Oil States International (OIS) Risk Analysis

Companies across all industries are facing increasing scrutiny from investors, customers, employees, regulatory bodies and other stakeholders related to their ESG practices. Companies which do not adapt to or comply with such stakeholder expectations and standards, which are evolving, or which are perceived to have not responded appropriately to the growing concern for ESG-related issues, regardless of whether there is a legal requirement to do so, may suffer from reputational damage and the business, financial condition, and/or stock price of such a company could be materially and adversely affected. Increasing attention to climate change, increasing societal expectations on companies to address climate change, and potential consumer use of substitutes to energy commodities may result in increased costs, reduced demand for our customers' hydrocarbon products and our products and services, reduced profits, increased investigations and litigation, and negative impacts on our stock price and access to capital markets, or ability to attract and retain a talented workforce. Increasing attention to climate change, for example, may result in demand shifts for our customers' hydrocarbon products and additional governmental investigations and private litigation against those customers. Our Board's Nominating, Governance and Sustainability Committee is responsible for overseeing and managing our ESG initiatives. Committee members review the implementation and effectiveness of our ESG programs and policies. We have sought to strengthen our ESG performance through certain voluntary operational strategies, including, for example (i) pursuing a goal to reduce GHG emissions generated by us; (ii) seeking to co-locate certain of our facilities and common processes, where feasible, to mitigate our GHG emission impacts; (iii) pursuing the implementation of alternative energy systems (for example, solar power) at certain of our facilities, where applicable; (iv) seeking to identify and select low-impact energy providers, where geographically available; (v) evaluating the addition of an onboard system for our trucks that would link to integral vehicle systems to reduce vehicle idling time on work locations; and (vi) purchasing alternative fueled vehicles to reduce carbon-based emissions and improved technology offerings, as fleet replacements occur from time to time, among others. Despite our governance designs to pursue and oversee these matters, however, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to implement any of the opportunities we may review or explore, or, for any opportunities we do choose to implement, to implement them successfully and within a specific timeframe or across all operational assets. Moreover, we note that even with our governance oversight in place, we may not be able to adequately identify or manage ESG-related risks and opportunities, which may include failing to achieve ESG-related strategies and goals or inadvertently increasing certain risks with some stakeholders in an attempt to address those of other stakeholders. Also, despite any aspirational goals, we may receive pressure from investors, lenders or other groups to adopt more aggressive climate or other ESG-related goals, but we cannot guarantee that we will be able to implement such goals because of changes in activity levels, potential costs or technical or operational obstacles. Certain statements or initiatives with respect to ESG matters that we may pursue or assert are increasingly subject to heightened scrutiny from the public and governmental authorities, as well as other parties. For example, the SEC has recently taken enforcement action against companies for ESG-related misconduct, including alleged "greenwashing," (i.e., the process of conveying misleading information or making false claims that overstate potential ESG benefits). Certain regulators, such as the SEC and various state agencies, as well as nongovernmental organizations and other private actors have filed lawsuits under various securities and consumer protection laws alleging that certain ESG statements, goals or standards were misleading, false or otherwise deceptive. Certain employment practices and social initiatives are the subject of scrutiny by both those calling for the continued advancement of such policies, as well as those who believe they should be curbed, including government actors, and the complex regulatory and legal frameworks applicable to such initiatives continue to evolve. More recent political developments could result in increased criticism or litigation risks from certain "anti-ESG" parties, including various governmental agencies. Such sentiment may focus on our environmental or social commitments (such as reducing GHG emissions) or its pursuit of certain employment practices or social initiatives that are alleged to be political or polarizing in nature or are alleged to violate laws based, in part, on changing priorities of, or interpretations by, federal agencies or state governments. Consideration of ESG-related factors in our decision-making could be subject to increasing scrutiny and objection from such anti-ESG parties. As a result, we may be subject to pressure in the media or through other means, such as governmental investigations, enforcement actions, or other proceedings, all of which could adversely affect our reputation, business, financial performance, market access and growth. Accordingly, there may be increased costs related to reviewing, implementing and managing such policies, as well as compliance and litigation risks based both on positions we do or do not take, or work we do or do not perform. In addition, organizations that provide information to investors on corporate governance and related matters have developed ratings processes for evaluating companies on their approach to ESG matters. Currently, there are no universal standards for such scores or ratings, but the importance of sustainability evaluations is becoming more broadly accepted by investors and stockholders. Such ratings are used by some investors to inform their investment and voting decisions. Additionally, certain investors use these scores to benchmark companies against their peers and if a company is perceived as lagging, these investors may engage with companies to require improved ESG disclosure or performance. Moreover, certain members of the broader investment community may consider a company's sustainability score as a reputational or other factor in making an investment decision. Consequently, a low sustainability score could result in exclusion of our stock from consideration by certain investment funds, engagement by investors seeking to improve such scores and a negative perception of our operations by certain investors or other constituencies.