
TCFD report continued
Scenario 1 – 1.5°C: highest transition
risk, but greatest opportunity
This scenario, which corresponds to the
RCP1.9/SSPIscenariopublishedbythe
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate
Change (IPCC), assumes that prompt
policy action, including globally
coordinated carbon pricing, reduces
emissionssufficientlytokeepglobal
warmingtobelow1.5°C.Doingsowould
minimise the physical impacts of climate
change, but at the cost of relatively high
taxationoncarbonemissions.Underthis
scenario, then, in the short term, around
25%oftheriskimpactwouldcomefrom
physicalrisks,butaround75%from
transition risks – hence the importance
ofourworktodecarboniseouroperations.
While the transition risks are highest for
us under this scenario, so too are our
opportunities.Thisisbecausethe
scenario envisages the cost of high-
carbon feedstocks rising in response
toincreasingcarbonprices,making
low-carbon, sustainable feedstocks
farmorecostcompetitiveovertime
(assuming there is no change in
customers’ preference for products with
loweremissions).Forexample,ourstudy
atourJefferson,Pennsylvaniasiteinthe
USA looked at the potential for using a
lower-carbon resin as a circular
feedstock, while the study at Pasir
Gudang, Malaysia looked at the potential
for developing more sustainable nitrile
butadienerubber.Currently,thelow-
carbon alternative feedstocks are three
times the price of the feedstock in use
inbothplants,butunderScenario1,
ouralternativeJeffersonproductcould
become commercially viable by 2038,
andourPasirGudangproductby2041.
In both cases, we are seeing increasing
interest from key customers in the
development of low-carbon solutions
that would reduce their Scope 3 GHG
emissionsfootprint.
Scenario 2 – 2°C: lower transition risk,
but greater volatility
This scenario, which corresponds to the
IPCC’sRCP2.6/SSP2scenario,assumes
that there is little in the way of the
coordinated global action on carbon
emissions and carbon pricing that would
benecessarytoachievea1.5°Cfuture.
While transition risk in the form of carbon
pricing would therefore be far less likely,
we could face different operating costs
in different markets, for example, higher
carbon costs in Europe and some USA
states,andlowercostselsewhere.This
scenario assumes that the lack of
coordination would increase market
volatility and result in erratic changes
incostsinthesupplychain.Allofour
operational sites would be more
vulnerable to the physical risks of climate
change under this scenario, while more
sustainable products are likely to be less
competitive because the price of carbon
could remain too low and distort regional
supplychains.Nonetheless,ourglobal
network of manufacturing sites mitigates
the risk of a lack of global coordination
by enabling us to optimise production in
therightlocationforregionalmarkets.
Scenario 3 – 3+°C: highest physical
risk; fewer competitive opportunities
This scenario, which corresponds to the
IPCC’sRCP8.5/SSP3scenario,envisages
a failure of international cooperation on
climate change, leading to countries
seeking competitive advantage by avoiding
the globally coordinated carbon pricing
necessary to reduce emissions across the
board.Whiletransitioncostswouldbevery
low, the physical impacts of a 3+°C rise
would be much more costly, while more
sustainable products are likely to be even
lesscompetitivethanunderthe2°Cscenario.
Due to the greater physical risks, our
river-basedsitescouldfloodregularly;
some sites could be affected by extreme
temperatures and drought; and our
coastal locations in Asia and USA could
beaffectedbystormsurges.Itcould
thereforebemoredifficulttofind
alternativesgiventhatasignificant
number of sites are likely to be affected
simultaneously.Overall,marketscould
become severely unstable given the
likelihood of social and economic
upheaval resulting from widespread,
severe weather events, with a
corresponding impact on our customers,
oursupplychainandourcosts.However,
our longer-term investment plans include
upgrading our physical defences at our
sites to help mitigate the physical risks
they are exposed to, while our network of
sites, even in this more extreme physical
risk scenario, should give us some
measure of resilience in terms of
minimisingdisruptiontoourcustomers.
Next steps
Having completed the scenario analysis
forthreesites,andidentifiedthefivekey
priorities for us as a business to respond
to climate change, we are now looking
athowtoputtheseintopracticeacross
Synthomer.Akeystepwillbedeveloping
detailed decarbonisation plans for all our
plants: this is already under way at those
plants where we can realise the greatest
benefits.Wewilladaptthisanalysisfor
our other sites, taking into account their
differing physical risk exposures and
inputs, as the basis for developing their
decarbonisationplans.
We are also working through how we
linktheoutputsfromourscenario
analysistoourfinancialreporting
andbusinessplanning.
Responding to climate change
– our five priorities
Through our analysis work, we have
identifiedfiveprimaryresponsesto
reducetherisksandtakeadvantageofthe
opportunities related to climate change,
whichever climate scenario ultimately plays
out.Theseare,inorderofpriority,to:
Work with selected suppliers to encourage
themtoimproveenergyefficiency
andreducetheirownemissions,thus
maximising reductions in our own Scope 3
emissions,andfindingsupplierswhocan
provide lower-carbon feedstocks from bio
orcircularsources.
Reduce our Scope 1 emissions by
decarbonising our operations through, for
example, installing heat pumps and solar
power,andusinghydrogenwherepossible.
Reduce our Scope 2 emissions from
ourelectricityandheatsuppliers,
byenteringintoorexpandingpower
purchaseagreementslinkedto
clean-energygeneration.
Innovate to decarbonise our products,
answering demand from our customers
formoresustainablealternatives.
Enhance our physical resilience to
climate-related risks, for example by
buildingflooddefences.
TCFD
88 Synthomer plc Annual Report 2022