycling 33 Needs improvement Waste 52 Good Water 14 Needs substantial improvement Social Intent Question Category Score General Comment Accountability 100 Excellent Management 67 Good Policy 100 Excellent Social Demographic 100 Excellent Vision 100 Excellent Social Reporting Question Category Score General Comment Human Rights 100 Excellent Management 19 Needs substantial improvement Qualitative Social 40 Needs improvement Quantitative Social 0 Needs substantial improvement

www.roberts.cmc.edu 31 2007 Petroleum Refining Industry Report Claremont McKenna College Roberts Environmental Center

E = Total Environmental Score, ESA = Environmental Sector Average Score, S = Total Social Score, SSA = Social Sector Average Score

Eni ENI 2005 Annual Report- Commitment to Sustainable Development, 2003 Corporate B- Responsibility ENI shows commitment to good social and environmental performance. In Comparison with particular, the Annual Report details several social programs. ENI is clearly tracking basic environmental performance, but does not document it very sector averages Source of points thoroughly. A more detailed code of conduct or information about how employees are treated would also improve ENI's performance. ENI has affiliations with E several global organizations and participates in the European emissions trading ESA E system. S S 46% ~ Whittlesey

SSA 54%

0255075

Environmental Intent Question Category Score General Comment Accountability 50 Good Management 50 Good Policy 60 Good Vision 100 Excellent Environmental Reporting Question Category Score General Comment Emissions to air 0 Needs substantial improvement Energy 14 Needs substantial improvement Management and Misc. 14 Needs substantial improvement Recycling 14 Needs substantial improvement Waste 14 Needs substantial improvement Water 71 Good Social Intent Question Category Score General Comment Accountability 50 Good Management 67 Good Policy 33 Needs improvement Social Demographic 0 Needs substantial improvement Vision 50 Good Social Reporting Question Category Score General Comment Human Rights 55 Good Management 10 Needs substantial improvement Qualitative Social 26 Needs improvement Quantitative Social 17 Needs substantial improvement

www.roberts.cmc.edu 32 2007 Petroleum Refining Industry Report Claremont McKenna College Roberts Environmental Center

E = Total Environmental Score, ESA = Environmental Sector Average Score, S = Total Social Score, SSA = Social Sector Average Score

Exxon Mobil Exxon Mobil 2006 Corporate Citizenship Report and 2007 web pages B- While Exxon’s profits are record breaking, its CSR reporting is simply average. Comparison with The report lacks basic environmental data on waste, water, and air emissions. Exxon does report the environmental data used by the PSI sector-specific sector averages Source of points petroleum refining score sheet though. On the social side, Exxon is making a clear effort to increase gender diversity throughout the company. Given this focus, it is E E surprising that the report ignores racial or ethnic diversity. Despite this omission, ESA the report scores well socially. Publishing basic environmental data would greatly 38% improve Exxon’s score. S S SSA 62% ~ Weisberg 0255075

Environmental Intent Question Category Score General Comment Accountability 100 Excellent Management 75 Excellent Policy 90 Excellent Vision 100 Excellent Environmental Reporting Question Category Score General Comment Emissions to air 6 Needs substantial improvement Emissions to water 0 Needs substantial improvement Energy 36 Needs improvement Management 0 Needs substantial improvement Management and Misc. 12 Needs substantial improvement Materials usage 0 Needs substantial improvement Recycling 10 Needs substantial improvement Waste 10 Needs substantial improvement Water 14 Needs substantial improvement Social Intent Question Category Score General Comment Accountability 100 Excellent Management 67 Good Policy 67 Good Social Demographic 50 Good Vision 50 Good Social Reporting Question Category Score General Comment Human Rights 70 Good Management 29 Needs improvement Qualitative Social 57 Good Quantitative Social 34 Needs improvement

www.roberts.cmc.edu 33 2007 Petroleum Refining Industry Report Claremont McKenna College Roberts Environmental Center

E = Total Environmental Score, ESA = Environmental Sector Average Score, S = Total Social Score, SSA = Social Sector Average Score

Hess Hess 2006 CSR and 2007 web pages B Hess demonstrated very solid reporting in their 2006 CSR and 2007 web pages. Comparison with Their data were abundant and well organized in tables, and they described management systems and initiatives well. They also had a very strong human sector averages Source of points rights section, and they have adequate reporting on employee injury statistics.

E

ESA E ~ Alston

S 44% S

SSA 56%

0255075 Environmental Intent Question Category Score General Comment Accountability 50 Good Management 63 Good Policy 60 Good Vision 50 Good Environmental Reporting Question Category Score General Comment Emissions to air 36 Needs improvement Emissions to water 43 Needs improvement Energy 21 Needs substantial improvement Management 0 Needs substantial improvement Management and Misc. 33 Needs improvement Materials usage 0 Needs substantial improvement Recycling 19 Needs substantial improvement Waste 29 Needs improvement Water 14 Needs substantial improvement Social Intent Question Category Score General Comment Accountability 75 Excellent Management 50 Good Policy 50 Good Social Demographic 50 Good Vision 50 Good Social Reporting Question Category Score General Comment Human Rights 73 Good Management 29 Needs improvement Qualitative Social 31 Needs improvement Quantitative Social 36 Needs improvement

www.roberts.cmc.edu 34 2007 Petroleum Refining Industry Report Claremont McKenna College Roberts Environmental Center

