The Geo Group - 1792 Exchange

Rating Overview

The Geo Group is Medium Risk.

The Geo Group, Inc. is Medium Risk. The company often yields to political activism in shaping corporate governance, potentially alienating consumers, dividing employees, and harming shareholders. The company implements race and identity-based policies that replace merit, excellence, and integrity with preferential treatment and outcomes. The company occasionally embraces corporate initiatives that redirect its central focus from business goals to partisan policies and divisive issues at times. This approach fails to safeguard free exercise, free speech, and free enterprise.

Rating Criteria

Corporate Weaponization Risk Levels
Criteria	Risk Level
Cancellations	Medium Risk
Discriminatory Philanthropy	Lower Risk
Employment Protection	High Risk

Corporate Weaponization ⓘ

Corporate Governance and Public Policy Risk Levels
Criteria	Risk Level
Advocacy Bias	High Risk
Funding	Lower Risk
Political Actions	Lower Risk

Corporate Governance and Public Policy ⓘ

Rating Criteria Detail

Criteria Risk Level Rationale

Corporate Weaponization

Criteria:

Has canceled customers, suppliers, or vendors due to their political views or religious beliefs OR corporately boycotts, divests, or sanctions regions, people groups, or industries.

Risk Level:

Medium

Rationale:

The Geo Group integrates ESG into its business practices. From its 2023 Proxy Statement: “One of the initiatives GEO recently undertook during 2022 was conducting a Human Rights Risk Assessment and Due Diligence process. The process focused on identifying salient human rights and included interviews with and feedback from a diverse group of internal and external GEO stakeholders. The results of this due diligence process were incorporated into the fourth Human Rights and ESG report. Moving forward, GEO expects to evaluate additional human rights initiatives, including a future review of GEO’s Global Human Rights Policy and its implementation” (1). However, in 2025, the company removed ESG language and policies from its Proxy Statements and website. To date, the company has not publicly addressed this change, leaving shareholders without clarity regarding the company’s reasoning or future direction (2). The Geo Group integrates DEI into its supply chain. From its DEI Report: “GEO is committed to working with diverse vendors and suppliers to support businesses in our local communities,
particularly focusing on small businesses. We strive to ensure that our vendors and suppliers of goods and
services reflect the diversity of our communities” (3)(4). However, in 2024, the company removed its DEI Report from its website. To date, the company has not publicly addressed this change, leaving shareholders without clarity regarding the company’s reasoning or future direction (5). The Geo Group has not publicly canceled customers, suppliers, or vendors based on political views or religious beliefs (6).

Criteria:

Charitable giving (including employee matching programs) policies or practices discriminate against charitable organizations based on views or religious beliefs.

Risk Level:

Lower

Rationale:

The Geo Group does not discriminate against charitable organizations based on views or beliefs (1).

Criteria:

Employment policies fail to protect against viewpoint or other discrimination and/or are ideological in nature.

Risk Level:

High

Rationale:

The Geo Group offers diversity training to its employees (1). The GEO Group appears to prioritize diversity over merit in its recruitment amd supply chain. From its DEI Report: “We have active outreach and talent development programs in partnership with schools and community groups, with initiatives focused on
recruiting women, underrepresented minorities,
and veterans. These initiatives include participating
in job fairs and other recruitment events. Data is
reviewed monthly at the facility level to monitor
progress toward affirmative action goals” (2). From the same report “GEO is committed to working with diverse vendors and suppliers to support businesses in our local communities,
particularly focusing on small businesses. We strive to ensure that our vendors and suppliers of goods and
services reflect the diversity of our communities” (3). However, in 2024, the company removed its DEI Report from its website. To date, the company has not publicly addressed this change, leaving shareholders without clarity regarding the company’s reasoning or future direction (4). The company appears to prioritize diversity over merit in its leadership composition. From its 2026 Proxy Statement: “In fulfilling the committee’s duties to identify and recommend candidates for election to our Board of Directors, the Nominating and Corporate Governance Committee considers the mix of skills, experience, character, commitment, and diversity — diversity being broadly construed to mean a variety of opinions, perspectives, and backgrounds, as well as other differentiating characteristics, all in the context of the requirements of our Board of Directors at the time of election” (5). The company does not provide viewpoint protections for its employees (6).

Corporate Governance and Public Policy

Criteria:

Uses corporate reputation to support causes, organizations, or policies hostile to freedom of expression.

Risk Level:

High

Rationale:

The Geo Group supports DEI within its business practices, hosting a DEI Council (1). However, in 2026, the company removed its DEI Council from its Proxy Statement. To date, the company has not publicly addressed this change, leaving shareholders without clarity regarding the company’s reasoning or future direction (2). The Geo Group supports ESG within its business practices. From its 2022 Human Rights and ESG Report: “As a company, we have also remained committed to
advancing our company’s Environmental, Social
and Governance (ESG) objectives” (3). However, in 2025, the company removed its pro-ESG language and policies from its Proxy Statements, Annual Reports, and website. To date, the company has not publicly addressed these changes, leaving shareholders without clarity regarding the company’s reasoning or future direction (4)(5)(6). Otherwise, there are no publicly known cases of the company using its reputation to advance ideological causes or policies (7).