Global medical device OEM reduces costs and environmental impact The three-way collaboration allowed the manufacturer to reduce shielding component costs from 30 to 50 percent due to machining, assembly and regulatory cost reductions versus traditional methods.

TPE is common in household objects, like the grip on your toothbrush, the soft lid of a sippy cup, your dog’s chew toy, and cellphone cases. One of the most commonly cited advantages of TPEs is the ability to produce products via high-volume injection molding, which is an extremely cost-effective process.

Cost of sales Cost of sales: Debt financing costs

Paint adds a great surface finish to automobile parts, but painting also adds cost, time, and other logistics requirements. Suitable for standard injection molding machinery, Smartbatch™ FX reduced the cost per part by 30 percent or more compared to painted parts.

In order to optimize its profit margins, the company sought to control system costs by avoiding secondary assembly and handling. Lower system costs = higher margins: By reducing waste from part deformation, the Avient TPE allowed the manufacturer to leverage efficient, fast 2K molding for system cost reduction. With OnFlex-S TPE, the company achieved system cost benefits that have made this product line a profitable one.

In order to optimize its profit margins, the company sought to control system costs by avoiding secondary assembly and handling. Lower system costs = higher margins: By reducing waste from part deformation, the Avient TPE allowed the manufacturer to leverage efficient, fast 2K molding for system cost reduction. With OnFlex-S TPE, the company achieved system cost benefits that have made this product line a profitable one.

In particular, these include statements relating to future actions; prospective changes in raw material costs, product pricing or product demand; future performance; estimated capital expenditures; results of current and anticipated market conditions and market strategies; sales efforts; expenses; the outcome of contingencies such as legal proceedings and environmental liabilities; and financial results. This is due to the inherent difficulty of forecasting the timing and amount of certain items, such as, but not limited to, mark-to-market adjustments associated with benefit plans, environmental remediation costs, acquisition-related costs, and other non-routine costs. GUIDANCE $800 $754 $128 $123 Sales Adjusted EBITDA $0.56 $0.57 Adjusted EPS 9 • Demand impacted by destocking and cautious customer sentiment • Positive net price benefit: o CAI - Pricing flat and raw material deflation o SEM - Pricing flat with unfavorable mix related to healthcare, more than offset with raw material deflation • Cost reductions driven by Clariant synergies and reduced administrative costs Q3 EBITDA BRIDGE ($ millions) CAI: Price / Mix -) Deflation 22) SEM: Price / Mix (6) Deflation 13) Net Price Benefit 29) Cost Reductions 13) Wage Inflation (8) FX 1) Q3 2023 Actual $ 123) Adjusted EBITDA Q3 2022 Pro Forma $ 137) Demand (49) 10 2023 G U I DAN CE Q4 2023 GUIDANCE VS.

In particular, these include statements relating to future actions; prospective changes in raw material costs, product pricing or product demand; future performance; estimated capital expenditures; results of current and anticipated market conditions and market strategies; sales efforts; expenses; the outcome of contingencies such as legal proceedings and environmental liabilities; and financial results. This is due to the inherent difficulty of forecasting the timing and amount of certain items, such as, but not limited to, mark-to-market adjustments associated with benefit plans, environmental remediation costs, acquisition-related costs, and other non-routine costs. GUIDANCE 12 15.4% 15.9% Adjusted EBITDA Margin % Better-than-expected margins driven by: • Favorable mix - strong demand for composite applications • Raw material deflation Q2 EBITDA BRIDGE 13 ($ millions) CAI: Price / Mix 7) Deflation 11) SEM: Price / Mix 2) Deflation 6) Net Price Benefit 26) Wage and Energy Inflation (10) Cost Reductions 13) FX (2) Q2 2023 Actual $131) Adjusted EBITDA Q2 2022 Pro Forma $ 172) Demand (68) • Demand conditions vs. expectations: LATAM • Net price benefit remains greater than wage and energy inflation • Clariant synergies and reduced administrative costs Q2 2023 SEQUENTIAL SALES BY REGION Q 2 2 0 2 3 v s .