E = Total Environmental Score, ESA = Environmental Sector Average Score, S = Total Social Score, SSA = Social Sector Average Score

Idemitsu Kosan Idemitsu Group 2005 CSR Report A This Japanese company excels in environmental reporting. The environmental Comparison with section, centered around performance goals, includes an innovative and comprehensive accounting system to track, both quantitatively and qualitatively, sector averages Source of points the environmental impacts of each stage of its operations. A significant portion of the report is also dedicated to global warming, which Idemitsu has tackled by E developing low-carbon technology, improving energy efficiency, and investing ESA E $US 10.5 million in Kyoto’s flexibility mechanisms. Outside of the environmental S section, with little quantitative social data, the report scores poorly in social S 46% performance. SSA 54% ~ Weisberg 0255075

Environmental Intent Question Category Score General Comment Accountability 50 Good Management 100 Excellent Policy 80 Excellent Vision 100 Excellent Environmental Reporting Question Category Score General Comment Emissions to air 29 Needs improvement Energy 50 Good Management and Misc. 33 Needs improvement Recycling 50 Good Waste 57 Good Water 29 Needs improvement Social Intent Question Category Score General Comment Accountability 100 Excellent Management 83 Excellent Policy 83 Excellent Social Demographic 100 Excellent Vision 25 Needs improvement Social Reporting Question Category Score General Comment Human Rights 73 Good Management 0 Needs substantial improvement Qualitative Social 80 Excellent Quantitative Social 19 Needs substantial improvement

www.roberts.cmc.edu 35 2007 Petroleum Refining Industry Report Claremont McKenna College Roberts Environmental Center

E = Total Environmental Score, ESA = Environmental Sector Average Score, S = Total Social Score, SSA = Social Sector Average Score

Indian Oil Indian Oil: "Our Company: CSR and Environmental Initiatives" and 2006 web pages D+ The Indian Oil web pages are a cursory look at specific social and environmental Comparison with initiatives within the company. The pages contain no overarching policy or useful historical data. It is clear, however, that the company is doing more than it sector averages Source of points reports: Indian Oil’s refineries are ISO 14001 certified and have won safety awards. Indian Oil needs to consolidate all environmental and social data into one E E CSR report, which includes both specific initiatives and overarching policy. ESA 25% ~ Weisberg S S SSA 75% 0255075

Environmental Intent Question Category Score General Comment Accountability 0 Needs substantial improvement Management 25 Needs improvement Policy 20 Needs substantial improvement Vision 25 Needs improvement Environmental Reporting Question Category Score General Comment Emissions to air 14 Needs substantial improvement Energy 0 Needs substantial improvement Management and Misc. 0 Needs substantial improvement Recycling 0 Needs substantial improvement Waste 7 Needs substantial improvement Water 0 Needs substantial improvement Social Intent Question Category Score General Comment Accountability 25 Needs improvement Management 0 Needs substantial improvement Policy 67 Good Social Demographic 0 Needs substantial improvement Vision 50 Good Social Reporting Question Category Score General Comment Human Rights 18 Needs substantial improvement Management 0 Needs substantial improvement Qualitative Social 54 Good Quantitative Social 0 Needs substantial improvement

www.roberts.cmc.edu 36 2007 Petroleum Refining Industry Report Claremont McKenna College Roberts Environmental Center

E = Total Environmental Score, ESA = Environmental Sector Average Score, S = Total Social Score, SSA = Social Sector Average Score

Lukoil Lukoil 2003/2004 Sustainability Report C+ Lukoil is one of few petroleum-refining companies to completely ignore climate Comparison with change. When outlining atmospheric emissions, carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases are not reported. Lukoil is also one of few petroleum-refiners sector averages Source of points to not use the ISO 14001 environmental management system. Beyond these glaring omissions, the brief table of contents makes the voluminous report difficult E to navigate. The 106 page report contains a lot of data, but fails to organize itself ESA E around key issues. S S 47% ~ Weisberg

SSA 53%

0255075

Environmental Intent Question Category Score General Comment Accountability 100 Excellent Management 38 Needs improvement Policy 30 Needs improvement Vision 100 Excellent Environmental Reporting Question Category Score General Comment Emissions to air 0 Needs substantial improvement Energy 29 Needs improvement Management and Misc. 14 Needs substantial improvement Recycling 0 Needs substantial improvement Waste 36 Needs improvement Water 100 Excellent Social Intent Question Category Score General Comment Accountability 100 Excellent Management 83 Excellent Policy 33 Needs improvement Social Demographic 0 Needs substantial improvement Vision 75 Excellent Social Reporting Question Category Score General Comment Human Rights 27 Needs improvement Management 0 Needs substantial improvement Qualitative Social 37 Needs improvement Quantitative Social 24 Needs substantial improvement

www.roberts.cmc.edu 37 2007 Petroleum Refining Industry Report Claremont McKenna College Roberts Environmental Center

E = Total Environmental Score, ESA = Environmental Sector Average Score, S = Total Social Score, SSA = Social Sector Average Score

