Item 1A. Risk Factors
Item 1A. Risk Factors 29
In addition, we engage in platform trust and safety services on behalf of clients, including content moderation, which could have a negative impact on our employees due to the nature of the materials they review. We have been subject to media coverage regarding our provision of these services as well as litigation related to the provision of these services, which may result in adverse judgments or settlements or government inquiries and investigations.
While we maintain insurance for certain potential liabilities, such insurance does not cover all types and amounts of potential liabilities and is subject to various exclusions as well as caps on amounts recoverable. Even if we believe a claim is covered by insurance, insurers may dispute our entitlement to recovery for a variety of potential reasons, which may affect the timing and, if they prevail, the amount of our recovery.
Our global operations expose us to numerous and sometimes conflicting legal and regulatory requirements, and violation of these regulations could harm our business.
We are subject to numerous, changing, and sometimes conflicting, legal regimes on matters as diverse as anticorruption, import/export controls, content requirements, trade restrictions, tariffs, taxation, sanctions, immigration, internal and disclosure control obligations, securities regulation, including ESG regulation and reporting requirements, anti-competition, anti-money-laundering, data privacy and protection, government compliance, wage-and-hour standards, employment and labor relations, product liability, health and safety, environmental, human rights and AI regulations, such as the European Union’s AI Act. The sanctions environment has resulted in new sanctions and trade restrictions, which may impair trade with sanctioned individuals and countries, and negative impacts to regional trade ecosystems among our clients, ecosystem partners, and us. For example, as a result of the sanctions imposed in response to the invasion of Ukraine by Russia, we are restricted from offering certain of our services to clients in some locations. The global nature of our operations and supply chains, including emerging markets where legal systems may be less developed or understood by us, and the diverse nature of our operations across a number of regulated industries, further increase the difficulty of compliance. Compliance with diverse legal requirements is costly, time-consuming and requires significant resources. Violations of one or more of these regulations in the conduct of our business could result in significant fines, enforcement actions or criminal sanctions against us and/or our employees, prohibitions on doing business and damage to our reputation. Violations of these regulations in connection with the performance of our obligations to our clients also could result in liability for significant monetary damages, fines, enforcement actions and/or criminal prosecution or sanctions, unfavorable publicity and other reputational damage and restrictions on our ability to effectively carry out our contractual obligations and thereby expose us to potential claims from our clients. Due to the varying degrees of development of the legal systems of the countries in which we operate, local laws may not be well developed or provide sufficiently clear guidance and may be insufficient to protect our rights.
In particular, in many parts of the world, including countries in which we operate and/or seek to expand, practices in the local business community might not conform to international business standards and could violate anticorruption laws, or regulations, including the U.S. Foreign Corrupt Practices Act and the U.K. Bribery Act 2010. Our employees, subcontractors, vendors, agents, alliance or joint venture partners, the companies we acquire and their employees, subcontractors, vendors and agents, and other third parties with which we associate, could take actions that violate policies or procedures designed to promote legal and regulatory compliance or applicable anticorruption laws or regulations. Violations of these laws or regulations by us, our employees or any of these third parties could subject us to criminal or civil enforcement actions (whether or not we participated or knew about the actions leading to the violations), including fines or penalties, disgorgement of profits and suspension or disqualification from work, including U.S. federal contracting, any of which could materially adversely affect our business, including our results of operations and our reputation.
Changes in laws and regulations could also mandate significant and costly changes to the way we implement our services and solutions or could impose additional taxes on our services and solutions. For example, changes in laws and regulations to limit using off-shore resources in connection with our work or to penalize companies that use off-shore resources, which have been proposed from time to time in various jurisdictions, could adversely affect our results of operations. Such changes may result in contracts being terminated or work being transferred onshore, resulting in greater costs to us, and could have a negative impact on our ability to obtain future work from government clients.
