Accenture plc

Item 1A. Risk Factors

For a discussion of our potential risks and uncertainties, see the information under the heading Risk Factors in our Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended August 31, 2024 (the Annual Report). , as updated below.

There have been no material changes to the risk factors disclosed in our Annual  following updates and replaces the risk factors in the Annual Report entitled Our business could be materially adversely affected if we incur legal liability and Our work with government clients exposes us to additional risks inherent in the government contracting environment.

Our business could be materially adversely affected if we incur legal liability.

We are subject to, and may become a party to, a variety of litigation or other claims and suits that arise from time to time in the ordinary course of our business. Our business is subject to the risk of litigation involving current and former employees, clients, ecosystem partners, subcontractors, suppliers, competitors, shareholders, government agencies or others through private actions, class actions, whistleblower claims, administrative proceedings, regulatory actions or other litigation. Regardless of the merits of the claims, the cost to defend current and future litigation may be significant, and such matters can be time-consuming and divert managements attention and resources. The results of litigation and other legal proceedings are inherently uncertain, and adverse judgments or settlements in some or all of these legal disputes may result in materially adverse monetary damages, fines, penalties, debarment or injunctive relief against us. Any claims or litigation, even if fully indemnified or insured, could damage our reputation and make it more difficult to compete effectively or to obtain adequate insurance in the future.

We could be subject to significant legal liability and litigation expense if we fail to meet our contractual obligations, contribute to internal control or other deficiencies of a client or otherwise breach obligations to third parties, including clients, ecosystem partners, employees and former employees, and other parties with whom we conduct business, or if our subcontractors breach or dispute the terms of our agreements with them and impede our ability to meet our obligations to our clients, or if our services or solutions cause bodily injuries to our people, clients, or the public or property damage. For example, by taking over the operation of certain portions of our clients businesses, including functions and systems that are critical to the core businesses of our clients, by contributing to the design, development, manufacturing and/or engineering of client products, or by providing various operational technology, digital manufacturing and robotics or other industrial automation equipment solutions, and advisory, management and engineering services for infrastructure projects, we may be exposed to additional and evolving operational, regulatory, reputational or other risks specific to these areas, including risks related to data security, product liability, health and safety, hazardous materials and other environmental risks. A failure of a clients system, product or infrastructure based on our services or solutions could also subject us to a claim for significant damages that could materially adversely affect our results of operations.

In order to remain competitive, we increasingly enter into agreements based on our clients contract terms after conducting an assessment of the risk of doing so, which may expose us to additional risk. In addition, the contracting practices of competitors, along with the demands of increasingly sophisticated clients, may cause contract terms and conditions that are unfavorable to us to become new standards in the industry. We may commit to providing services or solutions that we are unable to deliver or whose delivery may reduce our profitability or cause us financial loss. If we cannot or do not meet our contractual obligations and if our potential liability is not adequately limited through the terms of our agreements, liability limitations are not enforced or a third party alleges fraud or other wrongdoing to prevent us from relying upon those contractual protections, we might face significant legal liability and litigation expense and our results of operations could be materially adversely affected. Moreover, as we expand our services and solutions into new areas, we may be exposed to additional and evolving risks specific to these new areas.

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.

Similarly, we could become the target of litigation or investigations initiated by government authorities or private actors alleging that our activities related to ESG (including diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI)) are anti-competitive, discriminatory or otherwise unlawful.

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 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 Report. gulation. 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, supply chain or other 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.

On January 21, 2025, an executive order was issued requiring U.S. federal contractors to certify that they do not operate any programs promoting DEI that violate any applicable federal anti-discrimination laws. A violation of these or similar federal or state orders, laws or regulations, may expose us to penalties and sanctions discussed above and jeopardize our ability to continue to do work with the U.S. federal government and certain state governments, which may materially adversely affect our future results of operations.

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 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 have resulted and could in the future result in our projects being reduced in price or scope, delayed 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.

The new U.S. administration has begun efforts to reduce federal spending and the size of the federal workforce under the guidance of the Department of Government Efficiency. As a result of these efforts, many new procurements have been delayed or canceled. In addition, the General Services Administration (GSA) the U.S. federal procurement agency has instructed all federal agencies to review their contracts with what it has identified as the 10 highest-paid consulting firms contracting with the U.S. federal government, which includes Accenture Federal Services. The agencies were directed to identify the contracts that they plan to maintain and those that are not mission critical and provide substantive, imperative technical support, which will be terminated. These and similar spending reductions and contract reviews have resulted in and are likely to continue to result in contract terminations, delays in new procurements, and reductions in price and contract scope, all of which could have a material impact on Accenture Federal Services results of operations and financial condition.

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.