MOSAIC CO

We are subject to complex and evolving international, federal, state, provincial and local environmental, health, safety and security (“EHS”) policies that govern the production, distribution and use of crop nutrients and animal feed ingredients. These EHS standards regulate or propose to regulate: (i) conduct of mining, production and supply chain operations, including employee safety and facility security procedures; (ii) management or remediation of potential impacts to air, soil and water quality from our operations; (iii) disposal of waste materials; (iv) beneficial use of co-products and residuals; (v) reclamation of lands after mining; (vi) management and handling of raw materials; (vii) product content; and (viii) use of products by both us and our customers.

We have a comprehensive EHS management program that seeks to achieve sustainable, predictable and verifiable EHS performance. Key elements of our EHS program include: (i) identifying and managing EHS risk; (ii) complying with legal requirements; (iii) improving our EHS procedures and protocols; (iv) educating employees regarding EHS obligations; (v) retaining and developing professional qualified EHS staff; (vi) evaluating facility conditions; (vii) evaluating and enhancing safe workplace behaviors; (viii) performing audits; (ix) formulating EHS action plans; and (x) assuring accountability of all managers and other employees for EHS performance. Our business units are responsible for implementing day-to-day elements of our EHS program, assisted by integrated EHS professionals. We conduct audits to verify that each facility has identified risks, achieved regulatory compliance, improved EHS performance and incorporated EHS management systems into day-to-day business functions.

New or proposed regulatory programs or policies can present significant challenges in ascertaining future compliance obligations, implementing compliance plans, and estimating future costs until implementing regulations are finalized and definitive regulatory interpretations are adopted. New or proposed regulatory standards may require modifications to our facilities or to operating procedures and these modifications may involve significant capital costs or increases in operating costs. For example the Company is monitoring recently enacted standards in the European Union and California on climate change disclosure and is taking steps to address those new requirements.

We have expended, and anticipate that we will continue to expend, substantial financial and managerial resources to comply with EHS standards and to continue to improve our environmental stewardship. In 2025, excluding capital expenditures arising out of the consent decrees referred to under “EPA RCRA Initiative” in Note 14 of our Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements, we expect environmental capital expenditures to total approximately $480 million, primarily related to:

F- 22

(i) modification or construction of waste management infrastructure and water treatment systems; (ii) construction and modification projects associated with Gypstacks and clay settling ponds at our Phosphates facilities and tailings management areas for our Potash mining and processing facilities; (iii) upgrading or new construction of air pollution control equipment at some of the concentrates plants; and (iv) capital projects associated with remediation of contamination at current or former operations. Additional expenditures for land reclamation, Gypstack closure and water treatment activities are expected to total approximately $275 million in 2025. In 2026, we estimate environmental capital expenditures will be approximately $465 million and expenditures for land reclamation activities, Gypstack closure and water treatment activities are expected to be approximately $215 million. We spent approximately $545 million and $470 million for the years ended December 31, 2024 and 2023, respectively, for environmental capital expenditures, land reclamation activities, Gypstack closure and water treatment activities. No assurance can be given that greater-than-anticipated EHS capital expenditures or land reclamation, Gypstack closure or water treatment expenditures will not be required in 2025 or in the future.

Operating Requirements and Impacts

Permitting. We hold numerous environmental, mining and other permits and approvals authorizing operations at our facilities. Our ability to continue operations at a facility could be materially affected by a government agency decision to deny or delay issuing a new or renewed permit or approval, to revoke or substantially modify an existing permit or approval or to substantially change conditions applicable to a permit modification, or by legal actions that successfully challenge our permits.

Expanding our operations or extending operations into new areas is also predicated upon securing the necessary environmental or other permits or approvals. We have been engaged in, and over the next several years will be continuing, efforts to obtain permits in support of our planned Florida operations at certain of our properties. For years, we have successfully permitted properties and anticipate that we will be able to permit these properties as well.

A denial of our permits, the issuance of permits with cost-prohibitive conditions, substantial delays in issuing key permits, legal actions that prevent us from relying on permits or revocation of permits can prevent or delay our mining or operations at the affected properties and thereby materially affect our business, results of operations, liquidity or financial condition.

In addition, in the U.S., local stakeholder involvement has become an increasingly important factor in the permitting process for companies like ours, and various counties and other parties, particularly in Florida, have in the past filed and continue to file lawsuits or administrative appeals challenging the issuance of some of the permits we require. These actions can significantly delay permit issuance. Additional information regarding certain potential or pending permit challenges is provided in Note 23 to our Consolidated Financial Statements and is incorporated herein by reference.