Increasing focus on ESG matters has resulted in, and is expected to continue to result in, the adoption of legal and regulatory requirements designed to mitigate the effects of climate change on the environment, as well as legal and regulatory requirements requiring climate, human rights and supply chain-related disclosures. If new laws or regulations are more stringent than current legal or regulatory requirements, we may experience increased compliance burdens and costs to meet such obligations. In addition, our selection of voluntary disclosure frameworks and standards, and the interpretation or application of those frameworks and standards, may change from time to time or may not meet the expectations of investors or other stakeholders. Our ability to achieve our ESG commitments (such as our 2040 net-zero greenhouse gas emissions target and our 2025 gender parity goal) is subject to numerous risks, many of which are outside of our control. Examples of such risks include: (1) the availability and cost of low- or non-carbon-based energy sources and technologies and the ability of our suppliers to harness new technologies to reduce emissions; (2) evolving regulatory requirements affecting ESG standards or disclosures; (3) the availability of suppliers that can meet our sustainability, diversity and other standards; and (4) our ability to recruit, develop, and retain sufficient diverse talent. In addition, standards for tracking and reporting on ESG
Table of Contents
ACCENTURE 2024 FORM 10-K
Item 1A. Risk Factors 30
matters, including climate change and human rights related matters, have not been harmonized and continue to evolve. Methodologies for reporting ESG data may be updated and previously reported ESG data may be adjusted to reflect improvement in availability and quality of third-party data, changing assumptions, changes in the nature and scope of our operations and other changes in circumstances. Our processes and controls for reporting ESG matters across our operations are evolving along with multiple disparate standards for identifying, measuring, and reporting ESG metrics, including ESG-related disclosures that may be required by the SEC, European and other regulators, and such standards may change over time, which could result in significant revisions to our current goals, reported progress in achieving such goals, or ability to achieve such goals in the future.
Our work with government clients exposes us to additional risks inherent in the government contracting environment.
Our clients include national, provincial, state and local governmental entities. Our government work carries various risks inherent in the government contracting process. These risks include, but are not limited to, the following:
• Government entities, particularly in the United States, often reserve the right to audit our contract costs and conduct inquiries and investigations of our business practices and compliance with government contract requirements. U.S. government agencies, including the Defense Contract Audit Agency, routinely audit our contract costs, including allocated indirect costs, for compliance with the Cost Accounting Standards and the Federal Acquisition Regulation. These agencies also conduct reviews and investigations and make inquiries regarding our accounting, information technology and other systems in connection with our performance and business practices with respect to our government contracts. Negative findings from existing and future audits, investigations or inquiries, or failure to comply with applicable IT security or supply chain requirements, could affect our future sales and profitability by preventing us, by operation of law or in practice, from receiving new government contracts for some period of time, or result in other adverse consequences described in the following paragraphs. In addition, if the U.S. government concludes that certain costs are not reimbursable, have not been properly determined or are based on outdated estimates of our work, then we will not be allowed to bill for such costs, may have to refund money that has already been paid to us or could be required to retroactively and prospectively adjust previously agreed to billing or pricing rates for our work. Negative findings from existing and future audits of our business systems, including our accounting system, may result in the U.S. government preventing us from billing, at least temporarily, a percentage of our costs. As a result of prior negative findings in connection with audits, investigations and inquiries, we have from time to time experienced some of the adverse consequences described above and may in the future experience further adverse consequences, which could materially adversely affect our future results of operations.
• If a government client discovers improper or illegal activities in the course of audits or investigations, or alleges that such conduct occurred, we may become subject to various civil and criminal penalties, including those under the civil U.S. False Claims Act, and administrative sanctions, which may include termination of contracts, forfeiture of profits, suspension of payments, fines and suspensions or debarment from doing business with other agencies of that government. The inherent limitations of internal controls may not prevent or detect all improper or illegal activities.
• U.S. government contracting regulations impose strict compliance and heightened disclosure obligations. From time to time we have made required or voluntary disclosures to the government in connection with our government contracting work. Disclosure is required if certain company personnel have knowledge of “credible evidence” of a violation of federal criminal laws involving fraud, conflict of interest, bribery or improper gratuity, a violation of the civil U.S. False Claims Act or receipt of a significant overpayment from the government. Failure to make required disclosures could be a basis for suspension and/or debarment from federal government contracting in addition to breach of the specific contract and could also impact contracting beyond the U.S. federal level. Reported matters may also lead to audits or investigations and other civil, criminal or administrative sanctions, including those described above. For example, after Accenture Federal Services (“AFS”) made a voluntary disclosure to the U.S. government, the U.S. Department of Justice (“DOJ”) initiated a civil and criminal investigation concerning whether one or more employees provided inaccurate submissions to an assessor who was evaluating on behalf of the U.S. government an AFS service offering and whether the service offering fully implemented required federal security controls. This matter could subject to us to adverse consequences, including those described in this risk factor.
