Increasing attention to climate change, societal expectations on companies to address climate change, and potential consumer use of substitutes to oil and gas commodities may result in increased costs, reduced demand for our products and our services and the products and services of our customers, reduced profits, increased investigations and litigation, and negative impacts on our stock price and access to capital markets. Increasing attention to climate change, for example, may result in demand shifts for the hydrocarbon products we produce as well as additional governmental investigations and private litigation against us. To the extent that societal pressures or political or other factors are involved, it is possible that such liability could be imposed without regard to our causation of or contribution to the asserted damage, or to other mitigating factors.
Moreover, while we create and publish voluntary disclosures regarding ESG matters from time to time, many of the statements in those voluntary disclosures are based on hypothetical expectations and assumptions that may or may not be representative of current or actual risks or events or forecasts of expected risks or events, including the costs associated therewith. Such expectations and assumptions are necessarily uncertain and may be prone to error or subject to misinterpretation given the long timelines involved and the lack of an established single approach to identifying, measuring and reporting on many ESG matters.
The Board of Directors' Safety, Sustainability and Corporate Responsibility Committee is the primary committee of our Board of Directors responsible for overseeing and managing our ESG initiatives. Committee members are expected to meet quarterly to review the implementation and effectiveness of our ESG programs and policies. In 2022, we hired a Director of ESG who is responsible for driving our sustainability initiatives, engaging with stakeholders, benchmarking our ESG data, and evaluating potential and emerging ESG drivers. Additionally, we have set the following aspirational goals to help strengthen our ESG performance: (i) a 30% reduction in GHG emissions intensity by 2025 with a stretch goal of 40%, as compared to our 2018 GHG emissions intensity baseline; and (ii) increased to 20% the ESG metrics component of our management's annual incentive plan, which includes key initiatives aimed at GHG emissions reduction and health and safety performance. We note, however, that our ESG governance structure may not be able to adequately identify or manage ESG-related risks and opportunities, which may include failing to achieve our GHG emissions intensity reduction or other ESG-related aspirational goals, including but not limited to as a result of unforeseen costs or technical difficulties associated with achieving such goals. Moreover, given the evolving nature of GHG emissions accounting methodologies and climate science, it is possible that factors outside of our control could give rise to the need to restate or revise our emissions intensity reduction goals, cause us to miss them altogether, or limit the impact of success of achieving our goals. Additionally, to the extent we meet such targets, they may be achieved through various contractual arrangements, including the purchase of various credits or offsets that may be deemed to mitigate our ESG impact instead of actual changes in our ESG performance. However, we cannot guarantee that there will be sufficient offsets available for purchase given the increased demand from numerous businesses implementing net zero goals, or that the offsets we do purchase will successfully achieve the emissions reductions they represent.
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. We and other companies in our industry publish sustainability reports that are made available to investors. Such ratings and reports are used by some investors to inform their investment and voting decisions. Unfavorable ESG ratings may lead to increased negative investor sentiment toward us and to the diversion of investment to other industries which could have a negative impact on our stock price and/or our access to and costs of capital. Additionally, certain institutional lenders may decide not to provide funding to us based on ESG concerns, which could adversely affect our financial condition and access to capital for potential growth projects. To the extent ESG matters negatively impact our reputation, we may also be unable to compete as effectively to recruit or retain employees, which may adversely affect our operations.
Furthermore, public statements with respect to ESG matters, such as emissions reduction goals, other environmental targets, or other commitments addressing certain social issues, are becoming increasingly subject to heightened scrutiny from public and governmental authorities related to the risk of potential "greenwashing," i.e., misleading information or false claims overstating potential ESG benefits. For example, in March 2021, the SEC established the Climate and ESG Task Force in the Division of Enforcement to identify and address potential ESG-related misconduct, including greenwashing. Certain non-governmental organizations and other private actors have also filed lawsuits under various securities and consumer protection laws alleging that certain ESG statements, goals or standards were misleading, false, or otherwise deceptive. As a result, we may face increased litigation risk from private parties and governmental authorities related to our ESG efforts. In addition, any alleged claims of greenwashing against us or others in our industry may lead to further negative sentiment and diversion of investments. Additionally, we could face increasing costs as we attempt to comply with and navigate further regulatory ESG-related focus and scrutiny.