Marathon Oil Marathon Oil 2005 Performance Report Card, 2006 web pages D+ Marathon Oil provides minimal information about its environmental policy and Comparison with social programs. Its "Performance Report Card" lacks data on environmental performance such as emissions. While Marathon Oil seems to have good sector averages Source of points intentions in terms of environmental responsibility, it remains unclear whether the company is even taking steps to reduce its environmental impact. Marathon Oil E E has no stated affiliations with environmental organizations or systems. ESA 25% ~ Whittlesey S S SSA 75% 0255075

Environmental Intent Question Category Score General Comment Accountability 25 Needs improvement Management 13 Needs substantial improvement Policy 30 Needs improvement Vision 0 Needs substantial improvement Environmental Reporting Question Category Score General Comment Emissions to air 43 Needs improvement Energy 0 Needs substantial improvement Management and Misc. 0 Needs substantial improvement Recycling 0 Needs substantial improvement Waste 0 Needs substantial improvement Water 0 Needs substantial improvement Social Intent Question Category Score General Comment Accountability 50 Good Management 33 Needs improvement Policy 67 Good Social Demographic 0 Needs substantial improvement Vision 25 Needs improvement Social Reporting Question Category Score General Comment Human Rights 9 Needs substantial improvement Management 29 Needs improvement Qualitative Social 26 Needs improvement Quantitative Social 31 Needs improvement

www.roberts.cmc.edu 38 2007 Petroleum Refining Industry Report Claremont McKenna College Roberts Environmental Center

E = Total Environmental Score, ESA = Environmental Sector Average Score, S = Total Social Score, SSA = Social Sector Average Score

Nippon Mining Nippon Mining Holdings (Japan Energy Corp.) 2006 Holdings CSR B- After contact from the company, Japan Energy Corp was scored for Nippon Comparison with Mining Holdings, since they were being evaluated in the petroleum refining sector and Japan Energy is the petroleum core business of Nippon, while the metals and sector averages Source of points mining business is separated. The company fared well on their 2006 report. They were not lacking much quantitative data, besides that of non-compliance E penalties, and their initiatives were numerous and covered many topics. While E ESA the parent company only has a Japanese verison of a CSR report, Japan Energy's 2006 CSR more than made up for the original setback. S 43% S

SSA 57% ~ Alston

0255075

Environmental Intent Question Category Score General Comment Accountability 75 Excellent Management 75 Excellent Policy 50 Good Vision 100 Excellent Environmental Reporting Question Category Score General Comment Emissions to air 23 Needs substantial improvement Emissions to water 10 Needs substantial improvement Energy 21 Needs substantial improvement Management 86 Excellent Management and Misc. 14 Needs substantial improvement Materials usage 43 Needs improvement Recycling 10 Needs substantial improvement Waste 19 Needs substantial improvement Water 29 Needs improvement Social Intent Question Category Score General Comment Accountability 100 Excellent Management 67 Good Policy 33 Needs improvement Social Demographic 100 Excellent Vision 50 Good Social Reporting Question Category Score General Comment Human Rights 64 Good Management 24 Needs substantial improvement Qualitative Social 36 Needs improvement Quantitative Social 14 Needs substantial improvement

www.roberts.cmc.edu 39 2007 Petroleum Refining Industry Report Claremont McKenna College Roberts Environmental Center

E = Total Environmental Score, ESA = Environmental Sector Average Score, S = Total Social Score, SSA = Social Sector Average Score

Nippon Oil Nippon Oil 2006 Sustainability Report B- The Nippon Oil 2006 Corporate Sustainability Report is concise and informative. It Comparison with is apparent that the company plans its environmental and social activities as part of its business plan, and its corporate philosophy to promote prosperity with sector averages Source of points harmony with nature resonates throughout the report. Nippon Oil is aggressive in its attempt to find alternative energy solutions. It also explores low-cost soil E remediation technology and fuel cell technology. On the social side, it increases ESA E human rights awareness by conducting human rights training for its employees. S Overall, Nippon’s report is highly effective in communicating the company’s S 48% involvement in sustainability issues. SSA 52% ~ Adidjaja 0255075

Environmental Intent Question Category Score General Comment Accountability 75 Excellent Management 100 Excellent Policy 70 Good Vision 100 Excellent Environmental Reporting Question Category Score General Comment Emissions to air 33 Needs improvement Emissions to water 0 Needs substantial improvement Energy 50 Good Management 0 Needs substantial improvement Management and Misc. 14 Needs substantial improvement Materials usage 0 Needs substantial improvement Recycling 14 Needs substantial improvement Waste 43 Needs improvement Water 29 Needs improvement Social Intent Question Category Score General Comment Accountability 50 Good Management 83 Excellent Policy 50 Good Social Demographic 100 Excellent Vision 100 Excellent Social Reporting Question Category Score General Comment Human Rights 45 Needs improvement Management 24 Needs substantial improvement Qualitative Social 40 Needs improvement Quantitative Social 20 Needs substantial improvement

www.roberts.cmc.edu 40 2007 Petroleum Refining Industry Report Claremont McKenna College Roberts Environmental Center

E = Total Environmental Score, ESA = Environmental Sector Average Score, S = Total Social Score, SSA = Social Sector Average Score

