Sonoco Q1 Storm Impact Analysis and Segment Performance Insights

Q1 storm impact as a % of consolidated volumes (and split: Consumer vs Industrial)

What management quantified (and what it did not)

Across the provided excerpts, management did not provide a single, numeric estimate of storm impact as a % of consolidated volumes for Q1 in the “percentage of volume standpoint” sense requested by the question. The closest direct discussion attributes volume declines to the storm/weather, but remains qualitative (“disproportionately,” “low single digits,” “in the same ballpark”) rather than converting that into a consolidated-volume percentage. ¹

They also explicitly did not give the full storm-impact calculation in the transcript when pressed: “I don't have the direct… full numbers in terms of the impact of the storm.” ²

Accordingly, a precise consolidated % cannot be computed from the excerpt alone because the excerpt lacks (a) consolidated Q1 volume baseline and (b) the storm-only volume delta in units/percentage that can be tied to each segment and then aggregated.

That said, management does provide segment-leaning storm-related directional magnitudes (primarily by geography and “Americas vs international”), which can be summarized.

---

Consumer segment (storm impact proxy: Americas weather disruption)

Management described the storm effect as causing more declines in Consumer in the Americas, driven by weather impacting CPGs and two large customers being down for over a week. ¹

They further quantified relative volume movement patterns (not exclusively storms, but the excerpt ties “bigger impact here in North America” to the storm/disruption period):

• International consumer volumes: described as “low single digits” off. ³
• Industrial volumes: also described as “in the same ballpark” and March impacted as uncertainties resolved, with a recovery beginning early in the month (again, not a storm-only percentage). ⁴

A separate excerpt gives a geography lens directly about underlying Q1 recovery/disruption expectations:

• Consumer EMEA was “low single digits” off year-over-year in Q1. ⁵⁶
• North America food / aerosol / composite can was implied to be roughly “down by single digits (~8% or so)” (this appears as an interviewer’s framing, not management’s final storm-only figure). ⁵

Net: the excerpt supports that Consumer storm impact was concentrated in the Americas/North America and that international was low single digits down, but it does not provide a storm-only % of Consumer segment volume for Q1. ¹³⁵

---

Industrial segment (storm impact proxy: “more recovery… strengthening… mills closer back to 90%”)

For Industrial, management indicated the storm period produced a weaker early run rate, but with recovery underway—specifically:

• “early run rate… more so on our industrial businesses” shows recovery. ¹
• Mills were getting closer back to ~90% effective rates and industrial markets were strengthening. ¹

They also described industrial volume performance in numerical reporting terms for Q1, but this is not storm-only:

• Industrial sales were $579 million, down 1% year-over-year, “driven by softer volumes” (with pricing/index resets partially offsetting). ⁷
• Industrial adjusted EBITDA declined 7% “as lower volumes” were partially mitigated by pricing resets and productivity. ⁷

Net: the excerpt provides directional recovery and indicates Industrial volume softness, but it does not isolate storm-only Industrial volume impact as a % of Industrial volume for Q1. ¹⁷

---

Consolidated volumes: why a single % cannot be quantified from the excerpt

The question asks for the storm impact as a percentage of consolidated volumes and by segment. The provided excerpts lack the necessary storm-only quantitative inputs:

• No consolidated-volume “with vs without storms” calculation is given. ⁸
• Management states they do not have the direct full storm impact numbers. ²
• The only explicit numeric “storm-related” volume magnitudes are framed as geography-level/qualitative (“low single digits” internationally; Americas more affected; “mills closer back to 90%”) rather than a consolidated percent and storm-only deltas. ¹⁴³

Therefore, a precise consolidated storm impact % for Q1 cannot be determined from these excerpts alone without additional filing table details (e.g., storm-only volume bridge, Q1 consolidated volume baseline, or segment volume bridge).

---

Bottom line answer (what can be stated reliably)

• Consolidated Q1 storm impact (% of consolidated volumes): Not quantifiable from the provided excerpts because management did not provide the storm-only volume bridge or a “without storms” consolidated volume estimate. ⁸²
• Consumer vs Industrial segment storm impact (% of segment volumes): Not quantifiable as exact percentages in the storm-only sense; the excerpt provides directional and geography-based magnitude descriptors (Consumer Americas “larger impact,” International “low single digits,” Industrial recovery with mills approaching “90% effective rates”) but not the requested segment storm-only percentages. ¹³

If you want, I can translate the qualitative descriptors into a bounding range (e.g., using “low single digits” and “single digits (~8%)” as scenario inputs) only if you confirm whether to treat the “~8% or so” interviewer framing as management’s view and whether to interpret those movements as storm-caused rather than storm-plus-other-headwinds.