Our Focuses|Climate Change Management|Scenario Analysis

Climate Change Management

Winbond embraces the vision of being an "Be a hidden champion in providing sustainable semiconductors to enrich human life". In response to international guidelines and domestic policies geared towards green sustainability, Winbond has implemented the Task Force on Climate-related Financial Disclosures (TCFD) framework to assess the potential climate change risks and opportunities as the basis for promoting climate mitigation and adaptation actions, enhancing the company's operational resilience.

SDGs 17 Partnerships for the Goals
SDGs 13 Climate Action
SDGs 12 Responsible Consumption and Production
SDGs 7 Affordable and Clean Energy

The Winbond Group's greenhouse gas reduction targets were officially validated by the Science Based Targets initiative (SBTi) on January 8, 2026

Establish nine Climate-Related Management Metrics

9

Scenario Analysis

Transition Risk Scenario Analysis

Winbond adopts three scenarios to assess transition risks. In addition to domestic regulatory risks, the assessment also considers the impacts of international decarbonization trends. Climate change may have financial implications for Winbond from regulatory, technological, market, and reputational perspectives. Among these, carbon taxes/carbon fees and renewable electricity usage are estimated to result in financial impacts of approximately NT$ 0.3-3.7 billion by 2030, equivalent to approximately 0.4%-4% of 2025 revenue.

External scenarioDescriptionsAssessed emission sources 1
Government net-zero pathwayBased on Taiwan’s 2050 Net-zero Emissions Pathway, assuming the government guides industries toward long-term national climate targets through climate regulations, carbon pricing mechanisms, and energy management policies.Scope 1 + Scope 2
SSP1-1.9Referencing the IPCC AR6 1.5°C pathway, assuming a high level of global cooperation to accelerate the low-carbon transition, with increased market demand for green and low-carbon products and value-chain decarbonization.
SBT-NZBased on the Science Based Targets initiative (SBTi) Net-zero Standard, assuming global companies follow rigorous science-based decarbonization pathways and continuously strengthen emissions management across operations and value chains.

Note 1: Scope 1 and Scope 2 carbon emissions from 2026 onward are estimated figures. These estimates were calculated based on a comprehensive assessment of parameters including actual emissions in 2025, projected medium-to-long-term average emission growth trends, and projected electricity emission factors.

Financial Impact of 2030 Issues on Revenue

Carbon Tax Imposition

Carbon Fee Imposition

Use of Renewable Energy

External scenario 1AssumptionsEstimated financial impact in 20302
SSP1-1.9Carbon price parameters aligned with the SSP1-1.9 pathway, reaching US$ 651/tCO₂e by 2050> NT$ 2.5 billion
SBT-NZ

Note 1: In light of Taiwan’s official announcement and implementation of a carbon fee mechanism, and considering that carbon taxes are the predominant carbon pricing instrument globally, different scenario sources were applied for the analysis of carbon fees and carbon taxes. Carbon fee scenarios were assessed based on the Taiwan government’s net-zero transition pathway, while carbon tax scenarios were evaluated using the internationally recognized SSP1-1.9 and SBT Net-Zero (NZ) scenarios.

Note 2: The financial impact for 2030 was calculated by applying the projected carbon emissions under each scenario for 2030 and estimating the corresponding carbon tax levels based on the applicable carbon price pathways.

External scenario 1AssumptionsEstimated financial impact in 2030
Government net-zero pathwayGeneral rate of NT$ 300/tCO₂e; single-fab exemption of 25,000 tCO₂e/year< NT$0.2 billion
Preferential Rate A of NT$ 50/tCO₂e; single-fab exemption of 25,000 tCO₂e/year< NT$0.05 billion

Note 1: In light of Taiwan’s official announcement and implementation of a carbon fee mechanism, and considering that carbon taxes are the predominant carbon pricing instrument globally, different scenario sources were applied for the analysis of carbon fees and carbon taxes. Carbon fee scenarios were assessed based on the Taiwan government’s net-zero transition pathway, while carbon tax scenarios were evaluated using the internationally recognized SSP1-1.9 and SBT Net-Zero (NZ) scenarios。

Note 2: The financial impact for 2030 was calculated by applying the projected carbon emissions under each scenario for 2030 and estimating the corresponding carbon tax levels based on the applicable carbon price pathways.

External scenarioAssumptionsEstimated financial impact in 2030
Government net-zero pathway

Average wholesale price for renewable electricity plus supply costs; O&M costs for solar PV installations estimated using average values reported by IRENA

≈ NT$0.3 billion
SSP1-1.9
SBT-NZ

Note: The financial impact for 2030 was calculated by applying the projected carbon emissions under each scenario for 2030 and estimating the corresponding carbon tax levels based on the applicable carbon price pathways.

Physical Risk Scenario Analysis

To evaluate Winbond's operational resilience under different climate change scenarios, the Company adopted the Hazard-Exposure-Vulnerability assessment framework to evaluate potential climate-related physical risks affecting Winbond Group's global operating sites and supplier locations under four emission scenarios (SSP1-2.6, SSP2-4.5, SSP3-7.0, and SSP5-8.5) across four time horizons: short-term, medium-term, mid-to-long-term, and long-term. The analysis results serve as important inputs for assessing operational resilience, long-term strategic planning, supply chain management, and risk response measures.
Water scarcity and extreme heat are identified as the primary risk drivers, and their impacts tend to increase as climate change intensifies and time progresses. In contrast, the overall impact of extreme precipitation on operations is relatively limited. Certain regions within the Company's global operations and supply chain are also exposed to higher levels of water stress, posing potential long-term challenges to water supply stability.lts.

Risk value = Hazard × Vulnerability × Exposure