OMV Group OMV: 2003-2004 Performance and Code of Conduct Report B- OMV’s report is one of the most transparent in the petroleum-refining sector. For Comparison with example, it explicitly discusses the GRI indicators not covered in the report. OMV does a particularly good job covering climate change, detailing how it has sector averages Source of points responded (and failed to respond) to the Kyoto Protocol and the green research it is conducting today to develop low-carbon technology for a climate friendly E E future. Extensive social and environmental data, far exceeding the requirements ESA 32% of the PSI, are listed in a final indicators section. Integrating these data with the previous discussion sections would strengthen the report. S S ~ Weisberg SSA 68% 0255075

Environmental Intent Question Category Score General Comment Accountability 100 Excellent Management 63 Good Policy 90 Excellent Vision 100 Excellent Environmental Reporting Question Category Score General Comment Emissions to air 0 Needs substantial improvement Emissions to water 0 Needs substantial improvement Energy 14 Needs substantial improvement Management 0 Needs substantial improvement Management and Misc. 0 Needs substantial improvement Materials usage 0 Needs substantial improvement Recycling 19 Needs substantial improvement Waste 14 Needs substantial improvement Water 43 Needs improvement Social Intent Question Category Score General Comment Accountability 100 Excellent Management 67 Good Policy 100 Excellent Social Demographic 100 Excellent Vision 100 Excellent Social Reporting Question Category Score General Comment Human Rights 82 Excellent Management 19 Needs substantial improvement Qualitative Social 67 Good Quantitative Social 21 Needs substantial improvement

www.roberts.cmc.edu 41 2007 Petroleum Refining Industry Report Claremont McKenna College Roberts Environmental Center

E = Total Environmental Score, ESA = Environmental Sector Average Score, S = Total Social Score, SSA = Social Sector Average Score

PDVSA PDVSA 2006 web pages D There is not much of a report to score from the Venezuelan government. The web Comparison with site reports social missions, its “strategies oriented to guarantee fundamental rights to the population.” These efforts to provide education, health care, and sector averages Source of points employment are funded by the nationalized oil company. The small amount of environmental information that are reported focus on the economic benefits of E E environmental protection. As reflected in the low score, PDVSA’s website is not ESA 12% orienting itself to PSI or GRI guidelines. S S ~ Weisberg SSA 88% 0255075

Environmental Intent Question Category Score General Comment Accountability 0 Needs substantial improvement Management 13 Needs substantial improvement Policy 10 Needs substantial improvement Vision 0 Needs substantial improvement Environmental Reporting Question Category Score General Comment Emissions to air 0 Needs substantial improvement Energy 0 Needs substantial improvement Management and Misc. 0 Needs substantial improvement Recycling 0 Needs substantial improvement Waste 0 Needs substantial improvement Water 0 Needs substantial improvement Social Intent Question Category Score General Comment Accountability 25 Needs improvement Management 0 Needs substantial improvement Policy 33 Needs improvement Social Demographic 0 Needs substantial improvement Vision 100 Excellent Social Reporting Question Category Score General Comment Human Rights 9 Needs substantial improvement Management 0 Needs substantial improvement Qualitative Social 43 Needs improvement Quantitative Social 10 Needs substantial improvement

www.roberts.cmc.edu 42 2007 Petroleum Refining Industry Report Claremont McKenna College Roberts Environmental Center

E = Total Environmental Score, ESA = Environmental Sector Average Score, S = Total Social Score, SSA = Social Sector Average Score

Pemex Pemex 2004 Sustainable Development Report and 2007 web pages C- More discussion is needed in this report from Pemex. The environmental section Comparison with is entirely quantitative—environmental initiatives and goals have to be inferred from occasional case studies. General environmental policies and principles sector averages Source of points need to be articulated. The social section of the report deals only with employee safety and investment in the community. Basic business ethics (perhaps through E a code of conduct) need to be discussed. ESA E S ~ Weisberg S 53% 47% SSA

0255075

Environmental Intent Question Category Score General Comment Accountability 50 Good Management 25 Needs improvement Policy 70 Good Vision 75 Excellent Environmental Reporting Question Category Score General Comment Emissions to air 20 Needs substantial improvement Emissions to water 0 Needs substantial improvement Energy 64 Good Management 0 Needs substantial improvement Management and Misc. 2 Needs substantial improvement Materials usage 0 Needs substantial improvement Recycling 14 Needs substantial improvement Waste 14 Needs substantial improvement Water 100 Excellent Social Intent Question Category Score General Comment Accountability 100 Excellent Management 33 Needs improvement Policy 33 Needs improvement Social Demographic 0 Needs substantial improvement Vision 75 Excellent Social Reporting Question Category Score General Comment Human Rights 0 Needs substantial improvement Management 0 Needs substantial improvement Qualitative Social 38 Needs improvement Quantitative Social 25 Needs improvement

www.roberts.cmc.edu 43 2007 Petroleum Refining Industry Report Claremont McKenna College Roberts Environmental Center

E = Total Environmental Score, ESA = Environmental Sector Average Score, S = Total Social Score, SSA = Social Sector Average Score

Petrobrás Petrobras 2005 Social and Environmental Report C+ Petrobras gives some data on emissions (mostly 2005), though more Comparison with environmental data would be useful, and it describes impressive social commitments and gives the impression that it is working hard at good sector averages Source of points environmental performance.