Federal Initiatives to Define“Waters of the United States.” The Clean Water Act (“CWA”) authorizes federal jurisdiction over “navigable waters,” defined in the Act as “waters of the United States” and often abbreviated as “WOTUS.” As it relates to Mosaic’s operations and facilities, the scope of the term WOTUS dictates legal requirements for our national pollutant discharge elimination system wastewater discharge permits and for impacts to surface waters and wetlands associated with our phosphate mining and some production operations. A broad definition of WOTUS, and thus the scope of federal jurisdiction, increases the time required to identify wetlands and waterways subject to federal regulatory and permitting requirements, and the amount and type of mitigation required to compensate for impacts to jurisdictional WOTUS caused by our mining operations.

On May 25, 2023, the U.S. Supreme Court issued its opinion in Sackett v EPA, which significantly limits water features that can be considered WOTUS and therefore subject to CWA Section 404 jurisdiction. The Sackett decision is binding nationwide as to the determination of which wetlands and waters are subject to the CWA.

The Sackett decision invalidated the January 18, 2023 definition of WOTUS promulgated by EPA which had expanded federal jurisdiction. In response to Sackett, EPA issued a final rule that became effective September 8, 2023 intended to conform its definition of WOTUS to the Sackett decision.

As a result of ongoing litigation, the January 2023 WOTUS rule, as “conformed” by the September 2023 rule, is being implemented in 23 states, including New Mexico. In the other 27 states, including Florida, WOTUS is being interpreted consistent with the pre-2015 regulatory regime and the Supreme Court's Sackett decision.

Water Quality Regulations for Nutrient Discharges. New nutrient regulatory initiatives could have a material effect on either us or our customers. For example, the Mississippi River/Gulf of America Hypoxia Task Force was established by The

F- 23

Environmental Protection Agency in 1997 to coordinate activities with twelve states within the Mississippi River Basin to reduce nutrient loading in streams and tributaries through regulatory and voluntary actions. The strategy calls for, among other matters, reduction of the flow of excess nutrients into the Gulf of America through state nutrient reduction frameworks, new nutrient reduction approaches and reduction of agricultural and urban sources of excess nutrients. Implementation of the strategy will require legislative or regulatory action at the state level. Through these heightened actions by the states, some are also leveraging groundwater protection initiatives to mandate nutrient use restrictions for fall applications in specific agricultural regions to limit nutrient losses. While some of the legislative actions have changed application timing of nutrient use, we cannot overall predict what the requirements of any such legislative or regulatory action could be or whether or how it would affect us or our customers.

Reclamation Obligations. During phosphate mining we remove overburden to retrieve phosphate rock reserves. Once we have finished mining in an area, we use the overburden and sand tailings produced by the beneficiation process to reclaim the area in accordance with approved reclamation plans and applicable laws. We have incurred and will continue to incur significant costs to fulfill our reclamation obligations.

Management of Residual Materials and Closure of Management Areas. Mining and processing of potash and phosphate generate residual materials that must be managed both during the operation of the facility and after facility closure. Potash tailings, consisting primarily of salt and clay, are stored in surface disposal sites. Phosphate clay residuals from mining are deposited in clay storage areas (“CSAs”). Processing of phosphate rock with sulfuric acid generates phosphogypsum that currently is stored in Gypstacks.

During the life of the tailings management areas, CSAs and Gypstacks, we have incurred and will continue to incur significant costs to manage residual materials in accordance with environmental laws and regulations and with permit requirements. Additional legal and permit requirements will take effect when these facilities are closed. Our AROs are further discussed in Note 14 of our Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements.

New Wales Water Loss Incident. In August 2016, a sinkhole developed under one of the two cells of the Phase II Gypstack at our New Wales facility in Polk County, Florida, resulting in process water from the stack draining into the sinkhole. The incident was reported to the FDEP and EPA. In connection with the incident, our subsidiary, Mosaic Fertilizer, LLC (“Mosaic Fertilizer”), entered into a consent order (“Order”) with the FDEP in October 2016. Pursuant to the Order, Mosaic Fertilizer agreed to, among other things, implement an approved repair plan to close the sinkhole; perform additional water monitoring and if necessary, assessment and rehabilitation activities in the event of identified offsite impacts; provide financial assurance; and evaluate the risk of potential future sinkhole formation at our active Florida Gypstack operations.

