Data Quality and Assurance

The accuracy of the information reflected in our report is very important to us. ConocoPhillips reports our sustainability performance using internationally recognized reporting standards and frameworks. The 2022 Sustainability Report covers data from January 1 to December 31, 2022.

Our reporting is in accordance with the GRI Standards and references guidance and standards developed by Ipieca, TCFD and SASB. ERM CVS has provided independent limited assurance of the disclosures and the 2022 data for all the metrics in the performance tables. ERM CVS assurance activities included reviewing evidence for the disclosures in the report, interviewing content owners and subject matter experts as required in order to substantiate and corroborate the disclosures, and testing the data for the performance metrics at both corporate and operational levels, via in-person and virtual reviews with selected operations.  Read the most recent ERM CVS statement.

We mapped relevant GRI, Ipieca, UN Global Compact Principles, TCFD and SASB disclosures for stakeholder convenience and we continue to assess alignment with other frameworks. We also consider frameworks that are still evolving such as the Taskforce on Nature-related Financial Disclosures. We provide information to CDP for climate change, Dow Jones Sustainability Index and other organizations that assess the ESG performance of companies. We engage with MSCI, Sustainalytics and ISS E&S QualityScore, all of which rate us based on publicly available information.

The ConocoPhillips Internal Audit group, which reports to the Audit and Finance Committee, also provided limited assurance of the data included in the report.  

Environmental Metrics

The company’s Environmental Assurance (EA) team managed and utilized a global centralized data reporting system to collect, review and manage environmental metrics. Our environmental metrics undergo robust reviews at various stages of the process:

  • Data collection. Annual data is submitted by business units (BUs) using a global reporting system. This data is generated locally according to our company Environmental Metrics Reporting Practice which outlines requirements, established standardized methods and reporting procedures.
  • Quality assurance. All submitted metrics are reviewed for gaps, trends, variances and anomalies by the corporate EA team prior to final approval and external assurance. Limited assurance1 is performed by an external third party, ERM CVS, on all environmental metrics as well as reasonable assurance2 in countries with a regulatory requirement to verify reported greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions and energy (where relevant), including Australia, Canada and Norway.
  • Annual quality control assessment. There are three phases of data reviews. In the BU, the data was vetted by technical peers and leaders. When the final BU data was submitted to the central reporting system for corporate level review, it contained an explanation for all variances greater than 10% from the prior year. The corporate EA team reviewed data for completeness and accuracy.

After this process, the data was presented to company leaders via our internal approvals process, who had an opportunity to review and challenge the information. Final data was submitted for executive-level approval prior to publishing.

To honor our commitment to continuously improve the quality of our environmental metrics data, a multi-functional team works with BUs to review our reporting processes. To provide the most current and accurate data available, we update previously reported data for prior years as needed. See our metrics.

Human Capital Metrics

The company’s Human Resources (HR) team utilized a centralized data management system known as the HR data warehouse to collect and analyze human capital data and track performance metrics.

Our human capital metrics are reviewed and validated at each stage of our process:

  • Data collection. At the beginning of each month, the previous month’s data is compiled and reviewed for trends and outliers to ensure quality, completeness and accuracy. Working closely with BUs and subject matter experts, data inconsistencies and gaps are corrected and completed.
  • Quality assurance. Human capital metrics are then validated by two systems and two groups, the Employee Data and the HR Analytics teams. The corporate HR leadership team reviews and approves the data and metrics on a quarterly basis.
  • Annual quality control assessment. At the beginning of each year, we review the collective year-end data of the previous year for completeness and accuracy. After the seventh workday following year end, data is locked for all external reports and disclosures.
 
1 According to the International Standard on Assurance Engagements (ISAE) 3000, the objective of a limited assurance engagement is to determine whether anything has come to the assurance provider’s attention to indicate that the assured subject matter has not been prepared, in all material respects, in accordance with the relevant reporting criteria.
2 According to ISAE 3000, reasonable assurance requires the assurance provider to determine whether the assured subject matter is free from material misstatement, thereby expressing an opinion that the assured subject matter is presented fairly, in all material respects, in accordance with the relevant reporting criteria.