E E ESA ~ Whittlesey

S 43% S

SSA 57%

0255075 Environmental Intent Question Category Score General Comment Accountability 100 Excellent Management 75 Excellent Policy 60 Good Vision 25 Needs improvement Environmental Reporting Question Category Score General Comment Emissions to air 0 Needs substantial improvement Energy 36 Needs improvement Management and Misc. 0 Needs substantial improvement Recycling 0 Needs substantial improvement Waste 43 Needs improvement Water 0 Needs substantial improvement Social Intent Question Category Score General Comment Accountability 25 Needs improvement Management 50 Good Policy 83 Excellent Social Demographic 50 Good Vision 100 Excellent Social Reporting Question Category Score General Comment Human Rights 45 Needs improvement Management 19 Needs substantial improvement Qualitative Social 26 Needs improvement Quantitative Social 19 Needs substantial improvement

www.roberts.cmc.edu 44 2007 Petroleum Refining Industry Report Claremont McKenna College Roberts Environmental Center

E = Total Environmental Score, ESA = Environmental Sector Average Score, S = Total Social Score, SSA = Social Sector Average Score

Petronas (a.k.a. Petronas Group 2007 Sustainability Report Petroliam Nasional C- No environmental or social data are provided in the report. Petronas indicates Berhad) that it recognizes the importance of striving towards good social and environmental performance, but no efforts in these directions appear to have Comparison with been taken. sector averages Source of points After reviewing the 2005 Annual Report, the company sent a supplemental Sustainability Report 2007 (SR), which was far more comprehensive. Though the E discussion of environmental peformance and initiative section had limited ESA E quantiative information, the company still discussed various measures taken S towards improvement and a conscious effort in lowering greenhouse gases. The S 50% 50% Group is aware of its impact on the environment and the active role it should take SSA in protecting biodiversity. There are many pages of the SR dedicated to the 0255075 Group's involvement in education and social-improvement programs. The human rights discussion is somewhat limited,the Group believes in the promotion and protection of internationally recognized human rights standards. Petronas opposes forced labor and child labor, and supports collective bargaining. ~ Whittlesey

Environmental Intent Question Category Score General Comment Accountability 0 Needs substantial improvement Management 50 Good Policy 60 Good Vision 50 Good Environmental Reporting Question Category Score General Comment Emissions to air 29 Needs improvement Energy 0 Needs substantial improvement Management and Misc. 14 Needs substantial improvement Recycling 0 Needs substantial improvement Waste 0 Needs substantial improvement Water 57 Good Social Intent Question Category Score General Comment Accountability 50 Good Management 50 Good Policy 33 Needs improvement Social Demographic 0 Needs substantial improvement Vision 25 Needs improvement Social Reporting Question Category Score General Comment Human Rights 27 Needs improvement Management 0 Needs substantial improvement Qualitative Social 31 Needs improvement Quantitative Social 2 Needs substantial improvement

www.roberts.cmc.edu 45 2007 Petroleum Refining Industry Report Claremont McKenna College Roberts Environmental Center

E = Total Environmental Score, ESA = Environmental Sector Average Score, S = Total Social Score, SSA = Social Sector Average Score

PTT (PTT Public PTT's 2005 Sustainability Report Company Limited) This Thai company reports none of the environmental data required by the PSI D+ base scoring sheet. It does report some data specific to the petroleum-refining Comparison with sector, tracking accidental spills and petroleum-related emissions. The report exceeds the requirements of the PSI in its extensive coverage of both effluent sector averages Source of points quality data and auto safety initiatives. Still, the report fails to cover the basics. Reporting basic environmental data, and adding a section on employee gender E E and ethnic diversity, would greatly improve the report’s score. ESA 38% ~ Weisberg S S SSA 62% 0255075

Environmental Intent Question Category Score General Comment Accountability 75 Excellent Management 50 Good Policy 40 Needs improvement Vision 50 Good Environmental Reporting Question Category Score General Comment Emissions to air 0 Needs substantial improvement Emissions to water 0 Needs substantial improvement Energy 29 Needs improvement Management 0 Needs substantial improvement Management and Misc. 0 Needs substantial improvement Materials usage 0 Needs substantial improvement Recycling 0 Needs substantial improvement Waste 0 Needs substantial improvement Water 14 Needs substantial improvement Social Intent Question Category Score General Comment Accountability 50 Good Management 33 Needs improvement Policy 83 Excellent Social Demographic 0 Needs substantial improvement Vision 50 Good Social Reporting Question Category Score General Comment Human Rights 18 Needs substantial improvement Management 0 Needs substantial improvement Qualitative Social 43 Needs improvement Quantitative Social 18 Needs substantial improvement

www.roberts.cmc.edu 46 2007 Petroleum Refining Industry Report Claremont McKenna College Roberts Environmental Center

E = Total Environmental Score, ESA = Environmental Sector Average Score, S = Total Social Score, SSA = Social Sector Average Score

Reliance Industries Reliance Industries: A Report on Sustaining Life Today for a Better Tomorrow 2005-2006 C+ Relaince, with the sector’s lowest reported revenue, produced a strong report. It Comparison with excels in its discussion of biodiversity, health and safety initiatives and training, and site specific efforts to increase energy efficiency. Still, the report lacks basic sector averages Source of points environmental and social data. The diversity section focuses on the types of employment offered, describing the percentage of people working in management E E or working in permanent jobs, but fails to cover issues of gender or race. ESA 32% ~ Weisberg S S SSA 68% 0255075