Financial Assurance. Separate from our accounting treatment for reclamation and closure liabilities, some jurisdictions in which we operate require us either to pass a test of financial strength or provide credit support, typically cash deposits, surety bonds, financial guarantees or letters of credit, to address phosphate mining reclamation liabilities and closure liabilities for clay settling areas and Gypstacks. See “Other Commercial Commitments” under “Off-Balance Sheet Arrangements and Obligations” above for additional information about these requirements. We also have obligations under certain consent decrees and a separate financial assurance arrangement relating to our facilities in Florida and Louisiana. Two consent decrees that became effective in 2016 resolved claims under RCRA and state hazardous waste laws relating to our management of certain waste materials onsite at certain fertilizer manufacturing facilities in Florida and Louisiana. Under these consent decrees, in 2016, we deposited $630 million in cash into two trust funds to provide additional financial assurance for the estimated costs of closure and post-closure care of our phosphogypsum management systems. In addition, in 2017 we issued a letter of credit in the amount of $50 million to further support our financial assurance obligation under the Florida 2015 Consent Decree. While our actual Gypstack Closure Costs are generally expected to be paid by us in the normal course of our Phosphates business over a period that may not end until three decades or more after a Gypstack has been closed, the funds on deposit in the RCRA Trusts can be drawn by the applicable governmental authority in the event we cannot perform our closure and long-term care obligations. If and when our estimated Gypstack Closure Costs with respect to the facilities associated with a RCRA Trust are sufficiently lower than the amount on deposit in that RCRA Trust, we have the right to request that the excess funds be released to us. The same is true for the RCRA Trust balance remaining after the completion of our obligations, which will be performed over a period that may not end until three decades or more after a Gypstack has been closed. See the discussion under “EPA RCRA Initiative” in Note 14 of our Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements for additional information about these matters.

F- 24

We have fully funded a trust valued at $25 million (Canadian dollars) in satisfaction of financial assurance requirements for closure of our Saskatchewan Potash facilities. Trust performance is subject to review by the Province of Saskatchewan every five years during its existence.

In 2020, we executed and thereafter have maintained a surety bond in the amount of approximately $82 million to establish financial assurance for closure of our Carlsbad, New Mexico potash facility with the U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management and the New Mexico Environment Department.

Climate Change

We are committed to meeting the challenges of crop nutrient and animal feed ingredient production while working to mitigate greenhouse gas emissions. We have implemented innovative energy recovery technologies that result in our generation of much of the energy we need, particularly in our U.S. Phosphates operations, from high efficiency heat recovery systems. In 2021, we announced our goal to achieve net-zero greenhouse gas emissions companywide by 2040.

Climate Change Regulation. 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.

The direct greenhouse gas emissions from our operations result primarily from:

•Combustion of natural gas to produce steam and dry potash products at our Belle Plaine, Saskatchewan potash solution mine. To a lesser extent, at our potash shaft mines, natural gas is used as a fuel to heat fresh air supplied to the shaft mines and for drying potash products.

•The use of natural gas as a feedstock in the production of ammonia at our Faustina, Louisiana facility.

•Process reactions from naturally occurring carbonates in phosphate rock.

•Operation of transport trucks, mining and construction equipment and other machinery powered by internal combustion engines utilizing fossil fuels.

In addition, the production of energy and raw materials that we purchase from unrelated parties for use in our business and energy used in the transportation of our products and raw materials are sources of greenhouse gas emissions.

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. The Paris Agreement, which was signed by nearly 200 nations, including the U.S. and Canada, entered into force in 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. The U.S. formally withdrew from the Paris Agreement in January 2025.

Various legislative or regulatory initiatives relating to greenhouse gases have been adopted or considered by the U.S. Congress, EPA or various states and those initiatives already adopted may be used to implement a U.S. NDC in the future. We will continue to monitor climate-related policy in the U.S.

Brazil ratified the Paris Agreement in September 2016, committing to a NDC that includes economy-wide greenhouse gas reduction targets by 2030. Since 2020, the Brazilian Congress has been active in proposing climate-related legislation and could approve new instruments to combat climate change in this current legislature.

Canada’s intended NDC aims to achieve significant greenhouse gas emission reductions. In 2016, the Canadian federal government announced plans for a comprehensive tax on carbon emissions, under which provinces opting out of the tax would have the option of adopting a cap-and-trade system. In the plans, the federal government also committed to implementing a federal carbon pricing backstop system that will apply in any province or territory that does not have a carbon pricing system in place by 2018. As of April 1, 2024 a carbon tax of $80 per tonne now applies in Canada for any emitter not covered under the federal backstop program or approved provincial program. A revised plan was submitted by Saskatchewan to the federal government in 2022, which was subsequently approved in its entirety in November 2022. Our Saskatchewan Potash facilities are subject to the Saskatchewan climate change plan regarding emissions at our facilities; however, indirect

F- 25 costs from the carbon tax associated with electricity, natural gas consumption and transportation are currently passed through to Mosaic. More stringent laws and regulations may be enacted to accomplish the goals set out in Canada’s NDC.

It is possible that future legislation or regulation addressing climate change, including in response to 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 China, India, former Soviet Union countries or Morocco, are less stringent than in our production regions, our competitors could gain cost or other competitive advantages over us.

Operating Impacts Due to Climate Change. The prospective impact of climate change on our operations and those of our customers and farmers 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. 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.

