Mosaic Co (MOS) Risk Factors

Economic and market conditions, including inflation, supply chain challenges, high interest rates and foreign exchange volatility, have and may continue to have an impact on our business. Our production costs have increased due to higher prices for raw materials, including purchased nitrogen, sulfur and ammonia, as well as supply chain challenges, including increased costs and delays caused by transportation and labor shortages. These adverse economic events have adversely affected, and may continue to adversely affect our operating results.

Pandemics, epidemics or other health outbreaks have, and could again, adversely affect the global economy and have, and could again, significantly disrupt our operations, key suppliers or third-party logistics providers, customers and ultimate end-users. These disruptions could arise due to the spread of the outbreak and/or from measures to contain or mitigate it such as quarantines and extended closures of businesses mandated by government authorities. For example, the Covid-19 pandemic adversely affected our businesses in multiple ways, including by creating short-term labor shortages, due to illness, and transportation issues, such as trucking delays and port congestion, which slowed delivery of inputs to our facilities and products to our end customers. The full impact of another public health event depends on various factors any of which could materially increase our costs, negatively impact our revenue and/or adversely impact our results of operations and liquidity, possibly to a significant degree. A public health event could also have the effect of heightening many of the other risks described in this Item 1A of this Form 10-K.

Adverse weather conditions have in the past and may in the future adversely affect our operations, particularly our Phosphates operations. In the past, hurricanes have resulted in physical damage to our facilities in Florida and Louisiana. Additionally, water treatment costs tend to increase significantly following excess rainfall. Some of our Florida and Louisiana facilities have had, and others could have, high water levels that have required, or may require, treatment. High water balances in the past at phosphate facilities in Florida also led the Florida Department of Environmental Protection ("FDEP") to adopt rules requiring phosphate production facilities to meet more stringent process water management objectives for phosphogypsum stack systems. In addition to the FDEP, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency ("EPA") and the Louisiana Department of Environmental Quality also have similar requirements for water management objectives as outlined in our U.S. Resource Conservation and Recovery Act ("RCRA") Consent Decree's. If adverse weather occurs in coming years, our facilities may be required to take additional measures to manage process water to comply with existing or future requirements and these measures could potentially have a material effect on our business and financial condition. Adverse weather may also cause a loss of production and may disrupt our supply chain or adversely affect delivery of our products to our customers. For example, oil refineries that supply sulfur to us may suspend operations as a result of a hurricane, and incoming shipments of ammonia can be delayed, disrupting production at our Florida or Louisiana facilities and delivery of our products. In the second half of 2021, we experienced production impacts related to Hurricane Ida at our Louisiana operations. We also experienced down time and delayed shipments caused by impacts from Hurricane Ian which occurred at the end of the third quarter in 2022. Excess rainfall and drought have in the past, and may in the future, adversely affect us. For example, in 2019, we experienced the wettest year in North America in nearly 50 years, which reduced fertilizer applications by farmers. Excess rainfall also resulted in higher river levels which adversely affected delivery of our products. Drought can reduce farmers' crop yields and the uptake of phosphates and potash, reducing the need for application of additional phosphates and potash for the next planting season. Drought can also lower river levels, adversely affecting delivery of our products to our customers. For example, the Mississippi River was in drought condition for parts of 2022 and 2023, affecting barge movement on the river.

The impact of climate change on our operations and those of our customers remains uncertain. The impacts of climate change could include changes in rainfall patterns, water shortages, changing sea levels, changing storm patterns and intensities, and changing temperature levels and that these changes could be severe. These impacts could vary by geographic location. Severe climate change could impact our costs and operating activities, the location and cost of global grain and oilseed production, and the supply and demand for grains and oilseeds. At the present time, we cannot predict the prospective impact of climate change on our results of operations, liquidity or capital resources, or whether any such effects could be material to us.

The U.S. federal and some state governments increasingly are adopting standards or policies requiring environmental justice reviews in some permitting actions. In general, they require governmental agencies to evaluate projects for disproportionate impacts to disadvantaged or already burdened communities. If such conditions are found, they might result in a permit denial, or restrictive or cost prohibitive conditions imposed on our operations and may impair our business and operations and could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition or results of operations.

