The development, manufacture and sale of our products are subject to various regulatory requirements in each of the countries in which our products are developed, manufactured and sold. In addition, we are subject to product safety and compliance requirements established by governments, non-governmental organizations, including industry or similar oversight bodies, or contractually by our customers, including requirements concerning product safety, quality and efficacy, environmental impacts (including packaging, energy and water use and waste management) and other sustainability or similar issues. Changes to regulations or the implementation of additional regulations, especially in certain highly regulated markets we are active in, such as regulatory modernization of food safety laws and evolving standards and regulations affecting pharmaceutical excipients microbials, or in reaction to new or next-generation technologies, including advances in protein engineering, biotechnology (e.g., gene editing and gene mapping, ormapping), novel uses of existing technologies hasor stricter rules on ingredients produced by biotechnology techniques have required and may in the future require us to reduce or remove certain ingredients, substances or processing aids from the product portfolio and may result in significant costs or capital expenditures or require changes in business practice that could result in reduced margins or profitability.

We use a variety of strategies, methodologies and tools to minimize the likelihood of product or process non-compliance with these regulations and standards by (i) monitoring regulatory developments and current product standards, (ii) assessing relative risks in our supply chain, (iii) monitoring internal and external performance and (iv) testing raw materials and finished goods. As concerns regarding safety, quality and environmental impact become more pressing, we may see new, more restrictive regulations adopted that impact our products. For example, the European Chemicals Agency has proposed that the European Commission adoptEC recently adopted a ban on microplastics, including those found in personal care items, detergents and cosmetics, to reduce plastics pollution. If this ban is adopted, we will beWe are now required to modify our products and/or innovate new solutions to replace microplastics in our products. The EU Green Deal includes a Chemicals Strategy for Sustainability (CSS), which will trigger updates of the main regulations governing chemical substances used in household and cosmetic products or in industrial applications (REACH, CLP, Cosmetic Regulation and Detergent Regulation). This strategy aims for an expansion of the generic risk management approach based on hazard rather than risk and will introduce other concepts like grouping of similar substances to accelerate regulatory decision making. The practical implementation of this strategy may negatively impact some of the products we place on the market, including some enzymes or fragrance ingredients. If we are unable to adapt to these new regulations or standards in a cost effective and timely manner, we may lose business to competitors who are able to provide compliant products, expose ourselves to customer claims, regulatory fines, litigation or reputational damage.

Gaps in our operational processes or those of our suppliers or distributors can result in products that do not meet our quality control or industry standards or fail to comply with the relevant regulatory requirements, which in turn can result in finished consumer goods that do not comply with applicable standards and requirements. Products that are mislabeled, contaminated or damaged could result in a regulatory non-compliance event or even a product recall by the FDA or a similar foreign agency. For instance, the Company had determined in the past that certain grades of microcrystalline cellulose (Avicel® PH 101, 102, and 200 NF and Avicel® RC-591 NF) were found to be out-of-specification (collectively, “OOS Avicel® NF”).out-of-specification. Although the Company does not expect thisthe OOS conductivity issue to affect the functionality of Avicel® NF grades or to pose a human health hazard, corrective actions have been implemented to improve operational and laboratory conditions.

We may also be exposed to serious adverse health claims related to undetected poor quality of raw materials, internal system failures to adequately reduce or eliminate certain hazards (such as pathogens, allergens, contaminants, pesticides, physical hazards, etc.) or products that are not in line with required or agreed specifications. Supply chain complexities, aging equipment and infrastructure, human errors, or other failures may exacerbate such risks.

Our contracts often require us to indemnify our customers for the costs associated with a product non-compliance event, including penalties, costs and settlements arising from litigation, remediation costs or loss of sales. As our offerings are used in many products intended for human use or consumption, these consequences would be exacerbated if we or our customer did not identify the defect before the product reaches the consumer and there was a resulting impact at the consumer level. Such a result could lead to potentially large-scale adverse publicity, negative effects on consumer’s health, recalls and potential litigation, fines, penalties, sanctions or other regulatory actions. In addition, if we do not have adequate insurance or contractual indemnification from suppliers or other third parties, or if insurance or indemnification is not available, the liability relating to product or possible third-party claims arising from mislabeled, contaminated or damaged products could adversely affect our business, financial condition or results of operations. Furthermore, adverse publicity about our products, or our customers’ products that contain our ingredients, including concerns about product safety or similar issues, whether real or perceived, could harm our reputation and result in an immediate adverse effect on our sales and customer relationships, as well as require us to utilize significant resources to rebuild our reputation.

