But the Austrian multinational, like others, said it should have rated higher on the corporate carbon emissions reporting scorecard.
"OMV has been publishing a sustainability report for more than 20 years, and we are fully transparent with our greenhouse gas scope 1, 2 and 3 emissions and overall sustainability framework," the company said in a statement to the Otago Daily Times.
"OMV is fully committed to the Paris climate agreement; we have developed group-wide greenhouse gas targets; further we have a decarbonisation strategy which is compatible with a Paris-aligned decarbonisation pathway with the overall aim to become a net-zero business by 2050."
OMV lost points for not listing science-based 2030 emissions targets, validated by the Science Based Targets initiative (SBTI), but the company said this measure was unfair, due to the nature of its business.
"As you might have seen [SBTI] has published a fossil fuel policy; SBTI has paused all commitments and validations of targets from the fossil fuel company; thus, we would even not be able to send a science-based target for validation to SBTI ... therefore we don’t see it as a fair evaluation of this aspect."
It also argued it had included 90% of its scope 3 emissions — those which come from company travel in planes, trains and taxis, and the supply chain — and should not have received a score of "partial".
The company took issue with being marked down for not having separate targets for emission reductions versus removals, the process of removing carbon dioxide from the atmosphere.
And it said it was changing its approach to carbon offsetting and would no longer use them to reach its 2030-40 targets.
The ODT contacted more than a third of the companies rated on the CATA scorecard when it was launched at the start of this month.
Every company responded, many praised the initiative and most asked for consideration for a higher score.
CATA project lead Prof Sara Walton, co-director of He Kaupapa Hononga the University of Otago Climate Research Network, said after the project was launched, the project team also received feedback, which had been expected.
Most of the feedback was positive, but some companies believed the researchers had not "found" their data, Prof Walton said.
"We are pleased to see companies taking it seriously and look forward to making the tracker as robust as possible" she said.
There had been three analysts looking for and evaluating the data "so if we are unable to find the data then it may also be difficult for others too", she said.
She accepted her team were "not infallible" and said she was happy to have conversations with companies to make the CATA data more robust.
The main point though was that the scorecard treated all 21 companies the same and so none were disadvantaged through the project team’s processes.
"Our message is to make the data as clear as possible for everyone.
"Over the past few years through working on the climate scorecards and now this tracker we have read many, many reports and being clear about targets, plans and reporting is really important."