• Government contracts are subject to heightened reputational and contractual risks compared to contracts with commercial clients. For example, government contracts and the proceedings surrounding them are often subject to more extensive scrutiny and publicity. Negative publicity, including an allegation of improper or illegal activity, regardless of its accuracy, may adversely affect our reputation.
• Terms and conditions of government contracts also tend to be more onerous and are often more difficult to negotiate. For example, these contracts often contain high or unlimited liability for breaches and feature less favorable payment terms and sometimes require us to take on liability for the performance of third parties.
• Government entities typically fund projects through appropriated monies. While these projects are often planned and executed as multi-year projects, government entities usually reserve the right to change the scope of or terminate these
Table of Contents
ACCENTURE 2024 FORM 10-K
Item 1A. Risk Factors 31
projects for lack of approved funding and/or at their convenience. Elections, changes in government or political developments, including government closures or shutdowns, budget deficits, shortfalls or uncertainties, government spending reductions or other debt constraints could result in our projects being reduced in price or scope or terminated altogether, which also could limit our recovery of incurred costs, reimbursable expenses and profits on work completed prior to the termination. Furthermore, if insufficient funding is appropriated to the government entity to cover termination costs, we may not be able to fully recover our investments.
• Political and economic factors such as pending elections, the outcome of recent elections, changes in leadership among key executive or legislative decision makers, revisions to governmental tax or other policies and reduced tax revenues can affect the number and terms of new government contracts signed or the speed at which new contracts are signed, decrease future levels of spending and authorizations for programs that we bid, shift spending priorities to programs in areas for which we do not provide services and/or lead to changes in enforcement or how compliance with relevant rules or laws is assessed.
• Our ability to work for the U.S. government is impacted by the fact that we are an Irish company. We elected to enter into a proxy agreement with the U.S. Department of Defense that enhances the ability of our U.S. federal government contracting subsidiary to perform certain work for the U.S. government. The proxy agreement regulates the management and operation of, and limits the control we can exercise over, this subsidiary. In addition, legislative and executive proposals remain under consideration or could be proposed in the future, which, if enacted, could place additional limitations on or even prohibit our eligibility to be awarded state or federal government contracts in the United States or could include requirements that would otherwise affect our results of operations. Various U.S. federal and state legislative proposals have been introduced and/or enacted in recent years that deny government contracts to certain U.S. companies that reincorporate or have reincorporated outside the United States. While Accenture was not a U.S. company that reincorporated outside the United States, it is possible that these contract bans and other legislative proposals could be applied in a way that negatively affects Accenture.
The occurrences or conditions described above could affect not only our business with the particular government entities involved, but also our business with other entities of the same or other governmental bodies or with certain commercial clients, and could have a material adverse effect on our business or our results of operations.
If we are unable to protect or enforce our intellectual property rights, or if our services or solutions infringe upon the intellectual property rights of others or we lose our ability to utilize the intellectual property of others, our business could be adversely affected.
Our success depends, in part, upon our ability to obtain intellectual property protection for our proprietary platforms, methodologies, processes, software, hardware and other solutions. Existing laws of the various countries in which we provide services or solutions may offer only limited intellectual property protection of our services or solutions, and the protection in some countries may be very limited. We rely upon a combination of confidentiality policies and procedures, nondisclosure and other contractual arrangements, and patent, trade secret, copyright and trademark laws to protect our intellectual property rights. These laws are subject to change at any time and could further limit our ability to obtain or maintain intellectual property protection. For example, the intellectual property legal landscape relating to AI (including generative AI) is expected to continue to evolve in many countries in which we operate. As a result, there is uncertainty concerning the scope of patent and other intellectual property protection for AI models, software and business methods, which are fields in which we rely on intellectual property laws to protect our rights. Even where we obtain intellectual property protection, our intellectual property rights may not prevent or deter competitors, former employees, or other third parties from reverse engineering our solutions or proprietary methodologies and processes or independently developing services or solutions similar to or duplicative of ours. Further, the steps we take in this regard might not be adequate to prevent or deter infringement or other misappropriation of our intellectual property by competitors, former employees or other third parties, and we might not be able to detect unauthorized use of, or take appropriate and timely steps to enforce, our intellectual property rights. Enforcing our rights might also require considerable time, money and oversight, and we may not be successful in enforcing our rights.