Environmental Intent Question Category Score General Comment Accountability 50 Good Management 25 Needs improvement Policy 40 Needs improvement Vision 50 Good Environmental Reporting Question Category Score General Comment Emissions to air 9 Needs substantial improvement Emissions to water 0 Needs substantial improvement Energy 43 Needs improvement Management 0 Needs substantial improvement Management and Misc. 0 Needs substantial improvement Materials usage 0 Needs substantial improvement Recycling 10 Needs substantial improvement Waste 48 Needs improvement Water 86 Excellent Social Intent Question Category Score General Comment Accountability 100 Excellent Management 17 Needs substantial improvement Policy 67 Good Social Demographic 0 Needs substantial improvement Vision 50 Good Social Reporting Question Category Score General Comment Human Rights 73 Good Management 10 Needs substantial improvement Qualitative Social 43 Needs improvement Quantitative Social 13 Needs substantial improvement

www.roberts.cmc.edu 47 2007 Petroleum Refining Industry Report Claremont McKenna College Roberts Environmental Center

E = Total Environmental Score, ESA = Environmental Sector Average Score, S = Total Social Score, SSA = Social Sector Average Score

Repsol YPF Repsol-YPF 2005 Corporate Responsibility Report A+ This impressive report excels in its discussion of environmental data. Repsol YPF Comparison with covers every question in the PSI sector-specific petroleum refining score sheet. A detailed climate change section includes the company’s methodology for tracking sector averages Source of points greenhouse gas emissions and the available emission offsets the company could pursue. For such a progressive report, there is little focus on renewable E alternatives to fossil , other than a half page focus on . Like many ESA E other petroleum companies, the greatest weakness is quantitative reporting on S social indicators. S 48%

SSA 52% ~ Weisberg

0255075

Environmental Intent Question Category Score General Comment Accountability 50 Good Management 100 Excellent Policy 100 Excellent Vision 100 Excellent Environmental Reporting Question Category Score General Comment Emissions to air 0 Needs substantial improvement Energy 64 Good Management and Misc. 19 Needs substantial improvement Recycling 36 Needs improvement Waste 79 Excellent Water 86 Excellent Social Intent Question Category Score General Comment Accountability 100 Excellent Management 33 Needs improvement Policy 100 Excellent Social Demographic 100 Excellent Vision 50 Good Social Reporting Question Category Score General Comment Human Rights 82 Excellent Management 43 Needs improvement Qualitative Social 60 Good Quantitative Social 36 Needs improvement

www.roberts.cmc.edu 48 2007 Petroleum Refining Industry Report Claremont McKenna College Roberts Environmental Center

E = Total Environmental Score, ESA = Environmental Sector Average Score, S = Total Social Score, SSA = Social Sector Average Score

Shell Shell 2006 Sustainability Report and web pages B Shell's sustainability efforts are permeable and well-defined. Environmentally, Comparison with Shell provides figures for most all categories of emissions while showcasing various biodiversity and climate change initatives. Socially, they emphasize sector averages Source of points gender equality, human rights, and supplier screening.

E In both areas, Shell lacks any discussion on significant fines or violations ESA E received in the past, or any detailed finanicial information regarding social investments. Nonetheless, 2006's report shows a marked improvement in S 45% S attempting to rectify past damages (fatal accidents and environmental SSA 55% degradation), while exploring alternative sources of energy. 0255075 ~ Ata

Environmental Intent Question Category Score General Comment Accountability 100 Excellent Management 75 Excellent Policy 100 Excellent Vision 100 Excellent Environmental Reporting Question Category Score General Comment Emissions to air 40 Needs improvement Emissions to water 0 Needs substantial improvement Energy 36 Needs improvement Management 0 Needs substantial improvement Management and Misc. 33 Needs improvement Materials usage 0 Needs substantial improvement Recycling 0 Needs substantial improvement Waste 24 Needs substantial improvement Water 57 Good Social Intent Question Category Score General Comment Accountability 100 Excellent Management 83 Excellent Policy 100 Excellent Social Demographic 100 Excellent Vision 100 Excellent Social Reporting Question Category Score General Comment Human Rights 55 Good Management 38 Needs improvement Qualitative Social 48 Needs improvement Quantitative Social 14 Needs substantial improvement

www.roberts.cmc.edu 49 2007 Petroleum Refining Industry Report Claremont McKenna College Roberts Environmental Center

E = Total Environmental Score, ESA = Environmental Sector Average Score, S = Total Social Score, SSA = Social Sector Average Score

Sinopec Sinopec 2006 Sustainable Development Report C- Sinopec's 2006 Report was rather weak overall. They had almost no quantitative Comparison with data, and what they had was mostly normalized to financial production. Also, their employee statistics and demographics were incomplete; they had no sector averages Source of points mention of incident rates at all. Their strength came in the human rights section, where they received most of the points possible. Overall, they need to start E E reporting more specific data in aggregate terms. ESA 33% ~ Alston S S SSA 67% 0255075