Energy: o Diesel Fuel Consumption: 4,754,671 kWh o Natural Gas Fuel Consumption: 184,415,668 kWh o Renewable Energy Consumed - Self Generated (solar): 260,378 kWh o Renewable Energy Consumed - Self Generated (Wind): 2,554,186 kWh o Grid Electricity Consumed: 436,400,546 kWh Page 2 WATER RESOURCES • ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES • INDUSTRIAL HYGIENE  •  SAFETY  •  SUSTAINABILITY  Apex Companies, LLC • (800) 733‐2739 • www.apexcos.com  o Renewable Energy Credits (REC) Purchased: 100,691,000 kWh o Renewable Electricity Consumed – Offsite: 128,982,866 kWh Period covered by GHG emissions verification:  January 1, 2022 to December 31, 2022 GHG Reporting Protocols against which verification was conducted:  World Resources Institute (WRI)/World Business Council for Sustainable Development (WBCSD) Greenhouse Gas Protocol, Corporate Accounting and Reporting Standard, Revised Edition (Scope 1 and 2) and the GHG Protocol Scope 2 Guidance, an amendment to the GHG Protocol Corporate Standard  WRI/WBCSD Corporate Value Chain (Scope 3) Accounting and Reporting Standard Verification Protocols used to conduct the verification:  ISO 14064-3 Second Edition 2019-04: Greenhouse gases - Part 3: Specification with guidance for the verification and validation of greenhouse gas statements  Apex’s standard procedures and guidelines for external Assurance of Sustainability Reports and International Standard on Assurance Engagements (ISAE) 3000 Revised, Assurance Engagements Other than Audits or Reviews of Historical Financial Information (effective for assurance reports dated on or after Dec. 15, 2015), issued by the International Auditing and Assurance Standards Board. Level of Assurance and Qualifications:  Limited  This verification used a materiality threshold of ±5% for aggregate errors in sampled data for each of the above indicators GHG Verification Methodology: Evidence-gathering procedures included, but were not limited to:  Interviews with relevant personnel of Avient and their consultant;  Review of documentary evidence produced by Avient;  Review of Avient data and information systems and methodology for collection, aggregation, analysis and review of information used to determine GHG emissions; and  Audit of sample of data used by Avient to determine GHG emissions. Verification Opinion: Based on the verification process and procedures conducted to a limited assurance level of the GHG emissions statement shown above, Apex found no evidence that the GHG emissions statement:  is not materially correct and is not a fair representation of the GHG emissions data and information; and  has not been prepared in accordance with the WRI/WBCSD GHG Protocol Corporate Accounting and Reporting Standard (Scope 1 and 2), and WRI/WBCSD Greenhouse Gas Protocol Corporate Value Chain Accounting and Reporting Standard (Scope 3).

Energy: o Diesel Fuel Consumption: 7,268,012 kWh o Natural Gas Fuel Consumption: 90,498,342 kWh o Renewable Energy - Self Generated (solar): 252,779 kWh o Renewable Energy - Self Generated (Wind): 2,399,531 kWh o Electric Power: 339,815,274 kWh Page 2 WATER RESOURCES • ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES • HEALTH & SAFETY • CLIMATE CHANGE Apex Companies, LLC • (800) 733-2739 • www.apexcos.com o Renewable Energy Credit (REC): 121,411,062 kWh o Renewable Power – Offsite: 27,119,749 kWh Period covered by GHG emissions verification:  January 1, 2021 to December 31, 2021 GHG Reporting Protocols against which verification was conducted:  World Resources Institute (WRI)/World Business Council for Sustainable Development (WBCSD) Greenhouse Gas Protocol, Corporate Accounting and Reporting Standard, Revised Edition (Scope 1 and 2) and the GHG Protocol Scope 2 Guidance, an amendment to the GHG Protocol Corporate Standard  WRI/WBCSD Corporate Value Chain (Scope 3) Accounting and Reporting Standard Verification Protocols used to conduct the verification:  ISO 14064-3 Second Edition 2019-04: Greenhouse gases - Part 3: Specification with guidance for the verification and validation of greenhouse gas statements  Apex’s standard procedures and guidelines for external Assurance of Sustainability Reports and International Standard on Assurance Engagements (ISAE) 3000 Revised, Assurance Engagements Other than Audits or Reviews of Historical Financial Information (effective for assurance reports dated on or after Dec. 15, 2015), issued by the International Auditing and Assurance Standards Board. Level of Assurance and Qualifications:  Limited  This verification used a materiality threshold of ±5% for aggregate errors in sampled data for each of the above indicators GHG Verification Methodology: Evidence-gathering procedures included, but were not limited to:  Interviews with relevant personnel of Avient and their consultant;  Review of documentary evidence produced by Avient;  Review of Avient data and information systems and methodology for collection, aggregation, analysis and review of information used to determine GHG emissions; and  Audit of sample of data used by Avient to determine GHG emissions. Verification Opinion: Based on the verification process and procedures conducted to a limited assurance level of the GHG emissions statement shown above, Apex found no evidence that the GHG emissions statement:  is not materially correct and is not a fair representation of the GHG emissions data and information; and  has not been prepared in accordance with the WRI/WBCSD GHG Protocol Corporate Accounting and Reporting Standard (Scope 1 and 2), and WRI/WBCSD Greenhouse Gas Protocol Corporate Value Chain Accounting and Reporting Standard (Scope 3).