ERM Certification & Verification Services (ERM CVS) was engaged by ConocoPhillips to provide assurance in relation to selected 2013 environmental data in the on-line 2013 Sustainable Development Report (the Report).

Engagement Summary
Scope: The objective of our engagement was to obtain limited assurance on whether the 2013 corporate totals for the following environmental indicators are fairly presented, in all material respects:
  • Total Greenhouse Gas (GHG) emissions (Scope 1 & Scope 2: Million tonnes in CO2 equivalent)
  • Flaring volume (MMCF)
  • Energy used (Trillion BTUs)
We also reviewed the methodology used to report the total 2013 Scope 3 GHG emissions estimate in the 2014 submission to CDP.
Reporting Criteria: We based our work on ConocoPhillips' criteria for the collection, review and consolidation for the selected data, which include the WRI/WBCSD GHG Protocol for the GHG emissions, as described in the section 'HSE Data Assumptions' of the Report.
Assurance Standard:

We performed our work in accordance with ERM CVS' assurance methodology, which is based on the International Standard for Assurance Engagements 3000: Assurance Engagements other than Audits or Reviews of Historical Information issued by the International Auditing and Assurance Standards Board (ISAE 3000).

For the Scope 1 and Scope 2 GHG emissions we performed our work in accordance with ISO 14064-3:2006.

Assurance level: Limited
Respective responsibilities:

ConocoPhillips is responsible for preparing the Report and for the collection and presentation of the information within it.

ERM CVS's responsibility is to express our assurance conclusions on the agreed scope.

Our Conclusions

Based on the assurance activities undertaken, nothing has come to our attention to suggest that the 2013 corporate totals in the Report for the environmental indicators listed under 'Scope' above are not fairly stated, in all material respects, in accordance with the reporting criteria.

Our Assurance Approach

A multi-disciplinary team of sustainability, GHG and assurance specialists performed the following activities:

  • A review of the corporate guidelines for reporting the quarterly and annual Environmental data from the reporting units, including definitions, conversion factors and review/control procedures.
  • A review of the 2013 data reported by each reporting unit to the corporate HSE department to check the completeness of reporting by all reporting units.
  • A detailed variance analysis of the 2013 data for the selected indicators compared to the 2012 data for those indicators, which we used at reporting unit and corporate levels to assess the effectiveness of the internal review processes and the completeness of the relevant explanatory notes in the Report.
  • A review of consolidated 2013 data for the selected indicators at ConocoPhillips' corporate office in Houston, Texas, and interviews with staff responsible for managing, aggregating and reviewing Environmental data at corporate level.
  • Telephone interviews with staff responsible for collecting and reviewing the Environmental data for the indicators within the scope of our review at reporting unit level for Lower 48, Alaska, Canada and Australia.
  • Assessing the conclusions of accredited third-party verification bodies relating to the verification of Scope 1 and Scope 2 GHG emissions for 2013 from ConocoPhillips' operations that fall within the scope of local regulatory schemes in the EU and Canada, and checking consistency of the verified emissions with the Scope 1 and Scope 2 emissions for these operations included in the consolidated GHG inventory.
  • A review of the presentation of the data in the Report to ensure consistency with our findings.

The Limitations of our review

Our engagement was limited to the procedures listed above. We did not visit reporting units to review the underlying source data. The reliability of the assured data is subject to inherent uncertainties, given the available methods for determining, calculating or estimating the underlying information. It is important to understand our assurance conclusions in this context.

Our Observations and Recommendations

We have provided ConocoPhillips with a separate detailed management report. Without affecting the conclusions presented above, we have the following key observation and recommendation:

  • ConocoPhillips predominantly uses annual data collection to track and report environmental performance. We recommend increasing the frequency of internal reporting on key corporate environmental performance indicators, as well as introducing targets, in order to enhance the monitoring and management of the corporate sustainability strategy and to promote performance improvement.

Jennifer Lansen-Rogers

Jennifer Lansen-Rogers
Head of Report Assurance Services
26 June, 2014

ERM Certification and Verification Services, London


ERM CVS is a member of the ERM Group. The work that ERM CVS conducts for clients is solely related to independent assurance activities and auditor training. Our processes are designed and implemented to ensure that the work we undertake with clients is free from bias and conflict of interest. ERM CVS and the staff that have undertaken work on this assurance exercise provide no consultancy related services to ConocoPhillips in any respect.