Environmental Intent Question Category Score General Comment Accountability 75 Excellent Management 50 Good Policy 30 Needs improvement Vision 75 Excellent Environmental Reporting Question Category Score General Comment Emissions to air 4 Needs substantial improvement Emissions to water 0 Needs substantial improvement Energy 7 Needs substantial improvement Management 29 Needs improvement Management and Misc. 6 Needs substantial improvement Materials usage 0 Needs substantial improvement Recycling 5 Needs substantial improvement Waste 10 Needs substantial improvement Water 14 Needs substantial improvement Social Intent Question Category Score General Comment Accountability 50 Good Management 67 Good Policy 33 Needs improvement Social Demographic 0 Needs substantial improvement Vision 100 Excellent Social Reporting Question Category Score General Comment Human Rights 64 Good Management 10 Needs substantial improvement Qualitative Social 21 Needs substantial improvement Quantitative Social 7 Needs substantial improvement

www.roberts.cmc.edu 50 2007 Petroleum Refining Industry Report Claremont McKenna College Roberts Environmental Center

E = Total Environmental Score, ESA = Environmental Sector Average Score, S = Total Social Score, SSA = Social Sector Average Score

SK SK Corporation Aiming Beyond: 2005 Sustainability Report web pages B Discussion is central to SK’s report. The company outlines step by step goals for Comparison with combating global warming and details the financial benefits of increasing energy efficiency and reliance on clean energy (beyond compliance with Kyoto or other sector averages Source of points international agreements). On the social side, the accident/safety statistics reported do not fit with the Lost Workday Case Rate and Recordable Incident Rate E E required by the PSI. SK’s report includes an honest and transparent discussion of ESA both environmental and social issues, but would benefit in our ranking by 37% reporting its quantitative data in a form recognized by the PSI. S S ~ Weisberg SSA 63% 0255075

Environmental Intent Question Category Score General Comment Accountability 75 Excellent Management 63 Good Policy 60 Good Vision 50 Good Environmental Reporting Question Category Score General Comment Emissions to air 14 Needs substantial improvement Energy 21 Needs substantial improvement Management and Misc. 29 Needs improvement Recycling 7 Needs substantial improvement Waste 14 Needs substantial improvement Water 29 Needs improvement Social Intent Question Category Score General Comment Accountability 100 Excellent Management 67 Good Policy 100 Excellent Social Demographic 100 Excellent Vision 50 Good Social Reporting Question Category Score General Comment Human Rights 55 Good Management 29 Needs improvement Qualitative Social 54 Good Quantitative Social 17 Needs substantial improvement

www.roberts.cmc.edu 51 2007 Petroleum Refining Industry Report Claremont McKenna College Roberts Environmental Center

E = Total Environmental Score, ESA = Environmental Sector Average Score, S = Total Social Score, SSA = Social Sector Average Score

Statoil ASA Statoil 2006 Annual Report and Accounts and 2006 Statoil and Sustainable Development B Statoil's reports cover the most essentials sustainability issues related to Comparison with petroleum refining sectors. In this year's report, the company consulted the Business Leaders’ Initiative on Human Rights and the UN secretary general’s sector averages Source of points special representative on business and human rights to improve the company’s performance on human rights. This is highly commendable considering unclear E E expectations of businesses' involvement in human rights. The report lists ESA strategies to make the company's involvement in human rights issues even more 41% explicit in the future. S S SSA 59% The company has improved its performance in decreasing injury rates and in 0255075 increasing ways to be more sustainable. There are quite a few goals mentioned in different areas of reporting, however many of these goals are not numerical. ~ Adidjaja

Environmental Intent Question Category Score General Comment Accountability 50 Good Management 38 Needs improvement Policy 90 Excellent Vision 100 Excellent Environmental Reporting Question Category Score General Comment Emissions to air 20 Needs substantial improvement Emissions to water 0 Needs substantial improvement Energy 36 Needs improvement Management 100 Excellent Management and Misc. 39 Needs improvement Materials usage 0 Needs substantial improvement Recycling 14 Needs substantial improvement Waste 33 Needs improvement Water 57 Good Social Intent Question Category Score General Comment Accountability 75 Excellent Management 33 Needs improvement Policy 100 Excellent Social Demographic 100 Excellent Vision 100 Excellent Social Reporting Question Category Score General Comment Human Rights 55 Good Management 29 Needs improvement Qualitative Social 45 Needs improvement Quantitative Social 52 Good

www.roberts.cmc.edu 52 2007 Petroleum Refining Industry Report Claremont McKenna College Roberts Environmental Center

E = Total Environmental Score, ESA = Environmental Sector Average Score, S = Total Social Score, SSA = Social Sector Average Score

Sunoco Sunoco 2006 CERES Report (Full Web Version) B Sunoco prepared a very thorough and in-depth report on its environmental and Comparison with social impact on the communities in which the company is established. It provides plenty of quantitative data even when it reflects poorly on Sunoco. Although the sector averages Source of points petroleum refining industry is inherently damaging to the environment, it is clear that Sunoco is making an effort to counteract the damage, especially with social E programs aimed at the local communities of the many Sunoco establishments. ESA E The report describes an increase of air permit exceedances, which it blames on a S 45% S regulatory change. Emissions of criteria air pollutants and the amount of toxic SSA 55% waste transfers offsite also increased when compared to last year's reporting 0255075 numbers. Sunoco did make significant progress at many of its operations and was awarded multiple awards including the Chairman's Award for Excellence in Health, Environment, and Safety Performance to its Eagle Point refinery. In terms of Sunoco's business ethics, the index provides a number of indicators that relay management procedures for employees and the company's expectations. ~ Alston