Defects in, misuse of, quality issues with respect to (including products recalls) or inadequate disclosure of risks relating to our products, could lead to lost profits and other economic damage, property damage, personal injury or other liability resulting in third-party claims, criminal liability, significant costs, damage to our reputation and loss of business. Any of these factors could adversely affect our business, financial condition and our results of operations.

Our business operations and properties procure, make use of, manufacture, sell, and distribute substances that are sometimes considered hazardous and are therefore subject to extensive and increasingly stringent federal, state, local and foreign laws and regulations pertaining to protection of the environment, including air emissions, sewage discharges, the use of hazardous materials, waste disposal practices and clean-up of existing environmental contamination.

Failure to comply with these laws and regulations or any future changes to them may result in significant consequences to us, including the need to close or relocate one or more of our production facilities, administrative, civil and criminal penalties, fines, sanctions, litigation, costly remediation measures, liability for damages and negative publicity. If we are unable to meet production requirements, we can lose customer orders, which can adversely affect our future growth or we may be required to make incremental capital investments to ensure supply. For example, we have completed negotiations with the Chinese government concerning the relocation of a second fragrance facility in China. Idling of facilities or production modifications has caused or may cause customers to seek alternate suppliers due to concerns regarding supply interruptions and these customers may not return or may order at reduced levels even once issues are remediated. If these non-compliance issues reoccur in China or occur or in any other jurisdiction, we may lose business and may be required to incur capital spending above previous expectations, close a plant, or operate a plant at significantly reduced production levels on a permanent basis, and our operating results and cash flows from operations may be adversely affected.

The global nature of our business, our increased size and employee count, the significance of our international revenue, our focus on emerging markets and presence in regulated industries create various domestic and local regulatory challenges and subject us to risks associated with our international operations. The U.S. Foreign Corrupt Practices Act or FCPA,(the “FCPA”) and similar anti-bribery and anti-corruption laws and regulations in other countries generally prohibit companies and their intermediaries from making improper payments to foreign officials for the purpose of obtaining or keeping business or for other commercial advantage. In addition, U.S. public companies are required to maintain records that accurately and fairly represent their transactions and have an adequate system of internal accounting controls. Under the FCPA, U.S. companies may be held liable for the corrupt actions taken by directors, officers, employees, agents, or other strategic or local partners or representatives. As such, if we or our intermediaries fail to comply with the requirements of the FCPA or similar legislation, governmental authorities in the U.S. and elsewhere could seek to impose substantial civil and/or criminal fines and penalties which could have a material adverse effect on our business, reputation, operating results and financial condition.

We operate or may pursue opportunities in some jurisdictions, such as China, India, Brazil, Russia and Africa, that pose potentially elevated risks of fraud or corruption or increased risk of internal control issues. In certain jurisdictions, compliance with anti-bribery laws may conflict with local customs and practices. From time to time, we have conducted and will conduct internal investigations of the relevant facts and circumstances, control testing and compliance reviews, and take remedial actions, when appropriate, to help ensure that we are in compliance with applicable corruption and similar laws and regulations. For example, in August 2019, during the integration of Frutarom, we were made aware of allegations that two Frutarom businesses operating principally in Russia and Ukraine made certain improper payments, including to representatives of a number of customers. Our investigation substantiated the allegations that improper payments to representatives of customers were made and that key members of Frutarom’s senior management at the time were aware of such payments. We did not uncover any evidence suggesting that such payments had any connection to the U.S. In addition, Frutarom grew through rapid acquisition and, as part of our integration efforts, we have implemented our anti-corruption and similar policies throughout a number of those acquired companies, many of which were not previously subject to these U.S. laws.

