Increasing investor and societal attention to climate change and ESG, rising expectations for companies to address climate change and develop voluntary ESG initiatives, and growing consumer demand for alternative forms of energy may result in increased costs (including but not limited to increased costs related to compliance, stakeholder engagement, contracting and insurance), reduced demand for our products, reduced profits, increased investigations and litigation and negative impacts on our access to capital markets. Increasing attention to climate change, environmental justice and environmental conservation, for example, may result in demand shifts for natural gas products and additional governmental investigations and private litigation against us. To the extent that societal, political, or other factors are involved, including factors associated with geopolitical considerations, it is possible that we could be subject to changing market conditions, liability, or loss of certain assets without regard to our ultimate role in the causation of or contribution to the asserted events or damages, or to other mitigating factors.
Opposition toward natural gas drilling and development activity has been growing globally. Companies in the natural gas industry are often the target of activist efforts from both individuals and non-governmental organizations regarding safety, environmental compliance and business practices. Anti-development activists are working to, among other things, reduce access to government lands and delay or cancel certain projects such as the development of natural gas shale plays or related fossil fuel infrastructure.
Our voluntary initiatives (such as voluntary disclosures, certifications, or goals, among others) to improve the ESG profile of our company and/or products or to respond to stakeholder expectations may be costly and may not have the desired effect. For example, we may ultimately be unable to complete certain initiatives or targets, either on the timelines initially announced or at all, due to technological or legal cost, or other constraints, which may be within or outside of our control. For example, we may undertake initiatives or disclosures based on estimates, assumptions, methodologies, or third-party information that is subsequently determined to be innacurate, unreasonable, or to not align with best practices. Our approaches to such matters may evolve as well, but we cannot guarantee that it will necessarily align with the expectations of any particular stakeholder.
If we fail to, or are perceived to fail to, comply with or advance certain ESG initiatives (including the timeline and manner in which we complete such initiatives), we may be subject to various adverse impacts, including reputational damage and potential stakeholder engagement and/or litigation, even if such initiatives are currently voluntary. For example, there have been increasing allegations of greenwashing against companies making significant ESG claims due to a variety of perceived deficiencies in disclosure, methodology, or performance, including as stakeholder perceptions of sustainability continue to evolve.
In addition, we expect there will likely be increasing levels of regulation, disclosure-related and otherwise, with respect to ESG matters. For example, various policymakers, such as the SEC and the Australian Treasury, have adopted, or are considering adopting, rules to require companies to provide significantly expanded climate- and sustainability-related disclosures, which may require us to incur significant additional costs to comply, including the implementation of significant additional internal controls, processes and procedures regarding matters that have not been subject to such controls in the past, and impose increased oversight obligations on our management and board of directors. Simultaneously, there are efforts by some stakeholders to reduce companies' efforts on certain ESG-related matters. Both advocates and opponents to certain ESG 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. In addition, we note that standards and expectations regarding carbon accounting and the processes for measuring and counting GHG emissions and GHG emission reductions are evolving, and it is possible that our approach to measuring both our emissions and our approaches to reduce emissions may be, either currently or in the future, considered inconsistent with common or best practices with respect to measuring and accounting for such matters, reducing overall emissions and/or achieving "net zero" across any emissions scope. If our approaches to such matters fall out of step with common or best practice, we may be subject to additional scrutiny, criticism, regulatory and investor engagement or litigation, any of which may adversely impact our business, financial condition or results of operations. This and other stakeholder expectations will likely lead to increased compliance costs as well as scrutiny that could heighten all of the risks identified in this risk factor.
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. Such ratings are used by some investors to inform their investment and voting decisions. Unfavorable ESG ratings and recent activism directed at shifting funding away from companies with fossil fuel-related assets could lead to increased negative investor sentiment toward us and our industry and to the diversion of investment to other industries, which could have a negative impact on our access to and costs of capital. Also, institutional lenders may decide not to provide funding for fossil fuel energy companies based on climate change and natural capital related concerns, which could affect our access to capital for potential growth projects. Moreover, to the extent ESG matters negatively impact our reputation, we may not be able to compete as effectively to recruit or retain employees, customers, or business partners. Such ESG matters may also impact our suppliers, service providers, or customers, which may adversely impact our business, financial condition, or results of operations.