Environmental Intent Question Category Score General Comment Accountability 75 Excellent Management 88 Excellent Policy 60 Good Vision 100 Excellent Environmental Reporting Question Category Score General Comment Emissions to air 47 Needs improvement Emissions to water 19 Needs substantial improvement Energy 36 Needs improvement Management 0 Needs substantial improvement Management and Misc. 43 Needs improvement Materials usage 0 Needs substantial improvement Recycling 14 Needs substantial improvement Waste 19 Needs substantial improvement Water 43 Needs improvement Social Intent Question Category Score General Comment Accountability 100 Excellent Management 67 Good Policy 100 Excellent Social Demographic 0 Needs substantial improvement Vision 100 Excellent Social Reporting Question Category Score General Comment Human Rights 45 Needs improvement Management 19 Needs substantial improvement Qualitative Social 45 Needs improvement Quantitative Social 45 Needs improvement

www.roberts.cmc.edu 53 2007 Petroleum Refining Industry Report Claremont McKenna College Roberts Environmental Center

E = Total Environmental Score, ESA = Environmental Sector Average Score, S = Total Social Score, SSA = Social Sector Average Score

Total Total: Sharing Our Energies: 2005 CSR and 2007 web pages A This solid report from Total excels in its discussion of environmental and social Comparison with policy. The report contains much data, but often in a format that does not align with the PSI. Additional computation is frequently required to fit data into our sector averages Source of points score sheets requirements. Adapting data specifically to the GRI guidelines (and the PSI) would improve Total’s score. E E ESA ~ Weisberg 38% S S SSA 62% 0255075 Environmental Intent Question Category Score General Comment Accountability 75 Excellent Management 75 Excellent Policy 100 Excellent Vision 100 Excellent Environmental Reporting Question Category Score General Comment Emissions to air 0 Needs substantial improvement Energy 50 Good Management and Misc. 0 Needs substantial improvement Recycling 14 Needs substantial improvement Waste 21 Needs substantial improvement Water 86 Excellent Social Intent Question Category Score General Comment Accountability 100 Excellent Management 100 Excellent Policy 100 Excellent Social Demographic 100 Excellent Vision 100 Excellent Social Reporting Question Category Score General Comment Human Rights 73 Good Management 29 Needs improvement Qualitative Social 57 Good Quantitative Social 45 Needs improvement

www.roberts.cmc.edu 54 2007 Petroleum Refining Industry Report Claremont McKenna College Roberts Environmental Center

E = Total Environmental Score, ESA = Environmental Sector Average Score, S = Total Social Score, SSA = Social Sector Average Score

Valero Energy Valero Code of Conduct and 2006 web pages D No environmental or social performance data were available on the web site or in Comparison with the code of conduct. The benefits of good corporate performance, environmental responsibility, and community development are acknowledged, but the web pages sector averages Source of points do not convey any efforts on the part of the company to conform to these ideals.

E E ESA ~ Whittlesey 20% S S SSA 80% 0255075 Environmental Intent Question Category Score General Comment Accountability 0 Needs substantial improvement Management 13 Needs substantial improvement Policy 10 Needs substantial improvement Vision 0 Needs substantial improvement Environmental Reporting Question Category Score General Comment Emissions to air 0 Needs substantial improvement Energy 0 Needs substantial improvement Management and Misc. 0 Needs substantial improvement Recycling 0 Needs substantial improvement Waste 0 Needs substantial improvement Water 0 Needs substantial improvement Social Intent Question Category Score General Comment Accountability 0 Needs substantial improvement Management 0 Needs substantial improvement Policy 33 Needs improvement Social Demographic 0 Needs substantial improvement Vision 0 Needs substantial improvement Social Reporting Question Category Score General Comment Human Rights 18 Needs substantial improvement Management 0 Needs substantial improvement Qualitative Social 17 Needs substantial improvement Quantitative Social 0 Needs substantial improvement

www.roberts.cmc.edu 55 2007 Petroleum Refining Industry Report Claremont McKenna College Claremont McKenna College, a member of the Claremont Colleges, is a highly selective, independent, coeducational, residential, undergraduate liberal arts college with a curricular emphasis on economics, government, and public affairs.

The Claremont Colleges The Claremont Colleges form a consortium of five undergraduate liberal arts colleges and two graduate institutions based on the Oxford/Cambridge model. The consortium offers students diverse opportunities and resources typically found only at much larger universities. The consortium members include Claremont McKenna College, Harvey Mudd College, Pitzer College, Pomona College, Scripps College, Keck Graduate Institute of Applied Life Sciences, and the Claremont Graduate University—which includes the Peter F. Drucker and Masatoshi Ito Graduate School of Management. Contact Information Dr. J. Emil Morhardt, Director, Roberts Environmental Center, Claremont McKenna College, 925 N. Mills Avenue, Claremont, CA 91711-5916, USA, Phone: 909-621-8190, Fax: 909-607-1185, email: [email protected]