Various governmental initiatives to limit greenhouse gas emissions are under way or under consideration around the world. These initiatives could restrict our operating activities, require us to make changes in our operating activities that would increase our operating costs, reduce our efficiency or limit our output, require us to make capital improvements to our facilities, increase our energy, raw material and transportation costs or limit their availability, or otherwise adversely affect our results of operations, liquidity or capital resources, and these effects could be material to us. Governmental greenhouse gas emission initiatives include, among others, the December 2015 agreement (the "Paris Agreement") which was the outcome of the 21st session of the Conference of the Parties under the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change ("UNFCCC"). The Paris Agreement, which was signed by nearly 200 nations, including the U.S. and Canada, entered into force in late 2016 and sets out a goal of limiting the average rise in temperatures for this century to below 2 degrees Celsius. Each signatory is expected to develop its own plan (referred to as a Nationally Determined Contribution, or "NDC") for reaching that goal. Previously, the U.S. had submitted an NDC aiming to achieve, by 2025, an economy-wide target of reducing greenhouse gas emissions by 26-28% below its 2005 level. The NDC also aims to use best efforts to reduce emissions by 28%. The U.S. target covers all greenhouse gases that were a part of the 2014 Inventory of Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks. While the status of this NDC is unclear, various legislative or regulatory initiatives relating to greenhouse gases have been adopted or considered by the U.S. Congress, the EPA or various states and those initiatives already adopted may be used to implement a U.S. NDC. Additionally, more stringent laws and regulations may be enacted to accomplish the goals set out in the NDC. Brazil ratified the Paris Agreement in September 2016, committing to an NDC that includes an economy-wide target of 1.3 GtCO2e by 2025 and 1.2 GtCO2e by 2030. In 2020, Brazil submitted a new NDC, which reaffirms the country's commitment to reducing total net greenhouse gas emissions by 37% in 2025 and by 43% in 2030. The NDC further commits to achieving climate neutrality in 2060. Complete details surrounding Brazil's plan for achieving the greenhouse gas emissions reductions and climate neutrality are uncertain. The government of Brazil may intervene with new or different policy instruments to meet the goals set out in the 2020 NDC. Canada's intended NDC aims to achieve, by 2030, an economy-wide target of reducing greenhouse gas emissions by 40-45% below 2005 levels. The Canadian federal government has also introduced legislation establishing a long-term target of "net-zero" greenhouse gas emissions by 2050. More stringent laws and regulations may be enacted to accomplish the goals set out in Canada's NDC and Canada's own long-term emissions reduction targets. In March 2022, the SEC issued proposed rules on climate change disclosure requirements that, if adopted as proposed, will require disclosure of extensive detailed climate-related information. The Company is monitoring the SEC's proposed rules and recently enacted standards in the European Union and California on climate change disclosure and is taking necessary steps to plan for the anticipated or adopted disclosure requirements. It is possible that such legislation and other future legislation or regulation addressing climate change, including the Paris Agreement or any new international agreements, could adversely affect our operating activities, energy, raw material and transportation costs, results of operations, liquidity or capital resources, and these effects could be material or adversely impact our competitive advantage. In addition, to the extent climate change restrictions imposed in countries where our competitors operate, such as India, China, Russia, Belarus or Morocco, are less stringent than in the U.S., Canada or Brazil, our competitors could gain cost or other competitive advantages over us.

We compete with a number of producers throughout the world, including state-owned and government-subsidized entities. Some have greater total resources than we do, and may be less dependent on earnings from crop nutrients sales than we are. In addition, some of these entities have access to lower cost or government-subsidized natural gas supplies, mining rights and reserves, financing, transportation and tax incentives, placing us at a competitive disadvantage. Furthermore, certain governments as owners of some of our competitors may be willing to accept lower prices and profitability on their products in order to support domestic employment or other political or social goals. To the extent other producers of crop nutrients enjoy competitive advantages or are willing to accept lower profit levels, the price of our products, our sales volumes and our profits may be adversely affected.