Which of the following is a risk of an organization not acting sustainably?

Choosing the option related to government intervention highlights a significant risk associated with the lack of sustainable practices within an organization. When a business neglects sustainability, it may contribute to the depletion of natural resources, environmental degradation, and social imbalance. Governments often respond to these issues by implementing regulations and policies aimed at protecting those scarce resources. This can include imposing stricter laws, requiring compliance with environmental standards, or even enforcing penalties for non-compliance. Such government actions can disrupt an organization's operations, necessitate costly adjustments, and impact efficiency.

In contrast, the other options generally imply positive outcomes or benefits that are less likely to be tied to unsustainable practices. For instance, increased product availability and lower costs of operation might be achieved through less ethical means, but they do not capture the long-term risks associated with sustainability. Similarly, improved reputation among consumers often stems from a commitment to responsible business practices, which is contrary to the consequences of neglecting sustainability. Thus, the risk of government intervention clearly stands out as a direct consequence of failing to act sustainably.