We rely on patents, trademarks, copyrights and trade secrets to protect our intellectual property rights. We often rely on trade secrets to protect our products, manufacturing processes, extract methodologies and other processes, as this does not require us to publicly file information regarding our intellectual property. From time to time, a third party may claim that we have infringed upon or misappropriated their intellectual property rights, or a third party may infringe upon or misappropriate our intellectual property rights. We could incur significant costs in connection with legal actions to assert our intellectual property rights against third parties or to defend ourselves from third-party assertions of invalidity, infringement, misappropriation or other claims. Any settlement or adverse judgment resulting from such litigation could require us to obtain a license to continue to use the intellectual property rights that are the subject of the claim, or otherwise restrict or prohibit our use of such intellectual property rights. Any required licensing fees may not be available to us on acceptable terms, if at all. For those intellectual property rights that are protected as trade secrets, this litigation could result in even higher costs, and potentially the loss of certain rights, since we would not have a perfected intellectual property right that precludes others from making, using or selling our products or processes. The ongoing trend among our customers towards more transparent labeling could further diminish our ability to effectively protect our products.

For intellectual property rights that we seek to protect through patents, we cannot be certain that these rights, if obtained, will not later be opposed, invalidated or circumvented. In addition, even if such rights are obtained in the U.S., the laws of some of the other countries in which our products are or may be sold domay not protect intellectual property rights to the same extent as the laws of the U.S. For instance, we may be unable to obtain or defend intellectual property rights in new and inventive technology developed in whole or in part by relying on AI tools. If other parties were to infringe on our intellectual property rights, or if our intellectual property rights were the subject of unauthorized access leading to competitive pressure or if a third party successfully asserted that we had infringed on their intellectual property rights, it could materially and adversely affect our future results of operations by, among other things, (i) being required to cease production and marketing or reducing the price that we could obtain in the marketplace for products which are based on such rights, (ii) increasing the royalty or other fees that we may be required to pay in connection with such rights, (iii) limiting the volume, if any, of such products that we can sell or (iv) resulting in significant litigation costs and potential liability.

We are subject to taxes in the U.S. and numerous foreign jurisdictions. Our future effective tax rates could be affected by changes in the mix of earnings in countries with differing statutory tax rates, changes in the valuation of deferred tax assets and

We have and will continue to implement transfer pricing policies among our various operations located in different countries. These transfer pricing policies are a significant component of the management and compliance of our operations across international boundaries and overall financial results. Many countries routinely examine transfer pricing policies of taxpayers subject to their jurisdiction, challenge transfer pricing policies aggressively where there is potential non-compliance and impose significant interest charges and penalties where non-compliance is determined. However, governmental authorities could challenge these policies more aggressively in the future and, if challenged, we may not prevail. We could suffer significant costs related to one or more challenges to our transfer pricing policies.

In addition, a number of international legislative and regulatory bodies have proposed legislation and begun investigations of the tax practices of multi-national companies and, in the European Union, the tax policies of certain European Union member states. One of these efforts has been led byIn December 2021, the OrganizationOrganisation for Economic Co-operation and Development an(“OECD”) released the Pillar Two model rules to reform international association of 34 countries including the U.S., which has finalized recommendationscorporate taxation that aim to reviseensure that applicable multinationals (global revenue exceeding €750 million) pay a minimum effective corporate tax transfer pricing,rate of 15%. The rules are due to be passed into national legislation based on each country’s approach, and some countries have already enacted or substantively enacted the rules. The OECD continues to release additional guidance on the Two-Pillar framework, with widespread implementation anticipated by 2024. We are continuing to evaluate the potential impact on future periods of the Pillar Two Framework, pending legislative adoption by individual countries. This new legislation may have a material effect on our effective tax treaty provisions in member countries. rate, income tax expense, net income or cash flows.

Since 2013, the European Commission (“EC”) has been investigating tax rulings granted by tax authorities in a number of European Union member states with respect to specific multi-national corporations to determine whether such rulings comply with European Union rules on state aid, as well as more recent investigations of the tax regimes of certain European Union member states. Under European Union law, selective tax advantages for particular taxpayers that are not sufficiently grounded in economic realities may constitute impermissible state aid. If the EC determines that a tax ruling or tax regime violates the state aid restrictions, the tax authorities of the affected European Union member state may be required to collect back taxes for the period of time covered by the ruling. In late 2015 and early 2016, the EC declared that tax rulings, related to other companies, by tax authorities in Luxembourg, the Netherlands and Belgium did not comply with the European Union state aid restrictions. If the EC or tax authorities in other jurisdictions were to successfully challenge tax rulings applicable to us in any of the member states in which we are subject to taxation or our internal intercompany arrangements, we could be exposed to increased tax liabilities.

