Companies across many industries are facing increasing scrutiny related to their environmental, social and governance (ESG) practices and reporting, both in the United States and internationally. For example, new domestic and international laws and regulations relating to ESG matters, including environmental sustainability and climate change and human capital management, are under consideration or being adopted, which may include specific, target-driven disclosure requirements or obligations. Our response to increased ESG disclosure requirements may require additional investments and implementation of new practices and reporting processes, all entailing additional compliance risk and cost. To the extent we share information about our ESG practices, we could be criticized for the accuracy, adequacy, or completeness of such disclosures. In addition, we may communicate ESG goals or initiatives from time to time, which can be costly to achieve and difficult to implement. There is no assurance that we will achieve any of these goals, that our initiatives will achieve their intended outcome, and our ability to implement these ESG-related initiatives or achieve ESG-related goals may be dependent on external factors outside our control.
At the same time, anti-ESG sentiment has gained momentum across the United States, and both the federal and state governments have enacted or proposed “anti-ESG” policies or legislation or have issued related legal opinions. In addition, the U.S. Supreme Court’s ruling striking down race-based affirmative action in higher education has increased scrutiny of private sector employment practices and activist groups and state attorneys general have begun to analogize the outcome of that case to private employment matters, asserting that certain corporate practices, such as diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI), are discriminatory and unlawful. Such anti-ESG and anti-DEI related policies, legislation, initiatives and scrutiny could expose any ESG, DEI or other practices we adopt to the risk of litigation, antitrust investigations or challenges by federal or state authorities, result in injunctions, penalties, and reputational harm.
Further, we may experience backlash from customers, government entities, advocacy groups, employees, or other stakeholders who disagree with our actual or perceived positions, or with our lack of position on social, environmental, governance, political, public policy, economic, geopolitical, or other sensitive issues. Any perceived lack of transparency about these matters could harm our brand and reputation, our employees’ engagement and retention, and the willingness of our customers and partners to do business with us. Both advocates and opponents to ESG-related matters are increasingly resorting to a range of activism forms, including media campaigns and litigation, to advance their perspectives. To the extent we are subject to such activism, it may require us to incur costs or otherwise adversely impact our business, results of operations, or financial condition.