In addition, we cannot be sure that our services and solutions, including, for example, our AI, software and hardware solutions, or the solutions of others that we offer to our clients, do not infringe on the intellectual property rights of third parties (including competitors as well as non-practicing holders of intellectual property assets), and these third parties could claim that we or our clients are infringing upon their intellectual property rights. Furthermore, although we have established policies and procedures to respect the intellectual property rights of third parties and that prohibit the unauthorized use of intellectual property, we may not be aware if our employees have misappropriated and/or misused intellectual property, and their actions could result in claims of intellectual property misappropriation and/or infringement from third parties. These claims could harm our reputation, cause us to incur substantial costs or prevent us from offering some services or solutions in the future. Any related proceedings could require us to expend significant resources over an extended period of time. In most of our contracts, we agree to indemnify our clients for expenses and liabilities resulting from claimed infringements of the intellectual property rights of third parties. In some instances, the amount of these indemnities could be greater than the revenues we receive from the client. Any claims or litigation in this area could be time-consuming and costly, damage our
Table of Contents
ACCENTURE 2024 FORM 10-K
Item 1A. Risk Factors 32
reputation and/or require us to incur additional costs to obtain the right to continue to offer a service or solution to our clients. If we cannot secure this right at all or on reasonable terms, or we are unable to implement in a cost-effective manner alternative technology, our results of operations could be materially adversely affected. The risk of infringement claims against us may increase as we expand our industry AI, software and hardware solutions and continue to develop and deploy our AI, software and hardware solutions to multiple clients. Any infringement action brought against us or our clients could be costly to defend or lead to an expensive settlement or judgment against us.
Further, we rely on third-party software, hardware, data and other intellectual property in providing some of our services and solutions. If we lose our ability to continue using any such software, hardware, data or intellectual property for any reason, including because it is found to infringe the rights of others, we will need to obtain substitutes or seek alternative means of obtaining the technology necessary to continue to provide such services and solutions. Our inability to replace such software, hardware, data or intellectual property effectively or in a timely and cost-effective manner could materially adversely affect our results of operations.
We are incorporated in Ireland and Irish law differs from the laws in effect in the United States and might afford less protection to our shareholders. We may also be subject to criticism and negative publicity related to our incorporation in Ireland.
Irish law differs from the laws in effect in the United States and our shareholders could have more difficulty protecting their interests than would shareholders of a corporation incorporated in a jurisdiction of the United States. The United States currently does not have a treaty with Ireland providing for the reciprocal recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters. As such, there is some uncertainty as to whether the courts of Ireland would recognize or enforce judgments of U.S. courts obtained against us or our directors or officers based on U.S. federal or state civil liability laws, including the civil liability provisions of the U.S. federal or state securities laws, or hear actions against us or those persons based on those laws.
As an Irish company, we are governed by the Companies Act. The Companies Act differs in some significant, and possibly material, respects from laws applicable to U.S. corporations and shareholders under various state corporation laws, including the provisions relating to interested directors, mergers and acquisitions, takeovers, shareholder lawsuits and indemnification of directors.
Under Irish law, the duties of directors and officers of a company are generally owed to the company only. Shareholders of Irish companies do not generally have rights to take action against directors or officers of the company under Irish law, and may only do so in limited circumstances. Directors of an Irish company must, in exercising their powers and performing their duties, act with due care and skill, honestly and in good faith with a view to the best interests of the company. Directors have a duty not to put themselves in a position in which their duties to the company and their personal interests might conflict and also are under a duty to disclose any personal interest in any contract or arrangement with the company or any of its subsidiaries. If a director or officer of an Irish company is found to have breached his or her duties to that company, he or she could be held personally liable to the company in respect of that breach of duty.
Under Irish law, we must have authority from our shareholders to issue any shares, including shares that are part of the company’s authorized but unissued share capital. In addition, unless otherwise authorized by its shareholders, when an Irish company issues shares for cash to new shareholders, it is required first to offer those shares on the same or more favorable terms to existing shareholders on a pro-rata basis. If we are unable to obtain these authorizations from our shareholders, or are otherwise limited by the terms of our authorizations, our ability to issue shares under our equity compensation plans and, if applicable, to facilitate funding acquisitions or otherwise raise capital could be adversely affected.
Some companies that conduct substantial business in the United States but that have a parent domiciled in certain other jurisdictions have been criticized as improperly avoiding U.S. taxes or creating an unfair competitive advantage over U.S. companies. Accenture never conducted business under a U.S. parent company and pays U.S. taxes on all of its U.S. operations. Nonetheless, we could be subject to criticism in connection with our incorporation in Ireland.