Marathon Petroleum

InfluenceMap Score
Performance Band
Organisation Score
Relationship Score
Houston, United States

Climate Lobbying Overview: Marathon Petroleum is negatively lobbying on US climate change policy. While its top-line messaging is mixed, Marathon has engaged negatively on specific climate-related regulations and does not appear to support the energy transition. In addition, Marathon holds high-level memberships in numerous industry associations that continue to lobby negatively on climate policy in the US, such as American Petroleum Institute (API) and the National Association of Manufacturers (NAM).

Top-line Messaging on Climate Policy: Marathon demonstrates mixed top-line messaging on climate policy. In its 2021 Climate-Related Scenarios report, the company offers an unclear position on IPCC-demanded action, stating that near-term emissions reductions are critical for achieving global climate goals. It also states, however, that “we should not allow the global ambition to be net-zero to inhibit the deployment of existing technologies that can reduce greenhouse gas emissions today.” It is unclear what these existing technologies are. Likewise, Marathon's 2020 Sustainability Report (released in June 2021) contains an unclear position on the goal of limiting global temperature rise to well below 2°C. In its Climate-Related Scenarios report, Marathon states support for an economy-wide market based policy that places a uniform, predictable cost on carbon]. Marathon's corporate website also states that it is committed to climate policy engagement that aligns with the goals of the Paris Agreement.

Engagement with Climate-Related Regulations: Marathon appears to have mostly negative engagement with climate change policy, however recent engagement has been limited. In its proxy statement from March 2022, Marathon appeared to support renewable energy legislation. As of August 2022, according to a statement on its website, Marathon appears to support the renewable fuel standard (RFS) with the exception that it allows for alternative ways of calculating fuel emissions. The company has been highly critical of the RFS: in August 2019 and April 2019, the company submitted comments to the EPA that advocated for RFS program waivers and ethanol standards that were below 10%. In March 2019, speaking at the American Fuel and Petrochemical Manufacturers annual meeting, former Marathon CEO Gary Heminger stated that the RFS should be repealed and that “fuel markets should be free, competitive, and responsive to consumers – not to government mandates.”

On its 'Political Engagement' page on its corporate website, accessed in December 2021, Marathon Petroleum states it supports the development of sustainable aviation fuels through blenders tax credits, and evidence suggests Marathon also supports the California Low Carbon Fuel Standard. However, despite Marathon’s top-line support for carbon pricing, evidence from a July 2021 article from the Wall Street Journal suggests that it is not supportive of a carbon tax. In August 2020, PBS reported that Marathon lobbied for weaker emissions testing and leak detection in Indiana during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Positioning on Energy Transition: Marathon appears to oppose transitioning the energy mix. In its June 2021 Climate-Related Scenarios Report, CEO Michael Hennigan states support for the transition of coal to fossil gas without placing clear conditions on CCS and methane emissions abatement. An Ohio Lobbying Disclosure from 2020 shows that Marathon engaged on several bills, including HB 201 and SB 127, that prevent local governments from limiting the use of fossil gas, though its positions are not listed in the disclosure. InsideClimateNews reported in April 2021 that Marathon advocated for state-level critical infrastructure bills that would criminalize protests against fossil fuel pipelines.

Industry Association Governance: Marathon discloses a list of its industry association memberships and states broadly that it may not always agree with the groups’ positions on climate policy. It lists the climate policy positions of each association without providing a clear description of how it is engaging with them. Marathon maintains high-level memberships to a number of groups actively opposing US climate policy, including board-level membership with the American Fuel & Petrochemical Manufacturers (AFPM), the American Petroleum Institute (API), the Western States Petroleum Association (WSPA), and the National Association of Manufacturers (NAM).

A detailed assessment of the company's corporate review on climate policy engagement can be found on InfluenceMap's CA100+ Investor Hub here.

InfluenceMap collects and assesses evidence of corporate climate policy engagement on a weekly basis, depending on the availability of information from each specific data source (for more information see our methodology). While this analysis flows through to the company’s scores each week, the summary above is updated periodically. This summary was last updated in Q3 2022.

Strength of Relationship

How to Read our Relationship Score Map

In this section, we depict graphically the relationships the corporation has with trade associations, federations, advocacy groups and other third parties who may be acting on their behalf to influence climate change policy. Each of the columns above represents one relationship the corporation appears to have with such a third party. In these columns, the top, dark section represents the strength of the relationship the corporation has with the influencer. For example if a corporation's senior executive also held a key role in the trade association, we would deem this to be a strong relationship and it would be on the far left of the chart above, with the weaker ones to the right. Click on these grey shaded upper sections for details of these relationships. The middle section contains a link to the organization score details of the influencer concerned, so you can see the details of its climate change policy influence. Click on the middle sections for for details of the trade associations. The lower section contains the organization score of that influencer, the lower the more negatively it is influencing climate policy.