Sonoco Q1 Storm Impact Analysis: Regional Volume Effects and Recovery Insights

Q1 storm impact as a % of consolidated volumes (and by segment)

What management quantified in the excerpts

Across the provided Q1 earnings transcript excerpts, management does not give an explicit numeric estimate of the storm’s impact as a percentage of total (consolidated) volumes, nor does it provide a clean storm-specific percentage split between Consumer vs. Industrial volumes for Q1.

• In response to the question “a percentage of volume standpoint” (i.e., “if you did not have the storms, what would volumes have been?”), management states they do not have the full numbers for the storm impact: “I don't have the direct… full numbers in terms of the impact of the storm.” ¹²
• Management instead provides qualitative descriptions of relative impacts and some geography-level “low single digits” style descriptors, but not a consolidated storm % or a segment storm % for Q1. ³⁴⁵⁶

Because the required denominator/numerators (storm-only volume delta and total Q1 volume level) are not provided in the excerpts, a precise “storm impact = X% of consolidated volumes” cannot be calculated strictly from this text without additional disclosures (e.g., a storm-only volume bridge or segment volume bridge table).

---

Still, what can be quantified from the excerpts?

Segment-level directionality (not a storm %)

1. Consumer (Americas) experienced the larger storm-driven decline

   • Management describes “more declines in our consumer business in the Americas, primarily due to the weather…,” and that this created “a larger impact disproportionately” versus international. ³
   • They also cite customer-related duration from winter storm disruption: “2 of our largest customers… loss 7, 8 days during the winter storm.” ⁵
   • They further describe that the Americas were impacted “for sure” on volume pressures. ³

2. Industrial showed earlier signs of recovery after the storm

   • Management states: “early run rate… more so on our industrial businesses” and that mills were moving back toward “90% effective rates.” ³
   • Another excerpt describes industrial flows in March and recovery “in early part of the month,” with industrial “in the same ballpark” as certain international descriptors. ⁴

Geography-level volume descriptors (again, not storm-only % and not consolidated %)

• Management offers: “internationally… low single digits” for volume impact described in the context of “early part of the month/season” conditions (not cleanly storm-only). ⁴
• They also state: “Consumer EMEA… low single digits off from a volume year-over-year,” while the impact was bigger in North America due to storm-related customer downtime/dynamics. ⁵
• Another participant asks about Q1 geography/business declines (e.g., “Europe food… up low single digits… imply… down… 8% or so in North America food… and… half of that was off because of weather”), but this is the questioner’s hypothesis, not management’s stated quantified storm attribution; it is not confirmed with a management-provided final number for Q1 storm impact. ⁶

---

Direct answer (with what’s possible from the excerpts)

1) Storm impact as % of consolidated volumes (Q1)

• Not quantifiable from the excerpts provided. Management explicitly says they do not have the direct/full storm impact numbers expressed as a volume bridge (“if you did not have the storms, what would volumes have been?”). ¹²

2) Storm impact as % of volumes by segment (Consumer vs Industrial) (Q1)

• Not quantifiable as a % from the excerpts provided. The excerpts provide segment effects qualitatively (Consumer Americas worse; Industrial earlier recovery), and mention a customer disruption duration, but they do not provide segment-level storm-only volume percentages for Q1. ³⁵

---

What you can credibly conclude (still supported, but not a numeric %)

• The storm impact was concentrated in Consumer (Americas): management links more Consumer declines in the Americas to weather and highlights multi-day customer downtime (7–8 days for two major customers). ³⁵
• Industrial was comparatively less “stuck” and showed better early recovery run rate as mill utilization approached target effective rates (not a storm %). ³
• Any “low single digit” figures referenced in the transcript appear geography/overall volume context, not an isolated storm-only delta, and therefore cannot be used to compute “storm impact % of consolidated volumes.” ⁴⁵

---

Bottom line

The excerpts do not contain the numerical storm volume bridge needed to compute:

• storm impact as a percentage of consolidated Q1 volumes, and
• the storm impact as percentages split between Consumer and Industrial Q1 volumes.

They do, however, clearly indicate that Consumer (Americas) bore the brunt of storm-driven volume pressure (weather plus ~7–8 days of downtime at two major customers), while Industrial showed more recovery in the early run rate as operations normalized. ³⁵