In December 2017,August 2022, the U.S. government enacted comprehensive tax legislation commonly referred to as the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act (the “Tax“Inflation Reduction Act”) that significantly revised the U.S. tax code effective January 1, 2018 by,, which, among other things, lowering the corporate incomeimposes a minimum “book” tax rate fromon certain corporations effective for taxable years beginning after December 31, 2022 and creates a top marginal rate of 35% to a flat 21%, limiting deductibility of interest expense and performance based incentive compensation, transitioning to a territorial system and creating new taxes associated with global operations. The Tax Act impacted our consolidated results of operations during 2021 and is expected toexcise tax on stock repurchases made by certain publicly traded corporations after December 31, 2022. We will continue to evaluate its impact our consolidated results of operations in future periods. In future periods, we expect that our effective tax rate will be impacted by the lower U.S. corporate tax rate that will initially be offset by the elimination of the deductibility of performance-based incentive compensation, and other provisions of the Tax Act that may impact us prospectively. However, the ultimate impact of the Tax Act will depend on additional regulatory or accountingas further guidance that may be issued with respect to the Tax Act and any operating and structural changes that we may undertake to permit us to benefit from the new, lower U.S. tax rate prospectively. This could adversely affect our results of operations.becomes available.

The completion of the N&B Transaction in 2021 was conditioned upon the receipt by DuPont of an opinion that the transaction generally will qualify as a tax-free reorganization. The tax opinion was based upon various factual representations and assumptions, as well as certain undertakings made by DuPont, IFF and N&B. If any of those factual representations or assumptions were untrue or incomplete in any material respect, any undertaking was or is not complied with, or the facts upon which the opinion was based are materially different from the facts at the closing of the N&B Transaction, the transaction may not qualify (in whole or part) for tax-free treatment.

The N&B spin-off and certain aspects of the pre-spin-off internal reorganizations to form N&B could be taxable to DuPont if N&B or we were to engage in a “Spinco Tainting Act” (as defined in the Tax Matters Agreement, by and among DuPont, N&B and IFF, a form of which is attached to IFF’s registration statement on Form S-4 (Registration Number 333-238072)). A Spinco Tainting Act is generally any action (or inaction) within our control or under the control of N&B or their affiliates, any event involving our common stock or the common stock of N&B or any assets of N&B or its subsidiaries, or any breach by N&B or any of its subsidiaries of any factual representations, assumptions, or undertakings made by it, in each case, that would affect the non-recognition treatment of the spin-off and internal reorganizations for U.S. federal income tax purposes, as described above. Under the Tax Matters Agreement, we and N&B will be required to indemnify DuPont for any taxes resulting from a Spinco Tainting Act. If we or N&B were required to indemnify DuPont pursuant to the Tax Matters Agreement as described

Legal requirements relating to the collection, storage, handling, use, disclosure, transfer, and security of personal data continue to evolve, and regulatory scrutiny in this area is increasing around the world. This regulatory environment is increasingly challenging and may present material obligations and risks to our business, including significantly expanded compliance burdens, restrictions on transfer of personal data, costs and enforcement risks. For example, the European Union’s GDPR, which became effective in May 2018, greatly increases the jurisdictional reach of EU law and adds a broad array of requirements related to personal data, including individual notice and opt-out preferences, restrictions on and requirements for transfer of personal data and the public disclosure of significant data breaches. Additionally, violations of the GDPR can result in fines of as much as 4% of a company’s annual revenue. OtherMany governments have enacted or are enacting similarnew or updated data protection laws, including data localization laws that require data to stay within their borders. All of these evolving compliance and operational requirements, restrictions on use of personal data, as well as the uncertain interpretation and enforcement of laws, impose significant costs and regulatory risks that are likely to increase over time. Our failure to comply with these evolving regulations could expose us to fines, sanctions, penalties and other costs that could harm our reputation and adversely impact our financial results.