Remedial Activities

Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act (“CERCLA”) (aka Superfund) and state analogues impose liability, without regard to fault or to the legality of a party’s conduct, on certain categories of persons, including those who have disposed of “hazardous substances” at a location. Under Superfund, or its various state analogues, one party may be responsible for the entire site, regardless of fault or the locality of its disposal activity. We have contingent environmental remedial liabilities that arise principally from three sources which are further discussed below: (i) facilities currently or formerly owned by our subsidiaries or their predecessors; (ii) facilities adjacent to currently or formerly owned facilities; and (iii) third-party Superfund or state equivalent sites where we are alleged to have disposed of hazardous materials. Taking into consideration established accruals for environmental remedial matters of approximately $197.5 million as of December 31, 2024, expenditures for these known conditions currently are not expected, individually or in the aggregate, to have a material effect on our business or financial condition. However, material expenditures could be required in the future to remediate the contamination at known sites or at other current or former sites.

Remediation at Our Facilities. Many of our formerly owned or current facilities have been in operation for decades. The historical use and handling of regulated chemical substances, crop and animal nutrients and additives as well as by-product or process tailings at these facilities by us and predecessor operators have resulted in soil, surface water and groundwater impacts.

At many of these facilities, spills or other releases of regulated substances have occurred previously and potentially could occur in the future, possibly requiring us to undertake or fund cleanup efforts under Superfund or otherwise. In some instances we have agreed, pursuant to consent orders or agreements with the appropriate governmental agencies, to undertake certain investigations, which currently are in progress, to determine whether remedial action may be required to address site impacts. At other locations, we have entered into consent orders or agreements with appropriate governmental agencies to perform required remedial activities that will address identified site conditions. Taking into account established accruals, future expenditures for these known conditions currently are not expected, individually or in the aggregate, to have a material adverse effect on our business or financial condition. However, material expenditures by us could be required in the future to remediate the environmental impacts at these or at other current or former sites.

Remediation at Third-Party Facilities. Various third parties have alleged that our historical operations have impacted neighboring offsite areas or nearby third-party facilities. In some instances we have agreed, pursuant to orders from or agreements with appropriate governmental agencies or agreements with private parties, to undertake or fund investigations, some of which currently are in progress, to determine whether remedial action, under Superfund or otherwise, may be required to address offsite impacts. Our remedial liability at these sites, either alone or in the aggregate, taking into account established accruals, currently is not expected to have a material adverse effect on our business or financial condition. As more information is obtained regarding these sites, this expectation could change.

Liability for Offsite Disposal Locations. Currently, we are involved or concluding involvement for offsite disposal at several Superfund or equivalent state sites. Moreover, we previously have entered into settlements to resolve liability with regard to

F- 26

Superfund or equivalent state sites. In some cases, such settlements have included “reopeners,” which could result in additional liability at such sites in the event of newly discovered contamination or other circumstances. Our remedial liability at such disposal sites, either alone or in the aggregate, currently is not expected to have a material adverse effect on our business or financial condition. As more information is obtained regarding these sites and the potentially responsible parties involved, this expectation could change.

Product Requirements and Impacts

International, federal, state and provincial standards require us to register many of our products before these products can be sold. The standards also impose labeling requirements on these products and require us to manufacture the products to formulations set forth on the labels. We believe that, when handled and used as intended, based on the available data, crop nutrient materials do not pose harm to human health or the environment and that any additional standards or regulatory requirements relating to product requirements and impacts will not have a material adverse effect on our business or financial condition.

Environmental Justice

Some state governments have adopted or 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.

Sustainability

We are committed to making informed choices that improve our corporate governance, financial strength, operational efficiency, environmental stewardship, community engagement and resource management. Through these efforts, we intend to sustain our business and experience lasting success.

We have included, or incorporate by reference, throughout this Form 10-K discussions of various matters relating to our sustainability, in its broadest sense, that we believe may be material to our investors. These matters include, but are not limited to, discussions about: corporate governance, including the leadership and respective roles of our Board of Directors and its committees, and management; recent and prospective developments in our business; product development; risk, enterprise risk management and risk oversight; the regulatory and permitting environment for our business and ongoing regulatory and permitting initiatives; executive compensation practices; employee and contractor safety; human capital matters and other EHS matters, including climate change, water management, energy and other operational efficiency initiatives: reclamation and AROs. Other matters relating to sustainability are included in our sustainability reports that are available on our website at www.mosaicco.com/ourresponsibility. Our sustainability reports are not incorporated by reference in this Form 10-K.

Additional Information

For additional information about phosphate mine permitting in Florida, our environmental liabilities, the environmental proceedings in which we are involved, our AROs related to environmental matters and our related accounting policies, see Environmental Liabilities and AROs under Critical Accounting Estimates above and Notes 2, 14, and 23 of our Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements.