Version number	Release / Revision date	Revision summary
1.0	Released: January 10, 2022	Publication of the 2022 questionnaire preview and reporting guidance.
1.1	Revised: January 17, 2022	W0.7 ‘Requested content’ section added. W6.2d ‘Requested content’ section added.
1.2	Revised: May 13, 2022	W1.3 Revenue column - the maximum allowable value increased to 999,999,999,999,999.
1.3	Revised: May 30, 2022	Pathway diagram Module 1 - updated to correct W1.3 dependency.
1.4	Revised: July 22, 2022	Japanese version of W8.1 - response options corrected in the column ‘Levels for targets and/or goals’. This error will not impact company scores. [Note that the error remains in the Online Response System]

Preparing your CDP response

Please find below information on the support materials and options available to companies, and important notes for completing your disclosure. Please review these notes carefully as you prepare your response, even if you have responded to the questionnaire in previous years.

CDP disclosure support materials

CDP provides a variety of support materials to help organizations disclosing to our questionnaires. Before completing the corporate questionnaires, we strongly recommend you read this Reporting Guidance, the Scoring Introduction, and relevant Scoring Methodology. Please also refer to the CDP Technical Notes and other guidance materials accessible from the guidance tool after signing in to the website, and see the Frequently Asked Questions on the website.

Reporting guidance

The reporting guidance in this document includes the following:

Module-level guidance: for select modules this guidance provides an overview, key changes, sector-specific content for the module, and important disclosure notes. This section also presents question pathway diagrams showing the flow of questions through each module.
Question-level guidance: at the question level, guidance is separated into the following components, to provide clarity around questions, terminology and requirements.

- Rationale: provides reasoning behind the inclusion of each question;
- Connections to other frameworks: notes connections to the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), Global Reporting Initiative Standard 303-3 and The CEO Water Mandate for each relevant question in the water security questionnaire;
- Requested content: offers context around each question and requested criteria;
- Explanation of terms: provides detailed definitions for specific terminology;
- Example responses: for select questions, this provides an example of a response that would include all information requested; and
- Additional information: for select questions, this provides optional contextual information and sources related to the subject of the disclosure request.

Glossary: viewable at the end of the reporting guidance, the glossary contains a subset of 'Explanation of terms'
Appendix: River basin list — and South African Water Management Areas — by country

If you have any questions that are not answered in the reporting guidance, the additional guidance noted below, or our Frequently Asked Questions, please contact your local CDP contact.

Webinars and workshops

CDP hosts live webinars and workshops designed to aid you with environmental reporting.

Please visit the workshops and webinars and water security pages of CDP's website for more details.

CDP Reporter Services

CDP Reporter Services program offers tailored support, enhanced data access and thought leadership on managing and reporting environmental risk to your business. Access the tools you need to move from disclosure to leadership on integrating climate, forests management, and water security into your wider business strategy. For year-round, personalized disclosure support from a dedicated CDP account manager, a gap analysis of your previous response, final review before submission, and analytics tools to benchmark yourself against peers and understand best practice contact [email protected]. Visit the Reporter Services page of CDP's website for more information.

CDP water consultancy solutions providers

CDP-accredited water consultancy solutions providers support companies looking to engage with and improve their water management. Partners are subject to strict selection criteria and once approved are able to work closely with companies to provide expertise on critical topics including but not limited to: water accounting, water risk assessment, the development of water strategies and development and implementation of corporate water stewardship plans. Visit the accredited solutions providers page of CDP's website or contact [email protected] to learn more.

Important notes for completing your disclosure

Acronyms

Avoid using bespoke internal acronyms unless required for your organization’s response, in which case please provide their meaning to enable correct analysis and scoring.

Blank responses

Leaving a response blank is interpreted as non-disclosure. For numeric fields, values of zero (0) imply a measurement has been made, and the value is zero (0). For numeric fields where no measurement has been made, please leave the field blank and provide an explanation in an open text field for that same question (e.g. 'Comment' (optional) or 'Please explain' (scored)). If there is no open text field for the question, you may provide an explanation in the 'Further information' field in the ORS at the end of your disclosure. Leaving a response blank and entering a value of zero (0) have different scoring implications. Please see the scoring methodology for more details.

Character limits

The character limits noted in the reporting guidance and in the ORS include spaces.

'Comment' column

Some questions include a column labelled as 'Comment'. Note that providing information in these columns is optional.

Company-specific information

Some questions request company-specific information, rationales, case studies and/or examples. This level of detail gives data users confidence that the issue at hand has been thoroughly considered in the context of the responding organization’s own business and not simply assessed in general terms.

Be sure to include company-specific detail, such as references to activities, programs, products, services, methodologies, or operating locations unique to your company’s business or operations. A company-specific explanation should include details that make the answer true for the responding company and are distinct from other companies in the same industry and/or geography.
Clear rationales are those which provide logical reasoning for methodologies, descriptions, decision, and actions.
Case studies should be company-specific and should follow a “Situation-Task-Action-Result” (STAR) approach: 1) Situation: what was the context? 2) Task: what needed to be done/what was the problem to be solved? 3) Action: what action was taken? 4) Result: what was the final outcome?
An example does not need to follow the STAR approach. It can be shorter than a case study but should include some company-specific detail.

For more details, refer to the Scoring introduction on the CDP website.

Consistency

CDP encourages a comprehensive and consistent response. Please ensure there is no conflicting information in your responses, both within a question and across the questionnaire.

Copy forward

The ‘copy forward’ functionality will be available in the ORS for companies that disclosed to CDP in previous reporting years. This functionality auto-populates your most recent answers into your questionnaire where applicable.

Note that this functionality may have been disabled for modified data points. The reporting guidance will indicate which questions have been modified. The Questionnaire Changes document on the guidance section of the CDP website lists all revisions from the previous year.

Please review the auto-populated answers carefully. It is your responsibility to ensure your answers are updated for the accuracy and completeness of your response.

Data accuracy

CDP recognizes that there may be uncertainty linked to data – this can arise from data gaps, assumptions, metering/measurement constraints including equipment accuracy etc. CDP allows estimated data to be submitted. However, an emphasis is placed on reporting transparently and this means that a company should always provide an explanation when its reported data is not accurate and detail the uncertainty (use the 'Please explain' or 'Comment' columns provided in the question).

Drop-down options ('Other, please specify')

Please select from the options provided whenever possible, and only select 'Other, please specify' when none of the listed options is appropriate. This greatly assists data analysis. If selecting 'Other, please specify', you must add a label that describes the option you are providing data for.

'Further information' field

At the end of the questionnaire, there is an opportunity to provide additional information or context that you feel is relevant to your organization’s response. This field is optional and not scored.

Mergers and acquisitions (M&As)

All disclosure should be defined by the organizational boundary applicable at the time of the stated reporting period. (Note that for CDP disclosure, organizations are encouraged to align their reporting period and organizational boundaries with their financial reporting).
Regarding forward-looking disclosure, organizations should include information that was correct at the time of the stated reporting period (for example, for data points referring to the future or 'the next two years'). Organizations undergoing (or that have undergone) M&As need to consider the timing of the M&As and reporting period as follows:

Organizations that were acquired after the end of the current reporting period: these should respond with what was planned (strategy, targets, etc.) before being acquired (i.e., during the reporting period). For transparency, where possible they may state where they consider that the forward-looking information may be subject to change due to the very recent acquisition.
Organizations that were acquired during the reporting period: these should provide information that was applicable and correct to the best of their knowledge at the end of the reporting period. At the time of submitting their response to CDP, this information may not be the most up to date due to changes underway following the acquisition. For transparency, the company may state this in their disclosure where possible.

Personal data

It is important that you do not include the name of any individual or any other personal data in your response. For questions that ask for the positions of staff, out of respect for personal data privacy we are asking only for the position and not for the individual’s name or any other information relating to them.

Providing feedback to CDP

You can provide feedback to CDP on the content of our questionnaires and supporting documents through our online technical feedback form.

We are unable to respond individually to all feedback, but please be assured that all form submissions are reviewed and contribute towards our continuous improvement.

However, if you represent a responding organization and would like to request a response, please get in touch with your local CDP contact.

Introduction to CDP water security reporting guidance

Water reporting

Water presents a unique set of measurement and reporting challenges on both the local and global scales.

First and foremost, water management is a local or regional issue. Local contexts matter. Challenges and opportunities depend on patterns of local precipitation, watersheds and aquifers, as well as the degree and nature of local use, and the extent and efficacy of water governance and regulation. Unlike a ton of carbon dioxide that will have the same impact whether emitted in Stockholm or Sydney, the geographical scale, location and timing of water use is critical. A cubic meter of water used in Sydney has very different consequences from a cubic meter used in Stockholm. This creates complexities in managing water use in a way that progresses water security for all, as well as in creating meaningful corporate water indicators.
Standards for water reporting are not yet as consistently or universally established as those for GHG emissions.
While GHG emissions which can be expressed in tons of CO₂e, there is no single or interchangeable quantitative unit of measurement for tracking the risks and impacts associated with water. Factors that must be considered include available volumes, water quality, the degree of competition in the region concerned, as well as future scenarios for physical, regulatory, market and technological changes.
Compounding this complexity, the global nature of business and supply chains mean that water use is linked across multiple geographies. Even when their own operations or assets are not affected, many businesses may be exposed to and significantly affected by changing patterns of water availability. For large companies with complex supply chains containing potentially thousands of suppliers, assessing water use and related product or supply chain issues can be highly complex.

CDP’s approach to water reporting

Alignment

To support the development of standards that are both valuable for companies and provide investors, policy makers and other data-users with meaningful information, CDP works with a range of organizations; such as the CEO Water Mandate, the World Resources Institute, WWF, World Business Council for Sustainable Development, the Global Reporting Initiative (GRI), the Alliance for Water Stewardship (AWS), Ceres, Sustainability Accounting Standards Board (SASB) and similar organizations. Standardization is needed to facilitate transparency and reporting as well as to support consistency and comparability for data users.

CDP’s water security request and our reporting guidance draw on reporting principles, frameworks definitions and standards from these and other organizations and align wherever possible. Where differences remain, they reflect each organization’s particular approach and aims.

Note on alignment with the GRI 303: Water and Effluents 2018: organizations using the GRI standards for their corporate reporting will find it useful to refer to Linking GRI and CDP. It sets out the linkages between the information required for the GRI 303 standard and that requested for CDP’s 2018 water security questionnaire. As there have been very few revisions, it remains useful for 2022 disclosure to CDP.

Journey to water security

Our water security questionnaire is structured from start to finish as a framework to assist organizations to progress the maturity of their water management and corporate reporting. It presents a journey to water stewardship and water security.

Collecting and disclosing information on management and governance responses to risk and opportunities, as well as the integration of water into long term strategic objectives, provides data for decision making and catalyzes corporate action. This is the value of disclosure.

Water accounting

To progress water security for all and to minimize water-related risks, organizations must eliminate any detrimental impact on water ecosystems and resources. Impact and risk exposure occur as water flows into and out of a company’s boundaries, so CDP’s collects information to determine how well a company understands this flow. Companies are encouraged to account for all their interaction with water, and to minimize that interaction (e.g. through reduced withdrawals, efficiency improvements, or by changing their business activities). This means that CDP seeks more nuanced information than volumetric reductions in freshwater removal or consumption. Most important is that companies have robust monitoring and accounting in place for all aspects of their corporate hydrology, and that they demonstrate an understanding of their dependence on water.

Measurements of withdrawal, discharge and consumption take place as water crosses the company boundary, at either the corporate level or facility level. This makes the concept of the organizational boundary central to our disclosure request at the corporate and the facility level.

Context and geographic scale

Water presents local issues which need to be understood and managed at a local level; typically at river basin, or at least a country level, rather than the corporate level. Investors are increasingly interested in this type of granularity when it comes to assessing the water risk within their portfolios.

Some CDP data users wish to assess an organization’s ability to access the granular data needed for mature water management and sound risk management across all its operations and locations. This is deemed to be best practice. A separate module (W5) requests water accounting data for any facilities exposing the company to substantive water-related risk (note that we do not ask for data for all facilities).

In addition, CDP invites companies to report their risks at the river basin level and several questions include a column so that companies can indicate the location associated with their data. An organization will not have a comprehensive understanding of its risk exposure and the most appropriate response unless it is able to take account of local basin context and conditions. River basin level risk assessment is particularly relevant to a water stewardship approach to securing water resources as collaboration with other basin users and external stakeholders is central to understanding and managing risk.

Reporting risk

CDP provides its data users with information about the inherent risks faced by organizations. This allows them to independently assess the appropriateness and adequacy of the organization's response, and thus the residual risk and resilience of the business.

To provide data users with confidence in their disclosure, responding organizations are encouraged to give a full picture of their approach to risk assessment and how water-related issues have been integrated into their business strategy.

Reporting impacts

When referring to ‘impacts’, some frameworks and standards use the term to mean the effects of a business on communities and ecosystems, such as the CEO Water Mandate Guidelines and the GRI standards. For CDP, this term refers to the effects of water challenges on the business, i.e. ‘business impacts’, be they due to physical, regulatory or market drivers.

CDP asks for information about past water-related impacts on the business and responses to them (in module W2 ‘Business Impacts’). Data users may judge a company’s potential future performance using this data.

Principles of true and fair reporting

The GHG Protocol outlines five principles to ensure a true and fair account of a company’s GHG emissions (see The Greenhouse Gas Protocol: A Corporate Accounting and Reporting Standard developed by the World Resources Institute and the World Business Council for Sustainable Development). CDP suggests that all of these principles be adopted for the purpose of water reporting. These principles are as follows:

Relevance: Ensure the water use inventory appropriately reflects actual water use and serves the decision-making needs of users – both internal and external to the company.
Completeness: Account for and report on all water activities within the chosen inventory boundary. Disclose and justify any specific exclusion(s).
Consistency: Use consistent methodologies to allow for meaningful comparisons of company’s use of water over time.
Transparency: Address all relevant issues in a factual and coherent manner, based on a clear audit trail. Disclose any relevant assumptions and make appropriate references to the accounting and calculation methodologies and data sources used. Transparently document any changes to the data, inventory boundary, methods, or any other relevant factors in the time series.
Accuracy: Ensure the quantification of water use is sufficiently accurate to enable users to make decisions with reasonable assurance as to the integrity of the reported information.

Information is considered relevant if it contains the detail that users, both internal and external to the company, need for their decision-making. When considering what to disclose, please identify and report information that is likely to be of use and benefit to the audience requesting it (for example, the investment community and your customers).

Instructions for responding to the water security questionnaire

1. Units: Volumes must be reported in megaliters per year (1 megaliter = 1 million liters or 1,000 m³) in all questions, unless otherwise stated.

2. Values of zero: Entering a 0 (zero) figure implies that a measurement has been made, and the value being disclosed is 0 (zero). Do not enter a zero where you have no data to disclose.

3. River basins: From the drop-down list in specific questions, select the river basin associated with the disclosure, or select “Other, please specify” and provide the name of the river basin. (See CDP’s Appendix: River basin list — and South African Water Management Areas — by country).
CDP’s drop-down list of river basins aligns with the CEO Water Mandate’s Interactive Database of the World’s River Basins. For companies operating in South Africa, the list also includes the nine Water Management Areas for South Africa. You may wish to enter a sub-basin of a listed river basin. In this case use the “Other, please specify” option in the following format: “Putumayo, Amazon”.
For companies withdrawing water from large confined aquifers that do not discharge to the river basin they are located in, e.g. Ogallala aquifer in the United States, please select “Other, please specify” and type in the name of the local aquifer source.
If you do not know the river basin associated with the data you are disclosing, the following tools have the functionality to identify the river basin locations of facilities by typing in geolocation coordinates, for example:

- The CEO Water Mandate Interactive Database of the World’s River Basins
- The Water Footprint Assessment Tool - Water Footprint Network
- The Water Risk Filter - WWF
- The WRI Aqueduct Water Risk Atlas Tool - the World Resources Institute

W0 Introduction

Module Overview

This module requests information about your organization’s disclosure to CDP and will help data users to interpret your responses in the context of your business operations, timeframe and reporting boundary.

The information provided here should apply consistently to your responses throughout the questionnaire and be complete and accurate as it may determine response options presented in subsequent modules.

For this reason, you should respond to every question in this module and save your response before accessing the rest of the questionnaire.

Key changes

Modified question: W0.3 question text has been revised to ask for the countries in which you operate rather than the countries for which you are supplying data.
New question: W0.7 requests your company's unique identifier (e.g., ISIN number).
Click here for a list of all changes made this year.

Sector-specific content

Additional questions for: Chemicals, Electric Utilities, Food, Beverage & Tobacco, Metals & Mining, Oil & Gas.

Pathway diagram - questions

This diagram shows the questions contained in module W0. To access question-level guidance, use the menu on the left to navigate to the question.

(W0.1) Give a general description of and introduction to your organization.

Change from last year

No change

Rationale

This will help data users interpret your responses within the context of your business activities and sector.

Response options

This is an open text question with a limit of 5,000 characters.

Requested content

General

Provide information about your operations and business activities to help data users understand your business and how it relates to water risk and corporate strategy. This information provides context for your answers throughout this disclosure.

Explanation of terms

Organization: Throughout this information request, “your organization” refers collectively to all the companies, businesses, other entities or groups that fall within the definition of your reporting boundary (provided in W0.5). This term is used interchangeably with “your company”, but CDP recognizes that some disclosing organizations may not consider themselves to be, or be formally classified, as “companies”.

(W0.2) State the start and end date of the year for which you are reporting data.

Change from last year

No change

Rationale

This will help data users interpret your responses in relation to the timeframe reported.

Response options

Please complete the following table:

Start date	End date
From: [MM/DD/YYYY]	To: [MM/DD/YYYY]

Requested content

General

Apply this reporting year to your answers for the entire questionnaire.
The current reporting year is the most recent 12-month period for which data is reported.
The investment community generally prefers a company's disclosure period to match the fiscal year for their financial jurisdiction. This facilitates the assessment of environmental performance data in alignment with their financial performance data.
CDP recommends companies provide a year for which they have complete data for their response if possible. If you do not have data for the entirety of your reporting year, you have the option to extrapolate or estimate your data to cover the entire reporting year.

(W0.3) Select the countries/areas in which you operate.

Change from last year

Modified question

Rationale

This will help data users interpret your responses.

Response options

Please complete the following table:

Country/Area
Select all that apply: Country/area drop-down list

Country/Area

Select all that apply:

Country/area drop-down list

Requested content

General

Select all countries/areas in which you operate from the drop-down list provided.

(W0.4) Select the currency used for all financial information disclosed throughout your response.

Question dependencies

All disclosed financial figures throughout the questionnaire will be in the same currency. The currency reported in this question will apply to all reported figures throughout this request.

Change from last year

No change

Rationale

CDP encourages companies to report financial figures associated with impacts, risks, and opportunities. Establishing a single currency will facilitate the collection of comparable financial information. This will benefit investors and other data users when assessing the costs and benefits reported by your organization.

Response options

Please complete the following table:

Currency
Select from: Currency drop-down list

Currency

Select from:

Currency drop-down list

Requested content

General

The currency you select will be applied to all financial information and metrics reported in your disclosure.
For example, if you select USD ($) here, this will determine the currency applied to the figure you give for ‘Financial impact’ reported in W2.1a.

(W0.5) Select the option that best describes the reporting boundary for companies, entities, or groups for which water impacts on your business are being reported.

Change from last year

No change

Rationale

This will help data users interpret how your responses relate to your business operations.

Response options

Select one of the following options:

Companies, entities or groups over which financial control is exercised
Companies, entities or groups over which operational control is exercised
Companies, entities or groups in which an equity share is held
Other, please specify

Requested content

General

References in the questionnaire to “your organization” are to the entities within your organizational boundary for which you are providing information.
This question asks you to define the organizational boundary for which you are supplying data. This indicates the way your organizational entities such as groups, businesses, and companies have been identified for inclusion within your reporting boundary. Please apply this definition consistently when responding to questions.
The options in the drop-down list for this question are based on the GHG Protocol Corporate Standard:

- Financial control: An organization has financial control over an operation if it has the ability to direct the financial and operating policies of the operation with a view to gaining economic benefits from its activities. Generally, an organization has financial control over an operation for GHG accounting purposes if the operation is treated as a group company or subsidiary for the purposes of financial consolidation.
- Operational control: An organization has operational control over an operation if it or one of its subsidiaries has the full authority to introduce and implement its operating policies at the operation.
- Equity share: Under the equity share approach, a company accounts for GHG emissions from operations according to its share of equity in the operation. The equity share reflects the economic interest, which is the extent of rights a company has to the risks and rewards flowing from an operation. Typically, the share of economic risks and rewards in an operation is aligned with the company’s percentage ownership of that operation, and equity share will normally be the same as the ownership percentage. Where this is not the case, the economic substance of the relationship the company has with the operation always overrides the legal ownership form to ensure the equity share reflects the percentage of economic interest. The principle of economic substance taking precedence over legal form is consistent with international financial reporting standards.
- Other, please specify: select this only if none of the other options apply. If you select this option, provide a label in the text field provided.

Note: throughout this information request, when calculating figures for corporate level reporting take a “consolidation approach”, unless stated otherwise. The information you provide throughout the information request should be one “consolidated” result, covering all of the companies, entities, or businesses within your reporting boundary and aggregating more granular data at facility/business level, for example. Please consistently apply this organizational boundary when responding to questions unless specifically asked for data about another category of activities.
Note: in W0.6a you have the opportunity to explain any data you have excluded from the reporting boundary you select here.

Explanation of terms

Company: throughout this information request, “your company” refers collectively to all the companies, businesses, organizations, other entities or groups that fall within you’re the definition of your reporting boundary. It is used interchangeably with "your organization".
Organization: this term is used interchangeably with “your company”. CDP recognizes that some disclosing organizations may not consider themselves to be, or be formally classified, as “companies”.
Reporting boundary: this determines which organizational entities, such as groups, businesses and companies, are included in or excluded from your disclosure. These may be included according to your financial control, operational control, equity share, or another measure.

Additional information

Determining the organizational boundary: When determining the organizational boundary for reporting purposes, CDP recommends that companies consult their legal or accounting advisors. For more guidance on determining reporting boundaries, particularly where joint ventures or complex operational structures are concerned, refer to the GHG Protocol. Although the protocol refers to GHG emissions reporting, the general definitions may be applied to water reporting.

The GHG Protocol defines two approaches: the control approach and the equity share approach, which will lead not only to different organizational boundaries, but distinct ways of consolidating the figures at the corporate level.
Control approach: An organization measures the volume of its water withdrawals/discharges from operations over which it has financial or operational control. The following text is adapted from the GHG Protocol to refer to water:

- An organization has financial control over an operation if it has the ability to direct the financial and operating policies of the operation with a view to gaining economic benefits from its activities. Generally, an organization has financial control over an operation for water accounting purposes if the operation is treated as a group company or subsidiary for the purposes of financial consolidation. An organization has operational control over an operation if the organization or one of its subsidiaries has the full authority to introduce and implement its operating policies at the operation.

Equity share approach: Organizations can also report their water data based on their economic share. The following text is adapted from the GHG Protocol to refer to water:

- Under the equity share approach, a company accounts for its water data from operations according to its share of equity in the operation. The equity share reflects the economic interest, which is the extent of rights a company has to the risks and rewards flowing from an operation. Typically, the share of economic risks and rewards in an operation is aligned with the company’s percentage ownership of that operation, and equity share will normally be the same as the ownership percentage. Where this is not the case, the economic substance of the relationship the company has with the operation always overrides the legal ownership form to ensure the equity share reflects the percentage of economic interest. The principle of economic substance taking precedence over legal form is consistent with international financial reporting standards.

The table below clarifies how water accounting data should be consolidated and reported in certain situations. The table below is based on page 19, Chapter 3 of the GHG Protocol (Revised Edition). It has been adapted to refer to water accounting instead of GHG accounting.

Accounting category	Financial accounting definition	Accounting for GHG emissions according to the GHG Protocol Standard: Based on equity share	Accounting for GHG emissions according to the GHG Protocol Standard: Based on financial control
Group companies/subsidiaries	The parent company has the ability to direct the financial and operating policies of the company with a view to gaining economic benefits from its activities. Normally, this category also includes incorporated and non-incorporated joint ventures and partnerships over which the parents company has financial control.	Equity share of volumes of water withdrawn/ discharged/etc.	100% of volumes of water withdrawn/ discharged/etc.
Associated/affiliated companies	The parent company has significant influence over the operating and financial policies of the company, but does not have financial control. Normally, this category also includes incorporated and non-incorporated joint ventures and partnerships over which the parent company has significant influence, but not financial control. Financial accounting applies the equity share method to associate/affiliated companies, which recognizes the parent company’s share of the associate’s profits and net assets.	Equity share of volumes of water withdrawn/ discharged/etc.	0% of volumes of water withdrawn/ discharged/etc.
Non-incorporated joint ventures/ partnerships/ operations where partners have joint financial control	Joint ventures/ partnerships/ operations are proportionally consolidated, i.e., each partner accounts for their proportionate interest of the joint venture’s income, expenses, assets and liabilities.	Equity share of volumes of water withdrawn/ discharged/etc.	Equity share of volumes of water withdrawn/ discharged/etc.
Fixed asset investments	The parent company has neither significant influence nor financial control. This category also includes incorporated and non-incorporated joint ventures and partnerships over which the parent company has neither significant influence nor financial control. Financial accounting applies the cost/ dividend method to fixed asset investments. This implies that only dividends received are recognized as income and the investment is carried at cost.	0%	0%
Franchises	Franchises are separate legal entities. In most cases, the franchiser will not have equity rights or control over the franchise. Therefore, franchises should not be included in consolidation of GHG emissions data. However, if the franchiser does have equity right or operational/ financial control, then the same rules for consolidation under the equity or control approaches apply.	Equity share of volumes of water withdrawn/ discharged/etc.	100% of volumes of water withdrawn/ discharged/etc.

(W0.6) Within this boundary, are there any geographies, facilities, water aspects, or other exclusions from your disclosure?

Change from last year

No change

Rationale

CDP seeks to share comprehensive and representative water data. If companies do need to exclude areas of their business from their disclosure, data users must be informed of the exclusions as this may affect their analysis.

Response options

Select one of the following options:

Requested content

General

References throughout the questionnaire to “your organization” include all the entities within your reporting boundary for which you are providing information. Please apply this logic consistently when responding to questions. However, you may exclude particular geographies, business activities, and/or small facilities for which it is difficult to gather data when water impacts are sufficiently small. This also applies to selected water inputs/outputs.
In all cases, the following principles of relevance and transparency must apply to all disclosures (adapted from the GHG Protocol):

- Relevance: Ensure the disclosure appropriately reflects the water use of the company and serves the decision-making needs of users – both internal and external to the company.
- Transparency: Address all relevant issues in a factual and coherent manner, based on a clear audit trail. Disclose any relevant assumptions and make appropriate references to the accounting and calculation methodologies and data sources used.

Any groups, companies, businesses or organizations falling within your organizational boundary but not included in your disclosure should be reported in W0.6a.
Note that in some questions, e.g. in the facility level water accounting section, we will ask you to provide data only for facilities where significant water risk has been identified, rather than all facilities within your reporting boundary.

Explanation of terms

Facilities: “Facilities” may be used throughout this questionnaire as a broad term and not restricted to a particular site or grouping of fixed buildings and factories. For example, if your organization is in the extractive industries you might normally collate business information for assets or business units, and so you may wish to define ‘facility’ information in this way.

Additional information

The GHG Protocol states that an acknowledgement of all exclusions should be made each year to enhance transparency despite disclosure of the same exclusion in previous years. This ensures all data users are always aware of what data has been included in your response.
For further information on allowable exclusions, please refer to the GHG Protocol and the CDP Water Security Scoring Methodology.

(W0.6a) Please report the exclusions.

Question dependencies

This question only appears if you select “Yes” in response to W0.6.

Change from last year

No change

Rationale

CDP seeks to share comprehensive and representative water data. Data users need to be informed of exclusions that may affect their analysis.

Response options

Please complete the following table. You are able to add rows by using the “Add Row” button at the bottom of the table.

Exclusion	Please explain
Text field [maximum of 2,500 characters]	Text field [maximum of 2,500 characters]

[Add Row]

Requested content

General

Identify and explain when any of the following are being excluded from your disclosure:

- Geographical locations, e.g. low water usage or data limitations may make reporting infeasible for operations in a country or region;
- Activities, e.g. a product line, type of business process, or type of supplier, may be excluded due to limited data or reporting feasibility;
- Facilities may be excluded due to recent mergers, acquisitions and divestitures, outsourcing and in-sourcing of activities (smaller facilities for which it is not currently possible to track water use may also be considered for exclusion); and
- Water inputs and outputs, e.g. a company may use rainwater at some facilities but not track the quantity or quality of this source in which case the source may be considered for exclusion.
- Any groups, companies, businesses or organizations that fall within your organizational boundary but are not included in your disclosure.

For all exclusions, clearly explain why they are not included in your disclosure. Provide a reasonable explanation as to how you arrived at this exclusion; e.g., as a result of a high-level risk scanning exercise.

Example response

Exclusion	Please explain
Distribution Centers	Our company has not yet implemented a system to track the water impact in its distribution centers. We expect this to be a small fraction of our total water consumption and provide little exposure to water risk. This will be incorporated from 2019.
Offices	Small leased office spaces (fewer than 50 employees) where water use is minimal. It is provided through the lease and managed by our landlord.

(W0.7) Does your organization have an ISIN code or another unique identifier (e.g., Ticker, CUSIP, etc.)?

Change from last year

New question

Rationale

ISIN codes and other market identifiers are used globally in the identification of securities such as bonds, futures, and stocks. Providing your organization’s unique identifier(s) will increase the transparency of your response.

Response options

Please complete the following table:

(*column/row appearance is dependent on selections in this or other questions)

Indicate whether you are able to provide a unique identifier for your organization	Provide your unique identifier*
Select from: Yes, an ISIN code Yes, a CUSIP number Yes, a Ticker symbol Yes, a SEDOL code Yes, another unique identifier, please specify No	Text field [Maximum 50 characters]

[Add Row]

Requested content

General

If your organization has multiple unique identifiers, add a row for each.

Provide your unique identifier (column 2)

Ensure that you enter the correct format for your unique identifier. For example, ISIN codes include a two-letter country code, followed by a nine-character alphanumeric identifier and a single check digit.

Explanation of terms

ISIN: International Securities Identification Number, a 12-character alphanumeric code used to identify a security, such as a stock or bond. It is structured with the first two letters referencing the country of origin of the issuer for the security, in accordance with ISO 3166. The second grouping consists of nine characters made up of digits and letters, which is the unique identifying code for the security. In the U.S. and Canada this is known as the CUSIP number (see below). The final digit is the check digit, which ensures the authenticity of the code.
CUSIP number: Committee on Uniform Security Identification Procedures number, a 9-character alphanumeric code that identifies a security for the purposes of facilitating clearing and settlement of trades. CUSIPs are used to distinguish, among other reasons, between multiple share classes or bond tranches. CUSIPs are mostly used in the United States and Canada.
Ticker symbol: A ticker symbol, also known as a stock symbol, is a unique series of letters assigned to a security for trading purposes. Ticker symbols are usually related to the organization’s name, and additional letters denote additional characteristics such as share class or trading restrictions.
SEDOL code: Stock Exchange Daily Official List code, a 7-character identification code consisting of two parts: a 6-character alphanumeric code and a trailing check digit. SEDOLs issued prior to January 26, 2004 were composed only of numbers. SEDOLs serve as the National Securities Identifying Number for all securities issued in the United Kingdom.

W1 Current state

Module Overview

The promotion of water security for all is supported when companies:

Reduce their dependency on fresh water sources and track their progress; this is additionally important where fresh water scarcity may pose water quality risks and impacts.
Collect and share volumetric data on their interactions with water resources.
Are aware of the water intensity of their value creation.
Consider water throughout their value chain, beyond the fence-line of their direct operations.

Clean freshwater is becoming increasingly scarce, and this can impact operations relying on large volumes of water – either through absolute availability or through rising costs for water. The information in this module allows CDP data users to build a picture of the dependence of your direct operations and your wider value chain on sufficient amounts of water of a particular quality, currently and for future growth, and where in the value chain most dependence on water lies. To understand an organization’s resilience, it is important to understand the potential to reduce reliance on freshwater sources.

The questions allow your company to demonstrate how well it understands its corporate hydrology by providing information on the monitoring of relevant water aspects, and volumetric data on withdrawals - including withdrawals in water stressed areas, discharges - including discharges by level of treatment, and consumption. CDP also requests companies to comment on their projections for water accounting data.

The module also asks about your engagement activity around water in your value chain and a rationale for it. In regions where water sources are highly restricted, your organization’s water consumption patterns can influence relations with other stakeholders and your access to water can be dependent on those relationships. Engagement can also identify opportunities, such as innovation in your supply chain to reduce dependency and in product design to reduce water-related impacts.

Investors use this current state information to better assess the adequacy, robustness and relevance of your water governance, management and stewardship activities, as well as your disclosure of your water risks and opportunities.

The information requested in sections W1.1 and W1.2 may help companies with their climate-related disclosures in line with the TCFD recommendations which recognise that a reliance on the availability of water exposes a company to climate-related, financial risk.

Note:

Throughout the water security questionnaire, CDP has broadened the scope of questions about the supply chain to include other phases of the value chain. This will be particularly relevant to companies whose activities may be constrained or otherwise affected by water related issues beyond their direct operations and supply chains. It reflects a widening of company focus to, and greater investor interest in, risk exposure, opportunities and impacts within the value chain.
W1.2 requests water accounting information at the corporate level. Module 5 asks for facility-level volumetric data - only for facilities that expose your organization to substantive financial or strategic risks, and so it is requested after you have reported your risk exposure in W4.

Disclosure note

CDP’s approach to reporting water accounting data

When reporting volumetric data please read the guidance for each question as well as the CDP Technical Note on water accounting definitions.
To reduce their impact on water ecosystems and resources as well as their need to manage water-related risks, organizations should minimize and be able to account for all their interaction with water. For this reason, CDP’s focus is the collection of information to determine how well a company understands the flow of water into and out of its boundaries, and whether they have robust monitoring and accounting in place for all aspects of their water use.
Definitions: CDP is looking for comparable data, reported against a standard methodology/definition. To ensure the quality of our data and a fair scoring methodology, CDP definitions should be used for all disclosures. This is particularly relevant where there is a lack of standardization. Companies must not provide water accounting data that does not align with the definitions given. Please refer to CDP’s Technical Note on water accounting.
Units: Volumes must be reported in megaliters per year (1 megaliter = 1 million liters or 1,000 m3) in all questions, unless otherwise stated.
Blank cells: Please ensure when responding to these water accounting questions that cells are only intentionally left blank if you have no data to disclose. Blank cells are interpreted as non-disclosure, i.e. information is not available due to lack of measurement or choosing not to disclose, and are therefore awarded no points by the scoring methodology.
Values of zero: entering a zero implies a measurement has been made, and the value is zero. For example, a value of zero consumption reported indicates that no water is incorporated into products or waste products or lost by evaporation from the company. Do not use a zero to indicate a lack of data. If a company enters a zero for discharge, it should provide an explanation.
Data accuracy: CDP recognizes that there may be uncertainty linked to water accounting information that could impact on data accuracy. Uncertainty can arise from data gaps, assumptions, metering/measurement constraints including equipment accuracy, data management, etc. The emphasis should be on reporting transparently and on providing an explanation for why reported data is uncertain or wholly or partially estimated or modelled, rather than sourced from direct measurements.

Key changes

New question: W1.3 requests your company's water withdrawal efficiency figure.
Additional guidance: Example responses have been added in W1.2 and W1.2j.
Click here for a list of all changes made this year.

Sector-specific content

Additional questions presented in:
- W1.1 for Food, Beverage & Tobacco
- W1.2 for Electric Utilities, Oil & Gas, Food, Beverage & Tobacco
- W1.3 for Chemicals, Electric Utilities, Food, Beverage & Tobacco, Metals & Mining, and Oil & Gas
Additional response options presented in W1.2 for Oil & Gas and Metals & Mining.
Additional drop-down options presented in W1.4b for Food, Beverage & Tobacco.

Pathway diagram - questions

This diagram shows the questions contained in module W1. To access question-level guidance, use the menu on the left to navigate to the question.

(W1.1) Rate the importance (current and future) of water quality and water quantity to the success of your business.

Question dependencies

Your response to W1.1 prompts subsequent questions. If your response to W1.1 is amended, data in those dependent questions may be erased. In this case, be sure to re-enter data for all relevant questions. The guidance for each question indicates if it is a dependent question.

Change from last year

No change

Rationale

A dependence on good quality freshwater resources may pose a risk to companies where there is social, ecological or economic competition for those resources, or an otherwise unreliable supply. An ability to switch to using lower grade water mitigates that dependence, could improve a company’s water security and reduces pressure on freshwater sources.

This question asks companies to disclose their dependence on access to good quality freshwater as this could limit their ability to switch to using lower quality water without incurring a cost to the business through having to treat the water, for example.

Importance is independent of absolute volumes. For example, a company could require only a small amount of water used for an integral part of production for which access to alternative water sources could be restricted due to other local demands. The relative importance of access to that small volume would be considered as high.

Assessing how important access to good and lower quality water is to your organization is the first step to deciding how water-related issues may potentially present a risk to your company.

This information helps investors to understand why you have disclosed certain risks later in this questionnaire. It also demonstrates the ways that water could potentially constrain or enhance your business strategy.

Response options

Please complete the following table:

Water quality and quantity	Direct use importance rating	Indirect use importance rating	Please explain
Sufficient amounts of good quality freshwater available for use	Select from: Not important at all Not very important Neutral Important Vital Have not evaluated	Select from: Not important at all Not very important Neutral Important Vital Have not evaluated	Text field [maximum 2,000 characters]
Sufficient amounts of recycled, brackish and/or produced water available for use

Water quality and quantity

Direct use importance rating

Indirect use importance rating

Please explain

Sufficient amounts of good quality freshwater available for use

Select from:

Not important at all
Not very important
Neutral
Important
Vital
Have not evaluated

Select from:

Not important at all
Not very important
Neutral
Important
Vital
Have not evaluated

Text field [maximum 2,000 characters]

Sufficient amounts of recycled, brackish and/or produced water available for use

Requested content

General

When answering this question, consider your organization’s dependence on good quality freshwater versus lower quality water and how this has changed or might change over time.
‘Good quality freshwater’ is any water used for your organization’s activities that must be of a quality requiring only minimal treatment to be acceptable for domestic, municipal or agricultural uses or safe for freshwater ecosystems. A company is considered dependent on this if it is not possible to use a lower quality water instead.
‘Importance’ should be considered in terms of the need for secure access to, and the availability at certain times of, an amount of water (large or small) that is sufficient for your operations; and not simply in terms of your net water consumption. So, activities involving large volumes of water would be expected to answer “Vital” or “Important” because large withdrawals would be required, even if discharges were also large resulting in relatively low consumption.
Metals & mining sector only: Organizations dependent on freshwater of low quality (categories 2 and 3 of the Water Accounting Framework from the Mineral Council of Australia) should indicate this dependency in row 2 (…recycled, brackish and/or produced water sources). Dependency on low rather than high quality water reduces pressure on good quality freshwater sources.

Importance rating (columns 2-3)

CDP recognizes that the importance ratings are subjective. The following description of the categories aims to assist with comparability rather than providing rigid definition and general examples are given.
Vital: Water is of ‘vital’ importance when future production could be compromised, and output and finances affected at the corporate level, if the water supply was insufficient – either in terms of quantity and quality - in the locations of your production processes or your value chain. When water is vital for product use, scarcity may curtail sales or have reputational implications.
Important: access to sufficient volumes and good quality water is required in direct or indirect operations, though these operations may not be water intensive and/or diversification of supply chain could mediate risk.
Neutral: water quality can be poor as long as enough water is available.
Not very important: water is not a key component of operations directly or indirectly but a local issue e.g. drought or poor water quality, or localized flooding may impact on local operations or supply chain. However, this would not affect the business overall.
Not important at all: water is not a key component of operations directly or indirectly and water quantities in particular are of less concern.
Have not evaluated: have not evaluated how much water or the quality of water required for operations and/or value chain.
When considering the importance rating for indirect use, you should include the importance of water in all stages of your value chain that are upstream and downstream of your direct operations; e.g. within your supply chain, and also for the use/consumption of your products or services.

Please explain (column 4)

State the primary use of water for both the direct and indirect parts of your value chain, for both good quality freshwater and lower quality options. Describe how water use is distributed across the value chain; giving percentages if possible.
Describe how you have determined your stated importance ratings for water quality and quantity for both good quality and lower quality options.
Specify how future water dependency is likely to differ from the current, and provide an explanation for your answer.

Explanation of terms

Direct operations: An organization’s operations include anything it does itself for the purpose of producing goods and services and maintaining the functionality of the business. This covers any internal supply chains between the organization’s business units. For example, a business unit within a company that supplies components to another business unit within the company would be considered part of the organization’s direct operations.
Direct water use: Includes all water that is used for activities within your organization (as defined by your ‘reporting boundary’).
Good quality freshwater: Any water used for your organization’s activities that must be of a quality requiring only minimal treatment to be acceptable for domestic, municipal or agricultural uses or safe for freshwater ecosystems. A company is considered dependent on this if it is not possible to use a lower quality water instead. Water quality can refer to physical, chemical, biological, and organoleptic properties of water. ‘High quality’ fresh water sources, of potable standard, are typically characterized as having concentrations of dissolved solids less than 1,000 mg/l.
Indirect water use: Includes all water use that takes place anywhere within your value chain outside your direct operations and direct control. This includes water use upstream of your direct operations, use such as by your suppliers, and downstream, for example water needed for the use of your products.
Sufficient amounts of recycled, brackish and/or produced water: This refers to any low quality water requiring significant treatment to be acceptable for human consumption or other purposes, and for which the source can be easily substituted. Water quality can refer to the physical, chemical, biological, and organoleptic properties of water.
Water availability: The natural runoff (through groundwater and rivers) minus the flow of water that is required to sustain freshwater and estuarine ecosystems and the human livelihoods and well-being that depend on these ecosystems. Water availability typically varies within the year and also from year to year. Water availability might be reduced by decreases in both the water quantity and quality of water resources (Adapted from CEO Water Mandate's "Corporate Water Disclosure Guidelines").
Water quality: Refers to the physical, chemical, biological and organoleptic (taste-related) properties of water (see CDP’s definition for “Good quality freshwater”) (adapted from CEO Water Mandate's "Corporate Water Disclosure Guidelines").

Company-wide water accounting

(W1.2) Across all your operations, what proportion of the following water aspects are regularly measured and monitored?

Question dependencies

This question only appears if you select “Neutral” “Important” or “Vital” as your “Direct use importance rating” in response to W1.1.
Your response to W1.2 will determine which subsequent questions are presented. If your response to W1.2 is amended, data in those dependent questions may be erased. In this case, be sure to re-enter data for all relevant questions.
If you select “Not monitored” or “Not relevant” in response to W1.2, you will not be able to disclose associated volumetric data in this section. The guidance for each question indicates if it is a dependent question.

Change from last year

Additional guidance

Rationale

This question allows your company to indicate to investors, customers, and other data users the extent to which it monitors different aspects of its water use. Comprehensive water accounting is a first step in understanding the importance of water to your business and any potential water-related impacts to your business. This data may also be relevant to a company’s regulatory compliance.

Connection to other frameworks

CEO Water Mandate

Current state: Performance

Response options

Please complete the following table:

Water aspect	% of sites/facilities/operations	Please explain
Water withdrawals – total volume	Select from: Not monitored Less than 1% 1-25 26-50 51-75 76-99 100% Not relevant	Text field [maximum 1,000 characters]
Water withdrawals – volumes by source
[METALS & MINING SECTOR ONLY] Entrained water associated with your metals & mining sector activities - total volume
[OIL & GAS SECTOR ONLY] Produced water associated with your oil & gas sector activities - total volume
Water withdrawals quality
Water discharges – total volume
Water discharges – volumes by destination
Water discharges – volumes by treatment method
Water discharge quality – by standard effluent parameters
Water discharge quality – temperature
Water consumption – total volume
Water recycled/reused
The provision of fully-functioning, safely managed WASH services to all workers

Requested content

Note: organizations responding to an electric utilities, metals & mining or oil & gas sector request should refer to additional sector-specific guidance on this question at the end of the "Requested content" section.

General

This question seeks a company-wide response about your monitoring of various water aspects. “Across all your operations” refers to all entities included in your reporting boundary, indicated in W0.5.
Please refer to CDP’s water accounting definitions (included in CDP Technical Note – Water Accounting Definitions) before completing this question.
You should only select “Not monitored” if you do not collect any data on these water aspects across your operations. If you have data from any information sources, you should reflect this in your response by indicating the percentage of sites/facilities/operations this represents in the “% of sites/facilities/operations” column.
If water accounting information cannot be provided for all operations within your reporting boundary, then please use column 3 to explain the level of coverage.
The proportion of sites/facilities/operations reported in column 2 is not considered an indication of the proportion of total water volumes monitored in your organization. It provides organizational coverage of monitoring activity only.
Note that for column 2, ‘sites/facilities/operations’ could include a broad variety of groupings of business operations, assets, fixed buildings, factories or sites etc. A company-specific explanation may be provided in column 3.

Water aspect (column 1)

Definitions for each type of water aspect are included in the ‘Explanation of terms’ for this question (and repeated in the Glossary).

% of sites/facilities/operations (column 2)

Please select the proportion of your organization’s facilities that are regularly (at least annually) measured and monitored for each of the defined aspects; e.g. a company that has 100 facilities across its total operations and measures and monitors quaterly total volumes of water withdrawals for 50% (50 facilities) would select “26-50”.
Select ‘Not relevant’ if it is not technically feasible or technically desirable for your organization to monitor this aspect; e.g. your operations do not consume water so measurement of this is not required, you discharge to a single destination so do not monitor discharge destinations, your company does not recycle/reuse water because it is not considered cost effective. Provide your explanation in column 3.
Select ‘Not monitored’ if your company does not monitor this aspect, though it would be technically possible or desirable; e.g. your company does recycle/reuse water but it is not yet monitored at the corporate level. Provide your explanation in column 3.

Please explain (column 3)

You should provide an explanation for your response in column 2; such as why your organization measures/monitors the water aspect at this proportion of its operations, and explain which sites/facilities/operations are excluded and why.
Please state if your response in column 2 relates to facilities, sites or operations, or another kind of grouping, and explain how you are using the term; e.g. “For our company, ‘facilities’ refers to our warehouses and retail outlets”; “Our response in this row relates to our different geographic operations. We do not have facilities or sites because we provide a range of services that are not tied to a specific location”.
If you indicated that you monitor ‘Water withdrawals quality’ to determine the suitability of the water for its intended use, you may include details such as a list of parameters measured, and the frequency of data collection. This row supports the aims of the UN Environment Global Environment Monitoring System for Freshwater (GEMS/Water), a long term project to generate data flows on global water quality.

Explanation of terms

Boundaries of your organization: This term is key within CDP water accounting definitions and is a management boundary, rather than a physical boundary or a legal entity. Water is considered to have crossed the boundary of your organization, at either the corporate or site level, when your organization in any way uses it, comes into contact with it, is required to manage it or when it becomes incorporated into your products. It therefore includes any water use and management by your organization outside of its physical corporate fence; for example, to provide a street cleaning service or in fields remote from a processing plant. The scope of this organizational boundary is defined by your chosen reporting boundary.
Measurement: The collection of quantified data for a water aspect - either as a single volume/quality figure or an aggregation of volumes/quality figures.
Monitoring: This is the tracking of measurements over time, i.e. a trend or indication of change in measured figures.
Produced water: Water which enters the organization’s boundary as a result of the extraction, processing, or use of any raw material, so that it must be managed by the organization. When reporting to CDP, this water should not be counted as recycled water when put to use within a single cycle of a business process. Examples of produced water include moisture derived from vegetation such as in sugar cane crushing and the water content in crude oil. (Note that companies with oil and gas activities should refer to CDP’s sector specific guidance for this water aspect).
Entrained water (Metals & mining sector only): In the metals & mining sector produced water refers to the volumes of water in the raw material.
Produced water (Oil & gas sector only): Water that is brought to the surface during the production of hydrocarbons including formation water, flow-back water and condensation water (adapted from IPIECA's “Oil and gas industry guidance on voluntary sustainability reporting", 3rd edition, 2016).
Recycled/reused water: Water and wastewater (treated or untreated) that has been used more than once before being discharged from the organization’s boundary, so that water demand is reduced. This may be in the same process (recycled), or used in a different process within the same facility or another of the organization’s facilities (reused). It can include wastewater re-used from household processes such as washing dishes, laundry, and bathing (grey water).
Safely managed WASH services: The universal provision of safely managed water, sanitation, and hygiene services has dedicated targets within the Sustainable Development Goals (SDG 6.1 and 6.2). As a minimum, this disclosure refers to a company’s tracking of its provision of drinking water for all workers, available when needed and from sources compliant with faecal and chemical standards, as well as sanitation facilities where excreta are safely disposed in situ or transported and treated offsite.
Water consumption: The amount of water that is drawn into the boundaries of the organization and not discharged back to the water environment or a third party over the course of the reporting year.
Water discharges – total volume: The sum of effluents and other water leaving the organization’s boundary and released to surface water, groundwater water or to third parties over the course of the reporting year.
Water discharges – volumes by destination: This refers to the proportion of your discharges that are tracked to different types of discharge destinations; e.g. freshwater, brackish surface water/seawater, groundwater, or third parties.
Water discharges – volumes by treatment method: This refers to the proportion of your discharge that you track according to treatment method applied before being returned to the environment - primary, secondary, or tertiary treatment types etc. Different industries will have different requirements to meet compliance standards, or a company may have an internal standard they adhere to.
Water discharge quality data – by standard effluent parameters: This refers to the quality of your discharged water/effluents tracked according to parameters such as Biological Oxygen Demand (BOD) or Total Suspended Solids (TSS). The specific choice of quality metrics will vary depending on the organization’s products, services, and operations but should be consistent with those used in the organization’s sector, and may need to vary depending on national or regional regulations.
Water discharge quality data – temperature: This refers to the temperature of your discharged water/effluents. Though not yet a standard effluent parameter in many industries, thermal pollution can play a significant role in ecosystem degradation by altering levels of dissolved oxygen and harming wildlife.
Water diversions (Metals & mining sector only): According to the Water Accounting Framework from the Mineral Council of Australia water diversions are flows from an input to an output without being utilized by the operational facility. The flow is not stored with the intention of being used in a task or treated.
Water withdrawals – total volumes: The sum of all water drawn into the boundaries of the organization (or facility) from all sources for any use over the course of the reporting period. (Source: adapted from GRI Standards Glossary 2016).
Water withdrawals quality: This refers to the quality of raw water that your company draws into its boundary (from sources, such as rivers, lakes, groundwater and coastal zones).
Water withdrawals – volumes by source: This refers to the proportion of withdrawals that your organization can trace to different types of water withdrawal source e.g. freshwater, brackish surface water/ seawater, produced water and third party sources, and a breakdown of groundwater by renewable and non-renewable sources.
Water recycled/reused: Water and wastewater (treated or untreated) used more than once before being discharged from the organization’s boundary, so that water demand is reduced. This may be in the same process (recycled), or in a different process within the same facility or another of the organization’s facilities (reused).
Water recycled/reused (Oil & gas sector only): Water and wastewater (treated or untreated) that has been used more than once, in order to reduce water withdrawals (adapted from IPIECA’s "Oil & gas industry guidance on voluntary sustainability reporting", 3rd edition, 2016).

Example response

Water aspect	% of sites/facilities /operations	Please explain
Water withdrawals – total volume	100%	Water withdrawal volume is one of our environmental key performance indicators and is used to track improvements in site efficiency. We measure water withdrawals via real-time site metering, monitoring & reporting this information at an internal global level quarterly, and report data externally on an annual basis.
Water withdrawals – volumes by source	100%	Water withdrawal volumes by source are monitored at 100% of our operations. Sites measure incoming water withdrawals by source in real time through "in-place" flow meters or usage data provided from water utility providers.
[METALS & MINING SECTOR ONLY] Entrained water associated with your metals & mining sector activities – total volume	100%	The volumes of entrained water are monitored on a monthly basis by measuring the moisture content of the ore milled and the volumes of ore milled. The water volumes can then be calculated using these two parameters.
[OIL & GAS SECTOR ONLY] Produced water associated with your oil & gas sector activities – total volume	100%	The volume of produced water accompanying crude oil production is calculated by pump operating time or measured with flow meters. We continuously measure the volume of produced water and aggregate the monthly and annual volumes.
Water withdrawals quality	100%	Water withdrawals quality is monitored at the factory level, under strict Food Safety Standards within all of our facilities, using flow meters, automatic water samplers and lab testing. This KPI is monitored daily and followed under the daily quality and food safety review.
Water discharges – total volume	100%	100% of all of our water discharges are measured and reported in a continuously registering flow meter in real time.
Water discharges – volumes by destination	100%	100% of our operational sites are monitored for this water aspect and this is considered part of usual facility management for our sites. We use flow meters to continuously measure discharges and identify volumes by destination in almost half of our sites, and measure the rest based on consumption values.
Water discharges – volumes by treatment method	100%	All water discharged at our facilities is measured against standard requirements through on-site flow meters and meet at least all local regulations. Key measures such as pH, flow and temperature are monitored continuously through on-site monitoring systems and samples are completed on a daily basis as a minimum to analyse organic load (COD/BOD) and total suspended solids (TSS).
Water discharge quality data – by standard effluent parameters	100%	We monitor water discharge quality by standard effluent parameters at the factory level using automatic water samplers and lab testing. This KPI is monitored daily/monthly.
Water discharge quality data – temperature	100%	We use sensors specifically designed to monitor temperature in wastewater and industrial effluent treatment applications at all of our facilities. The online sensors (thermometers) are factory calibrated and regularly maintained. Each factory controls the quality data of water discharged locally and measures this on a daily basis.
Water consumption – total volume	100%	This KPI is measured by calculating the total volume withdrawn minus the total volume discharged. Frequency of measurement: we monitor this data daily at the factory level, reported monthly through our global performance reporting system.
Water recycled/reused	100%	Volumes of recycled/reused water are monitored at all of our facilities on a weekly basis using either precise meters or flow meters at wastewater treatment facilities where reclaim systems are installed.
The provision of fully-functioning, safely managed WASH services to all workers	100%	We use an internal audit excel tool to measure progress towards WASH services for employees. The sites are required to be compliant with the International Standards developed by the World Business Council for Sustainable Development. Frequency of measurement: the audit occurs once a year.

Additional information

The provision of safely managed WASH services at the workplace, and respecting the human rights to water and sanitation
The provision of safely managed WASH services at the workplace (and extending such expectations to other actors within its value chain) is aligned with the aims of the Sustainable Development Goals (SDG 6.1 and 6.2) and the UN Human Rights Council endorsed Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights. These are established and authoritative global reference points on how companies should respect human rights in their own activities and business relationships, focusing on the risks to people rather than the risks to the business. Provision requirements may also be linked to Health and Safety regulations applicable to your operations.
In practice, companies need to implement due diligence to identify actual and potential impacts on human rights and to prevent, mitigate, and remediate them. This could mean a company may need to collaborate with others in the basin to reduce their collective water use when withdrawals limit the water availability for local communities in a way that impacts their right to water.

The Guide to Business and Human Rights (2014) published by the UK Equality and Human Rights Commission states that a business can respect the right to a safe environment for employees by ‘ensuring access to clean toilet facilities and drinking water’ amongst other criteria.
The World Business Council for Sustainable Development (WBCSD) Pledge for Access to Safe Water, Sanitation, and Hygiene (WASH) provides resources for companies looking to implement WASH in the workplace, including a reference for what represents best practice in providing WASH services in different workplaces.

Water withdrawals quality and GEMS
The UN Environment Global Environment Monitoring System for Freshwater (GEMS/Water) provides the world community with sound data on water quality to support scientific assessments and decision-making on the subject. Surface and groundwater quality monitoring data collected from the global GEMS/Water monitoring network is shared through the GEMStat information system.
Within UN Environment, GEMS/Water was identified as being the mechanism to support countries to fulfill their reporting obligations for the UN Sustainable Development Goals. GEMS/Water provides appropriate support, based on capacity needs at national and regional levels, and develops training for delivery in countries all over the world.

(W-EU1.2a)

This question only applies to organizations with activities in the electric utilities sector - it will not be displayed here unless you opted to view these sector-specific questions.

(W1.2b) What are the total volumes of water withdrawn, discharged, and consumed across all your operations, and how do these volumes compare to the previous reporting year?

Question dependencies

This question only appears if you select “Neutral” “Important,” or “Vital” as your “Direct use importance rating” in response to W1.1.

Change from last year

No change

Rationale

This question incentivizes companies to have a complete view of their water balance at the corporate level.

Total volumes can indicate the organization’s relative significance as a user of water and provide a baseline figure for other calculations. Along with trend data, these volumes can also suggest the level of risk posed by future disruptions to water supplies or increases in the cost of water.

Water consumption measures water that is no longer available for use by the ecosystem or local community in the reporting period. Reporting the volume of water consumption contributes to an organization’s understanding of the overall scale of its impact due to water withdrawal on downstream water availability.

Connection to other frameworks

CEO Water Mandate

Current state: Performance

SDG

Goal 6: Clean water and sanitation

Response options

Please complete the following table:

Water aspect	Volume (megaliters/year)	Comparison with previous reporting year	Please explain
Total withdrawals	Numerical field [enter a range of 0 to +/- 999,999,999,999 using a maximum of two decimal places]	Select from: Much lower Lower About the same Higher Much higher This is our first year of measurement	Text field [maximum 2,000 characters]
Total discharges
Total consumption

Water aspect

Volume (megaliters/year)

Comparison with previous reporting year

Please explain

Total withdrawals

Numerical field [enter a range of 0 to +/- 999,999,999,999 using a maximum of two decimal places]

Select from:

Much lower
Lower
About the same
Higher
Much higher
This is our first year of measurement

Text field [maximum 2,000 characters]

Total discharges

Total consumption

Requested content

Note: Organizations responding to an electric utilities, metals & mining, or oil & gas sector request should refer to additional sector-specific guidance on this question at the end of the "Requested content" section.

General

This question is asking you to report aggregated company-wide volumetric data. If you do not have the aggregated data, if you are estimating or extrapolating to provide complete coverage, please give an explanation in column 3 (Please explain). Please remember that a zero should only be used for reporting zero volumes and not for an absence of data.
Please refer to CDP’s water accounting definitions before completing this question. Report volumetric data in megaliters per year for the reporting year (the time period you stated in response to W0.2). (1 megaliter = 1 million liters or 1,000 m³).
Cooling water: Cooling water (freshwater or sea water) is often withdrawn in large quantities and discharged back to its original source with negligible losses or variation in quality. However, this should be included in your water accounts.
Rainwater: If a company is managing rainwater (for example, by harvesting for use or storage, or to prevent flooding), or is dependent on it for production of goods or the delivery of services, it should try to estimate and disclose it as a withdrawal from the hydrological system into the company boundary. Note that in some jurisdictions rainwater is considered a withdrawal source and organizations are required to report its collection and use.

- Companies may choose to exclude collected rainwater and domestic sewage from their water withdrawal/discharge volumes only if the resulting error in their water balance would be less than 5%. (This avoids your discharge volumes being larger than your withdrawals).
- Including rainwater helps companies better understand their water dependency and risks. For some companies, precipitation/rainwater volumes may constitute a principal input of water at site level. This includes run-off where it has to be managed. In these cases, excluding rainwater from water accounting – withdrawal and discharge - would not be a true reflection of site water balance. In addition, there may be reduced impacts from using rainwater in place of other local freshwater sources.

Volumes (column 2)

Please report volumetric data in megaliters per year for the reporting year (the time period you stated in response to W0.2). (1 megaliter = 1 million liters or 1,000 m³).
For withdrawals, data may be collected from several sources, including water meters, water bills, calculations derived from other available water data or the organization’s own estimates (if neither water meters nor bills or reference data exist).
Before deciding whether your withdrawals, discharges or consumption can be reported as zero (0), please refer to CDP’s Technical Note on Water Accounting Definitions.
If reporting “zero consumption” please remember to check your discharge volumes. Scorers will check that discharge and withdrawals volumes balance (approximately).

Comparison with previous year (column 3)

CDP does not define the threshold for considering a value as ‘much higher’ rather than simply ‘higher’ (or ‘much lower’/’lower’). CDP requests this information from many different industries with huge variations in water use, and it would therefore be difficult to provide a universal threshold that is meaningful (as proportions will equate to different absolute values and impacts).
CDP recommends that you define your own threshold for what is ‘much higher’ (and ‘much lower’) and apply it consistently so that the reported data for this question is comparable and data users can track your water accounts more effectively each year. A company-specific explanation for these thresholds should be provided in column 4 (Please explain).

Please explain (column 4)

Include any contextual information necessary to understand how the volumetric data have been compiled, such as any standards, methodologies, and assumptions used.
If you have left column 2 blank because you do not have the data, please describe the barriers to reporting that data and any plans to collect and report it.
Describe the thresholds for what is ‘much higher’ and ‘much lower’ for the change in volume for each water aspect compared to the previous year.
You should account for the change compared to last year and also indicate the anticipated future trends for these volumes, if known (note that future trends should be at least one year after the end of the reporting year provided in W0.2).
If there is any level of uncertainty in your ‘Total’ figures in column 2, or if there is an estimated figure, you should explain it in this field and give the range of uncertainty. Uncertainty can arise from data gaps, assumptions, metering/measurement constraints including equipment accuracy, data management, etc.
Note: CDP expects withdrawals, discharges and consumption figures to balance (approximately; +/- 5%) so if there is a good reason why this cannot happen, it should be explained in here.

Please explain – additional guidance for consumption volume (row 3)

For the “water consumption” row, you should indicate if your figure is based on an aggregation of local measurements, an aggregation of local calculations, or is a company-wide calculation (for example using withdrawals minus discharges).
If known, please provide a breakdown of this figure (with reference to CDP’s definition of consumption) and a brief explanation. Breakdowns include:

- Volume incorporated into products, crops or waste;
- Volume evaporated or transpired;
- Volume consumed by humans or livestock;
- Net volume stored in a controlled manner;
- Net volume stored for future use;
- Volumes otherwise excluded from discharges out of the organization’s boundary.

It is important that you explain a negative consumption figure where this is the case. This would indicate that your discharges are larger than your withdrawals for the reporting year - due to a net release of water from storage, for example.

Explanation of terms

Water balance: An account of the volumes of water flowing into and leaving an organisation across its boundary. When the two volumes are equal, the net water balance will be zero.
Water consumption: The amount of water that is drawn into the company boundary and not discharged back to the water environment or a third party. It is important to distinguish the term ‘consumption’ from the term ‘water withdrawal’ or ‘water use’. Water consumed is water that during the reporting year:

- has been incorporated into products, crops or waste;
- has evaporated or transpired;
- consumed by humans or livestock;
- has been stored in a controlled manner because it is polluted to the point of being unusable by other users, and so that it does not leave the organization’s boundary;
- has been stored during the reporting year for use or discharge in a subsequent reporting period;
- is otherwise excluded from discharges out of the organization’s boundary so that it is no longer available for use by the ecosystem or local community.

Consumption may be measured directly or modelled, or it can be calculated by subtracting the total water discharge from company boundary from total water withdrawn into the company boundary during the reporting period. As CDP data users require comparability, all disclosing companies should use this method.

If the company discharges more water than it withdraws, for example, because it has used and then discharged previously stored water, a negative consumption value is possible. This would indicate a net contribution to the water environment in the reporting year.

Water discharges – total volumes: The sum of effluents and other water leaving the organization’s boundary and released to surface water, groundwater water or to third parties over the course of the reporting year. This includes all water leaving the company boundary, whether it is:

- considered used or unused;
- released through a defined discharge point (point source discharge), or;
- released over land in a dispersed or undefined manner (non-point source discharge), or as;
- wastewater removed from the organization via truck.

Water discharge can be authorized (in accordance with discharge consent) or unauthorized (if discharge consent is exceeded).

Water diversions (Metals & mining sector only): According to the Water Accounting Framework from the Mineral Council of Australia water diversions are flows from an input to an output without being utilized by the operational facility. The flow is not stored with the intention of being used in a task or treated.

(W-OG1.2c)

This question only applies to organizations with activities in the oil & gas sector - it will not be displayed here unless you opted to view these sector-specific questions.

(W1.2d) Indicate whether water is withdrawn from areas with water stress and provide the proportion.

Question dependencies

This question only appears if you select "Neutral", "Important", or "Vital" as your "Direct use importance rating" in response to W1.1.

Change from last year

No change

Rationale

Since water is a shared resource, and water-related impacts are localized, organizations are increasingly being encouraged to prioritize action in areas with water stress and to understand and respond to local contexts. This question on water from stressed areas supports a trend towards metrics for corporate water reporting and target setting informed by local context, and in addition, the TCFD recommends disclosure of reliance on water from areas of water stress.
The data requested assists the assessment of your organization’s dependence on potentially contested sources (regardless of whether your facility itself is located in a stressed area), as well as your potential impact on sensitive locations.
Water stress occurs when the demand for water exceeds availability during a certain period, or when access is restricted due to poor quality or regulatory enforcement for example. It can compound basin challenges, both in terms of quantity (e.g., stress can result in rivers running dry causing problems for fish, transportation, as well as in long term changes to water sources) and quality (e.g., stress can worsen eutrophication, organic matter pollution, saline intrusion, etc.).
Water stress is a driver of business risk and, as it is likely to worsen, transparency is critical. Gaining an insight into the potential for an increased exposure to elevated business risk due to operations in water stressed areas is very important for the investor community, and overtime this question will allow data users to review the trend in dependency on water from stressed basins. While CDP provides investors, customers and other data users with data about inherent risk exposure such as this, it also provides information about your response to that exposure which can be used to understand the residual risk.
Knowledge of water-related hot spots helps your company identify where water stress may be affecting its operations, now or in the future, as well as to prioritize your sustainable water management practices.

Note that to identify whether withdrawals are located in water stressed areas, companies can use one of the publicly available credible tools detailed in the guidance for this question or otherwise explain the approach taken.

Connection to other frameworks

GRI

Standard 303-3: Water withdrawal

CEO Water Mandate

Current state: Performance

SDG

Goal 6: Clean water and sanitation

Response options

Please complete the following table:

Withdrawals are from areas with water stress	% withdrawn from areas with water stress	Comparison with previous reporting year	Identification tool	Please explain
Select from: Yes No Unknown	Select from: Less than 1% 1-10 11-25 26-50 51-75 76-99 100% Unknown	Select from: Much lower Lower About the same Higher Much higher This is our first year of measurement	Select from: WRI Aqueduct WWF Water Risk Filter Other, please specify	Text field [maximum 5,000 characters]

Withdrawals are from areas with water stress

% withdrawn from areas with water stress

Comparison with previous reporting year

Identification tool

Please explain

Select from:

Yes
No
Unknown

Select from:

Less than 1%
1-10
11-25
26-50
51-75
76-99
100%
Unknown

Select from:

Much lower
Lower
About the same
Higher
Much higher
This is our first year of measurement

Select from:

WRI Aqueduct
WWF Water Risk Filter
Other, please specify

Text field [maximum 5,000 characters]

Requested content

General

This disclosure does not request volumetric data – only a figure for the proportion of withdrawals from stressed areas. Please refer to CDP’s water accounting definitions and the Explanation of terms for this question before completing the table.
Organizations should report which approach/tool they use to assess whether their withdrawals are from a ‘stressed area’. They should explain the approach taken and which data sets were used to assess ‘water stress’.
As good practice, a water-stressed area must be measured, at a minimum catchment level.
Credible, publicly available tools for assessing levels of water stress include WRI Aqueduct Water Risk Atlas and WWF Water Risk Filter (see Additional information for more details about these tools).
Commonly accepted global risk indicators to assess areas as water stressed in terms of quantity and their thresholds for reporting to CDP include:

- Baseline water stress - equal to/greater than 'High': 40-80% (WRI Aqueduct).
- Baseline water depletion - equal to/greater than 'High': 50-75% (WRI Aqueduct).
- Water scarcity - equal to/greater than risk score 3 in the WWF Water Risk Filter, which is based on a multi-model approach including global risk indicators: Water depletion, Baseline water stress, Blue water scarcity, and Available Water Remaining (AWARE).

Note: these global risk indicators account for water stress in terms of the quantity of water resource available. There are currently no commonly used tools/indicators which also take account of accessibility and water quality and which would reflect the CEO Water Mandate’s more inclusive definition of water stress. This definition is adopted by CDP – see the Explanation of Terms for this question and the Glossary. The tools and indicators recommended will be reviewed over time.
Organizations can complement the results of these tools with their own assessments or by using other methodologies. Some companies will use more granular level data and local knowledge of the basins in which they operate to assess which withdrawals are from stressed areas. For example, a company may consider its facility to be in a water-stressed sub basin or other smaller geographic level, though a global data set suggests that the particular catchment is not stressed.
Many national and regional water authorities will also have suitable maps, databases and environmental assessments available. (These may be included in the FAO/AquaStat database, or in reports of progress against SDG 6.4.2.)
Note that this question asks about the location of withdrawal sources rather than your facilities. In most cases, these will not be different at a catchment level. If you are supplying data based on the location of facilities, because you do not know the exact location of all your withdrawal sources, please indicate this is column 5.

Withdrawals are from areas with water stress (column 1)

If you select 'No', columns 2 and 3 will not be presented.
If you select 'Unknown', columns 2, 3, and 4 will not be presented.

% withdrawn from areas with water stress (column 2)

Your disclosure should include all withdrawals within stressed areas and all sources listed in W1.2h, including third party suppliers. The proportion is calculated as:

‘Total volume of company-wide withdrawals’ is the sum of all water drawn into the company boundary from all the relevant sources as disclosed in W1.2b.
Note that this question asks about the proportion of water withdrawn from all sources within stressed areas. This includes each of the sources listed in question W1.2h.
You may provide an estimate and explain why in column 5.

Comparison with previous reporting year (column 3)

CDP does not define the threshold for considering a value as ‘much higher’ rather than simply ‘higher’ (or ‘much lower’/’lower’). CDP requests this information from many different industries with huge variations in water use, and it would therefore be difficult to provide a universal threshold that is meaningful (as proportions will equate to different absolute values and impacts). CDP recommends that you define your own threshold for what is ‘much higher’ (and ‘much lower’) and apply it consistently so that each year the reported data for this question is comparable and data users can track your water accounts more effectively. A company-specific explanation for these thresholds should be provided in column 5 ('Please explain').

Identification tool (column 4)

Select the tool your organization uses to identify whether its withdrawals are located in geographic areas of water stress.
If you have used a different tool, methodology or data set, please select ‘Other, please specify’ and provide a label for the tool/approach in the text field provided and give details in column 5.

Please explain (column 5)

Use this field also to give more details about:

- The proportion you reported in column 2; and
- Any exclusions in your reporting.

If your responses to column 2 or column 3 are partially or wholly estimated, please explain your approach to estimation.
If you have selected a recommended tool in column 4, give a reason for your selection and the data sets you use within the tool.
If you have not used one of the tools recommended, please describe:

- The tool and your rationale for using it;
- How “areas with water stress” are defined and identified, including the threshold applied; and
- If possible, the methodology used such as the data sets that your assessment is based on (see Additional information).

This question asks about the location of withdrawal sources rather than your facilities. Please indicate if you are only able to supply data based on the location of facilities and give your reason.
If desired, you may give an explanation of your company’s management response to the exposure to business risks associated with the percentage disclosed in column 2, and your experience of working in water stressed areas. This is optional but may provide data users with context to better interpret the significance of the figures reported.

Explanation of terms

Water stress: The ability, or lack thereof, to meet human and ecological demand for fresh water. Compared to scarcity, “water stress” is a more inclusive and broader concept. It considers several physical aspects related to water resources, including water availability, water quality, and the accessibility of water. It can also be based on subjective elements so that it is assessed differently depending on societal values, such as the suitability of water for drinking, the requirements to be afforded to ecosystems, and whether people can make use of the physically available water supplies. This is often a function of the infrastructure and the affordability of water, among other things. Consider for instance, a region may have abundant water resources (and thus not be considered water scarce), but it may have such severe pollution that those supplies are unfit for human or ecological uses. Consider also that a sector able to use any quality of water may enjoy more availability than another sector in the same catchment that depends on high quality water (based on the CEO Water Mandate’s definition of water stress, Corporate Water Disclosure Guidelines, 2014).
Area with water stress: There is no universally accepted methodology for classifying an area as water stressed, nor for identifying whether facilities are located in a water stressed area. As good practice, a water stressed area should be at the catchment level as a minimum. CDP’s reporting guidance for W1.2d suggests some publicly available and credible tools for identifying water stressed areas based simply on physical scarcity.
Water scarcity: Refers to the volumetric lack of freshwater resources. It is a human-driven concept; it is a function of the volume of human water consumption relative to the volume of water resources in a given area. As such, an arid region with very little water, but no human water consumption would not be considered “scarce,” but rather “arid.”
Water scarcity (unlike water stress) is a physical, objective reality that can be measured consistently across regions and over time. Water scarcity reflects the physical abundance of fresh water rather than whether that water is actually suitable for use. For instance, a region may have abundant water resources but have such severe pollution that those supplies are unfit for human or ecological uses. This region would not be considered water scarce, but would be considered water stressed (based on the CEO Water Mandate’s Corporate Water Disclosure Guidelines, 2014).
Baseline water stress: The ratio of total annual water withdrawals to total available annual renewable supply.

- This measure is used in the World Resource's Institute Aqueduct tool and the WWF Water Risk Filter tool.
- 'High' baseline water stress is when withdrawals are in the range of 40-80% of total annual available blue water. Extremely high baseline water stress is when withdrawals are >80% of availability of blue water.

Water depletion: The ratio of total water consumption to available renewable water supplies.

- In the WWF Water Risk Filter (indicator 1.1) water depletion risk indicator is classified into five risk levels where a 75% threshold is exceeded on a dry-year basis (Medium risk), seasonal basis (High risk), or annual average basis (Very High risk).
- In the WRI Aqueduct Tool, "Baseline water depletion" is a single scale not encompassing temporal fluctuations.

Blue water scarcity: The ratio of the blue water footprint to the total blue water availability, considering intra-annual variability. In the WWF Water Risk Filter (indicator 1.3) blue water scarcity risk indicator is classified into 5 risk levels, including where available blue water has been fully consumed (Medium risk), or environmental flow requirements are not met (High to Very High risk).
Available water remaining (AWARE): Available water remaining in a given basin relative to the world average, after human and aquatic ecosystem demands have been met. In the WWF Water Risk Filter (indicator 1.4) AWARE risk indicator is classified into five risk levels, including where water remaining is within the 3rd quintile (Medium risk), 4th quintile (High risk), or 5th quintile (Very High risk).

Additional information

More about water stress

There is no universally accepted methodology, criteria, or thresholds for classifying an area as water stressed. CDP’s preferred approach to defining water stress is that of the CEO water mandate which goes beyond physical abundance to include whether the water is actually suitable and/or accessible for use (see CEO Water Mandate’s definition of water stress, Corporate Water Disclosure Guidelines, 2014). However, the commonly used tools for assessing geographic areas are limited to physical criteria and datasets.

The two tools listed in the response table for W1.2d allow companies to determine the stress status of the basins where their operations are located in terms of quantity only i.e. water scarcity. The tools are underpinned by some common and some different risk indicators and datasets (see table below). Other tools may use other data sets. Companies must determine which approach is most meaningful for their activities and the water contexts they operate in.

WRI Aqueduct Water Risk Atlas Tool

Risk indicator	Description
Baseline water stress = withdrawals as a percentage of available flow Baseline water depletion = consumption as a percentage of available flow	A customizable global atlas used to evaluate how water risk (and water stress) may affect operations (at watershed level). The global map can be tailored specifically for nine water-intense industry sectors including Oil & Gas, Agriculture and Chemicals. Note that the categories of ‘Overall water risk’ are based on a weighted selection of various physical, regulatory and reputational indicators. One of the ‘Physical risk quantity’ indicators is a water stress indicator (‘Baseline water stress’) and and another is a water depletion indicator ('Baseline water depletion'). The Aqueduct interface allows users to easily change the settings so that just these particular indicators are shown. The Baseline water stress and Baseline water depletion indicators are based on a global dataset developed by the World Resources Institute and are also available as risk indicators in the WWF Water Risk Filter. For CDP disclosure, companies using Aqueduct should consider areas as ‘water stressed’ where baseline water stress equals or exceeds 40%, or baseline water depletion equals or exceeds 50%.

Risk indicator

Description

Baseline water stress = withdrawals as a percentage of available flow

Baseline water depletion = consumption as a percentage of available flow

A customizable global atlas used to evaluate how water risk (and water stress) may affect operations (at watershed level). The global map can be tailored specifically for nine water-intense industry sectors including Oil & Gas, Agriculture and Chemicals.

Note that the categories of ‘Overall water risk’ are based on a weighted selection of various physical, regulatory and reputational indicators. One of the ‘Physical risk quantity’ indicators is a water stress indicator (‘Baseline water stress’) and and another is a water depletion indicator ('Baseline water depletion'). The Aqueduct interface allows users to easily change the settings so that just these particular indicators are shown. The Baseline water stress and Baseline water depletion indicators are based on a global dataset developed by the World Resources Institute and are also available as risk indicators in the WWF Water Risk Filter.

For CDP disclosure, companies using Aqueduct should consider areas as ‘water stressed’ where baseline water stress equals or exceeds 40%, or baseline water depletion equals or exceeds 50%.

WWF Water Risk Filter (See the tutorial How to use the WWF Water Risk Filter)

Risk indicator	Description
Depletion = the ratio of consumptive use to renewable available water Baseline water stress = withdrawals as a percentage of available flow Blue water scarcity = the ratio of the blue water footprint to the total blue water availability, considering intra-annual variability Available water remaining (AWARE) = available water remaining, after human and aquatic ecosystem demands have been met	The WWF Water Risk Filter is an online tool enabling companies to assess, value, and respond to water risks in their operations and supply chain. More specifically, companies can map and evaluate their (basin) water risk, including water scarcity risk (water stress in terms of quantity only). One risk category of physical risk is ‘Water Scarcity’. For CDP disclosure in question W1.2d, companies using the WWF Water Risk Filter should consider areas as ‘water stressed’ where the risk score is equal to/greater than 3 (the risk scores range from 1 to 5). The score is calculated based on a multi-model approach which integrates the best available global water scarcity risk indicators: Water depletion, Baseline water stress, Blue water scarcity, and Available water remaining (AWARE). The Water depletion indicator is based on the global dataset developed by Brauman et al. (2016) and is available as the risk indicator 1.0 in the WWF Water Risk Filter. Higher values indicate larger impact on the local water supply and decreased water availability for downstream users. The Baseline water stress indicator is based on a global dataset developed by the World Resources Institute. Higher values indicate larger impact on the local water supply and decreased water availability for downstream users. The Blue water scarcity is based on the global dataset developed by Mekonnen and Hoekstra (2016) and is available as risk indicator 1.3 in the WWF Water Risk filter. Available water remaining (AWARE) is based on the global dataset developed by Boulay et al. (2018) and is available as risk indicator 1.4 in the WWF Water Risk Filter. In addition, the Water Scarcity Risk Category incorporates other aspects that relate to physical water quantity challenges which can exacerbate water scarcity risk: aridity and drought. As every global water scarcity dataset is based on models using different assumptions and limitations, WWF recommends using the WWF Water Risk Filter risk category Water Scarcity which integrates multiple, reliable, peer-reviewed global datasets for a robust assessment of water scarcity risk at a global scale.

Risk indicator

Description

Depletion = the ratio of consumptive use to renewable available water

Baseline water stress = withdrawals as a percentage of available flow

Blue water scarcity = the ratio of the blue water footprint to the total blue water availability, considering intra-annual variability

Available water remaining (AWARE) = available water remaining, after human and aquatic ecosystem demands have been met

The WWF Water Risk Filter is an online tool enabling companies to assess, value, and respond to water risks in their operations and supply chain. More specifically, companies can map and evaluate their (basin) water risk, including water scarcity risk (water stress in terms of quantity only).

One risk category of physical risk is ‘Water Scarcity’. For CDP disclosure in question W1.2d, companies using the WWF Water Risk Filter should consider areas as ‘water stressed’ where the risk score is equal to/greater than 3 (the risk scores range from 1 to 5).

The score is calculated based on a multi-model approach which integrates the best available global water scarcity risk indicators: Water depletion, Baseline water stress, Blue water scarcity, and Available water remaining (AWARE).

The Water depletion indicator is based on the global dataset developed by Brauman et al. (2016) and is available as the risk indicator 1.0 in the WWF Water Risk Filter. Higher values indicate larger impact on the local water supply and decreased water availability for downstream users.
The Baseline water stress indicator is based on a global dataset developed by the World Resources Institute. Higher values indicate larger impact on the local water supply and decreased water availability for downstream users.
The Blue water scarcity is based on the global dataset developed by Mekonnen and Hoekstra (2016) and is available as risk indicator 1.3 in the WWF Water Risk filter.
Available water remaining (AWARE) is based on the global dataset developed by Boulay et al. (2018) and is available as risk indicator 1.4 in the WWF Water Risk Filter.

In addition, the Water Scarcity Risk Category incorporates other aspects that relate to physical water quantity challenges which can exacerbate water scarcity risk: aridity and drought.

As every global water scarcity dataset is based on models using different assumptions and limitations, WWF recommends using the WWF Water Risk Filter risk category Water Scarcity which integrates multiple, reliable, peer-reviewed global datasets for a robust assessment of water scarcity risk at a global scale.

Note about the SDGs and water stress

The UN Water’s definition underpins reporting for SDG 6.4.2. This equates water stress only with volumetric availability: the ratio between total freshwater withdrawn by all major sectors and total renewable freshwater resources, after having taken into account environmental water requirements. Accordingly:

An area of low level water stress is one where the combined withdrawal by all sectors is marginal in relation to the resources, and has therefore little potential impact on the sustainability of the resources or on the potential competition between users (UNWater - Integrated Monitoring Guide for SDG 6, 2016).
An area of high level water stress indicates a situation where the combined withdrawal by all sectors represents a substantial share of the total renewable freshwater resources, with potentially larger impacts on the sustainability of the resources and potential situations of conflicts and competition between users (UNWater - Integrated Monitoring Guide for SDG 6, 2016).

Note about water risk/stress/scarcity

Note that water stress and scarcity are just two types of physical risk drivers for water users. Beyond these, there are a variety of other physical pressures related to water risk, such as flooding, drought and infrastructure decay, as well as legal and reputational risks. (Refer to the CEO Water Mandate’s Detailed Definitions for water scarcity, water stress and water risk).

(W-FB1.2e)  (W-FB1.2f)  (W-FB1.2g)

Questions W-FB1.2e to W-FB1.2g apply only to organizations with activities in the food, beverage and tobacco sector - they will not be displayed here unless you opted to view these sector-specific questions.

(W1.2h) Provide total water withdrawal data by source.

Question dependencies

This question only appears if you indicate in W1.2 that you monitor the following water aspect(s):
- Water withdrawals – volume by source

Change from last year

No change

Rationale

Distinguishing between source types and reporting volume of water withdrawn by source contributes to an understanding of the potential risks and impacts associated with an organization’s water use as this level of detail can be significant. For example, withdrawing water from an overdrawn aquifer will have different consequences for local water stress and a company’s water security than does withdrawing seawater. Clean freshwater is becoming increasingly scarce, and this can impact production processes that rely on large volumes of water.

In regions where water sources are highly restricted, the organization’s water consumption patterns can also influence relations with other stakeholders.

Connection to other frameworks

CEO Water Mandate

Current state: Performance

SDG

Goal 6: Clean water and sanitation

Response options

Please complete the following table:

Source	Relevance	Volume (megaliters/year)	Comparison with previous reporting year	Please explain
Fresh surface water, including rainwater, water from wetlands, rivers, and lakes	Select from: Relevant Relevant but volume unknown Not relevant	Numerical field [enter a number from 0-999,999,999,999 using a maximum of 2 decimal places]	Select from: Much lower Lower About the same Higher Much higher This is our first year of measurement	Text field [maximum 1,000 characters]
Brackish surface water/Seawater
Groundwater – renewable
Groundwater – non-renewable
Produced/Entrained water
Third party sources

Requested content

Note: Organizations responding to an electric utilities or metals & mining sector request should refer to additional sector-specific guidance on this question at the end of the "Requested content" section.

General

For the different sources, this question is requesting a figure for aggregated withdrawal volumes from across your organization. Information about your withdrawals by their source allows a better understanding of your company’s dependency on different sources, the trend in that dependency, and your risk exposure from different water sources. If you do not have aggregated company-wide volumetric data, you may provide an estimate and give an explanation in column 5 (Please explain).
Cooling water: Cooling water (freshwater or sea water) is often withdrawn in large quantities and discharged back to its original source with negligible losses or variation in quality. However, this should be included in your water accounts. For example, a utility company may use large volumes of surface water for cooling purposes, and the water quality may not need to be fresh. Companies should report this information by selecting ‘Non-fresh surface water/seawater’, to demonstrate to investors that they are not dependent on potentially scarce fresh surface water sources and therefore their risk exposure is likely to be less than if they were dependent on freshwater resources.
Rainwater: If a company is managing rainwater (for example, by harvesting for use or storage, or to prevent flooding) or is dependent on it for production of goods or the delivery of services, it should try to estimate and disclose it as a withdrawal from the hydrological system into the company boundary.

- Companies may choose to exclude collected rainwater and domestic sewage from their water withdrawal/discharge volumes only if this would result in less than 5% error in their water balance.
- Including rainwater helps companies better understand their water dependency and risks. For some companies, precipitation/rainwater volumes may constitute a principal input of water at site level. In these cases, excluding rainwater from water accounting – withdrawal and discharge - would not be a true reflection of site water balance. In addition, there may be reduced impacts from using rainwater in place of other local freshwater sources.

Oil & gas sector only: Groundwater - As part of groundwater withdrawal volumes (be it from renewable or non-renewable sources), organizations should include all withdrawals from aquifers (other than the formation being exploited). These withdrawals may be intended for any use in the organization, including injection to maintain well pressure or as part of the fracture fluids.

Source (column 1)

Fresh surface water: For the purposes of this disclosure you should include all surface water sources of a higher quality than brackish (i.e. a TDS lower than 10,000 mg/l).

Relevance (column 2)

Select:

- “Relevant” if your company uses, has used or plans to use the source, even if the withdrawal is zero for this reporting year.
- “Relevant but volume unknown” if your company uses, has used or plans to use the source, but the volume for this year is unknown and can not be estimated. Columns 3 and 4 will then be disabled and you should provide further explanation in column 5 (Please explain).
- “Not relevant” if your company does not withdraw from the source. Columns 3 and 4 will then be disabled. You may provide further explanation in column 5 (Please explain).

Volume (column 3)

Volumes should be reported in megaliters per year (1 megaliter = 1 million liters or 1000 m³). Your reporting year is the time period you stated in response to question W0.2.
If you do have volumetric data for the current reporting year you may provide an estimate and explain why this is the case in column 5.
Please remember that a zero should only be used for reporting zero volumes and not for an absence of data.
If reporting zero withdrawals, provide an explanation in column 5.
If reporting zero withdrawals, provide an explanation in column 5. Before deciding whether your withdrawals should be reported as “zero”, please refer to CDP’s definition of water withdrawals.

Comparison with previous reporting year (column 4)

CDP does not define the threshold for considering a value as ‘much higher’ rather than simply ‘higher’ (or ‘much lower’/’lower’). CDP requests this information from many different industries with huge variations in water use, and it would therefore be difficult to provide a universal threshold that is meaningful (as proportions will equate to different absolute values and impacts).
CDP recommends that you define your own threshold for what is ‘much higher’ (and ‘much lower’) and apply it consistently so that each year the reported data for this question is comparable and data users can track your water accounts more effectively. A company-specific explanation for these thresholds should be provided in column 5 for each source.

Please explain (column 5)

To assist CDP data users to understand a company’s water use, you should explain your selections for relevance, volumes and trend (columns 2, 3 and 4), and include company-specific information.
Report whether your volumes for each source are estimated, modelled, or sourced from direct measurements. If estimation or modelling has been used, report the estimation or modelling methods.
Please explain any zero volumes for relevant sources. For example, “we sometimes withdraw water from this source but the volume for the reporting year was zero”.
Describe the thresholds for what is 'much higher' and 'much lower' for the change in volume for each source compared to the previous year.
Indicate the anticipated future trends for these volumes, if known (note that future trends would be at least one year after the end of the reporting year provided in W0.2).
For 'Fresh surface water' (row 1), it is important that you state which of the sources apply (rainwater, water from wetlands, rivers and lakes). Also state whether those sources are monitored and if you know whether the withdrawal volume for each source is increasing or decreasing. If you are using and managing rainwater and the volume equates to more than 5% of your water balance, please explain if it is harvested, treated etc. and the benefits and impacts of using it.
For 'Third party' (row 6), if possible please specify whether the third party is a municipal supplier or another type of third party organization. This is particularly important if the third party is known to be located in a water stressed area.

Explanation of terms

Brackish surface water/seawater: Surface water in which the concentration of salts is high and far exceeds normally acceptable standards for municipal, domestic or irrigation use (at least higher than 10,000 mg/l TDS). Seawater has a typical concentration of salts above 35,000 mg/l TDS.
Fresh surface water, including rainwater, water from wetlands, rivers and lakes: Water that is naturally occurring water on the Earth's surface in ice sheets, ice caps, glaciers, icebergs, bogs, ponds, lakes, rivers and streams, and has a low concentration of dissolved solids.
For the purposes of reporting water accounting data to CDP, this surface water source includes water of a quality generally acceptable for, or requiring minimal treatment to be acceptable for, domestic, municipal or agricultural uses (at least <10,000 mg/l TDS, though a range of additional quality properties may also be considered). ‘High quality’ fresh water sources considered acceptable for potable use are typically characterized as having concentrations of dissolved solids less than 1,000 mg/l.
Groundwater (non-renewable): Water which is being held in, and can be recovered from, an underground formation. Non-renewable groundwater has a negligible rate of natural recharge on the human time-scale (more than 50 years), and is generally located at deeper depths than renewable groundwater. This is sometimes referred to as “fossil” water.
Groundwater (renewable): Water which is being held in, and can be recovered from, an underground formation. Renewable groundwater sources can be replenished within 50 years and are usually located at shallow depths.
Produced water: Water which enters the organization’s boundary as a result of the extraction, processing, or use of any raw material, so that it must be managed by the organization. When reporting to CDP, this water should not be counted as recycled water when put to use within a single cycle of a business process. Examples of produced water include moisture derived from vegetation such as in sugar cane crushing and the water content in crude oil (note that companies with oil and gas activities should refer to CDP’s sector specific guidance for this water aspect).
Produced water (Oil & gas sector only): Water that is brought to the surface during the production of hydrocarbons including formation water, flow-back water and condensation water (adapted from IPIECA's “Oil and gas industry guidance on voluntary sustainability reporting", 3rd edition, 2016).
Third party sources: This includes water provided by municipal water suppliers, public or private utilities, and wastewater from any other organization.
Water withdrawal: The sum of all water drawn into the boundaries of the organization from all sources for any use over the course of the reporting period.

(W1.2i) Provide total water discharge data by destination.

Question dependencies

This question only appears if you indicate in W1.2 that you monitor the following water aspect(s):
- Water discharges - volumes by destination

Change from last year

No change

Rationale

Reporting volume of water discharged to specific destinations contributes to an understanding of the specific risks and impacts associated with an organization’s water discharges.

Connection to other frameworks

CEO Water Mandate

Current state: Performance

SDG

Goal 6: Clean water and sanitation

Response options

Please complete the following table:

Destination	Relevance	Volume (megaliters/year)	Comparison with previous reporting year	Please explain
Fresh surface water	Select from: Not relevant Relevant Relevant but volume unknown	Numerical field [enter a range of 0-999,999,999,999 using a maximum of 2 decimal places]	Select from: Much lower Lower About the same Higher Much higher This is our first year of measurement	Text field [maximum 1,000 characters]
Brackish surface water/seawater
Groundwater
Third-party destinations

Requested content

Note: Organizations responding to an electric utilities or metals & mining sector request should refer to additional sector-specific guidance on this question at the end of the "Requested content" section.

General

This question is requesting an aggregated figure for your discharge volumes across your organization. If you do not have aggregated company-wide volumetric data, you should provide and estimate and give an explanation in column 5 (Please explain).
Zero discharge permit: If your company has a zero discharge permit, please consider any discharges that may exist outside this permit and may still be relevant to CDP’s definition of discharges.
Rainwater: Rainwater/run-off that enters the site/facility boundary and is captured could also be counted as an output or discharge (even if not used in operations) if returned to the water environment via a dedicated discharge destination; e.g. river or groundwater via soakaway/filtration pond. You may choose to exclude collected rainwater from your discharge accounting, unless this would result in an error in your balance of more than 5%.

- Please note that in the mining industry precipitation/rainwater volumes may constitute a principal input of water at site level and excluding rainwater would not be a true reflection of their site water balance. Companies in this sector (and others to which this is relevant) should report rainwater/runoff drawn into the boundaries of their operations and then discharged and explain this in column 5.

Cooling water: Cooling water (freshwater or sea water) is often withdrawn in large quantities and discharged back to its original source with negligible losses or variation in quality. However, this should be included in your water accounts.
Domestic sources: Domestic sewage is not regarded as water discharge. However, if wastewater comes from domestic sources but is pre-dominantly generated from sector business activities e.g. healthcare residential properties, this should be reported if it would result in an error in your balance of more than 5%.
Aquifer reinjection: reinjection to aquifers should be considered as a discharge to groundwater.
Soakaway: Water returning to a groundwater source via a soakaway should be considered as a discharge.
Groundwater (oil & gas sector only): In oil production, as part of secondary and tertiary recovery operations, water-based fluids (from various sources) may be used to maintain the pressure, and to displace the hydrocarbons and move them towards the production wells. For CDP disclosure, organizations must report these volumes as discharges to groundwater bodies, to enable comparability and have an accurate water balance.

Relevance (column 2)

Select:

- “Relevant” if your company uses, has used or plans to use the source, even if the discharge is zero for this reporting year.
- “Relevant but volume unknown” if your company uses, has used or plans to use the source, but the volume for this year is unknown. Columns 3 and 4 will then be disabled. You should provide further explanation in column 5 (Please explain).
- “Not relevant” if your company does not discharge to the destination. Columns 3 and 4 will then be disabled. You should provide further explanation in column 5 (Please explain).

Volume (column 3)

Volumes should be reported in megaliters per year (1 megaliter = 1 million liters or 1000 m³). Your reporting year is the time period you stated in response to question W0.2.
If you do have volumetric data for the current reporting year you may provide an estimate and explain why this is the case in column 5.
Please remember that a zero should only be used for reporting zero volumes and not for an absence of data.
If reporting zero discharges, provide an explanation in column 5.
Before deciding whether your discharges should be reported as “zero”, please refer to CDP’s definition of water discharges. This may be the case, for example, if a closed water circuit, or zero liquid effluent discharge complex, is in operation and a facility does not discharge water as all water is reused by the operation(s) during processing/production.

Comparison with previous reporting year (column 4)

CDP does not define the threshold for considering a value as ‘much higher’ rather than simply ‘higher’ (or ‘much lower’/’lower’). CDP requests this information from many different industries with huge variations in water use, and it would therefore be difficult to provide a universal threshold that is meaningful (as proportions will equate to different absolute values and impacts).
CDP recommends that you define your own threshold for what is ‘much higher’ (and ‘much lower’) and apply it consistently so that each year the reported data for this question is comparable and data users can track your water accounts more effectively. A company-specific explanation for these thresholds should be provided in column 5 for each destination.

Please explain (column 5)

To assist CDP data users to understand a company’s water use, you should explain your selections for relevance, volumes and trend (columns 2, 3 and 4), and include company-specific information.
Report whether your volumes for each destination are estimated, modelled, or sourced from direct measurements. If estimation or modelling has been used, report the estimation or modelling methods.
To give data users confidence in your response, please explain any zero volumes for relevant destination’s; e.g. if a completely closed loop cooling system has been introduced. Please remember to report any discharged water that exceeds site storage capacity, e.g. excessive rainfall, as a separate discharge.
Describe the thresholds for what is 'much higher' and 'much lower' for the change in volume for each destination compared to the previous year.
Indicate the anticipated future trends for these volumes, if known (note that future trends would be at least one year after the end of the reporting year provided in W0.2).
For discharges to a Third-party, it is important to state if this includes water to other organizations for further use.

Explanation of terms

Brackish surface water/seawater: Surface water in which the concentration of salts is high and far exceeds normally acceptable standards for municipal, domestic or irrigation use (at least higher than 10,000 mg/l TDS). Seawater has a typical concentration of salts above 35,000 mg/l TDS.
Fresh surface water, including wetlands, rivers and lakes: Water that is naturally occurring water on the Earth's surface and has a low concentration of dissolved solids.
Groundwater: Water which is being held in, and can be recovered from, an underground formation. Discharge to groundwater, by human activity or natural activity, refers to a destination beneath the soil surface, such as a water bearing layer of rock (aquifer). Examples of discharges to groundwater include disposal of sewage, trade effluent and surface water run-off from urban areas, through such methods as spreading basins, soakaways, swales or injection wells.
Third-party destinations: This includes municipal wastewater plants, public or private utilities, and other organizations involved in the transport, treatment, disposal or further use of wastewater.

- Note that to qualify as a third-party destination, “other organizations” using your wastewater must be outside your reporting boundary given in question W0.5.
- Any of your wastewater that has been treated on your own site should be reported as discharge according to its ultimate destination (for example, to groundwater), as this is where any potential risks for the company lie.

Water discharge: The sum of effluents and other water leaving the boundaries of the organization and released to surface water, groundwater, or third parties over the course of the reporting period (adapted from GRI Standard 306-1, 2016). This includes all water leaving the company boundary, whether it is:

- considered used or unused;
- released through a defined discharge point (point source discharge);
- released over land in a dispersed or undefined manner (non-point source discharge);
- wastewater removed from the organization via truck.

Companies may choose to exclude collected rainwater and domestic sewage from their water discharge volume unless this would result in an error in their water balance of more than 5%.

Water discharge can be authorized (in accordance with discharge consent) or unauthorized (if discharge consent is exceeded).

(W1.2j) Within your direct operations, indicate the highest level(s) to which you treat your discharge.

Question dependencies

This question only appears if you indicate in W1.2 that you monitor the following water aspect(s):
- Water discharges - volumes by treatment method

Change from last year

Additional guidance

Rationale

Reporting on levels of treatment demonstrates that the organization is monitoring its discharges and is able to understand the extent to which its activities impact water quality.

Pollution is a driver of business risk and a potential threat to public health, food security, and economic resilience – as well as a cause of degradation of freshwater biodiversity. Treatment of discharge is therefore critical and transparency on this will aide investors, customers, and other data users to assess the risks and opportunities.

Connection to other frameworks

CEO Water Mandate

Current state: Performance

GRI

Standard 303-4: Water discharge (clause 2.4.2)

SDG

Goal 6: Clean water and sanitation

Response options

Please complete the following table:

Highest level of treatment within direct operations	Relevance of treatment level to discharge	Volume (megaliters/year)	Comparison of treated volume with previous reporting year	% of your sites/facilities/operations this volume applies to	Please explain
Tertiary treatment	Select from: Relevant Relevant but volume unknown Not relevant	Numerical field [enter a number from 0-999,999,999,999 using a maximum of 2 decimal places]	Select from: Much lower Lower About the same Higher Much higher This is our first year of measurement	Select from: Not monitored Less than 1% 1-10 11-20 21-30 31-40 41-50 51-60 61-70 71-80 81-90 91-99 100% Unknown	Text field [maximum 2,000 characters]
Secondary treatment
Primary treatment only
Discharge to the natural environment without treatment
Discharge to a third party without treatment
Other

Requested content

General

This question requests a figure for your discharge volumes by treatment level aggregated across your direct operations. If you do not have company-wide volumetric data, you may provide an estimate and state this in column 5 (Please explain). You should account for 100% of the total discharge volume disclosed in W1.2b.
Highest level of treatment: This refers to the level of treatment applied by your organization to water at the point of discharge. If water has been treated to multiple levels, report the volume in the row for the highest level of treatment only. For example, if the total discharge reported in W1.2b is 10,000 megaliters, and 9,000 megaliters of this are treated to primary, secondary, and tertiary levels, but the remaining 1,000 megaliters are only treated to primary level, then:

- 9,000 megaliters should be reported in the “Tertiary” row,
- 0 megaliters should be reported in the "Secondary treatment" row, and,
- 1,000 megaliters should be reported in the “Primary treatment only” row.

Discharge to the natural environment without treatment: This row is for the volume of water you discharge from your company boundary without treatment and to a destination other than a third party.
Discharge to a third party without treatment: This row is for the volume of water you discharge from your company boundary to a third party which may then treat it.
Other treatment: If you treat water using specific treatment techniques, disclose this volume in this row and provide details in column 6 (Please explain) i.e. a description of each technique used and the volumes treated, for example, nature-based solutions such as a constructed wetland, managed by the organization and designed to treat discharge.

Relevance of treatment level to discharge (column 2)

Select:

- “Relevant” if this level of treatment is relevant to your business activities and the nature of your discharge, even if the volume is known to be zero for this reporting year, and even if the treatment level has never been applied by your business.
- “Relevant but volume unknown” if your company uses, has used, or plans to treat discharge to this level, but the volume for this year is unknown and cannot be estimated. Columns 3, 4 and 5 will not be presented and you should provide further explanation in column 6 (Please explain).
- “Not relevant” ONLY if this level of treatment is not relevant to your business activities and the nature of your discharge. Columns 3, 4 and 5 will not be presented. Your selection here should not be impacted by your use, or relevance, of other levels of treatment. You should provide further explanation in column 6 for your selection in column 2.

Volume (megaliters/year) (column 3)

Volumes should be reported in megaliters per year (1 megaliter = 1 million liters or 1000 m³). Your reporting year is the time period you stated in response to question W0.2.
If you do not have volumetric data for the current reporting year you may provide an estimate and explain why this is the case in column 6 (Please explain).
Please remember that a zero should only be used for reporting zero volumes and not for absence of data.
If reporting zero discharges for a level of treatment, provide an explanation in column 6. Before deciding whether your discharges should be reported as “zero”, please refer to CDP’s definition of water discharges.

Comparison of treated volume with previous year (column 4)

CDP does not define the threshold for considering a value as ‘much higher’ rather than simply ‘higher’ (or ‘much lower’/’lower’). CDP requests information from many different industries with huge variations in water use, and it would therefore be difficult to provide a universal threshold that is meaningful (as proportions will equate to different absolute values and impacts).
CDP recommends that you define your own threshold for what is ‘much higher’ (and ‘much lower’) and apply it consistently so that the reported data for this question is comparable and data users can track your water accounts more effectively each year. A company-specific explanation for these thresholds should be provided in column 6 (Please explain).

% of your sites/facilities/operations this volume applies to (column 5)

Select the proportion of your organization’s facilities for which the volume reported in column 3 (Volume) accounts for, or indicate if this is unknown. For example, a company that has 100 facilities across its total operations and treats the volume of water provided in column 3 at 45% of its facilities (45 facilities) would select “41-50” in column 5 for that row.

Please explain (column 6)

Provide a rationale for the level of treatment applied to your discharge. Refer briefly to specific business activities and associated hazardous waste types, and any regulatory or voluntary standards that apply.
Provide a brief explanation of any change in the volume from the previous year and the magnitude of the change.
Indicate the anticipated future trends for these volumes, if known (note that the future trends would be at least one year after the end of the reporting year provided in W0.2).
If you indicated that a level of treatment is "Not relevant" or "Relevant but volume unknown" provide the reason here.
If you indicated that volumes are discharged to third party destinations, state the highest level of treatment the third party applies, or state unknown if that is the case.

Explanation of terms

Primary treatment: Primary treatment involves the physical removal of suspended solids and floating material, typically by sedimentation. A preliminary treatment may often be applied involving the physical removal of large debris, large particles, oils, and grease, typically through screens and grit chambers.
Secondary treatment: Secondary treatment involves the degradation of organic matter and reduction of solids through biological treatment. The removal of nutrients (nitrogen and/or phosphorus) can also be achieved at this level of treatment using a combination of chemical and biological treatments. Secondary treatment follows primary treatment.
Tertiary treatment: Tertiary treatment involves the additional treatment needed to remove suspended, colloidal and dissolved constituents (nutrients, heavy metals, inorganic and other contaminants) remaining after secondary treatment through a number of processes including granular media filtration, biological nitrification-denitrification, biological phosphorus removal, chlorination, etc. Tertiary treatment follows secondary treatment.

Example Response

Highest level of treatment within direct operations	Relevance of treatment level to discharge	Volume (megalitres/year)	Comparison of treated volume with previous reporting year	% of your sites/facilities/operations this volume applies to
Tertiary treatment	Relevant	29500.0	About the same	100%
Secondary treatment	Relevant	11151.0	About the same	100%
Primary treatment only	Relevant	32175.0	About the same	11-20
Discharge to the natural environment without treatment	Not relevant	Question not applicable	Question not applicable	Question not applicable
Discharge to a third party without treatment	Relevant	25277.0	Lower	71-80
Other	Relevant	5286.0	About the same	Less than 1%

Please explain
Relevant: At all our plants, we treat discharge to remove nitrogen and phosphorus, along with other dissolved inorganic substances through coagulation, sedimentation, activated carbon adsorption and ion exchange methods. Tertiary treatment was applied to 100% of our total discharges this reporting year. All discharge volumes were subject to strict water quality controls before being released to receiving water bodies. Change in volume: 29,980 megaliters were treated to tertiary level in the previous year and 29,500 megaliters were treated to tertiary level this year. Therefore, the volume has decreased by 480 megaliters (equivalent to a decrease of 1.6%). This decrease is due to reduced quantities of domestic water use in some of our plants. Our definition for change: Much higher: >+10%, Higher: >+5%, About the same: <+/-5%, Lower: >-5%, Much lower: >-10%. Anticipated future trend: Discharge volumes treated to tertiary level are expected to remain the same in the upcoming years as no significant alterations are being planned for the production processes.
Relevant: All discharge volumes were treated to secondary level this year. Discharge containing organic compounds is generated at our facilities that clean and process natural rubber. We monitor water discharge quality (e.g., pH, BOD, COD, SS, harmful substances, etc.) based on applicable regulations by continuous real time monitoring or third-party sampling analysis at all of our facilities (mostly on a monthly basis). Our facilities have implemented water effluent standards that meet or tighten applicable government standards. Change in volume: There has been a 69 megaliter increase in this volume from the previous year (equivalent to an increase of 0.62%). The discharge volume treated to secondary level last reporting year was 11,082 megaliters, and for the current reporting year it was 11,151 megaliters. This was due to a slight increase in production, resulting in higher water withdrawals. Our definition for change: Much higher: >+10%, Higher: >+5%, About the same: <+/-5%, Lower: >-5%, Much lower: >-10%. Anticipated future trend: It is expected that the volume of discharge (and the volume treated to a secondary treatment level) will increase slightly in the next few years due to increases in production, relating to COVID-19 recovery.
Relevant: 15% of the company’s discharge is pre-treated to primary level before discharge to local treatment facilities under municipal discharge permits. Primary treatment of manufacturing and R&D discharge varies depending on the characteristics of the sub-operation's discharge, and may include pH adjustment, flocculation, sedimentation and filtration. Change in volume: This treatment accounted for 15% of total discharges this year, a decrease of 2% from last year given one of our plants idled and later sold. Our definition for change: About the same: <4%, Lower/Higher: <8%, Much lower/higher >8%. This threshold is also used for the future trend. Anticipated future trend: Given that our company has a target to reduce process water use / tonne by 30% between 2020 and 2030, it is expected that the discharge volumes requiring treatment will slightly decrease due to more efficient water use.
Not relevant: In all our plants, discharge is not released to the natural environment without treatment. Water volumes are discharged either after on-site treatment/purification or after treatment by a third party.
Relevant: In our sites, water is primarily used for cooling molds. In addition, water is used for drinking water and sanitation/hygiene services. These volumes are discharged to a third party without treatment. Change in volume: The discharge volume (25,277 megaliters) in the reporting year is slightly lower than the previous year (26,350 megaliters) due to the COVID-19 crisis which resulted in lower production. Our definition for change: Much higher: >+10%, Higher: >+5%, About the same: <+/-5%, Lower: >-5%, Much lower: >-10%. Anticipated future trend: The discharge volume is expected to increase due to post COVID-19 market expectations (growth). Treatment applied by third party: The third party (municipal sewage treatment plant) applies a conventional secondary treatment, and the treatment plant publicly states compliance with local water regulations.
Relevant: Some of our sites treat high-quality surface runoff volumes (predominantly stormwater) utilizing natural filtration zones such as wetlands, rather than processing through a wastewater treatment plant. Monitoring of these discharges for potential pollutants occurs. Change in volume: The discharge volume (5,286 megaliters) in the reporting year increased by about 3% from the previous year (5,120 megaliters) due to a slight increase in total precipitation over the reporting year. Our definition for change: About the same is within +/- <5%, Lower or Higher +/- 5% to 9%, and Much lower or Much higher +/- >10%. Anticipated future trend: This volume depends largely on precipitation and other weather patterns. The volume may be larger or smaller depending on the amount of precipitation received and the resulting stormwater runoff.

(W1.3) Provide a figure for your organization's total water withdrawal efficiency.

Change from last year

New question

Rationale

A water withdrawal efficiency metric enables companies to track the water-dependency of their revenue, as well as bench mark their water use. Awareness of water efficiency can drive cost savings, increased brand value, and product or service innovation.

This metric helps data users track a company’s transition towards a water secure future.

Connection to other frameworks

SDG

Goal 6: Clean water and sanitation

Response options

Please complete the following table:

Revenue	Total water withdrawal volume (megaliters)	Total water withdrawal efficiency	Anticipated forward trend
Numerical field [enter a number from 0-999,999,999,999,999 using a maximum of two decimal places]	Numerical field [enter a number from 0-999,999,999,999 using a maximum of two decimal places]	[Auto-calculated]	Text field [maximum of 500 characters]

Requested content

General

This metric is informed by SDG Indicator 6.4.1 – Water use efficiency.

Revenue (column 1)

This figure should be in the same currency that you selected for all financial information disclosed throughout your response in question W0.4.
Enter a numerical value for the revenue generated by your organization during the reporting period disclosed in W0.2.
This figure is "Revenue" as would be declared in your financial statement (sometimes referred to as "turnover" or "sales"). Under the International Financial Reporting Standard this would be the inflow of income arising in the course of an entity's ordinary activities, with deductions made (such as for sales returns, allowances, and discounts). This figure is commonly used by investors to assess the income-generating ability of a business.

Total water withdrawal volume (megaliters) (column 2)

This figure should be the same volume reported in W1.2b row 1 (Total withdrawals), column 2 (Volume). (1 megaliter = 1,000 m3 or 1 million liters)

Total water withdrawal efficiency (column 3)

This is an auto-calculated value of the ratio between column 1 (Revenue) and column 2 (Total water withdrawal volume).

Anticipated forward trend (column 4)

Indicate the anticipated future trend of this figure, if known (note that future trends should be at least one year after the end of the reporting year provided in W0.2).

Explanation of terms

Revenue: Income arising in the course of an entity's ordinary activities (less discounts, allowances and returns) - before deducting costs for the goods/services sold and operating expenses to arrive at profit (based on the International Financial Reporting Standard).
Water withdrawal: The sum of all water drawn into the boundaries of the organization from all sources for any use over the course of the reporting period.
Water withdrawal efficiency: A measure of economic value produced from water withdrawals. For CDP disclosure, this is calculated as revenue per total water withdrawal volume in the reporting period (informed by SDG indicator 6.4.1).

Additional information

'Revenue’ in this calculation for water withdrawal efficiency refers to income arising in the course of an entity's ordinary activities (less discounts, allowances and returns) - before deducting costs for the goods/services sold and operating expenses to arrive at profit. This marks a departure from SDG 6.4.1 and the United Nations Conference on Trade and Development’s guidance for corporate reporting against the SDG efficiency indicator, which asks for Net Value Added – or revenue after deducting costs. This difference is to align with the definition of revenue across CDP’s questionnaires, based on the International Financial Reporting Standard.

Value-chain engagement

(W1.4) Do you engage with your value chain on water-related issues?

Question dependencies

This question only appears if you select “Neutral”, “Important”, or “Vital” as your “Indirect use importance rating” in response to W1.1.

Your response to W1.4 prompts subsequent questions. If your response to W1.4 is amended, data already entered in those dependent questions may be erased. In this case, be sure to re-enter data for all relevant questions. The guidance for each question indicates if it is a dependent question.

Change from last year

No change

Rationale

Companies indicating in W1.1 that water is important in their indirect operations, either upstream and/or downstream, can explain how they are engaging with their value chain beyond their direct operations to manage risks, take collective action or facilitate the transition to a water secure future.

There are multiple drivers and benefits and engagement ranges from mandating supplier reporting of water use and risks to innovative partnerships for water stewardship with product users.

The questions in this section are based on CDP’s extensive experience through its supply chain program. Companies need to rationalize their engagement and its coverage, and so this section is not seeking evidence of engagement throughout your value chain. Companies are asked to explain their engagement strategy (e.g. by operational risk, location in stressed areas etc.), and whether, for example, its scope extends to tier 2 suppliers.

Note that this does not ask for the water accounting data of your value chain.

Connection to other frameworks

CEO Water Mandate

Response: Internal actions

Response options

Select all that apply from the following options:

Yes, our suppliers
Yes, our customers or other value chain partners
No, not currently but we intend to within the next two years
No, we do not engage with our value chain on water

Requested content

General

You should select all that apply for the reporting year.
If you select either of the "No" responses, do not select any other options.

Explanation of terms

Value chain: The entire sequence of activities or partners that provide value to or receive value from an organization’s products and services, either within, upstream or downstream of direct operations.
Value chain partner: A value chain partner includes any organization/individual a company that provides or receives value from the organisation’s products and services, up or downstream of its direct activities; for example, a customer, a franchisee or contractor the company engages with on water stewardship strategies.

(W1.4a) What proportion of suppliers do you request to report on their water use, risks and/or management information and what proportion of your procurement spend does this represent?

Question dependencies

This question only appears if you select “Yes, our suppliers” in response to W1.4.

Change from last year

No change

Rationale

Your supplier engagement activity, such as the percentage of suppliers that report their water management, risks and opportunities, is of interest to investors and other data users wishing to know whether you have a complete picture of the role of water in your value chain and how water security is being protected or progressed.

Connection to other frameworks

CEO Water Mandate

Response: Internal actions

SDG

Goal 12: Responsible consumption and production

Response options

Please complete the following table:

% of suppliers by number	% of total procurement spend	Rationale for this coverage	Impact of the engagement and measures of success	Comment
Select from: None and we do not plan to request this from suppliers None currently, but we plan to request this within the next two years Less than 1% 1-25 26-50 51-75 76-100 Unknown	Select from: Less than 1% 1-25 26-50 51-75 76-100 Unknown	Text field [maximum 2,500 characters]	Text field [maximum 2,500 characters]	Text field [maximum 500 characters]

% of suppliers by number

% of total procurement spend

Rationale for this coverage

Impact of the engagement and measures of success

Comment

Select from:

None and we do not plan to request this from suppliers
None currently, but we plan to request this within the next two years
Less than 1%
1-25
26-50
51-75
76-100
Unknown

Select from:

Less than 1%
1-25
26-50
51-75
76-100
Unknown

Text field [maximum 2,500 characters]

Text field [maximum 500 characters]

Requested content

General

The focus of this question is your approach to supplier reporting of their water use, risks, and management. For example, this might include information relevant to understanding impacts and risks such as water accounting data, water dependency, water pollution incidents, and risk response.

% of suppliers by number (column 1)

Select the proportion of suppliers requested by your organization to report water-related information. For example, if you have 100 suppliers and you request 20 of them to report you would select “1-25%” here.
If you engage with none of your suppliers in this way please provide an explanation in column 3 (Rationale).
If the figure is unknown, you may provide an estimate or select ‘Unknown’ and explain why in column 3 (Rationale). For example, this may be because of a lack of resources or instruction from management, or because of poor supplier tracking.

% of total procurement spend (column 2)

Select the proportion of your procurement spend represented by the suppliers you request to report on water related information.
For example, 20% of your suppliers by number may account for 80% of your total procurement spend.
Note that it is not assumed that this figure is an indication of the level of risk within your supply chain.
If the figure is unknown you may provide an estimate or select ‘Unknown’ and explain why in column 3 (Rationale).

Rationale for the coverage (column 3)

Use this space to provide details as to how your suppliers are selected for engagement e.g. how your coverage is determined or prioritized.
Also include any further details required to understand the rationale for the coverage reported in columns 1 and 2, and why you request your suppliers to report on their water use, risks, and management.
If you indicated in column 1 (% suppliers by number) that you do not request your suppliers to report on water-related issues, or if the figure in columns 1 and 2 is unknown or estimated, you should explain why, including a company-specific reason for any plans.

Impact of the engagement and measures of success (column 4)

Briefly describe the information that suppliers are requested to report to you and how the information is used.
Include the beneficial outcomes of requesting your suppliers to report on their water use, risks, and management. Beneficial outcomes can be either potential or already realized.
Additionally, describe here how success is measured, for example which metrics you use to assess the success of this engagement activity, and explain why these measures were selected.

Comment (column 5)

This is optional.

Example response

% of suppliers by number	% of total procurement spend	Rationale for this coverage	Impact of the engagement and measures of success	Comment
51-75	51-75	As an auto manufacturing organization with global operations in Mexico, India and the United States, a significant proportion of our supply chain are also located in these regions for ease of supply. Our organization requests over 4% of its suppliers (ca. 4,102 out of 99,081), representing ca. 65% of the total procurement spend, to report on water. This comprises all of our tier 1 and tier 2 suppliers that are located in regions currently or potentially affected by physical risks (i.e. water scarcity) or regulatory risks (i.e. local tariffs). This is because it is not feasible to assess all of our suppliers. Suppliers are incentivized to report through our supply contracts which request that they comply with the sustainability standards as defined in our Supplier Code of Conduct. Our organization provides substantial documentation, literature and other resources for all suppliers.	In order to maintain key supplier status within our procurement strategy, we require all tier 1 and tier 2 suppliers with a reliance on water operating in these water-stressed regions to report on both direct and indirect use of water, the water availability of the region, and water-related potential risks. In situations where the result of this reporting is deemed unacceptable or critical, suppliers are requested to rectify the identified problems within an allocated time period based on a specific action plan. Ultimately, we have found this collaboration has helped us to maintain our level of production across the value chain. We set ambitious targets and measure success in terms of target fulfillment, e.g. our target to evaluate all strategically important suppliers by the end of 2017. Success is additionally measured through re-assessments or follow-up audits.

(W1.4b) Provide details of any other water-related supplier engagement activity.

Question dependencies

This question only appears if you select “Yes, our suppliers” in response to W1.4.

Change from last year

No change

Rationale

Details of your engagement activity, such as the percentage of suppliers and the percentage of procurement spend it covers, is of interest to investors and other data users wishing to know whether you have a complete picture of the role of water in your value chain and how water security is being protected or progressed. The nature of your engagement activities provides insight into your approach to water stewardship and collective action to address water challenges for your company, and to support public policy objectives, be they local or otherwise, such as the SDGs.

This question gives companies the opportunity to explain their approach and informs the data that is reported in W4 regarding both exposure to risks throughout the value chain and the company’s response.

Connection to other frameworks

CEO Water Mandate

Response: Internal actions

Response options

Please complete the following table. You are able to add rows to this table using the "Add Row" button.

Type of engagement	Details of engagement	% of suppliers by number	% of total procurement spend	Rationale for the coverage of your engagement	Impact of the engagement and measures of success	Comment
Select from: No other supplier engagements Onboarding & compliance Incentivizing for improved water management and stewardship Innovation & collaboration Other	Select all that apply: Response drop-down options below table	Select from: None Less than 1% 1-25 26-50 51-75 76-100 Unknown	Select from: None Less than 1% 1-25 26-50 51-75 76-100 Unknown	Text field [maximum 2,500 characters]	Text field [maximum 2,500 characters]	Text field [maximum 500 characters]

Type of engagement

Details of engagement

% of suppliers by number

% of total procurement spend

Rationale for the coverage of your engagement

Impact of the engagement and measures of success

Comment

Select from:

No other supplier engagements
Onboarding & compliance
Incentivizing for improved water management and stewardship
Innovation & collaboration
Other

Select all that apply:

Response drop-down options below table

Select from:

None
Less than 1%
1-25
26-50
51-75
76-100
Unknown

Select from:

None
Less than 1%
1-25
26-50
51-75
76-100
Unknown

Text field [maximum 2,500 characters]

Text field [maximum 500 characters]

[Add Row]

Details of engagement (column 2)

Onboarding & compliance

Inclusion of water stewardship and risk management in supplier selection mechanism
Requirement for water-related targets is included in your supplier selection mechanism
Requirement to adhere to our code of conduct regarding water stewardship and management
Requirement to set and meet minimum standards for treatment of discharge
Other, please specify

Incentivizing for improved water management and stewardship

Demonstrable progress against water-related targets is incentivized in your supplier relationship management
Water management and stewardship action is integrated into your supplier evaluation
Water management and stewardship is featured in supplier awards scheme
Offer financial incentives to suppliers reducing your operational water impacts through the products they supply to you
Offer financial incentives to suppliers improving water management and stewardship across their own operations and supply chain
Other, please specify

Innovation & collaboration

Encourage/incentivize innovation to reduce water impacts in products and services
Encourage/incentivize suppliers to work collaboratively with other users in their river basins
Provide training and support on sustainable agriculture practices to improve water stewardship (food, beverage & tobacco sector only)
Educate suppliers about water stewardship and collaboration
Other please specify

Other

Other, please specify

Requested content

General

In this question you have the opportunity to report your different supplier engagement activities (in addition to the supplier reporting activity reported in W1.4a) and to describe how it is driving water security.

Type of engagement (column 1)

If your organization uses more than one of the three types of supplier engagement listed, or wishes to report an additional engagement type (select ‘Other’), please add rows as needed.
If your organization has no supplier engagement activity (other than that indicated in W1.4a), please select “No other supplier engagement” and use column 5 (Rationale) to explain why this is the case. Note that all other columns in this question will be disabled.

Details of engagement (columns 2)

Your selection in column 1 will determine the options shown in column 2. If you select “Other, please specify”, please provide a label for the details of engagement.

% of suppliers by number (column 3)

Select the proportion of your suppliers that are covered by the engagement activity.
For example, if you have 100 suppliers and 20 of them are engaged in the activity specified in column 2 (Details of engagement) you would select “1-25%” here.
If the figure is unknown you may provide an estimate or select ‘Unknown’ and explain why in column 5 (Rationale). For example, this may be because of a lack of resources or instruction from management, or because of poor supplier tracking.

% of total procurement spend (column 4)

Select the proportion of your procurement spend represented by the engagement activity specified in column 2 (Details of engagement).
For example, 20% of your suppliers by number may account for 80% of your total procurement spend.
Note that it is not assumed that this figure indicates the level of risk within your supply chain.
If the figure is unknown you may provide an estimate or select ‘Unknown’ and explain why in column 5 (Rationale).

Rationale for the coverage of your engagement (column 5)

Include any details that would help data users to understand why you use this type of engage activity with your suppliers, and give a rationale for the coverage you indicated in columns 3 and 4.
If you indicated in column 1 (% suppliers by number) that you do not use any supplier engagement, or if the figure in columns 3 and 4 is unknown or estimated, you should explain why, including a company-specific reason and any plans.

Impact of the engagement and measures of success (column 6)

Detail the beneficial outcomes of the engagement activity. Beneficial outcomes can be either potential or already realized. For example, you may wish to describe how the engagement has progressed or protected water security for your company or for other users, or how it has helped your company or your suppliers to build resilience.
Additionally, describe here how success is measured, for example which metrics you use to assess the success of this engagement activity, and explain why these measures were selected.

Comment (column 7) (optional)

If you wish to explain any other aspect of your approach to engagement with suppliers, please use this column.

Explanation of terms

Onboarding: The process used to support and facilitate working with a new supplier.

(W1.4c) What is your organization’s rationale and strategy for prioritizing engagements with customers or other partners in its value chain?

Question dependencies

This question only appears if you select “Yes, our customers or other value chain partners” in response to W1.4.

Change from last year

No change

Rationale

This question will be particularly relevant to companies whose activities may be affected by water issues outside of their supply chain. Such companies will wish to engage with other partners in order to reduce risk and encourage stewardship and innovation, e.g. in their wider value chain.

Connection to other frameworks

CEO Water Mandate

Response: Internal actions

Response options

This is an open text question with a limit of 2,000 characters.

Requested content

General

This question is asking about how your organization engages with its value chain beyond its suppliers. This can include customers but also other partners in the value chain e.g. certain franchisees who meet the criteria outlined in your answer here.
If you are participating in collective action initiatives, for instance, details of this could be reported here.
Use this field to include examples of your methods of engagement, measures for success, and a description of impact.

(W1.4d) Why do you not engage with any stages of your value chain on water-related issues and what are your plans?

Question dependencies

This question only appears if you select "No, not currently but we intend to within two years" or “No, we do not engage with our value chain on water” in response to W1.4.

Change from last year

No change

Rationale

Engaging with value chain partners on water matters is essential for companies wishing to understand the current and future risks and opportunities associated with these relationships.

If your company is dependent on water, CDP data users wish to know why you are not engaging in any way and what your plans are to do so in the future.

Response options

Please complete the following table:

Primary reason	Please explain
Select from: We are planning to do so within the next two years Judged to be unimportant No instruction from management Important but not an immediate business priority Lack of internal resources Other, please specify	Text field [maximum 1,500 characters]

Primary reason

Please explain

Select from:

We are planning to do so within the next two years
Judged to be unimportant
No instruction from management
Important but not an immediate business priority
Lack of internal resources
Other, please specify

Text field [maximum 1,500 characters]

Requested content

Primary reason (column 1)

Select the primary reason why you do not engage with partners in any stages of your value chain on water-related issues, including ater use, risk, or management, or indicate your plans.
If you select “Other, please specify”, provide a label for your primary reason.

Please explain (column 2)

Use the text field to provide further details, specific to your organization, which explain why you do not engage with your value chain.
If you have plans to engage with your value chain in the future, you should detail them here. If you have no plans, please provide your reasoning.

W2 Business impacts

Module Overview

This module asks about water-related impacts on your organization and your response to them. These are impacts that have occurred in the reporting year, including those resulting from regulatory violations (Module 4 asks about potential impacts, i.e. risks).

Demonstrating that your organization understands how water related issues have impacted it in the past helps provide insight into the water risks you may be exposed to, the risk assessment process needed, and which stakeholders and contextual issues should be included. The financial related information that is requested may help companies with their climate-related disclosures in line with the TCFD recommendations.

Note: For CDP disclosure, the effects of water challenges on a business are referred to as ‘impacts’. The CEO Water Mandate’s Corporate Water Disclosure Guidelines and the GRI generally use the term ‘impacts’ to mean the effects of the business on ecosystems and communities.

Key changes

New response options (W2.1a columns 3 and 4): The physical impact type has been separated into 'Acute physical' and 'Chronic physical', and the primary impact drivers have been updated accordingly.
Click here for a list of all changes made this year.

Sector-specific content

Sector specific additions to drop downs in W2.1a: Metals & Mining, Food, Beverage & Tobacco, Chemicals.

Pathway diagram - questions

This diagram shows the questions contained in module W2. To access question-level guidance, use the menu on the left to navigate to the question.

Recent impacts on your business

(W2.1) Has your organization experienced any detrimental water-related impacts?

Change from last year

No change

Rationale

Past impacts are a useful indicator of inherent risks that your organization may be exposed to. Your response to this question lets CDP data users know whether your business was impacted by water-related issues during the reporting period. Follow up questions indicate how you responded and allow you to explain how you are building resilience.

Connection to other frameworks

CEO Water Mandate

Implications: External impacts

Response options

Select one of the following options:

Requested content

General

Select ‘Yes’ if you have experienced any detrimental impacts in your business operations, revenue or expenditure in the reporting year that were related to water.
For businesses, detrimental impacts may include direct financial impacts such as on production, revenue, or assets, but may also include any other impacts such as loss of a license, policy engagement, or brand image.

Explanation of terms

Inherent risk; The risk that exists in the absence of controls, i.e. not taking into account any potential mitigation or management measures that could be implemented.
Water-related impact: The effects on an organisation of a physical, regulatory, reputational or technological challenge, event or action related directly or indirectly to water. Note that the CEO Water Mandate’s Corporate Water Disclosure Guidelines, and the GRI standards, generally refer to “impacts” as the effects of the business on ecosystems and communities.

(W2.1a) Describe the water-related detrimental impacts experienced by your organization, your response, and the total financial impact.

Question dependencies

This question only appears if you select “Yes” in response to W2.1.

Change from last year

Minor change

Rationale

Past impacts are a useful indicator of inherent risks that your company may be exposed to. Your response strategy to past impacts informs CDP data users how you are attempting to prevent future impacts and build resilience. ‘Total financial impact’ is an important indicator of how your organization quantifies the importance of that water issue.

Connection to other frameworks

CEO Water Mandate

Implications: External impacts

Response options

Please complete the following table. The table is displayed over several rows for readability. You are able to add rows by using the “Add Row” button at the bottom of the table.

Country/Area	River basin	Type of impact driver	Primary impact driver	Primary impact
Select from: Country/area drop-down list	Select from: River basin drop-down list Not known Other, please specify	Select from: Acute physical Chronic physical Regulatory Reputation & markets Technology	Select from: Response drop-down options below table	Select from: Response drop-down options below table

Country/Area

River basin

Type of impact driver

Primary impact driver

Primary impact

Select from:

Country/area drop-down list

Select from:

River basin drop-down list
Not known
Other, please specify

Select from:

Acute physical
Chronic physical
Regulatory
Reputation & markets
Technology

Select from:

Response drop-down options below table

Select from:

Response drop-down options below table

Description of impact	Primary response	Total financial impact	Description of response
Text field [maximum 1,500 characters]	Select from: Response drop-down options below table	Numerical field [enter a number from 0-999,999,999,999,999 using a maximum of 2 decimal places]	Text field [maximum 1,500 characters]

Description of impact

Primary response

Total financial impact

Description of response

Text field [maximum 1,500 characters]

Select from:

Response drop-down options below table

Numerical field [enter a number from 0-999,999,999,999,999 using a maximum of 2 decimal places]

Text field [maximum 1,500 characters]

[Add Row]

Primary impact driver (column 4)

Acute physical

Cyclone, hurricane, typhoon
Drought
Flood (coastal, fluvial, pluvial, groundwater)
Glacial lake outburst
Heavy precipitation (rain, hail, snow/ice)
Storm (including blizzards, dust and sandstorm)
Tornado
Pollution incident
Rupture of tailings dams and toxic spills (metals & mining sector only)
Other, please specify

Chronic physical

Acid rock drainage and metal leaching (metals & mining sector only)
Change in land-use
Changing precipitation patterns and types (rain, hail, snow/ice)
Declining water quality
Dependency on water intensive energy sources
Ecosystem vulnerability
Inadequate infrastructure
Increased levels of plastic in fresh water bodies
Leaching of pollutants to groundwater bodies (metals & mining sector only)
Ocean acidification
Pollution of water bodies due to fertilizer, other chemical use, or animal residues (food, beverage & tobacco sector)
Poorly managed sanitation
Precipitation and/or hydrological variability
Rationing of municipal water supply
Saline intrusion
Sea level rise
Seasonal supply variability/inter annual variability
Soil degradation (food, beverage & tobacco sector only)
Supplier dependency on water intensive energy sources
Water scarcity
Water stress
Other, please specify

Regulatory

Changed product standards
Higher water prices
Increased difficulty in obtaining withdrawals/operations permit
Lack of transparency of water rights
Limited or no river basin/catchment management
Mandatory water efficiency, conservation, recycling or process standards
Poor coordination between regulatory bodies
Poor enforcement of water regulation
Increased difficulty in supplier obtaining withdrawals/operations permit
Litigation against supplier
Tighter regulatory standards
Regulation of discharge quality/volumes
Regulatory uncertainty
Statutory water withdrawal limits/changes to water allocation
Other, please specify

Reputation & markets

Changes in consumer behavior
Community opposition
Inadequate access to water, sanitation, and hygiene services
Increased stakeholder concern or negative stakeholder feedback
Water-related litigation
Negative media coverage
Other, please specify

Technology

Data access/availability
Substitution of existing products with lower water impact options
Transition to water efficient and low water intensity technologies and products
Transition to water intensive, low carbon energy sources
Unsuccessful investment in new technologies
Transition to bio-based chemicals (chemicals sector only)
Other, please specify

Primary impact (column 5)

Brand damage
Changing revenue mix and sources
Constraint to growth
Closure of operations
Diminished ability to reduce GHG emissions
Disruption to sales
Fines, penalties or enforcement orders
Impact on company assets
Disruption to workforce management and planning
Increased insurance premiums
Increased cost of capital
Increased compliance costs

Increased operating costs
Increased production costs
Litigation
Loss of license to operate
Reduction or disruption in production capacity
Reduced demand for products and services
Reduction in capital availability
Reduced revenues from lower sales/output
Upfront costs to adopt/deploy new practices and processes
Supply chain disruption
Mine closure (metals & mining sector only)
Other, please specify

Primary response (column 7)

Adopt water efficiency, water reuse, recycling and conservation practices
Adopt regenerative agriculture policies
Amend the Business Continuity Plan
Comply with local regulatory requirements
Develop drought emergency plans
Develop flood emergency plans
Develop new products and/or markets
Engage with customers
Engage with local communities
Engage with NGOs/special interest groups
Engage with regulators/policymakers
Engage with suppliers
Establish site-specific targets
Greater due diligence
Implement internal pricing on water
Implement nature-based solutions
Improve alignment of our public policy influencing activity with our water stewardship commitments
Improve maintenance of infrastructure
Improve monitoring
Improve pollution abatement and control measures
Increase capital expenditure
Increase geographic diversity of facilities
Increase insurance coverage
Increase investment in new technology
Increase supplier diversification
Introduce/strengthen water management incentives
Purchase water quality credits
Re-site facilities
Secure alternative water supply
Support river basin restoration
Tighten supplier performance standards
Use risk transfer instruments
Utilize aquifer storage to accrue recharge credits

Adopt alternative crop management strategies to reduce fertilizer and pesticide use (food, beverage & tobacco sector only)
Adopt alternative livestock management practices (food, beverage & tobacco sector only)
Adopt alternative livestock management practices to reduce use of veterinary products (food, beverage & tobacco sector only)
Adopt better animal waste management practices (food, beverage & tobacco sector only)
Adopt efficient fertilizer and pesticides management (food, beverage & tobacco sector only)
Adopt soil conservation practices (food, beverage & tobacco sector only)
Adopt sustainable irrigation practices (food, beverage & tobacco sector only)
Promote the adoption of alternative crop management strategies to reduce fertilizer and pesticide use among suppliers (food, beverage & tobacco sector only)
Promote the adoption of alternative livestock management practices among suppliers (food, beverage & tobacco sector only)
Promote the adoption of alternative livestock management practices to reduce use of veterinary products among suppliers (food, beverage & tobacco sector only)
Promote the adoption of better animal waste management practices among suppliers (food, beverage & tobacco sector only)
Promote the adoption of efficient fertilizer and pesticide management among suppliers (food, beverage & tobacco sector only)
Promote the adoption of soil conservation practices among suppliers (food, beverage & tobacco sector only)
Promote the adoption of sustainable irrigation practices among suppliers (food, beverage & tobacco sector only)
Promote the use of drought resistant crop varieties among suppliers (food, beverage & tobacco sector only)
Reduce food waste throughout the value chain (food, beverage & tobacco sector only)
Use drought resistant crop varieties (food, beverage & tobacco sector only)
Other, please specify

Requested content

General

This question requests information on the water-related detrimental impacts that your organization experienced in the reporting year, the driver of the impact, your response and the total financial impact.
Each row in this table should report a primary impact driver for a primary impact, and your organization’s primary response.
For a particular river basin, if you wish to report more than one impact driver or impact, use the “Add Row” function and enter this information. Please refrain from providing more than three impact drivers per river basin. Report the drivers causing the most substantive impacts.

Country/Area (column 1)

From the drop-down menu provided, please select the country/area associated with the impact driver for the impact you are reporting.
Note that a selection must be made for both column 1 and column 2. Your data will not be saved if either column is left blank.

River basin (column 2)

From the drop-down options provided, select the river basin associated with the impact driver. If you do not see the basin required, select “Other, please specify” and write in the correct river basin using the text box provided.
For companies withdrawing water from large confined aquifers that may not discharge to the river basin they are located in e.g. Ogallala aquifer in the United States, please select “Other, please specify” and type in the name of the local aquifer source. Ensure that the correct country/area name is selected in column 1 (Country/Area).
You may want to put the sub-basin of a bigger river basin identified in the drop-down menu. In this case use the “Other, please specify” option in the following format: “Putumayo, Amazon”.
If you select “Other, please specify”, provide a label for the river basin.
For full instructions see the Introduction to CDP's water security reporting guidance.
Note that a selection must be made for both column 1 and column 2. Your data will not be saved if either column is left blank.

Type of impact driver (column 3)

Consider whether the impact you wish to report was primarily related to, triggered by or caused by, a physical (acute or chronic), regulatory, reputational/market, or technology issue.
This will determine the list of impact drivers that appears in column 4.
Note that a selection must be made for both column 3 and column 4. Your data will not be saved if either column is left blank.

Primary impact driver (column 4)

CDP provides a list of impact drivers for responding companies to choose from. They are separated into five main groups: acute physical, chronic physical, regulatory, reputational/markets, and technology impact drivers.
The drop-down options presented depend on the type of impact driver you selected in column 3.
Note that the driver you select should relate the river basin selected in column 2.
In the case that there may be more than one driver, or a chain of causes, for an impact, you should select what you consider to be the primary driver.
If you do want to choose an additional driver for a river basin, you will need to add another row to report the details.
If you select “Other, please specify”, provide a label for the primary impact driver.
Note that a selection must be made for both column 3 and column 4. Your data will not be saved if either column is left blank.

Primary Impact (column 5)

Select the primary water-related impact your organization felt in the reporting year due to the driver in column 4.
Impacts can be operational or financial and can affect your organization, your consumers or other stakeholders.
If none of the available options are suitable to your organization, please select “Other, please specify” and a text box will be available for you to complete.
If you have identified multiple/secondary impacts, select the primary impact here and describe the secondary impacts in column 8.
If you select “Other, please specify”, provide a label for the primary impact.

Description of impact (column 6)

Explain the ways in which the impact was detrimental to your organization. For example, did it require additional spending to maintain normal output? Was output reduced?
Include details as to the length of time your business was impacted or if it persists (e.g. severe drought was experienced for five months of the reporting year. Some processes were unable to operate.)
If you are able to provide quantitative data relevant to the detrimental impact (e.g. proportion of sales lost) please do so.

Primary response (column 7)

From the drop-down list, select the primary response strategy that most closely describes how your organization has responded to the impact driver in column 4.
If your organization implemented/will implement more than one response strategy, you may provide details in column 8.
If an appropriate response strategy is not listed, please select “Other, please specify” and a text box will be provided so that you can write in your own response.

Total financial impact (column 8)

Enter a figure for total financial impact. This is the total cost to the business - so a sum of the financial implications of the impact itself plus the actual or anticipated cost of the response to deal with it.
This figure should be in the same currency that you selected for all financial information disclosed throughout your response in question W0.4.
If you do not know the financial impact, you may provide an estimate. Remember that a zero should not be used for an absence of data.

Description of response (column 9)

Provide additional details of your organization’s response strategy. You may include any secondary response strategies.
Include the timeframe expected for the response strategy to be implemented. Is the response underway, not yet implemented, or completed?
Describe what difference the response has made/is likely to make, including:

- How effective the response has been/is expected to be in preventing the inherent impact driver reoccurring.
- How effective the response has been/is expected to be improving your organization’s resilience, so preventing future financial or operational impacts.
- Whether water security for your company is likely to improve as a result, at either the asset or corporate level.
- Whether water security for other users is likely to improve as a result.
- Whether the response contributes to the progress of other UN Sustainable Development Goals.
- Whether the response strategy involves any collective action initiatives.

For companies indicating that they would be interested in having their public response data transferred to the Water Action Hub (see W11.2), we ask that you provide as much information about your response as possible, particularly local projects, including:

- Who else is involved in the joint project /initiative (such as names of organizations or government offices) or who you would like to work with (government agencies, other companies, NGOs, etc.)
- The geographic or other scale of the project.
- What the project seeks to accomplish including expected benefits for the watershed beyond the company.
-When the project started and if it has concluded or if it is continuing.
-If possible, the specific location of the project.

Note that these criteria are not scored but are crucial to building a project for the Water Action Hub and without this detail the project may not be suitable to transfer to this platform.
Provide details on the total financial impact your organization has suffered as a result of the impact and your response, including:

- Methods for calculating your answer to column 7 (including any assumptions the figure is dependent on).
- Whether this is a recurring or a fixed cost.
- What timescale this cost is likely to be.

If you do not know the financial impact and you left column 7 blank, write “Impact not quantified financially” and give an explanation.

Explanation of terms

Impact driver: The factor/ driving force causing the impact being reported. Impact drivers are typically physical (e.g. weather extreme events), regulatory, reputational and markets related, or technological.

(W2.2) In the reporting year, was your organization subject to any fines, enforcement orders, and/or other penalties for water-related regulatory violations?

Question dependencies

Your response to W2.2 will determine which subsequent questions are presented in this section. If your response to W2.2 is amended, data in those dependent questions may be erased. In this case, be sure to re-enter data for all relevant questions. The guidance for each question indicates if it is a dependent question.

Change from last year

No change

Rationale

Knowledge of compliance related fines and other non-financial penalties across your organization demonstrates an awareness by your organization of its impact on the local operating environment as well as the potential financial implications of its water management.

This information helps investors and other data users to gain some insight into the effectiveness of your control procedures at a corporate level.

Connection to other frameworks

CEO Water Mandate

Current state: Compliance

Response options

Select all that apply from the following options:

Yes, fines
Yes, enforcement orders or other penalties
Yes, fines, enforcement orders or other penalties but none that are considered as significant
No
Don’t know

Requested content

General

Note that this question asks about fines, penalties and/or enforcement orders that were issued to your company during the reporting year.
You should not include information about fines and penalties that were issued to your company in a previous year but became payable in this year.

Explanation of terms

Enforcement order: A non-financial restriction as punishment for a regulatory violation or other compliance offence. Examples of non-financial enforcement orders include removal of abstraction licenses or discharge consents.
Fine: A specific type of penalty that requires payment of money as punishment for a regulatory violation or other compliance offence.
Penalty: A punishment of any kind due to a regulatory violation or other compliance offence.

(W2.2a) Provide the total number and financial value of all water-related fines.

Question dependencies

This question only appears if you select “Yes, fines” or “Yes, fines, enforcement orders or other penalties but none that are considered as significant” in response to W2.2.

Change from last year

No change

Rationale

Providing aggregated information, for absolute numbers and the tracking of numbers of compliance-related fines, is evidence that your organization is monitoring its local operating environments and keeping track at corporate level.

Connection to other frameworks

CEO Water Mandate

Current state: Compliance

Response options

Please complete the following table:

Total number of fines	Total value of fines	% of total facilities/operations associated	Number of fines compared to previous reporting year	Comment
Numerical field [enter a number from 0-999,999,999,999]	Numerical field [enter a number from 0-999,999,999,999,999 using a maximum of 2 decimal places]	Percentage field [enter a percentage from 0-100 using a maximum of 2 decimal places]	Select from: Much lower Lower About the same Higher Much higher This is our first year of measurement	Text field [maximum 1,000 characters]

Total number of fines

Total value of fines

% of total facilities/operations associated

Number of fines compared to previous reporting year

Comment

Numerical field [enter a number from 0-999,999,999,999]

Numerical field [enter a number from 0-999,999,999,999,999 using a maximum of 2 decimal places]

Percentage field [enter a percentage from 0-100 using a maximum of 2 decimal places]

Select from:

Much lower
Lower
About the same
Higher
Much higher
This is our first year of measurement

Text field [maximum 1,000 characters]

Requested content

Total number of fines (column 1)

Note that this question asks about fines that were issued to your company during the reporting year.
You should not include information about fines that were issued to your company in a previous year but became payable in this year.

Total value of fines (column 2)

This figure should be in the same currency that you selected for all financial information disclosed throughout your response in question W0.4.

% of total facilities/operations associated (column 3)

Indicate the percentage of your sites that were associated with the compliance-related fines reported in column 1. For example, if 10 facilities are listed in column 1 and you have 100 facilities worldwide, then the response here would be 10 percent.

Number of fines compared to previous year (column 4)

Select the option most applicable to the change in the number of fines compared to the previous year. CDP does not define the categories in this menu as it is difficult to prescribe a threshold that is meaningful to all organizations. You may use column 5 to explain your selection and the threshold you applied.
CDP recognizes that a change in the total number of fines does not equate to the change in magnitude of the total financial penalty.

Comment (column 5) (optional)

You may use this column to provide details to help data users understand your response; such as an explanation for your reported trend or the relationship between the total number of fines and the total value of the fines, e.g., whether one fine accounts for a large part of the total financial penalty.

(W2.2b) Provide details for all significant fines, enforcement orders and/or other penalties for water-related regulatory violations in the reporting year, and your plans for resolving them.

Question Dependencies

This question only appears if you select “Yes, fines” or “Yes, enforcement orders or other penalties” in response to W2.2.

Change from last year

No change

Rationale

Providing these details of fines and other non-financial penalties, such as location and your plans for resolving them, demonstrates to CDP data users that your organization is keeping track at the corporate level and also that it has an awareness of impacts in their local operating environment.

Connection to other frameworks

CEO Water Mandate

Current state: Compliance

Response options

Please complete the following table. You are able to add rows by using the “Add Row” button at the bottom of the table.

Type of penalty	Financial impact	Country/Area	River basin	Type of incident	Description of penalty, incident, regulatory violation, significance and resolution
Select from: Fine Enforcement order Other penalty type, please specify	Numerical field [enter a number from 0-999,999,999,999,999 using a maximum of 2 decimal places]	Select from: Country/area drop-down list	Select from: River basin drop-down list Not known Other, please specify	Select from: Spillage, leakage, or discharge of potential water pollutant Failure to monitor effluent Effluent limit exceedances Abstraction without a permit or abstraction that exceeded permit Other non-compliance with permits, standards, or regulations Incorrect administration of permits, standards, or regulations Other, please specify	Text field [maximum 1,000 characters]

Type of penalty

Financial impact

Country/Area

River basin

Type of incident

Description of penalty, incident, regulatory violation, significance and resolution

Select from:

Fine
Enforcement order
Other penalty type, please specify

Numerical field [enter a number from 0-999,999,999,999,999 using a maximum of 2 decimal places]

Select from:

Country/area drop-down list

Select from:

River basin drop-down list
Not known
Other, please specify

Select from:

Spillage, leakage, or discharge of potential water pollutant
Failure to monitor effluent
Effluent limit exceedances
Abstraction without a permit or abstraction that exceeded permit
Other non-compliance with permits, standards, or regulations
Incorrect administration of permits, standards, or regulations
Other, please specify

Text field [maximum 1,000 characters]

[Add Row]

Requested content

General

CDP does not provide guidance as to what constitutes a “significant” regulatory violation, as this will vary by local context and the nature of the business. However, it will usually imply a major impact on the environment, community and/or business(es).
Organizations should develop a consistent use of the term throughout their response. If you need further guidance as to what constitutes “significant”, CDP recommends companies consider the general definition of “materiality” provided in the GRI Standards as a starting point. This definition puts the onus on companies to determine a materiality threshold based on internal, industry, and external stakeholder interests.
Note: this question asks about fines, enforcement orders and/or penalties that your company was issued with during the reporting year. You should not include information about fines and penalties that were issued to your company in a previous but became payable in this year.

Type of penalty (column 1)

If you select “Other, please specify”, provide a label for the type of penalty.

Financial value of penalty (column 2)

Your response should include all costs related to the regulatory violation, i.e. financial penalties imposed on your organization, costs related to an enforcement order or any other operational or capital expenditure resulting directly to the violation itself or actions to prevent its reoccurrence, such as having to install new technology to meet the requirements of an enforcement order or employing new staff to monitor for compliance etc.
This figure should be in the same currency that you selected for all financial information disclosed throughout your response in question W0.4.

Country/Area (column 3)

Note that this is asking for the location of the incident associated with the penalty selected in column 1.
If more than one country/area applies, please select a primary country/area and explain this in column 6.
Note that a selection must be made for both column 3 and column 4. Your data will not be saved if either column is left blank.

River basin (column 4)

Note that this is asking for the river basin associated with the incident that led to the penalty reported in column 1.
From the drop-down options provided, select the appropriate river basin. If you do not see the basin required, select “Other, please specify” and write in the correct river basin using the text box provided.
For companies withdrawing water from large confined aquifers that may not discharge to the river basin they are located in e.g. Ogallala aquifer in the United States, please select “Other, please specify” and type in the name of the local aquifer source. Ensure that the correct country/area name is selected in column 3 (Country/Area).
You may want to put the sub-basin of a bigger river basin identified in the drop-down menu. In this case use the “Other, please specify” option in the following format: “Putumayo, Amazon”.
If you select “Other, please specify”, provide a label for the river basin.
For full instructions see the Introduction to CDP's water security reporting guidance.
Note that a selection must be made for both column 3 and column 4. Your data will not be saved if either column is left blank.

Type of incident (column 5)

Select the type of incident that is most applicable to the penalty selected in column 1.
If you select “Other, please specify”, provide a label for the type of incident.

Description of penalty, incident, regulatory violation, significance, and resolution (column 6)

Penalty: Your response here could include any details that would help CDP data users understand the fine, enforcement order or other penalty selected in column 1.
Significance: You may include a description of how and why your organization is classifying the penalty in column 1 as significant for your organization.
Incident and regulatory violation: For each penalty you list in column 1, you may give details of the incident and regulatory violation that resulted in the penalty, e.g.:

- more details on the incident/violation selected in column 5; e.g. the nature of a breach in an abstraction license or a discharge consent, or the nature of other water and wastewater related regulation violation.
- whether the penalty was for a single incident or multiple incidents, and the frequency with which it/they occurred.
- the impact the incident and the penalty had on your business, other water users and/or the natural environment; whether there were any criminal sanctions.

Resolution: Please provide a brief description of how your organization has resolved or is planning to resolve the incident, including steps taken to ensure the regulatory violation is not repeated. This may include, for example, internal actions and/or external engagement such as: upgrading facilities, changing treatment methods, decreasing volume of discharge, increasing volumes of reused or recycled water, engaging with policymakers, or engaging with local communities. If your organization has a compliance assurance system in place, you may provide details.

W3 Procedures

Module Overview

This module requests information about the procedures that organizations have in place to manage issues salient to their sector and to understand inherent risk exposure. These management procedures are considered important for water security - independent of a company’s own perception or assessment of any associated net risk for their company. This is why we ask companies to answer these questions before disclosing whether they consider themselves exposed to substantive water-related risk and what those risks are.

Questions in sections W3.1 and W3.2 are targeted at specific sectors only and focus on water pollution issues.

As there is no globally recognized standard for water risk assessment, this module provides evidence as to the robustness, comprehensiveness and integrity of an organization’s risk assessment. Companies are asked to explain what processes and procedures have been implemented at the corporate level and other more local levels due to the importance of matching response strategies to the local context.

This data helps provides data users with confidence that the organization’s disclosure of water risks in module 4 is comprehensive.

Key changes

Modified question (W3.3a):
- The question structure has been modified to allow risk procedures for various stages of the supply chain to be reported together rather than separately.
- The response options for ‘Tools and methods used’ have been revised.
- W3.3b and W3.3c have been merged into W3.3a through the addition of two columns on issues and stakeholders considered in the risk assessment.
Removed questions: W3.3b and W3.3c (2021) on risk assessment procedures.
- As a result, some question numbers have changed: W3.3d and W3.3e (2021) to W3.3b and W3.3c (2022).
Modified guidance (W3.3b (2022)): A new point has been added to the guidance requesting companies to explain the relevance of stakeholders and issues considered in risk assessment procedures.
Additional guidance: A definition of 'Regulator' has been added in W3.3a.
Click here for a list of all changes made this year.

Sector-specific content

Additional section for Chemicals, Electric Utilities, Food, Beverage & Tobacco, and Oil & Gas: W3.1.
Additional section for Metals & Mining: W3.2.
Additional drop-down options in W3.3a for Oil & Gas and Electric Utilities.

Pathway diagram - questions

This diagram shows the questions contained in module W3. To access question-level guidance, use the menu on the left to navigate to the question.

Pollutant management procedures

The questions in this section only apply to organizations with activities in certain sectors. Questions will not appear unless you have opted to view the following sector-specific questions:

Food, beverage & tobacco
Chemicals
Oil & gas
Electric utilities

Other management procedures

The questions in this section only apply to organizations with activities in certain sectors. Questions will not appear unless you have opted to view the following sector-specific questions:

Metals & mining

Risk identification and assessment procedures

(W3.3) Does your organization undertake a water-related risk assessment?

Question Dependencies

Your response to W3.3 prompts subsequent questions to be presented. If your response to W3.3 is amended, data in those dependent questions may be erased. In this case, be sure to re-enter data for all relevant questions.
If your organization does not currently incorporate a water risk assessment into its core business procedures you will be presented with question W3.3c.
The guidance for each question indicates if it is a dependent question.

Change from last year

No change

Rationale

CDP asks about water-related risk assessment so that data-users may gauge the thoroughness of your company's understanding of its risk exposure.

Connection to other frameworks

CEO Water Mandate

Implications: Business risks

Response options

Select one of the following options:

Yes, water-related risks are assessed
No, water-related risks are not assessed

Requested content

General

Please select "Yes":

- if you have completed a water-related risk assessment for at least part of your operations or value chain, or
- if your organization has an integrated environmental risk assessment that considers any water-related risks among other environmental aspects.

Only select "No" if you have not conducted any form of water-related risk assessment.

Explanation of terms

Inherent risk: The risk that exists in the absence of controls, i.e. not taking into account any potential mitigation or management measures that could be implemented.
Residual risk: The risk remaining after a specific action has been taken to manage the risk.
Water-related risk: The possibility of an organization experiencing a water-related challenge (e.g., water scarcity, water stress, flooding, infrastructure decay, drought (adapted from the CEO Water Mandate's "Corporate Water Disclosure Guidelines").

(W3.3a) Select the options that best describe your procedures for identifying and assessing water-related risks.

Question dependencies

This question only appears if you select “Yes, water-related risks are assessed” in response to W3.3.

Change from last year

Modified question; Additional guidance

Rationale

Providing details of your water risk assessment coverage and procedures allows CDP data users to assess the thoroughness of your risk assessment and whether this is appropriate for the water dependency and risks that you disclose for each stage of your value chain.

To understand the comprehensiveness of the risk assessment, data users need to know which contextual issues and stakeholders inform your company’s understanding of water-related risks, which are considered relevant, and why.

Connection to other frameworks

CEO Water Mandate

Implications: Business risks

Response options

Please complete the following table. You are able to add rows by using the “Add Row” button at the bottom of the table.

Value chain stage	Coverage	Risk assessment procedure	Frequency of assessment	How far into the future are risks considered?	Type of tools and methods used	Tools and methods used
Select all that apply: Direct operations Supply chain Other stages of the value chain	Select from: Full Partial	Select from: Response drop-down options below table	Select from: More than once a year Annually Every two years Every three years or more Not defined	Select from: Up to 1 year 1 to 3 years 3 to 6 years More than 6 years Unknown	Select all that apply: Tools on the market Enterprise Risk Management International methodologies and standards Databases Other	Select all that apply: Response drop-down options below table

Value chain stage

Coverage

Risk assessment procedure

Frequency of assessment

How far into the future are risks considered?

Type of tools and methods used

Tools and methods used

Select all that apply:

Direct operations
Supply chain
Other stages of the value chain

Select from:

Full
Partial

Select from:

Response drop-down options below table

Select from:

More than once a year
Annually
Every two years
Every three years or more
Not defined

Select from:

Up to 1 year
1 to 3 years
3 to 6 years
More than 6 years
Unknown

Select all that apply:

Tools on the market
Enterprise Risk Management
International methodologies and standards
Databases
Other

Select all that apply:

Response drop-down options below table

Contextual issues considered	Stakeholders considered	Comment
Select all that apply: Water availability at a basin/catchment level Water quality at a basin/catchment level Stakeholder conflicts concerning water resources at a basin/catchment level Implications of water on your key commodities/raw materials Water regulatory frameworks Status of ecosystems and habitats Access to fully-functioning, safely managed WASH services for all employees Other, please specify	Select all that apply: Customers Employees Investors Local communities NGOs Regulators Suppliers Water utilities at a local level Other water users at the basin/catchment level Other, please specify	Text field [maximum 2,500 characters]

Contextual issues considered

Stakeholders considered

Comment

Select all that apply:

Water availability at a basin/catchment level
Water quality at a basin/catchment level
Stakeholder conflicts concerning water resources at a basin/catchment level
Implications of water on your key commodities/raw materials
Water regulatory frameworks
Status of ecosystems and habitats
Access to fully-functioning, safely managed WASH services for all employees
Other, please specify

Select all that apply:

Customers
Employees
Investors
Local communities
NGOs
Regulators
Suppliers
Water utilities at a local level
Other water users at the basin/catchment level
Other, please specify

Text field [maximum 2,500 characters]

[Add Row]

Risk assessment procedure (column 3)

Water risks are assessed as part of an enterprise risk management framework
Water risks are assessed as part of other company-wide risk assessment system
Water risks are assessed in an environmental risk assessment

Water risks are assessed as a standalone issue
Other, please specify

Tools and methods used (column 7)

Tools on the market

Collect Earth
Ecolab Water Risk Monetizer
EcoVadis
GEMI Local Water Tool
RBA Country Risk Assessment Tool
SEDEX
SIWI Water Tool
Water Footprint Network Assessment tool
WRI Aqueduct
WWF Water Risk Filter
Other, please specify

Enterprise Risk Management

COSO Enterprise Risk Management Framework
Enterprise Risk Management
ISO 31000 Risk Management Standard
Other, please specify

International methodologies and standards

Alliance for Water Stewardship Standard
Environmental Impact Assessment
Life Cycle Assessment
India Water Tool
IPCC Climate Change Projections
ISO 14001 Environmental Management Standard
ISO 14046 Environmental Management – Water Footprint
Other, please specify

Databases

FAO/AQUASTAT
Maplecroft Global Water Security Risk Index
Regional government databases
UNEP Vital Water Graphics
Other, please specify

Other

Internal company methods
External consultants
Materiality assessment
Nation-specific databases, tools, or standards
Scenario analysis
Source Water Vulnerability Assessment
Other, please specify

Requested content

General

If you have different risk identification and assessment procedures for different stages of your value chain, add a row for each stage.
Note that W3.3b asks for a rationale for your approach to risk assessment and the choice of procedures and tools you describe in this question.

Value chain stage (column 1)

Other stages of the value chain: Companies are encouraged to carry out some level of risk assessment beyond direct operations and suppliers. For example, this could include franchisees you engage with on water risks and stewardship strategies.

Coverage (column 2)

Select 'Full' if you carry out at least an initial light touch assessment across the whole of your operations, supply chain or other value chain stage; for example to identify priority 'hot spots' that require a more comprehensive water risk assessment. You should give the specific details and rationale for your approach in W3.3b, such as what tiers of your supply chain are included and why.
Select 'Partial' if certain elements of your direct operations, supply chain or other stages of your value chain are excluded from your risk assessment process. Explain your reasons in W3.3b.

Risk assessment procedure (column 3)

For the stages of your value chain selected in column 1, indicate your company’s main procedure for identifying and assessing water-related risk. If multiple approaches apply, select the main or primarily applicable procedure and note this in column 10.
If none of the available options are suitable, select “Other, please specify” to provide a label for the risk assessment procedure.
You will be able to explain your approach and give a rationale in W3.3b.
Note: “Enterprise risk management” is an established standardized framework for integrating sustainability risks into company risk assessment. See the ‘Explanation of terms’.

Type of tools and methods used/Tools and method used (columns 6-7)

Your selection in column 6 will determine which tools/response options appear in column 7.
If you select “Other, please specify”, provide a label for the tool or method used.

Contextual issues considered (column 8)

Select all issues that are considered in your organization's water-related risk assessment(s).
If you select ‘Other, please specify’, provide a label for the issue you consider.

Stakeholders considered (column 9)

Select all the stakeholders that most accurately reflect the stakeholders considered as part of your risk assessment.
If you select ‘Other, please specify’, provide a label for the stakeholder you consider.

Comment (column 10) (optional)

If ‘Partial’ is selected in column 2, provide the level of coverage, e.g. which geographies, business units, products or which tiers of supply chain.
If “Other” tools are selected in column 7, you can give some details here.
You will be able to explain your approach and give a rationale in W3.3b.

Explanation of terms

Direct operations: Your organization’s operations include anything your company does itself for the purpose of producing goods and services and maintaining the functionality of the business. This covers any internal supply chains between your organization’s business units. For example, a business unit within your company that supplies components to another business unit within your company would be considered part of your organization’s own operations.
Supply chain: Your organization’s supply chain is comprised of all external inputs to your operations, including materials, components, consumable inputs, and services. The scope of your supply chain may extend to multiple levels of supply, e.g. component suppliers and the suppliers of raw materials used to produce those components.
Value chain stage: One part of the sequence of activities that provide value to or receive value from the organization’s products and services. This can include activities within the organization’s direct operations, or up or downstream of those operations; such as the supply chain, joint ventures, franchisees, product users.
Risk management: Risk management involves understanding, analyzing and addressing risk to make sure organizations achieve their objectives. So it must be proportionate to the complexity and type of organization involved (Institute of Risk Management, 2016).
Enterprise risk management: This is an integrated and joined up approach to managing risk across an organization and its extended network (Institute of Risk Management, 2016).
Contextual issue: External influences relevant to the organization’s water security and water-related risks.
Water availability: The natural runoff (through groundwater and rivers) minus the flow of water that is required to sustain freshwater and estuarine ecosystems and the human livelihoods and well-being that depend on these ecosystems. Water availability typically varies within the year and also from year to year. Water availability might be reduced by decreases in both the water quantity and quality of water resources (adapted from the CEO Water Mandate’s “Corporate Water Disclosure Guidelines”).
Regulator: A body with a statutory authority to enforce laws, standards, and other legal regulations. They are appointed by government but can operate independently of it.

(W3.3b) Describe your organization’s process for identifying, assessing, and responding to water-related risks within your direct operations and other stages of your value chain.

Question dependencies

This question only appears if you select “Yes, water-related risks are assessed” in response to W3.3.

Change from last year

Modified guidance (2021 W3.3d)

Rationale

By providing an explanation for the steps and procedures that make up your risk assessment process, including identification, prioritizing and decision making, investors and other data users will know whether your organization has a robust approach to risk management. They will be able to consider whether it is optimal for your activities, and the locations and markets that you and your suppliers operate in.

Connection to other frameworks

CEO Water Mandate

Implications: Business risks

Response options

This is an open text question with a limit of 5,000 characters.

Requested content

General

This question asks you to provide a rationale for your approach to risk assessment and to explain your choice of procedures and tools described in W3.3a. This should include an explanation of:
Level of coverage:

- why you have chosen the level of coverage (how coverage is determined e.g. which tiers of supply chain), the horizon and tool for each of the 3 stages of the value chain.

Relevance of stakeholders and issues considered:

- for each stage of your value chain which has risk assessment procedures.

How risks are classified:

- at a company level, and at an asset level. Asset level is defined as anything below company level such as individual sites and subsidiaries.
- for the 3 different stages of your value chain.
- how decisions are made on the severity of the risk.

Your decision-making process for risk response– including for e.g.:

- how the information collected, such as on contextual and stakeholder issues, is used in decision making.
- how decisions are made to mitigate, transfer, accept, or controls risks.
- references to risks terminology / approaches that you employ.

Note that specific details of inherent risks and opportunities faced by your organization should be disclosed in Module 4.
Note that your response to this question may refer to the position of employees relevant to your risk assessment process. In this case, do not include the name of any individual or any other personal data in your response.

Explanation of terms

Inherent risk: The risk that exists in the absence of controls, i.e. not taking into account any potential mitigation or management measures that could be implemented.
Residual risk: The risk remaining after a specific action has been taken to manage the risk.
Risk procedures: The details of the steps that make up a risk identification, assessment and management process, such as frequency, geographic scope, tools used, issues addressed and stakeholders considered.
Risk process: The combination of steps taken to identify, quantify, monitor, record, prioritize, and respond to risk to minimize its likelihood or impact so that business objectives can be met.

(W3.3c) Why does your organization not undertake a water-related risk assessment?

Question Dependencies

This question only appears if you select “No, water-related risks are not assessed” in response to W3.3.

Change from last year

No change (2021 W3.3e)

Rationale

Your company has received this questionnaire because it is believed to conduct activities with a high dependency on a stable supply of fresh water and/or has a significant potential for polluting freshwater resources. As such, investors are likely to consider that you are exposed to water-related risks.

A thorough risk assessment is integral to appropriately identifying, understanding and addressing water-related risks. Without undertaking a risk assessment, companies may be unable to determine the best ways to prepare for future uncertainties and liabilities.

Companies may have many reasons for not undertaking risk assessments, and CDP data users are interested in learning more about why this is the case for your company and the planning processes and contexts for this.

Response options

Please complete the following table:

Primary reason	Please explain
Select from: We are planning to introduce a risk assessment process within the next two years Important but not an immediate business priority Judged to be unimportant, explanation provided Lack of internal resources Insufficient data on operations No instruction from management Other, please specify	Text field [maximum 1,500 characters]

Primary reason

Please explain

Select from:

We are planning to introduce a risk assessment process within the next two years
Important but not an immediate business priority
Judged to be unimportant, explanation provided
Lack of internal resources
Insufficient data on operations
No instruction from management
Other, please specify

Text field [maximum 1,500 characters]

Requested content

Primary reason (column 1)

Choose the option that best explains why your organization does not undertake a water-related risk assessment.
If multiple options reasonably apply to your company, select the primary option in column 1 and explain any additional reasons in column 2.
If you select “Other, please specify”, provide a label for the primary reason.

Please explain (column 2)

Use this space to provide company-specific insight as to your selection in column 1.
Your answer here should align with the importance you assign to water in W1.1.
Describe any future plans to undertake a water risk assessment (or details of any risk assessment process currently underway) and the likely timescale for implementation. Include company-specific information in your description.

W4 Risks and opportunities

Module Overview

The structure of the water security questionnaire allows an organization to tell investors, customers and other data users about its water stewardship journey. With modules 1-3 complete, data users now understand the current state of an organization’s use of water and how water related risks are identified.

An understanding of the number, location and nature of inherent water risks is valuable for disclosing organizations, as well as CDP data users. Module W4 allows organizations to show that they have a clear awareness of the extent to which they are exposed to inherent water risks in their direct operations and other parts of their value chain.

CDP asks organizations to report substantive water-related risks, the potential impacts of those risks and share details of their associated response strategies. We also invite organizations to share any water-related operational or market opportunities being realized that could substantively benefit their business.

The financial related information requested in W4.1, W4.2, and W4.3 may help organizations with their climate-related disclosures in line with the TCFD recommendations. This information helps investors assess the potential impacts to valuations and the adequacy of the organization's risk response.

In module W5, organizations exposed to substantive risk are requested to provide facility-level information.

Note:

Providing information about inherent risk exposure rather than residual risk allows data-users to consider the potential impact and the appropriateness of the organization’s response. Water risk impacts the cost of doing business and may impact on stock volatility.

CDP asks about risks anywhere in your business that are substantive at the corporate level (not those that are significant only at the facility level, for example). We wish only to know about risks that have the ability to impact the business, financially, strategically or otherwise, at the corporate level.

You may wish to consult with your financial, legal, and/or compliance departments for advice on your organization’s general approach to the provision of forward-looking statements and information concerning risks.

Key changes

New response options (W4.2 columns 3 and 4, W4.2a columns 4 and 5): The physical risk type has been separated into 'Acute physical' and 'Chronic physical', and the primary risk drivers have been updated accordingly.
Modified guidance (W4.2, W4.2a, W4.3a): A new point has been added to the guidance requesting companies to state the influence of risks or opportunities on strategic and/or financial planning.
Additional guidance:
- A definition of 'Acute physical risk' and a definition of 'Chronic physical risk' have been added in W4.2.
- An example response has been added in W4.1c.
Click here for a list of all changes made this year.

Sector-specific content

W4.1c presents an additional column for Oil & Gas, Metals & Mining, Electric utilities.
Sector specific additions to drop downs in risk tables: Metals & Mining, Food, Beverage & Tobacco, Chemicals.
Sector specific additions to drop downs in opportunities table: Oil & Gas.

Pathway diagram - questions

This diagram shows the questions contained in module W4. To access question-level guidance, use the menu on the left to navigate to the question.

(W4.1) Have you identified any inherent water-related risks with the potential to have a substantive financial or strategic impact on your business?

Question dependencies

Your response to W4.1 will determine which subsequent questions are presented. If your response to W4.1 is amended, data in those dependent questions may be erased. In this case, be sure to re-enter data for all relevant questions. The guidance for each question indicates if it is a dependent question.

Change from last year

No change

Rationale

Data users wish to know whether your organization has knowledge of any water risks across any part of your value chain that are substantive at the corporate level. This information is critical for guiding investments and actions to improve business resilience and water stewardship.

Note that we only request information on issues that are exposing your facilities, business units etc. to risks that have the potential to substantively impact, strategically as well as financially, on your business at the corporate level.

Connection to other frameworks

CEO Water Mandate

Implications: Business risks

Response options

Select one of the following options:

Yes, both in direct operations and the rest of our value chain
Yes, only within our direct operations
Yes, only in our value chain beyond our direct operations
No

Requested content

General

Indicate if you have identified any inherent water-related risks, and in which part of your value chain; or select ‘No’ if none have been identified and explain why not (W4.2b and/or W4.2c will be presented).
For the purposes of this response, the risks considered should only be those which:

- pose potential substantive financial or strategic impacts (as per the definition of “substantive” you provide in W4.1a)
- pose a risk at the corporate level, and not simply at the asset/business unit/geographic level at which they may occur
- are inherent (the risk that exists in the absence of controls, i.e. before taking into account any potential mitigation or management measures that have been or could be implemented).

These risks may have the potential to impact on your organization either currently or in the future.

Explanation of terms

Direct operations: An organization’s operations include anything it does itself for the purpose of producing goods and services and maintaining the functionality of the business. This covers any internal supply chains between the organization’s business units. For example, a business unit within a company that supplies components to another business unit within the company would be considered part of the organization’s direct operations.
Inherent risk: The risk that exists in the absence of controls, i.e. not taking into account any potential mitigation or management measures that could be implemented.
Residual risk: The risk remaining after a specific action has been taken to manage the risk.
Substantive impact: An impact that has a considerable or relatively significant effect on an organization at the corporate level. This could include operational, financial or strategic effects that undermine the entire business or part of a business.
Value chain: The entire sequence of activities or partners that provide value to or receive value from an organization’s products and services, either within, upstream or downstream of direct operations.
Water-related risk: The possibility of an organization experiencing a water-related challenge (e.g., water scarcity, water stress, flooding, infrastructure decay, drought) (adapted from the CEO Water Mandate's "Corporate Water Disclosure Guidelines"). The extent of risk is a function of the likelihood of a specific challenge occurring and the severity of the challenge’s impact. The severity of impact depends on the intensity of the challenge, as well as the vulnerability of the organisation.

(W4.1a) How does your organization define substantive financial or strategic impact on your business?

Change from last year

No change

Rationale

Explaining your threshold for including risk data in this disclosure provides critical context for CDP data users. What is considered as a substantive impact for a business will be different for each responding company, so before proceeding with any further questions in this module, it is important that companies explain how they define a substantive impact at the corporate level.

Response options

This is an open text question with a limit of 5,000 characters.

Requested content

General

Describe and quantify, in detail, how your organization defines a ‘substantive impact’ on your business at the corporate level, in the context of a water-related risk.
What constitutes a substantive impact will vary between companies. For example, a 1% reduction in profits could have a different effect on different companies depending on their respective profit margins. Companies are therefore asked to determine ‘substantive’ in the way that they would use for their business decision-making. For example, a substantive impact of relatively high magnitude could occur because of a large number for any one of the following aspects, or because of a small number for all three combines to create a larger impact:

- the proportion of business units affected
- the size of the impact on those business units
- the dependency of the organization on that unit
- the potential for shareholder or customer concern.

The description of your definition should make clear the thresholds for:

- the magnitude
- probability
- frequency of the impact
- and how they are applied together.

Include details of any metrics used and report how often these metrics are reviewed and updated.
The substantive change may relate, for example, to operations, revenue or expenditure, assets & liabilities, or capital allocation. Examples of substantive change would be: the closure of two strategic facilities for which the probability is over 30%; a reduction of 10% in projected revenue; an unexpected prolonged drop in consumer interest over a busy shopping period.
Indicate if your definition/thresholds/metrics relate to direct operations and/or other parts of your value chain.
Note that in this question, we are not requesting:

- information about what is a substantive impact at the level of facilities, business units, etc; only about what is substantive for the company as a whole
- details of the risks your organization is exposed to, but to illustrate your response you should include at least one example of an impact at any level of your organization and why it is considered as substantive to your business.

Explanation of terms

Substantive impact: an impact that has a considerable or relatively significant effect on an organization at the corporate level. This could include operational, financial or strategic effects that undermine the entire business or part of the business.

(W4.1b) What is the total number of facilities exposed to water risks with the potential to have a substantive financial or strategic impact on your business, and what proportion of your company-wide facilities does this represent?

Question dependencies

This question only appears if you select any of the following options in response to W4.1:
- Yes, both in direct operations and the rest of value chain
- Yes, only within our direct operations
- Yes, only in our value chain beyond our direct operations

Change from last year

No change

Rationale

Water is a local issue, and CDP data users want to know that companies are considering risks and impacts at the facility level. Reporting on the total number of facilities that expose your company to substantive risk and the proportion of your facilities that this represents provides a basic but useful indication of risk exposure.

Connection to other frameworks

CEO Water Mandate

Implications: Business risks

Response options

Please complete the following table:

Total number of facilities exposed to water risk	% company-wide facilities this represents	Comment
Numerical field [enter a number from 0-1,000 using no decimals or commas]	Select from: Less than 1% 1-25 26-50 51-75 76-99 100% Unknown	Text field [maximum 4,500]

Total number of facilities exposed to water risk

% company-wide facilities this represents

Comment

Numerical field [enter a number from 0-1,000 using no decimals or commas]

Select from:

Less than 1%
1-25
26-50
51-75
76-99
100%
Unknown

Text field [maximum 4,500]

Requested content

General

This question only requests information about facilities exposed to risks with the potential to substantively impact your business at the corporate level (as defined in W4.1a). Do not count local risks unless they are substantive for the organization as a whole.
Note that you are requested to disclose inherent risks – so include those that your organization is exposed to prior to the implementation of any response strategies.
For the facilities you report here as being exposed to substantive water risk, W4.1c requests their river basin location.

Total number of facilities exposed to water risk (column 1)

Defining facility: The term ‘facilities’ may be used broadly to refer to types of business operations as well as fixed buildings or factories. For example, organizations in the extractive industries might normally collate information by asset or business unit and may wish to define facility in this way.
Aggregating facilities: Organizations may have hundreds of sites, such as in the hotel, construction, or retail industries. They may wish to report facilities by aggregate, rather than individual buildings or sites. For example, a hotel chain may wish to group hotels by grade or resort type. Rather than assessing each of its 20 hotels individually it may be more appropriate to combine 20 hotels within the same river basin into one ‘facility’, and then assessing this against its threshold for substantive change to the business described in W4.1a.
Note the following on the aggregation of facilities:

- Due to the local nature of water risks and impacts, only facilities in the same river basin and the same jurisdiction may be aggregated. In the case of very large river basins, facilities in a single basin may face different regulatory as well as local physical risks so that aggregation would obscure an understanding of the organization's water dependency and risk exposure in the region.
- Organizations should consider aggregating facilities within a river basin if the corporate-level risk exposure due to a single local facility is not substantive but would be substantive in aggregate with other similar local facilities; for example, where water use in individual facilities is very small and therefore associated risks and impacts are more material at the river basin level, but is significant within the river basin as a whole.
- Aggregation of facilities should not be used where information on the risk exposure, or water accounting data, of the single facility would be meaningful and specific to that facility.

There is a limit of 1,000 on the total number of facilities that you may report as being at risk. This is because you should only count facilities, or groups of facilities, that expose your organization to substantive risk - according to your definition in W4.1a. If you have more than 1,000 it may be that your definition of substantive risk in question W4.1a is extreme. You should consider aggregating some facilities in line with the above note and use the 'Comment' column to describe the aggregation.

% company-wide facilities this represents (column 2)

Detail the proportion of your organization’s company-wide facilities exposed to substantive water risk - as represented by the number given in column 1. For example, the 11 facilities that are exposed to substantive water risk reported in column 1 may comprise 26-50% of your organization’s total facilities company-wide. You may estimate this data and use column 3 to state that this is the case.
If you cannot provide this figure, select “unknown” and explain your response in column 3.

Comment (column 3) (optional)

You may comment on how you have defined ‘facility’. If your organization does aggregate for reporting purposes, please state that this approach has been taken and briefly describe the methodology for aggregation.
To help data users understand the number of facilities you have reported, please provide any further context. For example, you may wish to give a general, company-specific comment on the nature, severity and location of the corporate-level risks your company is exposed to, whether they result from any particular business activity, and the relationship between the inherent risk and your residual risk exposure. You may have reported that 60% of your facilities are exposed to inherent risks due to their location, but this represents only a 30% of your total output and the residual risk has been much reduced due to the introduction of new controls. It is helpful to data-users if you give company-specific information.
Note that river basin level information about facilities at risk should be disclosed in W4.1c.

Explanation of terms

Facility: “Facilities” may be used throughout this questionnaire as a broad term and not restricted to a particular site or grouping of fixed buildings and factories. For example, if your organization is in the extractive industries you might normally collate business information for assets or business units, and so you may wish to define ‘facility’ information in this way.
Inherent risk: The risk that exists in the absence of controls, i.e. not taking into account any potential mitigation or management measures that could be implemented.
Residual risk: The risk remaining after a specific action has been taken to manage the risk.

Example response

Total number of facilities exposed to water risk	% company-wide facilities this represents	Comment
7	1-25	7/35 of our sites, representing 13% of global production, have been identified as being exposed to substantive water risk. These facilities are within a region of water stress. They specialize in producing an important component linked to our technology hardware business unit due to close links with suppliers of necessary raw materials. We classified all our substantive risk sites using WRI’s Aqueduct. The facilities included here (detailed further in W5) are the facilities that pose the biggest financial/strategic risk of impact to our organization based on the definition we have given in W4.1a. We set a 7.5% threshold of national production as a proxy for revenue given a full year of lost production. Note that for the purpose of reporting, our definition of ‘facility’ is the same as our definition for a site i.e. for which there could be several different types of factory operating in the same location.

Total number of facilities exposed to water risk

% company-wide facilities this represents

Comment

1-25

7/35 of our sites, representing 13% of global production, have been identified as being exposed to substantive water risk. These facilities are within a region of water stress. They specialize in producing an important component linked to our technology hardware business unit due to close links with suppliers of necessary raw materials. We classified all our substantive risk sites using WRI’s Aqueduct.

The facilities included here (detailed further in W5) are the facilities that pose the biggest financial/strategic risk of impact to our organization based on the definition we have given in W4.1a. We set a 7.5% threshold of national production as a proxy for revenue given a full year of lost production.

Note that for the purpose of reporting, our definition of ‘facility’ is the same as our definition for a site i.e. for which there could be several different types of factory operating in the same location.

(W4.1c) By river basin, what is the number and proportion of facilities exposed to water risks that could have a substantive financial or strategic impact on your business, and what is the potential business impact associated with those facilities?

Question Dependencies

This question only appears if you select any of the following options in response to W4.1:
- Yes, both in direct operations and the rest of our value chain
- Yes, only within our direct operations
- Yes, only in our value chain beyond our direct operations

Note that W5 will request water accounting data for facilities located in the basins reported here.

Change from last year

Additional guidance

Rationale

This information provides a list of hot-spot basins for CDP data users to focus on when reviewing your CDP disclosure and enables a deeper understanding of the potential significance of the water risk exposure associated with each basin.

Knowing the percentage of facilities at risk for each basin and the potential impact of this risk exposure helps companies with decision making based on basin level issues. It allows financial planning at that level to take account of water issues and provides a powerful indicator to support river basin action and investment.

Assigning and understanding the amount of financial productivity that may be at risk from water-related issues in any one basin provides a powerful indicator for any business case for investment in those basins, and the potential significance of the water risk exposure associated with that basin.

Connection to other frameworks

CEO Water Mandate

Implications: Business risks

Response options

Please complete the following table. The table is displayed over several rows for readability. You are able to add rows by using the “Add Row” button at the bottom of the table.

Country/Area	River basin	Number of facilities exposed to water risk	% company-wide facilities this represents
Select from: Country/area drop-down list	Select from: River basin drop-down list Not known Other, please specify	Numerical field [enter a number from 0-1,000 using no decimals or commas]	Select from: Less than 1% 1-25 26-50 51-75 76-99 100% Unknown

Country/Area

River basin

Number of facilities exposed to water risk

% company-wide facilities this represents

Select from:

Country/area drop-down list

Select from:

River basin drop-down list
Not known
Other, please specify

Numerical field [enter a number from 0-1,000 using no decimals or commas]

Select from:

Less than 1%
1-25
26-50
51-75
76-99
100%
Unknown

[METALS & MINING SECTOR ONLY] Production value for the metals & mining activities associated with these facilities	[ELECTRIC UTILITIES SECTOR ONLY] % company’s annual electricity generation that could be affected by these facilities	[OIL & GAS SECTOR ONLY] % company’s global oil & gas production volume that could be affected by these facilities	% company’s total global revenue that could be affected	Comment
Numerical field [enter a number from 0-999,999,999,999 using a maximum of 2 decimal places]	Select from: Less than 1% 1-25 26-50 51-75 76-99 100% Unknown Not applicable	Select from: Less than 1% 1-25 26-50 51-75 76-99 100% Unknown Not applicable	Select from: Less than 1% 1-10 11-20 21-30 31-40 41-50 51-60 61-70 71-80 81-90 91-99 100% Unknown	Text field [maximum 5,000 characters]

[METALS & MINING SECTOR ONLY]
Production value for the metals & mining activities associated with these facilities

[ELECTRIC UTILITIES SECTOR ONLY]
% company’s annual electricity generation that could be affected by these facilities

[OIL & GAS SECTOR ONLY]
% company’s global oil & gas production volume that could be affected by these facilities

% company’s total global revenue that could be affected

Comment

Numerical field [enter a number from 0-999,999,999,999 using a maximum of 2 decimal places]

Select from:

Less than 1%
1-25
26-50
51-75
76-99
100%
Unknown
Not applicable

Select from:

Less than 1%
1-25
26-50
51-75
76-99
100%
Unknown
Not applicable

Select from:

Less than 1%
1-10
11-20
21-30
31-40
41-50
51-60
61-70
71-80
81-90
91-99
100%
Unknown

Text field [maximum 5,000 characters]

[Add Row]

Requested content

Note: Organizations responding to a metals & mining sector request should refer to additional sector-specific guidance on this question at the end of the "Requested content" section.

General

Consider risks with the potential to substantively impact your business at the corporate level. Do not consider local risks unless they are substantive for the organization as a whole. For example, a business may have 10 facilities in one river basin exposed to water risk, but only three of those might lead to a substantive impact to the business at the corporate level should they materialize. So, it is only those three facilities that should be reported.
Note that you are requested to disclose inherent risk – so consider risks those that your facilities are exposed to prior to the implementation of any response strategies.
Module 5 requests water accounting information for all the ‘facilities’ you disclose here as being exposed to substantive water risk.
If you have facilities exposed to water risks in a basin which covers multiple countries, please add a new row for each country/region and disclose the number of facilities located in that country.
Note that W4.2 and W4.2a ask for details of individual risk drivers, their impact and your response, so any information provided here should relate to the basin level.
Oil & gas sector only: Data on the organization's production volume associated with these facilities will provide further information on the potential implications of the water risk exposure and assist with the assessment of the company's response.
Electric utilities sector only: Data on the organization's annual electricity generation associated with these facilities will provide further information on the potential implications of the water risk exposure and assist with the assessment of the company's response.

Country/Area (column 1)

Note that a selection must be made for both column 1 and column 2. Your data will not be saved if either column is left blank.

River basin (column 2)

From the drop-down options provided, select the river basin where your facilities are exposed to substantive water risk. If you do not see a basin that applies to your organization, select “Other, please specify” and write in the correct river basin using the text box provided.
For companies withdrawing water from large confined aquifers that may not discharge to the river basin they are located in e.g. Ogallala aquifer in the United States, please select “Other, please specify” and type in the name of the local aquifer source. Ensure that the correct country/area name is selected in column 1 (Country/Area).
You may want to put the sub-basin of a bigger river basin identified in the drop-down menu. In this case use the “Other, please specify” option in the following format: “Putumayo, Amazon”.
For full instructions regarding this list, see the Introduction to CDP's water security reporting guidance.
Note that a selection must be made for both column 1 and column 2. Your data will not be saved if either column is left blank.

Number of facilities exposed to water risk (column 3)

For the selected river basin, indicate the number of facilities exposing your company to a potential substantive impact. This number will have been included in the total figure you reported in W4.1b. We are not asking for the total number of facilities located within each river basin, only those facilities facing a water risk that could generate a substantive change in your business, operations, revenue or expenditure. A business may have 10 facilities in one river basin exposed to water risk. However, if just three of them might lead to a substantive impact to the business at the corporate level, it is only those three facilities that should be reported here.
The term ‘facilities’ may be used broadly to describe different types of business operations as well as fixed buildings or factories. Please refer to the guidance for W4.1b.
If you aggregated facilities in W4.1b when providing the total number of facilities that expose your organization to risk, you should apply that identical aggregation in this question so that the total number of facilities entered in column 3 equals the figure you provided in W4.1b and does not exceed 1,000.
Note that W5.1 will request water accounting and other data for up to 50 facilities reported here.

% company-wide facilities this represents (column 4)

This column asks for the proportion of your total company facilities represented by the facilities reported in column 3. For example, the 11 facilities reported in column 3 may comprise 6-10% of your organization’s total number of facilities globally.
If you cannot provide this figure, select “unknown” and explain your response in the last column (Comment).

Electric utilities sector only: % company's annual electricity generation that could be affected by these facilities

Only select "Not applicable" if no facilities in the basin generate electricity and explain this in the last column (Comment).

Oil & gas sector only: % company's global oil & gas production volume that could be affected by these facilities

Only select "Not applicable" if no facilities in the basin are associated with your oil & gas sector activities and explain this in the last column (Comment).

% of company’s total global revenue

This column seeks to answer the question: what proportion of your organization’s total global revenue is derived from the facilities listed in column 3? For example, 11 facilities reported in column 3 may deliver 16-30% of your organization’s total global revenue.
This revenue may be at risk to some extent in the absence of an appropriate response strategy - if the facilities were unable to operate, for example.
If you cannot provide this figure, please select “unknown”, or you may estimate the figure. Use the last column (Comment) to explain your response.

Comment (optional)

Provide any further context to help data users understand your basin level disclosure. For example, you may wish to comment on the nature or severity of the risk in the river basin as a whole that these facilities are exposed to and the company’s approach to addressing these risks.
Provide any further details you wish to add about the figure you have provided for the potential value at risk in these river basins. This will provide context for data-users.
If you have used estimates in any response, please state this.

Explanation of terms

Revenue: Income arising in the course of an entity's ordinary activities (less discounts, allowances and returns) - before deducting costs for the goods/services sold and operating expenses to arrive at profit (based on the International Financial Reporting Standard).

Example response

Country/Area	River basin	Number of facilities exposed to water risk	% company-wide facilities this represents	[Metals & mining only] Production value for the metals & mining activities associated with these facilities	[Electric utilities only] % company’s annual electricity generation that could be affected by these facilities	[Oil & gas only] % company’s global oil & gas production volume that could be affected by these facilities	% company’s total global revenue that could be affected	Comment
UK	Thames	5	10%	N/A	N/A	N/A	30%	We have identified five distribution centres in the Thames river basin that are impacted by water risks in our value chain with the potential to have a substantive impact on our operations. These sites manufacture clothes with cotton sourced from our suppliers and are important for us because their continued functioning is key to ensuring business continuity at many of our retail sites. The percentage of our global revenue that could be affected is estimated and depends on a range of factors such as the impact type, magnitude and duration, as well as the unique nature of the knock-on impacts on our retail outlets from partial or full site closure.

Country/Area

River basin

Number of facilities exposed to water risk

% company-wide facilities this represents

[Metals & mining only] Production value for the metals & mining activities associated with these facilities

[Electric utilities only] % company’s annual electricity generation that could be affected by these facilities

[Oil & gas only] % company’s global oil & gas production volume that could be affected by these facilities

% company’s total global revenue that could be affected

Comment

Thames

10%

N/A

30%

We have identified five distribution centres in the Thames river basin that are impacted by water risks in our value chain with the potential to have a substantive impact on our operations. These sites manufacture clothes with cotton sourced from our suppliers and are important for us because their continued functioning is key to ensuring business continuity at many of our retail sites.

The percentage of our global revenue that could be affected is estimated and depends on a range of factors such as the impact type, magnitude and duration, as well as the unique nature of the knock-on impacts on our retail outlets from partial or full site closure.

Water-related risks and response

(W4.2) Provide details of identified risks in your direct operations with the potential to have a substantive financial or strategic impact on your business, and your response to those risks.

Question Dependencies

This question only appears if you select one of the following options in response to W4.1:
- Yes, both in direct operations and the rest of our value chain
- Yes, only within our direct operations

Change from last year

Minor change; Modified guidance; Additional guidance

Rationale

Your response to this question will allow CDP data users to see, in one place, details of the inherent water risks that your company is exposed to due to drivers associated with its direct operations within particular river basins, and also the estimated potential impact of the risk at the corporate level and your response strategy to address the risk.

Connection to other frameworks

CEO Water Mandate

Implications: Business risks

Response options

Please complete the following table. The table is displayed over several rows for readability. You are able to add rows to this table using the "Add row" button at the bottom of the table.

(*column/row appearance is dependent on selections in this or other questions)

Country/Area	River basin	Type of risk	Primary risk driver	Primary potential impact	Company-specific description	Timeframe
Select from: Country/area drop-down list	Select from: River basin drop-down list Not known Other, please specify	Select from: Acute physical Chronic physical Regulatory Reputation & markets Technology	Select from: Response drop-down options below table	Select from: Response drop-down options below table	Text field [maximum 2,500 characters]	Select from: Current up to one year 1-3 years 4-6 years More than 6 years Unknown

Country/Area

River basin

Type of risk

Primary risk driver

Primary potential impact

Company-specific description

Timeframe

Select from:

Country/area drop-down list

Select from:

River basin drop-down list
Not known
Other, please specify

Select from:

Acute physical
Chronic physical
Regulatory
Reputation & markets
Technology

Select from:

Response drop-down options below table

Select from:

Response drop-down options below table

Text field [maximum 2,500 characters]

Select from:

Current up to one year
1-3 years
4-6 years
More than 6 years
Unknown

Magnitude of potential impact	Likelihood	Are you able to provide a potential financial impact figure?	Potential financial impact figure (currency)*	Potential financial impact figure - minimum (currency)*	Potential financial impact figure - maximum (currency)*
Select from: High Medium-high Medium Medium-low Low Unknown	Select from: Virtually certain Very likely Likely More likely than not About as likely as not Unlikely Very unlikely Exceptionally unlikely Unknown	Select from: Yes, a single figure estimate Yes, an estimated range No, we do not have this figure	Numerical field [enter a number from 0-999,999,999,999,999 using a maximum of 2 decimal places]	Numerical field [enter a number from 0-999,999,999,999,999 using a maximum of 2 decimal places]	Numerical field [enter a number from 0-999,999,999,999,999 using a maximum of 2 decimal places]

Magnitude of potential impact

Likelihood

Are you able to provide a potential financial impact figure?

Potential financial impact figure (currency)*

Potential financial impact figure - minimum (currency)*

Potential financial impact figure - maximum (currency)*

Select from:

High
Medium-high
Medium
Medium-low
Low
Unknown

Select from:

Virtually certain
Very likely
Likely
More likely than not
About as likely as not
Unlikely
Very unlikely
Exceptionally unlikely
Unknown

Select from:

Yes, a single figure estimate
Yes, an estimated range
No, we do not have this figure

Numerical field [enter a number from 0-999,999,999,999,999 using a maximum of 2 decimal places]

Explanation of financial impact	Primary response to risk	Description of response	Cost of response	Explanation of cost of response
Text field [maximum 2,500 characters]	Select from: Response drop-down options below table	Text field [maximum 2,500 characters]	Numerical field [enter a number from 0-999,999,999,999,999 using a maximum of 2 decimal places]	Text field [maximum 2,500 characters]

Explanation of financial impact

Primary response to risk

Description of response

Cost of response

Explanation of cost of response

Text field [maximum 2,500 characters]

Select from:

Response drop-down options below table

Text field [maximum 2,500 characters]

Numerical field [enter a number from 0-999,999,999,999,999 using a maximum of 2 decimal places]

Text field [maximum 2,500 characters]

[Add Row]

Primary risk driver (column 4)

Acute physical

Cyclone, hurricane, typhoon
Drought
Flood (coastal, fluvial, pluvial, groundwater)
Glacial lake outburst
Heavy precipitation (rain, hail, snow/ice)
Storm (including blizzards, dust and sandstorm)
Tornado
Pollution incident
Rupture of tailings dams and toxic spills (metals & mining sector only)
Other, please specify

Chronic physical

Acid rock drainage and metal leaching (metals & mining sector only)
Change in land-use
Changing precipitation patterns and types (rain, hail, snow/ice)
Declining water quality
Dependency on water intensive energy sources
Ecosystem vulnerability
Inadequate infrastructure
Increased levels of plastic in fresh water bodies
Leaching of pollutants to groundwater bodies (metals & mining sector only)
Ocean acidification
Pollution of water bodies due to fertilizer, other chemical use, or animal residues (food, beverage & tobacco sector)
Poorly managed sanitation
Precipitation and/or hydrological variability
Rationing of municipal water supply
Saline intrusion
Sea level rise
Seasonal supply variability/inter annual variability
Soil degradation (food, beverage & tobacco sector only)
Water scarcity
Water stress
Other, please specify

Regulatory

Changed product standards
Higher water prices
Increased difficulty in obtaining withdrawals/operations permit
Lack of transparency of water rights
Limited or no river basin/catchment management
Mandatory water efficiency, conservation, recycling or process standards
Poor coordination between regulatory bodies
Poor enforcement of water regulation
Tighter regulatory standards
Regulation of discharge quality/volumes
Regulatory uncertainty
Statutory water withdrawal limits/changes to water allocation
Other, please specify

Reputation & markets

Changes in consumer behavior
Community opposition
Inadequate access to water, sanitation, and hygiene services
Increased stakeholder concern or negative stakeholder feedback
Water-related litigation
Negative media coverage
Other, please specify

Technology

Data access/availability
Substitution of existing products with lower water impact options
Transition to bio-based chemicals (chemicals sector only)
Transition to water efficient and low water intensity technologies and products
Transition to water intensive, low carbon energy sources
Unsuccessful investment in new technologies
Other, please specify

Primary potential impact (column 5)

Brand damage
Changing revenue mix and sources
Constraint to growth
Closure of operations
Diminished ability to reduce GHG emissions
Disruption to sales
Fines, penalties or enforcement orders
Impact on company assets
Disruption to workforce management and planning
Increased insurance premiums
Increased cost of capital
Increased compliance costs

Increased operating costs
Increased production costs
Litigation
Loss of license to operate
Reduction or disruption in production capacity
Reduced demand for products and services
Reduction in capital availability
Reduced revenues from lower sales/output
Upfront costs to adopt/deploy new practices and processes
Supply chain disruption
Mine closure (metals & mining sector only)
Other, please specify

Primary response to risk (column 15)

Adopt water efficiency, water reuse, recycling and conservation practices
Adopt regenerative agriculture policies
Amend the Business Continuity Plan
Comply with local regulatory requirements
Develop drought emergency plans
Develop flood emergency plans
Develop new products and/or markets
Engage with local communities
Engage with NGOs/special interest groups
Engage with customers
Engage with suppliers
Engage with regulators/policymakers
Establish site-specific targets
Greater due diligence
Implement internal pricing on water
Implement nature-based solutions
Improve alignment of our public policy influencing activity with our water stewardship commitments
Improve maintenance of infrastructure
Improve monitoring
Improve pollution abatement and control measures
Increase capital expenditure
Increase geographic diversity of facilities
Increase insurance coverage
Increase investment in new technology
Increase supplier diversification

Introduce/strengthen water management incentives
Purchase water quality credits
Re-site facilities
Secure alternative water supply
Support river basin restoration
Tighten supplier performance standards
Use risk transfer instruments
Utilize aquifer storage to accrue recharge credits
Adopt alternative crop management strategies to reduce fertilizer and pesticide use (food, beverage & tobacco sector only)
Adopt alternative livestock management practices (food, beverage & tobacco sector only)
Adopt alternative livestock management practices to reduce use of veterinary products (food, beverage & tobacco sector only)
Adopt better animal waste management practices (food, beverage & tobacco sector only)
Adopt efficient fertilizer and pesticide management (food, beverage & tobacco sector only)
Adopt soil conservation practices (food, beverage & tobacco sector only)
Adopt sustainable irrigation practices (food, beverage & tobacco sector only)
Reduce food waste throughout the value chain (food, beverage & tobacco sector only)
Use drought resistant crop varieties (food, beverage & tobacco sector only)
Other, please specify

Requested content

General

This question asks about water-related risk drivers associated with your direct operations and their potential to substantively impact your organization, currently or in the future. (W4.2a asks about risk drivers in the rest of your value chain and their potential impact on your organization).
For the purposes of this response, the risks reported should only be those which:

- Expose your organization to substantive financial or strategic impacts to your business - such as to operations, revenue, or expenditure, assets and liabilities, or capital allocation (as per the definition of ‘substantive’ you provide in W4.1a);
- Pose a risk at the corporate level, and not simply at the asset/business unit/geographic level at which they may occur;
- Are inherent (a risk that exists in the absence of controls, so not taking into account any potential mitigation or management measures that have been or could be implemented).

Use each row to report a primary risk driver and the potential substantive impact it could cause. If there is more than one impact, please select the primary impact. If there is more than one response to this risk, select the primary response.
To report additional risk drivers or impacts associated with a basin, you are able to add a new row. Please report no more than 3 risk drivers or impacts per river basin and report the most substantive.

Country/Area (column 1)

From the drop-down menu provided, please select the country/area associated with the driver of the risk you are reporting.
Note that a selection must be made for both column 1 and column 2. Your data will not be saved if either column is left blank.

River basin (column 2)

From the drop-down menu provided, please select the river basin associated with the driver of the risk you are reporting. If you select “Other, please specify”, provide a label for the river basin.
For companies withdrawing water from large confined aquifers that may not discharge to the river basin they are located in e.g. Ogallala aquifer in the United States, please select “Other, please specify” and type in the name of the local aquifer source. Ensure that the correct country/area name is selected in column 1 (Country/Area).
You may want to report the sub-basin for a main river basin that is listed. In this case select “Other, please specify” and use the following format: “Putumayo, Amazon”.
Refer to the instructions in the Introduction to CDP’s water security reporting guidance for more details on how to response to ‘River basin’ columns.
Note that a selection must be made for both column 1 and column 2. Your data will not be saved if either column is left blank.

Type of risk (column 3)

Select the type of risk you would like to report. Your selection will determine the list of risk drivers that will appear in column 4.
Note that a selection must be made for both column 3 and column 4. Your data will not be saved if either column is left blank.

Primary risk driver (column 4)

The drop-down options presented are linked to the type of risk you selected in column 3.
In the case that there may be more than one driver or a chain of causes for the potential substantive impact you are reporting, you should select what you consider to be the primary driver.
If you do want to choose an additional driver for a river basin, you will need to add another row to report the details. Please refrain from providing more than three drivers per river basin.
If you select “Other, please specify”, provide a label for the primary risk driver.
Note that a selection must be made for both column 3 and column 4. Your data will not be saved if either column is left blank.

Primary potential impact (column 5)

Select the option that best describes the primary potential impact to your company due to the risk driver reported in column 4.
The impact must be substantive at the corporate level as defined in W4.1a.
If there is more than one potential impact associated with a risk driver, you should select what you consider to be the primary impact and use column 6 to describe the secondary impacts. This could, for example, be increased costs, decreased revenue, or closure of operations. Impacts can be operational or financial and can affect your organization, your consumers or other stakeholders as well as your company.
If you do want to choose an additional substantive impact for a river basin or a risk driver, you will need to add another row to report the details. Please refrain from providing more than three impacts per river basin.
If you select “Other, please specify”, provide a label for the type of potential impact.

Company-specific description (column 6)

Provide further contextual information on the risk driver selected in column 4, including more detail on its nature and location.
Include a company-specific description of how the risk driver could impact your organization, including the nature of any secondary impacts. For example: “Our organization has found the increased seasonal water stress in the Limpopo river basin to be a risk with the potential to constrain planned growth in steel production in the region. More immediately, this could lead to periodic suspensions of operations and a substantial financial impact equating to $100,000 a day. Any major delays in production would hinder our ability to meet our contractual agreements with customers and importantly our ability to win new business”.

Timeframe (column 7)

Select the timeframe in which the inherent risks would be most likely to materialize. It is acknowledged that there is likely to be a higher degree of uncertainty associated with long-term risks. For example, you may consider you company to be at risk due to increasing pollution levels but this is unlikely to impact your business within the next 5 years. In this case you would select ‘4-6 years’.

Magnitude of potential impact (column 8)

The magnitude describes the extent to which the impact, if it occurred, would affect your business. You should consider the business as a whole. This means that the potential magnitude of the impact can be a combination of the scale of the damage and your organization’s state of resilience prior to responding to the risk.
Magnitude of impact will vary from company to company. For example:

- Two companies may have identical facilities located on a coast in an area which is vulnerable to flooding. However, if company A relies on that facility for 90% of its production capacity and company B relies on it for only 40% of its production capacity, the magnitude of impact due to the same flooding damage will be comparatively higher on company A than on company B;
- A 1% reduction in profits will have different effects on different companies depending on the profit margins on which they work.

As it is not possible for CDP to accurately define terms for magnitude of impact, companies are asked to determine and report magnitude using a qualitative 5 point scale from High to Low. Factors to consider when classifying the magnitude of the impact on your organization include:

- The proportion of business units affected;
- The size of the impact on those business units;
- The dependency of the company on those units;
- The potential for shareholder or customer concern.

An impact could have a relatively high magnitude for the company as a whole because of a large effect in one of these aspects or small effects in all four combining to create a larger impact.
The magnitude should align with the proportion of global revenue at risk you reported in W4.1c for the river basin associated with the impact (selected in column 2). For example, if 50% of global revenue could be affected by water risk in the Yellow River basin then the magnitude for a risk reported in the Yellow River basin should align.
If the financial impact has not been assessed by your organization, please select ‘Unknown’.

Likelihood (column 9)

Likelihood refers to the probability of the inherent impact occurring within the time frame reported in column 7. In the case of an inherent risk, the probability of the impact might be similar to the probability of the risk event (the risk driver) itself.
Likelihood along with the magnitude are the building blocks for quantifying and prioritizing risk.
The terms used to describe likelihood are taken from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s (IPCC) 2013 report and are consistent across all CDP information requests.
As a guide to quantifying likelihood on a % basis, we suggest:

- Virtually certain (greater than 99% probability);
- Very likely (greater than 90% probability);
- Likely (greater than 66% probability);
- More likely than not (greater than 50% probability);
- About as likely as not (between 33% and 66% probability);
- Unlikely (less than 33% probability);
- Very unlikely (less than 10%);
- Exceptionally unlikely (less than 1% probability);
- Unknown.

For example, you may consider your company to be potentially exposed to a risk of water rationing in the next ‘4-6 years’ which would cause an impact of high magnitude - but the risk is not considered very likely to materialize. You would select ‘unlikely’. Alternatively, if the risk related to a piece of new legislation which has already been prepared in draft form, the likelihood of the impact associated with that risk occurring will be relatively high and you would select ‘very likely’.

Are you able to provide a potential financial impact figure? (column 10)

Your selection will determine whether column 11 or columns 12 and 13 will be presented.
It is acknowledged that these figures will be estimates.
If you are unable to provide a figure for a financial impact, you may use column 14 (‘Explanation of financial impact’) to provide a description of the impact in relative terms; for example, as a percentage relative to a stated or publicly available figure, or give a qualitative estimate of the financial impact.

Potential financial impact figure (currency) (column 11)

Provide a single figure for the inherent financial impact of the risk (before taking into consideration any controls you may have in place to mitigate the impacts). This figure should be in the same currency that you selected in question W0.4 for all financial information disclosed throughout your response.
An example would be the value of stranded assets or the value lost due to halted production (before taking into consideration any insurance coverage that might compensate you).

Potential financial impact figure - minimum/maximum (currency) (columns 12, 13)

Provide the estimated range for the inherent financial impact (before taking into consideration any controls you may have in place to mitigate the impact).This figure should be in the same currency that you selected in question W0.4 for all financial information disclosed throughout your response.
Potential financial impact figure - minimum (currency) use this field to report the lower point of your estimated financial impact associate with the risk. For example, if the range is from US $5,000 to $50,000, ‘5,000’ should be reported here.
Potential financial impact figure - maximum (currency) use this field to report the upper point of your estimated financial impact associate with the risk. For example, if the range is from US $5,000 to $50,000, ‘50,000’ should be reported here.

Explanation of financial impact (column 14)

Use this field to explain the figure(s) provided in 'Potential financial impact' (columns, 10, 11, 12).
Describe how you arrived at this figure (or range), including:

- What approach was employed to calculate the figure;
- Any assumptions the figure is dependent on;
- The likely timescale for the financial impact.

If 'We do not have this figure' was selected in column 10, use this column to provide a description of the financial impact in the relative terms (for example as a percentage relative to a stated or publicly available figure) or give a qualitative estimate of the financial impact. Otherwise, if you have no information about the financial impact, please state “The impact has not been quantified financially”.

Primary response to risk (column 15)

Select the response strategy that most closely describes how your organization expects to respond to the reported risk. If there is no appropriate response strategy for your organization included in the list, please select “Other, please specify” and add your own response label.
If you select “Other, please specify”, provide a label for the primary response to risk.

Description of response (column 16)

Provide additional details of your organization’s response to mitigate, control, transfer or accept the risk associated with the driver reported in this row. You may include any secondary response strategies.
Include the timeframe expected for the response strategy to be implemented. Is the response underway, not yet implemented, or completed? What is the projected progress for lowering risidual risk?
Describe the difference the response has made/is likely to make. This may include:

- How effective the response has been/is expected to be in preventing the inherent risk driver reoccurring, or for improving your organization’s resilience at the asset or corporate level, so preventing future financial, operational or strategic impacts;
- Whether water security for your company is likely to improve as a result, at either the asset or corporate level;
- Whether water security for other users is likely to improve as a result;
- Whether the response contributes to the progress of other UN Sustainable Development Goals;
- Whether the response strategy involves any collective action initiatives.

Report whether the response strategy involves any collective action initiatives, or if it contributes to the progress of a UN Sustainable Development Goal.
State how the risks have influenced your strategic and/or financial planning.
For those who indicate in W11.2 that they would be interested in having their public response data transferred to the Water Action Hub, we ask that you provide as much information about your response as possible, particularly local projects, including:

- Who else is involved in the joint project /initiative (such as names of organizations or government offices) or who you would like to work with (government agencies, other companies, NGOs, etc.);
- The geographic or other scale of the project;
- What the project seeks to accomplish including expected benefits for the watershed beyond the company;
- When the project started and if it has concluded or if it is continuing;
- If possible, the specific location of the project.

Note that these criteria are not scored but are crucial to building a project for the Water Action Hub and without this detail the project may not be suitable to transfer to this platform.

Cost of response (column 17)

Provide a quantitative figure for the cost of your risk response actions. If there are no costs to responding to the risk, enter '0'. If the value you have reported is an estimate, please state this in column 18 (Explanation of cost of response).
If you cannot provide an absolute value, you may use column 18 to provide a percentage value.
This figure should be in the same currency that you selected for all financial information disclosed throughout your response in question W0.4.

Explanation of cost of response (column 18)

Use this field to explain the figure provided in column 17. Please describe how you derived this figure, including:

- What approach was taken to arriving at the cost of your response strategy;
- If it is an estimate;
- Any assumptions the figure is dependent on;
- The likely timescale for the cost of response.

In case no figure is provided in column 17, provide a description of the cost in relative terms or give a qualitative estimate of the cost of the response. Otherwise, if you have no information about the financial impact, please write “cost of response not quantified at corporate level".

Explanation of terms

Direct operations: An organization’s operations include anything it does itself for the purpose of producing goods and services and maintaining the functionality of the business. This covers any internal supply chains between the organization’s business units. For example, a business unit within a company that supplies components to another business unit within the company would be considered part of the organization’s direct operations.
Inherent risk: The risk that exists in the absence of controls, i.e. not taking into account any potential mitigation or management measures that could be implemented.
Physical risk: Risk driven by water stress or scarcity (too little water), flooding (too much water) or pollution (lower water quality). Disruption in water supply or decline in water quality can adversely affect operations where water is used for production, irrigation, material processing, cooling, washing and cleaning, and personal consumption. Physical risks can adversely affect production or cause damage to physical assets.
- Acute physical risk: Risk that is event-driven, including increased severity of extreme weather events, such as cyclones, hurricanes, or floods (adapted from the Recommendations of the Task Force for Climate-related Financial Disclosures, 2017).
- Chronic physical risk: Risk driven by long-term changes, such as rising sea levels, changing precipitation patterns and types, or declining water quality (adapted from the Recommendations of the Task Force for Climate-related Financial Disclosures, 2017).

- Note that weather events such as snow, or physical events such as high tide or earthquakes, are not a water risks in themselves but may cause water risks. If snow or earthquakes cause flooding, then it is the flooding that is the water risk and should be reported as such. However, snow, high tide and earthquakes could be considered water risks if they could cause predictable disruption to water supply or have groundwater impacts. For example, if heavy snow on property is common it could cause pollution release incidents when it melts if not managed properly.

Regulatory risk: Risks driven by an expected or unexpected change or uncertainty, in law or regulation that may have direct or indirect impacts on a company. A change in law or regulation can increase the costs of operating a business, reduce the attractiveness of an investment, or change the competitive landscape in which a company operates. Water regulatory measures may include, among others, new water permit structures, rate changes to control withdrawals and discharge, redistribution of water to various users, and restrictions on pollutant types and levels.
Reputational risk: Risk driven by litigation, product risks due to changes in consumer behavior, and risks that may impact decisions made by investors, consumers and current/potential employees concerning a company.
Residual risk: The risk remaining after a specific action has been taken to manage the risk.
Risk driver: The factor/ driving force that could cause the potential impact. Risk drivers are typically physical (e.g. weather extreme events), regulatory, reputational and markets related, or technological.
Technological risk: Risk driven by technological improvements or innovations; for example, those that support water security or the transition to a lower-carbon, energy-efficient economic system.
Water scarcity: Refers to the volumetric abundance, or lack thereof, of freshwater resources. Scarcity is human driven; it is a function of the volume of human water consumption relative to the volume of water resources in a given area. As such, an arid region with very little water, but no human water consumption would not be considered scarce, but rather “arid.” Water scarcity is a physical, objective reality that can be measured consistently across regions and over time. Water scarcity reflects the physical abundance of freshwater rather than whether that water is suitable for use. For instance, a region may have abundant water resources (and thus not be considered water scarce), but have such severe pollution that those supplies are unfit for human or ecological uses.

Example response

Country/Area	River basin	Type of risk	Primary risk driver	Primary potential impact
India	Godavari	Chronic physical	Declining water quality	Closure of operations
Indonesia	Sungai Kapuas	Regulatory	Statutory water withdrawal limits/changes to water allocation	Constraint to growth
Japan	Mogami	Reputation & markets	Changes in consumer behavior	Brand damage
Kyrgyzstan	Issyk-Kul	Chronic physical	Increased levels of plastic in freshwater bodies	Reduced revenues from lower sales/output

Company-specific description	Timeframe	Magnitude of potential impact	Likelihood	Are you able to provide a potential financial impact figure?	Potential financial impact figure (currency)
The increased algae in the Godavari may affect our ability to pump water at our Nanded based sites. An inflow of good quality freshwater for cooling and discharge dilution is essential for our data centers to operate, as they represent 15% of our operations. Without it, we would have to perform intermittent shutdowns while we clean the water intakes, and this would lead to significant financial impacts to our business through reduced output.	Current up to one year	Medium-low	Likely	Yes, a single figure estimate	300,000.00
Municipal water supply is over-stretched and new conditions of industrial water use are being drafted by the West Kalimantan government. Stricter water use limits may be imposed on water-intensive businesses like our paper mills which require a sufficient water provision to operate. If these new limits are in effect during peak annual production periods, we would experience a significant delay in production, decrease in customer satisfaction, and be unable to perform according to contractual agreements. Reduced output of this magnitude could result in a revenue decrease up to US $ 200,000 per day.	4-6 years	Medium	Very likely	Yes, a single figure estimate	1,450,000.00
When making beverage purchase decisions, consumers in the Japanese market are taking account of the producers’ corporate efforts to conserve shared water resources and its transparency around this. If consumers were to gain the mistaken impression that the group did not make efforts to conserve water resources, or if they felt that such efforts were insufficient, our brands would lose consumers’ trust. Over time, this could lead to a significant decrease in sales of soft drinks, estimated to be up to 15% of annual revenue.	More than 6 years	High	Unlikely	Yes, an estimated range
Plastic pollution in water bodies globally (both rivers and oceans) is increasingly in the public eye, and products containing microplastics and plastic fibers are contributing to the issue. As one of the largest manufacturers of athletic leisurewear, we recognize our role in this issue. We have identified a risk that our product sales will be affected by increasing consumer demand for plastic-free beauty products. Secondary impacts include company brand damage from association with the plastic pollution issue, especially in our main market of Germany.	Current up to one year	Medium	Likely	Yes, an estimated range

Potential financial impact figure - minimum (currency)	Potential financial impact figure - maximum (currency)	Explanation of financial impact	Primary response to risk	Description of response	Cost of response	Explanation of cost of response
		In 2018, our Nanded site saw intermittent shutdowns as a result of high algae levels. During this time our organization made heavy losses as a direct result, and this figure is based on that but adjusted for inflation, changes to interest rates and the value of the Euro. This is the potential impact prior to implementing our response.	Increase capital expenditure	This was a 0.05% one-off investment in mitigation technology i.e. algae detection equipment in order to minimize impact on critical periods of water use. This includes the installation of cleaning grids and algae retention systems. We expect this to improve water security, not just at our facilities in Maharashtra, but for the wider environment including other stakeholders in the basin. We are currently implementing this system and it will be completed by March 2021.	100,000.00	This was a one-off investment of EUR 100,000, however maintenance costs may decrease if monsoon rainfall is lower next year.
		Calculated the number of days per year which could have seen limited supplies of water. As peak production times vary inter-annually, we took these as potentially all occurring in peak production. This was calculated from 2012 onwards to givie the average potential annual impact.	Comply with local regulatory requirements	We plan to research and implement a general water efficiency strategy for facilities in all water stressed locations by the end of 2020. This will be tailored to local conditions. We have set targets to reduce water withdrawals from 8% to 3% in all facilities located in the Kapuas river basin.	350,000.00	Financial investment will depend on location and facility, but our West Kalimantan facilities have been flagged as a high priority by our Environmental Management System. Estimated US $ 200,000 – 500,000 per site. Cost estimate is based on previous implementation in 2 similar pulp facilities in Malaysia and Thailand, with installation of water recycling equipment and training local engineers as the key expenditure items.
400,000,000.00	600,000,000.00	Based on our current market share and our internal risk analysis we have estimated that in the event of a high magnitude dip in consumer demand, 15% of our market value could be lost. There are high margins of error to this however, and it is primarily based on case studies of historical analogues and research from the University of Mogami.	Engage with NGOs/special interest groups	As well as disclosing information on the group’s water management practices and environmental performance, we work to promote sustainable water management and conserve water resources with NGOs active at the local level - such as WWF-Japan so that all local water users and environmental eco-systems can access sufficient amounts of good quality water. Our goal is to preserve 400 million liters of water a year for the Mogami river basin system and move our operations out of areas with water stress over the next seven years. We have started a marketing campaign in Japan and Taiwan on these water conservation commitments and our work towards achieving a water secure future as a major beverage retailer.	20,000,000.00	Annual expenditure on information disclosure and water management activities amounts to approximately 20 million yen in the reporting year.
10,000,000.00	14,000,000.00	We estimate the potential decrease in sales of beauty products could be of the order of 12 million over the next 10 years. This is based on market research we commissioned on consumer preferences with regard to environmentally-conscious beauty products, combined with our global sales data.	Develop new products and/or markets	Our company always seeks to innovate in accordance with changing attitudes and ways of doing business. Plastic pollution is unacceptable and we have committed to phasing out all plastics from our products by 2025. We have already begun work on this effort, starting with a year-long trial of plastic-free products in Spain, one of our largest markets. We have also invested US$5 million in a five year research program to develop new plastic-free and resource efficient materials. To manage the residual risk form our existing products already in the market, we are working with washing machine manufacturers to develop filtration systems that would prevent the discharge of microplastics to the environment during the wash cycle. These efforts align with SDG6’s target to reduce industrial wastewater volumes and improve water quality globally (6.3.1 and 6.3.2).	9,000,000.00	We estimate that we are spending a total of US$9.5 million over the next five years on efforts to reduce this risk. This includes US$5 million for the R&D program, approximately US$500,000 on collaboration efforts with washing machine manufacturers, and US$4 million in the roll out and expansion of the trial of plastic-free products.

(W4.2a) Provide details of risks identified within your value chain (beyond direct operations) with the potential to have a substantive financial or strategic impact on your business, and your response to those risks.

Question Dependencies

This question only appears if you select one of the following options in response to W4.1:
- Yes, both in direct operations and the rest of our value chain
- Yes, only in our value chain beyond our direct operations

Change from last year

Minor change; Modified guidance

Rationale

Your response to this question will allow CDP data users to see, in one place, details of the inherent water risks that your company is exposed to due to drivers associated with its value chain within particular river basins, and also the estimated potential impact of the risk at the corporate level and your response strategy to address the risk.

Connection to other frameworks

CEO Water Mandate

Implications: Business risks

Response options

Please complete the following table. The table is displayed over several rows for readability. You are able to add rows to this table using the "Add row" button at the bottom of the table.

(*column/row appearance is dependent on selections in this or other questions)

Country/Area

River basin

Stage of value chain

Type of risk

Primary risk driver

Primary potential impact

Company-specific description

Timeframe

Select from:

Country/area drop-down list

Select from:

River basin drop-down list
Not known
Other, please specify

Select from:

Supply chain
Use phase
Other, please specify

Select from:

Acute physical
Chronic physical
Regulatory
Reputation & markets
Technology

Select from:

Response drop-down options below table

Select from:

Response drop-down options below table

Text field [maximum 2,500 characters]

Select from:

Current up to one year
1-3 years
4-6 years
More than 6 years
Unknown

Magnitude of potential impact

Likelihood

Are you able to provide a potential financial impact figure?

Potential financial impact figure (currency)*

Potential financial impact figure - minimum (currency)*

Potential financial impact figure - maximum (currency)*

Select from:

High
Medium-high
Medium
Medium-low
Low
Unknown

Select from:

Virtually certain
Very likely
Likely
More likely than not
About as likely as not
Unlikely
Very unlikely
Exceptionally unlikely
Unknown

Select from:

Yes, a single figure estimate
Yes, an estimated range
No, we do not have this figure

Numerical field [enter a number from 0-999,999,999,999,999 using a maximum of 2 decimal places]

Explanation of financial impact

Primary response to risk

Description of response

Cost of response

Explanation of cost of response

Text field [maximum 2,500 characters]

Select from:

Response drop-down options below table

Text field [maximum 2,500 characters]

Numerical field [enter a number from 0-999,999,999,999,999 using a maximum of 2 decimal places]

Text field [maximum 2,500 characters]

[Add Row]

Primary risk driver (column 5)

Acute physical

Cyclone, hurricane, typhoon
Drought
Flood (coastal, fluvial, pluvial, groundwater)
Glacial lake outburst
Heavy precipitation (rain, hail, snow/ice)
Storm (including blizzards, dust and sandstorm)
Tornado
Pollution incident
Rupture of tailings dams and toxic spills (metals & mining sector only)
Other, please specify

Chronic physical

Acid rock drainage and metal leaching (metals & mining sector only)
Change in land-use
Changing precipitation patterns and types (rain, hail, snow/ice)
Declining water quality
Dependency on water intensive energy sources
Ecosystem vulnerability
Inadequate infrastructure
Increased levels of plastic in fresh water bodies
Leaching of pollutants to groundwater bodies (metals & mining sector only)
Ocean acidification
Pollution of water bodies due to fertilizer, other chemical use, or animal residues (food, beverage & tobacco sector)
Poorly managed sanitation
Precipitation and/or hydrological variability
Rationing of municipal water supply
Saline intrusion
Sea level rise
Seasonal supply variability/inter annual variability
Soil degradation (food, beverage & tobacco sector only)
Water scarcity
Water stress
Other, please specify

Regulatory

Changed product standards
Higher water prices
Increased difficulty in supplier obtaining withdrawals/operations permit
Lack of transparency of water rights
Limited or no river basin/catchment management
Litigation against supplier
Mandatory water efficiency, conservation, recycling or process standards
Poor coordination between regulatory bodies
Poor enforcement of water regulation
Tighter regulatory standards
Regulation of discharge quality/volumes
Regulatory uncertainty
Statutory water withdrawal limits/changes to water allocation
Other, please specify

Reputation & markets

Changes in consumer behavior
Community opposition
Inadequate access to water, sanitation, and hygiene services
Increased stakeholder concern or negative stakeholder feedback
Water-related litigation
Negative media coverage
Other, please specify

Technology

Data access/availability
Substitution of existing products with lower water impact options
Transition to bio-based chemicals (chemicals sector only)
Transition to water efficient and low water intensity technologies and products
Transition to water intensive, low carbon energy sources
Unsuccessful investment in new technologies
Other, please specify

Primary potential impact (column 6)

Company brand damage
Changing revenue mix and sources
Constraint to growth
Closure of company operations
Diminished ability to reduce value chain GHG emissions
Disruption to sales due to value chain disruption
Fines, penalties or enforcement orders
Impact on company assets
Disruption to workforce management and planning
Increased insurance premiums
Increased cost of capital
Increased compliance costs

Increased operating costs
Increased production costs due to changing input prices from supplier
Litigation
Loss of license to operate
Reduction or disruption in production capacity
Reduced demand for products and services
Reduction in capital availability
Reduced revenues from lower sales/output
Upfront costs to adopt/deploy new practices and processes
Supply chain disruption
Mine closure (metals & mining sector only)
Other, please specify

Primary response to risk (column 16)

Direct operations

Develop new products and/or markets
Improve alignment of our procurement policy influencing activity with our water stewardship commitments
Include in Business Continuity Plan
Increase capital expenditure
Increase investment in new technology
Purchase water quality credits
Other, please specify

Upstream

Increase our insurance coverage
Increase supplier diversification
Map supplier water risk
Tighten supplier performance standards
Use risk transfer instruments
Reduce food waste throughout the value chain (food, beverage & tobacco sector only)
Other, please specify

Supplier engagement

Develop supplier drought emergency plans
Develop supplier flood emergency plans
Establish supplier performance targets
Increase supplier reporting on water
Introduce/strengthen water management incentives for suppliers
Promote adoption of waste water management procedures among suppliers
Promote greater due diligence among suppliers
Promote investment in infrastructure and technologies for water saving, re-use and recycling among suppliers
Promote the use of insurance among suppliers
Work with supplier to engage with local communities
Promote the adoption of alternative crop management strategies among suppliers to reduce use of fertilizers and pesticides (food, beverage & tobacco sector only)
Promote the adoption of alternative livestock management practices among suppliers (food, beverage & tobacco sector only)
Promote the adoption of alternative livestock management practices among suppliers to reduce use of veterinary products (food, beverage & tobacco sector only)
Promote the adoption of better animal waste management among suppliers (food, beverage & tobacco sector only)
Promote the adoption of soil conservation practices among suppliers (food, beverage & tobacco sector only)
Promote the adoption of sustainable irrigation practices among suppliers (food, beverage & tobacco sector only)
Promote efficient fertilizer and pesticide management among suppliers (food, beverage & tobacco sector only)
Promote the use of drought resistant crop varieties among suppliers (food, beverage & tobacco sector only)
Other, please specify

Downstream

Implement nature-based solutions
Improve pollution abatement and control measures
Increase/review infrastructure investment
Support river basin restoration
Work with supplier to engage with customers
Work with supplier to engage with NGOs/special interest groups
Work with supplier to engage with regulators/policymakers
Reduce food waste throughout the value chain (food, beverage & tobacco sector only)
Other, please specify

Requested content

General

This question asks about risk drivers associated with your value chain beyond your direct operations. Consider which risks drivers have the potential to substantively impact your organization at the corporate level, either currently or in the future, and what the response has been. (W4.2 asks about water-related risk drivers in your direct operations.).
For the purposes of this response, the risks reported should only be those which:

- Expose your organization to substantive financial or strategic impacts to your business - such as to operations, revenue, or expenditure, assets and liabilities, or capital allocation (as per the definition of “substantive” you provide in W4.1a);
- Pose a risk at the corporate level, and not simply at the asset/business unit/geographic level at which they may occur;
- Are inherent (a risk that exists in the absence of controls, so not taking into account any potential mitigation or management measures that have been or could be implemented).

Use each row to report a primary risk driver and the potential substantive impact it could cause. If there is more than one impact, please select the primary impact. If there is more than one response to this risk, select the primary response.
To report additional risk drivers or impacts associated with a basin, you are able to add a new row. Please report no more than 3 risk drivers or impacts per river basin and report the most substantive.

Country/Area (column 1)

From the drop-down menu provided, please select the country/area associated with the driver of the risk you are reporting.
Note that a selection must be made for both column 1 and column 2. Your data will not be saved if either column is left blank.

River basin (column 2)

From the drop-down options provided, select the river basin associated with the driver of the risk you are reporting. If you select “Other, please specify”, provide a label for the river basin.
For companies withdrawing water from large confined aquifers that may not discharge to the river basin they are located in e.g. Ogallala aquifer in the United States, please select “Other, please specify” and type in the name of the local aquifer source. Ensure that the correct country/area name is selected in column 1 (Country/Area).
You may want to report the sub-basin for a main river basin that is listed. In this case select “Other, please specify” and use the following format: “Putumayo, Amazon”.
Refer to the instructions in the Introduction to CDP’s water security reporting guidance for more details on how to response to ‘River basin’ columns.
Note that a selection must be made for both column 1 and column 2. Your data will not be saved if either column is left blank.

Stage of value chain (column 3)

Select the stage of the value chain where you have identified a risk with the potential to impact your business either currently or in the future.
If you select “Other, please specify”, provide a label for the stage of value chain.

Type of risk (column 4)

Select the type of risk you would like to report. Your selection will determine the list of risk drivers that will appear in column 5.
Note that a selection must be made for both column 4 and column 5. Your data will not be saved if either column is left blank.

Primary risk driver (column 5)

The drop-down options presented are linked to the type of risk you selected in column 4.
In the case that there may be more than one driver or a chain of causes for the potential substantive impact, you should select what you consider to be the primary driver.
If you do want to choose an additional driver for a river basin, you will need to add another row to report the details. Please refrain from providing more than three risk drivers per river basin.
If you select “Other, please specify”, provide a label for the primary risk driver.
Note that a selection must be made for both column 4 and column 5. Your data will not be saved if either column is left blank.

Primary potential impact (column 6)

Select the option that best describes the primary potential impact to your company due to the risk driver reported in column 5.
The impact must be substantive at the corporate level as defined in W4.1a.
If there is more than one potential impact associated with a risk driver, you should select what you consider to be the primary impact and describe the secondary impacts in column 7. This could, for example, be increased costs, decreased revenue, or closure of operations. Impacts can be operational or financial and can affect your organization, your consumers or other stakeholders as well as your company.
If you do want to choose an additional substantive impact for a river basin or a risk driver, you will need to add another row to report the details. Please refrain from providing more than three impacts per river basin.
If you select “Other, please specify”, provide a label for the stage of type of potential impact.

Company-specific description (column 7)

Provide further contextual information on the risk driver selected in column 5, including more detail on its nature and location.
Include a company-specific description of how the risk driver will impact your organization, including the nature of any secondary impacts.

Timeframe (column 8)

Select the timeframe in which the inherent risks would be most likely to materialize. It is acknowledged that there is likely to be a higher degree of uncertainty associated with long-term risks. For example, you may consider you company to be at risk due to increasing pollution levels but this is unlikely to impact your business within the next 5 years. In this case you would select ‘4-6 years’.

Magnitude of potential impact (column 9)

The magnitude describes the extent to which the impact, if it occurred, would affect your business. You should consider the business as a whole. This means that the potential magnitude of the impact can be a combination of the scale of the damage and your organization’s state of resilience prior to responding to the risk.
Magnitude of impact will vary from company to company. For example:

As it is not possible for CDP to accurately define terms for magnitude of impact, companies are asked to determine and report magnitude using a qualitative 5 point scale from High to Low. Factors to consider when classifying the magnitude of the impact on your organization include:

- The proportion of business units affected;
- The size of the impact on those business units;
- The dependency of the company on those units;
- The potential for shareholder or customer concern.

An impact could have a relatively high magnitude for the company as a whole because of a large effect in one of these aspects or small effects in all four combining to create a larger impact.
The magnitude should align with the proportion of global revenue at risk you reported in W4.1c for the river basin associated with the impact (selected in column 2). For example, if 50% of global revenue could be affected by water risk in the Yellow River basin then the magnitude for a risk reported in the Yellow River basin should align.
If the financial impact has not been assessed by your organization, please select ‘Unknown’.

Likelihood (column 10)

Likelihood refers to the probability of the impact occurring within the time frame reported in column 8. In the case of an inherent risk, the probability of the impact might be similar to the probability of the risk event (the risk driver) itself.
Likelihood along with the magnitude are the building blocks for quantifying and prioritizing risk.
The terms used to describe likelihood are taken from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s (IPCC) 2013 report and are consistent across all CDP information requests.
As a guide to quantifying likelihood on a % basis, we suggest:

For example, you may consider your company to be potentially exposed to a risk of water rationing in the next ‘4-6 years’ which would cause an impact of high magnitude - but the risk is not considered very likely to materialize. You would select ‘unlikely’. Alternatively, if the risk related to a piece of new legislation which has already been prepared in draft form, the likelihood of the impact associated with that risk occurring will be relatively high and you would select ‘very likely’.

Are you able to provide a potential financial impact figure? (column 11)

Your selection will determine whether column 12 or columns 13 and 14 will be presented.
It is acknowledged that these figures will be estimates.
If you are unable to provide a figure for a financial impact, you may use column 15 (‘Explanation of financial impact’) to provide a description of the impact in relative terms; for example, as a percentage relative to a stated or publicly available figure, or give a qualitative estimate of the financial impact.

Potential financial impact figure (currency) (column 12)

Provide a single figure for the inherent financial impact of the risk (before taking into consideration any controls you may have in place to mitigate the impacts). This figure should be in the same currency that you selected in question W0.4 for all financial information disclosed throughout your response.
An example would be the value of stranded assets or the value lost due to halted production (before taking into consideration any insurance coverage that might compensate you).

Potential financial impact figure - minimum/maximum (currency) (columns 13, 14)

Provide the estimated range for the inherent financial impact (before taking into consideration any controls you may have in place to mitigate the impact).This figure should be in the same currency that you selected in question W0.4 for all financial information disclosed throughout your response.
Potential financial impact figure - minimum (currency) use this field to report the lower point of your estimated financial impact associate with the risk. For example, if the range is from US $5,000 to $50,000, ‘5,000’ should be reported here.
Potential financial impact figure - maximum (currency) use this field to report the upper point of your estimated financial impact associate with the risk. For example, if the range is from US $5,000 to $50,000, ‘50,000’ should be reported here.

Explanation of financial impact (column 15)

Use this field to explain the figure(s) provided in 'Potential financial impact' (columns 12, 13, 14).
Describe how you arrived at this figure (or range), including:

- What approach was employed to calculate the figure;
- Any assumptions the figure is dependent on;
- The likely timescale for the financial impact.

If 'We do not have this figure' was selected in column 11, use this column to provide a description of the financial impact in the relative terms (for example as a percentage relative to a stated or publicly available figure) or give a qualitative estimate of the financial impact. Otherwise, if you have no information about the financial impact, please state “The impact has not been quantified financially”.

Primary response to risk (column 16)

Select the response strategy that most closely describes how your organization expects to respond to the reported risk. If there is no appropriate response strategy for your organization included in the list, please select “Other, please specify” and add your own response label.
If you select “Other, please specify”, provide a label for the primary response to risk.
Note that you will be required to make two selections for this column. One for the risk response type and one for the primary response to risk. Your data will not be saved if one selection is left blank.

Description of response (column 17)

Provide additional details of your organization’s response to mitigate, control, transfer or accept the risk associated with the driver reported in this row. You may include any secondary response strategies.
Include the timeframe expected for the response strategy to be implemented. Is the response underway, not yet implemented, or completed? What is the projected progress for lowering residual risk?
Describe the difference the response has made/is likely to make. This may include:

Report whether the response strategy involves any collective action initiatives, or if it contributes to the progress of a UN Sustainable Development Goal.
State how the risks have influenced your strategic and/or financial planning.
For those who indicate in W11.2 that they would be interested in having their public response data transferred to the Water Action Hub, we ask that you provide as much information about your response as possible, particularly local projects, including:

- Who else is involved in the joint project /initiative (such as names of organizations or government offices) or who you would like to work with (government agencies, other companies, NGOs, etc.);
- The geographic or other scale of the project;
- What the project seeks to accomplish including expected benefits for the watershed beyond the company;
- When the project started and if it has concluded or if it is continuing;
- If possible, the specific location of the project.

Note that these criteria are not scored but are crucial to building a project for the Water Action Hub and without this detail the project may not be suitable to transfer to this platform.

Cost of response (column 18)

Provide a quantitative figure for the cost of your risk response and management actions. If there are no costs to responding to and managing the risk, enter '0'. If the value you have reported is an estimate, please state this in column 19 (Explanation of cost of response).
If you cannot provide an absolute value, you may use column 19 to provide a percentage value.
This figure should be in the same currency that you selected for all financial information disclosed throughout your response in question W0.4.

Explanation of cost of response (column 19)

Use this field to explain the figure provided in column 18. Please describe how you derived this figure, including:

- What approach was taken to arriving at the cost of your response strategy;
- If it is an estimate;
- Any assumptions the figure is dependent on;
- The likely timescale for the cost of response.

In case no figure is provided in column 18, provide a description of the cost in relative terms or give a qualitative estimate of the cost of the response. Otherwise, if you have no information about the financial impact, please write “cost of response not quantified at corporate level".

Explanation of terms

Inherent risk: The risk that exists in the absence of controls, i.e. not taking into account any potential mitigation or management measures that could be implemented.
Physical risk: Risk driven by water stress or scarcity (too little water), flooding (too much water) or pollution (lower water quality). Disruption in water supply or decline in water quality can adversely affect operations where water is used for production, irrigation, material processing, cooling, washing and cleaning, and personal consumption. Physical risks can adversely affect production or cause damage to physical assets.

Regulatory risk: Risks driven by an expected or unexpected change or uncertainty, in law or regulation that may have direct or indirect impacts on a company. A change in law or regulation can increase the costs of operating a business, reduce the attractiveness of an investment, or change the competitive landscape in which a company operates. Water regulatory measures may include, among others, new water permit structures, rate changes to control withdrawals and discharge, redistribution of water to various users, and restrictions on pollutant types and levels.
Reputational risk: Risk driven by litigation, product risks due to changes in consumer behavior, and risks that may impact decisions made by investors, consumers and current/potential employees concerning a company.
Residual risk: The risk remaining after a specific action has been taken to manage the risk.
Risk driver: The factor/ driving force that could cause the potential impact. Risk drivers are typically physical (e.g. weather extreme events), regulatory, reputational and markets related, or technological.
Technological risk: Risk driven by technological improvements or innovations; for example, those that support water security or the transition to a lower-carbon, energy-efficient economic system.
Water scarcity: Refers to the volumetric abundance, or lack thereof, of freshwater resources. Scarcity is human driven; it is a function of the volume of human water consumption relative to the volume of water resources in a given area. As such, an arid region with very little water, but no human water consumption would not be considered scarce, but rather “arid.” Water scarcity is a physical, objective reality that can be measured consistently across regions and over time. Water scarcity reflects the physical abundance of freshwater rather than whether that water is suitable for use. For instance, a region may have abundant water resources (and thus not be considered water scarce), but have such severe pollution that those supplies are unfit for human or ecological uses.

Value chain (beyond direct operations): The sequence of activities or partners, either upstream or downstream of direct operations, that provide value to or receive value from an organization’s products and services; for example, suppliers, product users and franchisees.

(W4.2b) Why does your organization not consider itself exposed to water risks in its direct operations with the potential to have a substantive financial or strategic impact?

Question Dependencies

This question only appears if you select “No” or “Yes, only in our value chain beyond our direct operations” in response to W4.1.

Change from last year

No change

Rationale

A risk assessment may identify no substantive water-related risks. This conclusion is important to disclose and explain. Knowing why your organization has concluded that it is not exposed to risks is crucial for data users to understand your business. This is especially relevant if you responded to W1.1 by rating water as important to your direct operations.

Response options

Please complete the following table:

Primary reason

Please explain

Select from:

Risks exist, but no substantive impact anticipated
Evaluation in progress
Not yet evaluated
Other, please specify

Text field [maximum 2,500 characters]

Requested content

Primary reason (column 1)

Choose the option that best explains why your organization does not consider itself exposed to any water-related risks in your direct operations with the potential to have a substantive financial or strategic impact on your business - given your own definition of substantive reported in W4.1a.
If none of the reasons listed are applicable, select "Other, please specify" and fill in the text box with the appropriate reason.

Please explain (column 2)

Your explanation should include company-specific details such as:

- your evaluation process that is in progress
- or reasons why you have not yet conducted a risk assessment
- or why no substantive impacts to your organization are anticipated due to water-related risks that have been identified in your direct operations.

(W4.2c) Why does your organization not consider itself exposed to water risks in its value chain (beyond direct operations) with the potential to have a substantive financial or strategic impact?

Question dependencies

This question only appears if you select “No” or “Yes, only within our direct operations” in response to W4.1.

Change from last year

No change

Rationale

Response options

Please complete the following table:

Primary reason

Please explain

Select from:

Risks exist, but no substantive impact anticipated
Evaluation in progress
Not yet evaluated
Lack of visibility of supply chain
Other, please specify

Text field [maximum 2,500 characters]

Requested content

Primary reason (column 1)

Choose the option that best explains why your organization does not consider itself exposed to any water-related risks anywhere in your value chain (beyond direct operations) with the potential to have a substantive financial or strategic impact on your business - given your own definition of substantive reported in W4.1a.
If none of the reasons listed are applicable, select "Other, please specify" and fill in the text box with the appropriate reason.

Please explain (column 2)

Your explanation should include company-specific details such as:

- your evaluation process that is in progress for your value chain
- or reasons why you have not yet conducted a risk assessment for your value chain
- any plans to improve supplier visibility
- or why no substantive impacts to your organization are anticipated due to water-related risks that have been identified in your value chain.

Water-related opportunities

(W4.3) Have you identified any water-related opportunities with the potential to have a substantive financial or strategic impact on your business?

Question dependencies

Your response to W4.3 will determine which subsequent questions are presented. If your response to W4.3 is amended, data in those dependent questions may be erased. In this case, be sure to re-enter data for all relevant questions. The guidance for each question indicates if it is a dependent question.

Change from last year

No change

Rationale

Changes in water management, availability, climatic conditions and other physical, market or regulatory developments related to water may pose commercial or other opportunities to some companies. CDP data users are interested in understanding how companies are approaching and capitalizing on potential water-related opportunities, especially those with market significance and financial value.

Connection to other frameworks

CEO Water Mandate

Implications: Business risks

Implications: Business opportunities

Response options

Select one of the following options:

Yes, we have identified opportunities, and some/all are being realized
Yes, we have identified opportunities but are unable to realize them
No

Request content

General

Consider whether your organization has identified water-related opportunities that could have a substantive impact on your business at the corporate level. Also consider whether or not the opportunities are being realized.
Select one of the ‘Yes’ options if water presents a strategic, operational or market opportunity that is substantively benefiting, or has the potential to substantively benefit, your organization.
The opportunities may:

- be commercial or operational in nature
- be driven at the asset, business unit, geographic or other level
- bring direct financial benefits
- bring other kinds of benefits, such as policy influence, strengthening of reputation, or reduced environmental impact
- also be of benefit to other water users; for example through stewardship or collective action programs that address shared risks or aim to secure water for all.

Select ‘Yes, we have identified opportunities, and some/all are being realized’ if your organization has taken action to pursue any substantive opportunities. More details will be requested in W4.3a.
Select ‘Yes, we have identified opportunities but are unable to realize them’ if your organization has not taken action to pursue any substantive opportunities. More details will be requested in W4.3b.
Only select ‘No’ if you have not identified any substantive opportunities.

Explanation of terms

Substantive impact: An impact that has a considerable or relatively significant effect on an organization at the corporate level. This could include an operational, financial or strategic effect on the entire business or part of a business

(W4.3a) Provide details of opportunities currently being realized that could have a substantive financial or strategic impact on your business.

Question dependencies

This question only appears if you select “Yes, we have identified opportunities, and some/all are being realized” in response to question W4.3.

Change from last year

Modified guidance

Rationale

Investors and data users are interested to know if you are realizing the opportunities stemming from changes in water availability, climatic conditions, and other water-related developments and their potential financial impact. Details related to these opportunities can be important when evaluating businesses' plans and environmental strategies.

Connection to other frameworks

CEO Water Mandate

Implications: Business risks

SDG

Goal 6: Clean water and sanitation

Response options

Please complete the following table. You are able to add rows by using the “Add Row” button at the bottom of the table.

Type of opportunity

Primary water-related opportunity

Company-specific description & strategy to realize opportunity

Estimated timeframe for realization

Magnitude of potential financial impact

Select from:

Efficiency
Resilience
Products and services
Markets
Other

Select from:

Response drop-down options below table

Text field [maximum 2,500 characters]

Select from:

Current - up to 1 year
1 to 3 years
4 to 6 years
More than 6 years
Unknown

Select from:

Low
Low-medium
Medium
Medium-high
High
Unknown

Are you able to provide a potential financial impact figure?

Potential financial impact figure (currency)

Potential financial impact figure - minimum (currency)

Potential financial impact figure - maximum (currency)

Explanation of financial impact

Select from:

Yes, a single figure estimate
Yes, an estimated range
No, we do not have this figure

Numerical field [enter a number from 0-999,999,999,999,999 using a maximum of 2 decimal places]

Text field [maximum 2,500 characters]

[Add Row]

Primary water-related opportunity (column 2)

Efficiency

Cost savings
Improved water efficiency in operations
Water recovery from sewage management
Improved field recovery factor (oil & gas sector only)
Other, please specify

Resilience

Increased resilience to impacts of climate change
Increased supply chain resilience
Resilience to future regulatory changes
Other, please specify

Products and services

New R&D opportunities
Increased sales of existing products/services
Sales of new products/services
Reduced impact of product use on water resources
Other, please specify

Markets

Expansion into new markets
Improved community relations
Improved staff retention
Improved customer satisfaction
Increased brand value
Increased shareholder value
Strengthened social license to operate
Stronger competitive advantage
Other, please specify

Other

Other, please specify

Requested content

General

For the purposes of this response, the opportunities reported should only be those which currently or potentially have a positive substantive impact on your business at the corporate level, directly or indirectly.
You should only report opportunities which you are currently taking action to realize.
The opportunities may:

- Be commercial or operational in nature;
- Be driven at the asset, business unit, geographic or other level;
- Bring direct financial benefits;
- Bring other kinds of benefits, such as policy influence, strengthening of reputation, or reduced environmental impact;
- Also be of benefit to other water users; for example through stewardship or collective action programs that address shared risks or aim to secure water for all.

Type of opportunity/Primary water-related opportunity (columns 1, 2)

The drop-down options presented in column 2 depend on the type of opportunity you selected in column 1.
If you select “Other, please specify”, provide a label for the primary water-related opportunity.
Other examples of opportunity types are provided in the Additional Information row.

Company-specific description & strategy to realize opportunity (column 3)

Include details of the opportunity:

- A description of the actual or anticipated positive benefit for your organization;
- Where in the organization the benefit applies, e.g. - company-wide, to a certain location, geographic scale, business line, stage of your value chain, or with a particular product or service;
- What is driving the opportunity and where in the organization the opportunity originates, e.g. - company-wide, to a certain location, geographic scale, business line, stage of your value chain, or with a particular product or service;
- How the opportunities have influenced your strategic and/or financial planning.

Describe how you have defined ‘substantive’ impact in the context of an opportunity, and reference the definition of substantive impact you gave in W4.1a if applicable.
With reference to your organization specifically, describe the strategy your organization has in place to take advantage of the opportunities and include an example of the strategy in action, if possible. Actions might include, for example, developing new product lines to address water challenges or increased demand for certain product lines due to changing consumer attitudes; or strengthening catchment relationships in order to realize a collective action opportunity.

Estimated timeframe for realization (column 4)

This refers to the estimated timeframe it will take to realize the opportunity from the current reporting year. Your organization may have already begun work in previous years to realize this opportunity.

Magnitude of potential financial impact (column 5)

Indicate your understanding of the magnitude of the financial benefit that has arisen or will arise due to this opportunity. Your response should be in terms of your entire organization, rather than a local asset/business unit/geography.
This is an estimate of the inherent potential financial benefit of the opportunities i.e. before taking into consideration any processes you may have in place to capitalize on the opportunity.
The ‘magnitude’ of the potential benefit arising from a financial value will vary in scale and metric from company to company, so it is not possible for CDP to accurately define the listed terms for magnitude. For example, two companies may report a potential financial impact figure of $500,000. For company A this could represent a 1% increase in profits, but a 15% increase in revenue for company B.
For this reason, companies are asked to determine and report magnitude using a qualitative 5-point scale from High to Low, and then give more details in column 7.
If the financial impact has not been assessed by your organization, please select ‘Unknown’.

Are you able to provide a potential financial impact figure? (column 6)

Your selection will determine whether column 7 or columns 8 and 9 will be presented.
It is acknowledged that these will be estimates and, where possible, assumptions made in arriving at a financial impact figure should be stated column 10.
If you are unable to provide a figure for a financial impact, you may use column 10 ('Explanation of potential financial impact') to provide a description of the impact in relative terms; for example, as a percentage relative to a stated or publicly available figure, or give a qualitative estimate of the financial impact.

Potential financial impact figure (currency) (column 7)

Provide a single figure for the financial impact of the opportunity. This figure should be in the same currency that you selected in question W0.4 for all financial information disclosed throughout your response.

Potential financial impact figure - minimum/maximum (currency) (columns 8, 9)

Provide the estimated range for the financial impact of the opportunity. This figure should be in the same currency that you selected in question W0.4 for all financial information disclosed throughout your response.
Potential financial impact figure - minimum (currency) use this field to report the lower point of your estimated financial impact associated with the risk. For example, if the range is from US $5,000 to $50,000, ‘5,000’ should be reported here.
Potential financial impact figure - maximum (currency) use this field to report the upper point of your estimated financial impact associated with the risk. For example, if the range is from US $5,000 to $50,000, ‘50,000’ should be reported here.

Explanation of potential financial impact figure (column 10)

Comment on your selection in column 5, how you arrive at that assessment of magnitude and the assumptions made in calculating the financial figure(s) provided in 'Potential financial impacts' (columns 7, 8, 9).
Include any further information with regards to the information provided, including for example the geographic scale associated with the potential financial impact.
If 'We do not have this figure' was selected in column 6, use this column to provide a description of the financial impact in relative terms (for example as a percentage relative to a stated or publicly available figure) or give a qualitative estimate of the financial impact. Otherwise, if you have no information about the financial impact, please state 'The impact has not been quantified financially'.

Example response

Type of opportunity	Primary water-related opportunity	Company-specific description & strategy to realize opportunity	Estimated timeframe for realization	Magnitude of potential financial impact
Markets	Increased brand value	Our strategy for increasing our brand value is to develop innovative new products which help people adapt to water scarcity. We plan to leverage our sector leader status with an extensive marketing campaign targeting new and existing customers in emerging markets in Brazil and India with our new water efficient household wet appliance line – Wash N’Go. This new appliance line will help save approximately 30-40 L of water per household per day.	1 to 3 years	Low-medium
Efficiency	Cost savings	Reducing water use by increasing water recycling will lead to lower costs and associated taxes across our South African facilities; reducing wastewater loading will reduce costs for treatment and disposal across our South African facilities. We have already installed water efficient measures at 10% of our South African facilities in the past 18 months. We aim to install water efficient technologies in our entire portfolio of South African facilities by 2022/23.	1 to 3 years	Medium-high
Products and services	Sales of new products/services	Over 95% of our product water footprint occurs in the product use phase, and we are focusing on developing and increasing our sales of types of product that are the least water intensive and have the most potential for dramatic reductions in product water use i.e. laundry, cleaning and cosmetics. For example, we are developing our new brand SURF detergent and this will reduce the volume of water needed for handwashes by around 10L, decreasing the number of rinses by around a quarter per wash. Marketing in regions with water stress is already in place to realize this opportunity for new sales.	1 to 3 years	Low-medium
Resilience	Increased supply chain resilience	We recognize that investing in the enhancement of water efficiency in our supply chain can improve the resilience of our business and provide financial return. In 2012, we started investing in these improvements through an annual fund of around $25m. Business cases are submitted by suppliers for each project, and projects are then selected on their contribution in terms of $/m³ of water saved. Priority is given to sites in water stressed areas. For example, in 2018 the fund sanctioned a project to install rainwater harvesting, filter upgrades and more efficient heat pumps at one of our most water stressed sites. These interventions will improve local resilience by saving up to 14,000m³ of water or 18% of the sites’ total use per year.	1 to 3 years	Low

Are you able to provide a potential financial impact figure?	Potential financial impact figure (currency)	Potential financial impact figure - minimum (currency)	Potential financial impact figure - maximum (currency)	Explanation of financial impact
Yes, a single figure estimate	150,000,000.00			Revenue from an increased market share in these countries is forecasted to be in the region of US $150 million. We have already rolled out this strategy in 10 major Indian cities and seen an increased market share of 0.5%. The magnitude of this is based on our latest valuation.
Yes, a single figure estimate	6,000,000.00			Based on the measures we have already installed water at 10% of our South African facilities in the past 18 months with a resulting cost saving of ZAR 200,000 from reduced water charges, we have been able to estimate the full program could result in savings of up to ZAR 2 million per year once implemented. We expect this will require three years to be fully realized and will reduce our annual water utilities spend by approximately 30%.
Yes, a single figure estimate	1,900,000.00			Based on internal research into the market for such products, and estimating the potential financial impact of new products using future water-smart technologies and portfolio shifts towards low-water or waterless formats in our Home Care and Beauty & Personal Care categories, we estimate this could yield around $1.5-2.4 billion incremental sales by 2025.
Yes, an estimated range		350,000.00	450,000.00	Over the course of the projects’ lifetimes of 12 years the total cost saving is estimated to be within 12.5% of $400k. Savings will mostly be accumulated through reduced water and utility costs. This is a low magnitude opportunity compared to others realized in the reporting year.

Additional information

Examples of opportunities:

Efficiency

Cost savings: Reducing water use through water efficiency, recycling or re-use of wastewater, may provide savings by reducing energy use, water bills or the need for discharge permits.
Improved water efficiency: Reducing water use through improving process and/or procedures. Improved water efficiency can lead to cost savings, increased brand value, or the creation of a new product or service. Efficiency gains are consistently set as targets for large corporations and can be used across different sectors as a relative measure of water use.

Resilience

Climate change resilience: Investing in solving water-related challenges such as poor water infrastructure, implementing flood risk strategies or catchment restoration for example, may have the dual purpose of sustaining important operational inputs such as water supply or product distribution as well as ensuring resilience against climate change.
Collective action: By engaging with other water users in local catchments or working with policy makers for example, business may share in the value created from tackling difficult local water challenges in a collective manner.This is an opportunity to influence how water is used locally and help ensure the sustainability of business locally in the face of water challenges such as increasing water scarcity.
Ensuring supply chain resilience: Water challenges may provide greater impetus to invest in ensuring supply chain resilience ensuring the long-term resilience of current and future growth strategies.

Products and services

Sales of new products and services: Local water issues in certain markets e.g. poor water quality in China, may create greater demand for new products e.g. domestic water filters. Designing new products or services in response to increasing water challenges.
Research & Development (R&D): Water challenges may provide greater impetus to fund specific research areas.
Improved community relations: By being transparent about water use and engaging with the local community to understand and alleviate concerns about water issues, a business may maintain their social licence to operate and possibly grow their business in the future locally.

Markets

Stronger competitive advantage: By investing in solving water-related challenges or water-related innovation, may put some businesses ahead of their competitors or help capture greater market share.
Stronger competitive advantage: The introduction of new standards, for example, for water use and quality of effluent discharged, can provide a competitive advantage to those organizations well prepared to quickly implement changes.
Increased brand value: By associating a company’s brand in a positive way with consumer interest in local water issues, a company might accrue increased brand value. For example, by selling products that promote water-efficiency in water-scarce regions, consumer confidence may grow in a brand and prompt consumers to buy other products from the same brand. This might provide a commercial advantage over a competitor, increasing market share or helping to position a company in new markets, ultimately increasing sales and revenue.
Increased shareholder value: By taking action on water that ensures the sustainability of your business, whether through brand reputation, operational improvements or safeguarding against regulatory changes may contribute directly or indirectly to increased shareholder value.
Staff retention: By associating a company’s brand in a positive way in local water issues, a company can maintain a working environment that supports current staff. By enhancing staff job satisfaction, a company can substantially reduce costs in hiring and training new staff.
Social license to operate: Working with local communities or maintaining/improving brand reputation with customers or the general public in relation to water issues may help to maintain a social license to operate in regions of increasing water stress.

Other

Carbon management: Greater investment in water efficiency can contribute to a reduction in carbon emissions and help achieve emission reduction targets especially in industries that are water-intensive.
Implementing adequate sanitation: Investment in building adequate sanitation protects the surrounding water bodies, the environment, and community from infectious disease. Circular sanitation systems can provide additional returns in the form of recycled water, energy, or fertilizers.

(W4.3b) Why does your organization not consider itself to have water-related opportunities?

Question dependencies

This question only appears if you select “No” or “Yes, we have identified opportunities but are unable to realize them” in response to W4.3.

Change from last year

No change

Rationale

Investors and other data users are interested to know whether you are aware of water-related opportunities. An explanation of why your organization has concluded that it is not exposed to opportunities is crucial for understanding how your business strategy is aligned with water issues.

Response options

Please complete the following table:

Primary reason

Please explain

Select from:

Opportunities exist, but we are unable to realize them
Opportunities exist, but none with potential to have a substantive financial or strategic impact on business
Evaluation in progress
Judged to be unimportant
No instruction from management to seek out opportunities
Not yet evaluated
Other, please specify

Text field [maximum 2,500 characters]

Requested content

Primary reason (column 1)

Select the reason that best describes why you consider your organization not exposed to water-related opportunities, or why you have been unable to realize them.
If you select “Other, please specify”, provide a label for the reason.

Please explain (column 2)

Explain further why there are no apparent water opportunities for your company how you assessed them, and if relevant to your selection in column 1:

- give reasons why your organization considers there to be no water-related opportunities for your organization
- make reference to how you defined “opportunities
- include how you have defined ‘substantive’ impact in the context of an opportunity and reference the definition of substantive impact you gave in W4.1a if applicable
- describe when you will next repeat an assessment of opportunities
- include specific reasons why you have not yet conducted a risk assessment/why it is considered unimportant for your business
- provide any other company-specific details such as your evaluation process.

W5 Facility-level water accounting

Module Overview

The module is only presented if companies have reported in W4 that they have facilities exposing the company to risk. It asks companies to disclose water accounting data at facility level – only for sites exposing the company to a potential substantive change (as defined in W4.1a and reported in W4.1c). This is why this accounting data is requested after risks have been disclosed and is not included with the corporate level accounting questions in Module 1.

Data users are interested in a company’s ability to measure, monitor, and disclose this granular accounting data as a proxy for sound risk assessment and management at the facility and corporate level. Limiting this disclosure to ‘at risk’ facilities helps a company to focus its understanding of how it uses and impacts water resources at ‘hotspot’ locations. Given the local nature of water risks, reporting at this level is considered as good practice. For any facilities for which you do not have data, please leave the field blank. Emphasis should be placed on reporting transparently and providing an explanation for lack of measured data, uncertainty in your data or estimated data.

Disclosure note:

All organizations are advised to refer to the CDP Technical Note on water accounting definitions when responding to this module.
You will need to complete this section only if you completed W4.1c because you have facilities exposed to water risks that have the potential to generate a substantive change to your business. CDP is not asking for information for all facilities, just those exposed to substantive water risk as defined in question W4.1a.
The number of sites you provide this water accounting data for should be the same as the number of sites reported in section W4.1.
Units: Volumes must be reported in megaliters per year (1 megaliter = 1 million liters or 1,000 m³) in all questions, unless otherwise stated.
Blank cells: Please ensure when responding to these water accounting questions that cells are only intentionally left blank if you have no data to disclose. Blank cells are interpreted as non-disclosure, i.e. information is not available due to lack of measurement or a choice not to disclose, and are therefore awarded no points by the scoring methodology.
Values of zero: entering a zero implies a measurement has been made, and the value is zero. Do not enter a zero if no data is available.
Data accuracy: CDP recognizes that there may be uncertainty linked to water accounting information that could impact on data accuracy. Uncertainty can arise from data gaps, assumptions, metering/measurement constraints including equipment accuracy, data management, etc. The emphasis should be on reporting transparently and on providing an explanation for why reported data is uncertain or wholly or partially estimated or modelled, rather than sourced from direct measurements.

Key changes

Modified question: W5.1a question text has been revised to specify verification by a 'third party', a 'Please explain' column has been added, and the definition of ‘Verification’ has been modified.
Additional guidance: A definition of ‘Third party verification’ has been added in W5.1a.
Click here for a list of all changes made this year.

Sector-specific content

W5.1: Additional response options for Electric Utilities and Oil & Gas.

Pathway diagram - questions

This diagram shows the questions contained in module W5. To access question-level guidance, use the menu on the left to navigate to the question.

Facility-level water accounting

(W5.1) For each facility referenced in W4.1c, provide coordinates, water accounting data, and a comparison with the previous reporting year.

Question dependencies

This question only appears if you report that you have facilities exposed to water risk in W4.1c.
Your response to W5.1 prompts W5.1a.

Change from last year

No change

Rationale

Reporting information on facilities exposed to water-related risks helps CDP data users have confidence that your organization is monitoring local water aspects at the corporate level. It provides insight to dependency on different sources and potential impacts associated with water discharges. For example, withdrawing from an overdrawn freshwater aquifer rather than from seawater will have significantly different consequences for local areas with water stress and an organization's water security. In regions where water sources are highly restricted, the organization's water consumption patterns can influence relations with other stakeholders.
Providing facility-level information is useful for demonstrating regulatory compliance (e.g., discharges to the local environment), for risk assessments and for providing insight to risk responses (e.g., tracking water efficiency improvements).
CDP requests the geo-location coordinates for your facilities exposed to a risk that is substantive at the corporate level. This enables CDP data users to analyze geographically linked risks and to do so across multiple companies. This also makes possible the integration of CDP’s water data with other geographically linked data.

Connection to other frameworks

GRI

Standard 303-3: Water withdrawal

SDG

Goal 6: Clean water and sanitation

Goal 7: Affordable clean energy

Response options

Please complete the following table. You are able to add rows using the “Add Row” button at the bottom of the table.

Facility reference number

Facility name (optional)

Country/Area

River basin

Latitude

Longitude

Located in area with water stress

Select from:

Facility reference numbers: 1-50

Text field [maximum 500 characters]

Select from:

Country/area drop-down list

Select from:

River basin drop-down list
Other, please specify

Numerical field [enter a number from 0 to +/-90.000000 using a maximum of six decimal places]

Numerical field [enter a number from 0 to +/-180.000000 using a maximum of six decimal places]

Select from:

Yes
No
Unknown

[ELECTRIC UTILITIES SECTOR ONLY]
Primary power generation source for your electricity generation at this facility

[OIL & GAS SECTOR ONLY]
Oil & gas sector business division

Total water withdrawals (megaliters/year) at this facility

Comparison of total withdrawals with previous reporting year

Withdrawals from fresh surface water, including rainwater, water from wetlands, rivers and lakes

Withdrawals from brackish surface water/seawater

Withdrawals from groundwater - renewable

Select from:

Coal – hard
Lignite
Oil
Gas
Biomass
Waste (non-biomass)
Nuclear
Fossil-fuel plants fitted with carbon capture and storage
Geothermal
Hydropower
Wind
Solar
Marine
Other renewable
Not applicable

Select all that apply:

Upstream
Midstream/Downstream
Chemicals
Other, please specify
Not applicable

Numerical field [enter a number from 0-999,999,999,999 using a maximum of two decimal places]

Select from:

Much lower
Lower
About the same
Higher
Much higher
This is our first year of measurement

Numerical field [enter a number from 0-999,999,999,999 using a maximum of two decimal places]

Withdrawals from groundwater - non-renewable

Withdrawals from produced/entrained water

Withdrawals from third party sources

Total water discharges (megaliters/year) at this facility

Comparison of total discharges with previous reporting year

Discharges to fresh surface water

Numerical field [enter a number from 0-999,999,999,999 using a maximum of two decimal places]

Select from:

Much lower
Lower
About the same
Higher
Much higher
This is our first year of measurement

Numerical field [enter a number from 0-999,999,999,999 using a maximum of two decimal places]

Discharges to brackish surface water/seawater

Discharges to groundwater

Discharges to third party destinations

Total water consumption (megaliters/year) at this facility

Comparison of total consumption with previous reporting year

Please explain

Numerical field [enter a number from 0-999,999,999,999 using a maximum of two decimal places]

Numerical field [enter a number from 0 to +/-999,999,999,999 using a maximum of two decimal places]

Select from:

Much lower
Lower
About the same
Higher
Much higher
This is our first year of measurement

Text field [maximum 1,500 characters]

[Add Row]

Requested content

Note: Organizations responding to an electric utilities, metals & mining, or oil & gas sector request should refer to additional sector-specific guidance on this question at the end of the "Requested content" section.

General

This question asks for water accounting data only for your facilities exposed to substantive water risk (according to the definition you provided in W4.1a) – not for all your facilities.
Please refer to CDP's water accounting definitions before completing this question.
Enter data for each facility (or groups of facilities) you identified in W4.1c as being exposed to risk. The table has a maximum of 50 rows. If you reported more than 50 facilities at risk in question W4.1c, you should use the 'Please explain' column of the first row here to indicate how you have selected the 50 facilities for this question; for example 'We reported more than 50 facilities in module W4 so we are providing water accounting data for our 50 facilities with potential to impact most on our global revenue' or 'We reported more than 50 facilities in module W4 so we are providing water accounting data for our 50 facilities with the highest water withdrawals'.
Please report volumetric data in megaliters per year for the reporting year (the time period you stated in response to W0.2). (1 megaliter = 1 million liters or 1000 m³).
If you are estimating or extrapolating to provide complete coverage, please give an explanation in column 3 (Please explain). Please remember that a zero should only be used for reporting zero volumes and not for an absence of data.
If you do not have a figure for any of the facilities you disclose here, you may provide an estimate. Explain this in the last column (Please explain). For withdrawals, data may be collected from several sources, including “water meters, water bills, calculations derived from other available water data or the organization’s own estimates (if neither water meters nor bills or reference data exist).
Before deciding whether your withdrawals, discharges or consumption can be reported as “zero”, please refer to CDP’s water accounting definitions. This may be the case, for example, if a closed water circuit is in operation.
If reporting “zero consumption” please remember to check your discharge volumes. Scorers will check that discharge and withdrawals volumes balance (approximately).
Cooling water: Cooling water (freshwater or sea water) is often withdrawn in large quantities and discharged back to its original source with negligible losses or variation in quality. However, this volume should be included in your water accounts.
Rainwater: If a company is managing rainwater (for example, by harvesting for use or storage, or to prevent flooding), or is dependent on it for production of goods or the delivery of services, it should try to estimate and disclose it as a withdrawal from the hydrological system into the company boundary. Note that in some jurisdictions rainwater is considered a withdrawal source and organizations are required to report its collection and use.

Facility reference number (column 1)

This CDP facility reference number is used to track information related to the same facility in subsequent questions. It is not specific to your organization, however it does prevent you from having to repeat contextual information e.g. river basin and facility name.

Facility name (column 2)

You may use the text box to provide a name for the facility. This is to ease reporting and analysis. This name should be used for the same facility throughout the questionnaire.

Country/Area (column 3)

Note that a selection must be made for both column 3 and column 4. Your data will not be saved if either column is left blank.

River basin (column 4)

From the drop-down options provided, select the river basin where the facility is located. If you do not see the basin required, select “Other, please specify” and write in one river basin only using the text box provided.
For companies withdrawing water from large confined aquifers that may not discharge to the river basin they are located in e.g. Ogallala aquifer in the United States, please select “Other, please specify” and type in the name of the local aquifer source. Ensure that the correct country/area name is selected in column 3 (Country/Area).
You may want to put the sub-basin of a bigger river basin identified in the drop-down menu. In this case use the “Other, please specify” option in the following format: “Putumayo, Amazon”.
If you select “Other, please specify”, provide a label for the river basin.
For full instructions see the Introduction to CDP's water security reporting guidance.
Note that a selection must be made for both column 3 and column 4. Your data will not be saved if either column is left blank.

Latitude (column 5)

Enter the latitude coordinates for the facility reported in column 1. Your response should be in the format of decimal degrees and can range from 0 to +/-90.000000.
If you are disclosing for a cluster of facilities (in accordance with the guidance for W4.1b), you may provide the coordinates for the facility with the largest total withdrawal volumes.

Longitude (column 6)

Enter the longitude coordinates for the facility reported in this row. Your response should be in the format of decimal degrees and can range from 0 to +/-180.000000.
If you are disclosing for a cluster of facilities (in accordance with the guidance for W4.1b), you may provide the coordinates for the facility with the largest total withdrawal volumes.

Located in area with water stress (column 7)

Credible, publicly available methodologies for classifying an area as water stressed include the WRI Aqueduct Water Risk Atlas and WWF Water Risk Filter. Refer to the guidance for W1.2d for more details.
As good practice, a water-stressed area must be evaluated as a minimum at catchment level.
Commonly accepted indicators and the thresholds for water stress that should be used to report to CDP include:

- Baseline water stress - higher values indicate more competition among users; equal to/greater than 'High': 40-80% (WRI Aqueduct)
- Baseline water depletion - higher values indicate larger impact on the local water supply and decreased water availability for downstream users; equal to/greater than 'High': 50-75% (WRI Aqueduct)
- Water scarcity - higher values indicate greater water stress, based on a multi-model approach including global risk indicators: Water depletion, Baseline water stress, Blue water scarcity, and Available Water Remaining (AWARE) (WWF Water Risk Filter)

These indicators account for water stress in terms of the quantity of water resources available. There are currently no commonly used tools/indicators which also take account of accessibility and water quality.

Comparison with previous reporting year (columns 11, 19, 25)

CDP does not define the threshold for considering a value as ‘much higher’ rather than simply ‘higher’ (or ‘much lower’/’lower’). CDP requests this information from many different industries with huge variations in water use, and it would therefore be difficult to provide a universal threshold that is meaningful (as proportions will equate to different absolute values and impacts).
You should define your own threshold for what is ‘much higher’ (and ‘much lower’) and apply it consistently so that each year the reported data for this question is comparable and data users can track your water accounts more effectively. A company-specific explanation for these thresholds should be provided in the last column ("Please explain").
If your response is an estimate, please explain why in the last column.

Withdrawals from fresh surface water, including rainwater, water from wetlands, rivers, and lakes (column 12)

For the purposes of this disclosure you should include all surface water sources of a higher quality than brackish (i.e., a TDS lower than 10,000 mg/l).

Total water discharges at this facility (megaliters/year) (column 18)

Zero discharge permit: If your organization has a zero discharge permit, please consider any discharges that may exist outside this permit and may still be relevant to CDP’s definition of discharges.
Domestic sewage: Domestic sewage is only regarded as water discharge if excluding it would result in an error in your balance of more than 5%. This may be significant for healthcare residential properties or hotels, for example.
Aquifer reinjection: Reinjection to aquifers should be considered as a discharge to groundwater.
Soakaway: Water returning to a groundwater source via a soakaway should be considered as a discharge.

Please explain (column 26)

Please comment on the location coordinates, as required. If the facility is an aggregate of multiple locations, ensure that you explain how your methodology for aggregating facilities was applied here.
If 'Yes' or 'No' was selected in column 7, indicate the tool used to classify the location of the facility as water stressed.
To assist CDP data users to understand a facility’s water use, you should explain the volumetric data and trends that you report for withdrawals, discharges and consumption and include company-specific information.
Describe the thresholds for what is ‘much higher’ and ‘much lower’ for the change in volume for each water aspect compared to the previous year. You should account for the change compared to last year and also indicate the anticipated future trends for these volumes, if known (note that future trends should be at least one year after the end of the reporting year provided in W0.2).
Report whether your volumes for each facility are estimated, modelled, or sourced from direct measurements. If estimation or modelling has been used, report the estimation or modelling methods. If there is any level of uncertainty in your response, or if there is an estimated figure, you should explain it in this field and give the range of uncertainty
Include any contextual information necessary to understand how the volumetric data have been compiled, such as any standard methodologies used and any assumptions made.
For ‘Withdrawals from fresh surface water’, it is important that you state which sources apply (rainwater, water from wetlands, rivers and lakes, etc.). Also state if the withdrawal volume for each source is increasing or decreasing. Note: if your use of rainwater equates to more than 5% of your water balance please explain if it is harvested, treated, etc.
For ‘Third party sources’, specify whether the third party is a municipal supplier or another type of third party organization.
For discharges to ‘Third party destinations’, state if this includes water to other organizations for further use.
To give data users confidence in your response, please explain any zero volumes.
If you have left any column blank because you do not have the data, please describe the barriers to reporting that data and any plans to collect and report it.
Note: CDP expects withdrawals, discharges and consumption figures to balance (approximately; +/- 5%) so if there is a good reason why this cannot happen, it should be explained in here.

Please explain – additional guidance for consumption volume

Regarding your water consumption figure, you should indicate if your figure is based on local measurements or is a calculation (for example using withdrawals minus discharges).
If known, you may provide breakdown of this figure (with reference to CDP’s definition of consumption) including:

It is important that you explain a negative consumption figure where this is the case. This would indicate that your discharges are larger than your withdrawals for the reporting year - due to a net release of water from storage, for example.

Explanation of terms

Facility: “Facilities” may be used throughout this questionnaire as a broad term and not restricted to a particular site or grouping of fixed buildings and factories. For example, if your organization is in the extractive industries you might normally collate business information for assets or business units, and so you may wish to define ‘facility’ information in this way.
Facility boundary:This is a management boundary, rather than a physical boundary or a legal entity. Water is considered to have crossed the boundary of your facility when your organization in any way uses it, comes into contact with it, is required to manage it or when it becomes incorporated into your products. It therefore includes any water use and management by your organization outside of the physical fence of a facility; for example, to provide a street cleaning service or when used in fields that are remote from a processing plant.
Facility reference number: The facility reference number is used to track information related to a facility that is disclosed in different questions. The number is not specific to an organization, but simply avoids an organization having to repeat contextual information such as river basin and facility name.
Latitude and longitude:Geographic coordinates that specify, respectively, the north-south and east-west position, of a point on the Earth's surface. They are expressed as angular measures and thus, latitude can vary from 0 to +/-90 and longitude from 0 to +/-180.
Fresh surface water, including rainwater, water from wetlands, rivers and lakes: Water that is naturally occurring water on the Earth's surface in ice sheets, ice caps, glaciers, icebergs, bogs, ponds, lakes, rivers and streams, and has a low concentration of dissolved solids.
For the purposes of reporting water accounting data to CDP, this surface water source includes water of a quality generally acceptable for, or requiring minimal treatment to be acceptable for, domestic, municipal or agricultural uses (at least <10,000 mg/l TDS, though a range of additional quality properties may also be considered). ‘High quality’ fresh water sources considered acceptable for potable use are typically characterized as having concentrations of dissolved solids less than 1,000 mg/l.
Brackish surface water/seawater: Surface water in which the concentration of salts is high and far exceeds normally acceptable standards for municipal, domestic or irrigation use (at least higher than 10,000 mg/l TDS). Seawater has a typical concentration of salts above 35,000 mg/l TDS.
Water withdrawal: The sum of all water drawn into the boundaries of the organization (or facility) from all sources for any use over the course of the reporting period.
Withdrawals from groundwater (renewable): Water which is being held in, and can be recovered from, an underground formation. Renewable groundwater sources can be replenished within 50 years and are usually located at shallow depths.
Withdrawals from groundwater (non-renewable): Water which is being held in, and can be recovered from, an underground formation. Non-renewable groundwater has a negligible rate of natural recharge on the human time-scale (more than 50 years), and is generally located at deeper depths than renewable groundwater. This is sometimes referred to as “fossil” water.
Produced water: Water which enters the organization’s boundary as a result of the extraction, processing, or use of any raw material, so that it must be managed by the organization.
When reporting to CDP, this water should not be counted as recycled water when put to use within a single cycle of a business process. Examples of produced water include moisture derived from vegetation such as in sugar cane crushing and the water content in crude oil. (Note that companies with oil and gas activities should refer to CDP’s sector specific guidance for this water aspect).
Produced water (Oil & gas sector only): Water that is brought to the surface during the production of hydrocarbons including formation water, flow-back water and condensation water (IPIECA “Oil and gas industry guidance on voluntary sustainability reporting”, 3rd edition, 2016).
Third party sources: This includes water provided by municipal water suppliers, public or private utilities, and wastewater from any other organization.
Water discharge: The sum of effluents and other water leaving the boundaries of the organization (or facility) and released to surface water, groundwater, or third parties over the course of the reporting period.
Discharges to groundwater: Water which is being held in, and can be recovered from, an underground formation. Discharge to groundwater, by human activity or natural activity, refers to a destination beneath the soil surface, such as a water bearing layer of rock (aquifer). Examples of discharges to groundwater include disposal of sewage, trade effluent and surface water run-off from urban areas, through such methods as spreading basins, soakaways, swales or injection wells.
Third party destinations: This includes municipal wastewater plants, public or private utilities, and other organizations involved in the transport, treatment, disposal or further use of wastewater. Note that to qualify as a third-party destination, “other organizations” using your wastewater must be outside your reporting boundary given in question W0.5. Any of your wastewater that has been treated on your own site should be reported as discharge according to its ultimate destination (for example, to groundwater), as this is where any potential risks for the company lie.
Water consumption: The amount of water drawn into the boundaries of the organization (or facility) and not discharged back to the water environment or a third party over the course of the reporting period.
Water diversions (Metals & mining sector only): According to the Water Accounting Framework from the Mineral Council of Australia water diversions are flows from an input to an output without being utilized by the operational facility. The flow is not stored with the intention of being used in a task or treated.
Carbon capture and storage (CCS) (Electric utilities sector only): As defined by the IEA, a family of technologies and techniques that enable the capture of carbon dioxide (CO₂) from fuel combustion or industrial processes, the transport of CO₂ via ships or pipelines, and its storage underground, in depleted oil and gas fields and deep saline formations.

(W5.1a) For the facilities referenced in W5.1, what proportion of water accounting data has been third party verified?

Question dependencies

This question only appears if you list facilities exposed to water risk in W5.1.

Change from last year

Modified question; Additional guidance

Rationale

Providing third party verification for water accounting data at facilities exposed to water risks gives CDP data users increased confidence in the data you are reporting.

Response options

Please complete the following table:

(*column/row appearance is dependent on selections in this or other questions)

Water aspect	% verified	Verification standard used*	Please explain*
Water withdrawals – total volumes	Select from: Not verified 1-25 26-50 51-75 76-100 Not relevant	Text field [maximum 1,500 characters]	Text field [maximum 2,500 characters]
Water withdrawals – volume by source
Water withdrawals – quality by standard water quality parameters
Water discharges – total volumes
Water discharges – volume by destination
Water discharges – volume by final treatment level
Water discharges – quality by standard water quality parameters
Water consumption – total volume

Requested content

General

CDP recognizes the lack of universally applied verification standards for water accounting and therefore requests that you disclose the extent of any current verification practices and the standards used.
Please note, in this question we are not asking about verification of water accounting data across your entire organization.

% verified (column 2)

For the facilities reported on in W5 (facilities exposing your organization to substantive risk), select the proportion that have third party verified the water accounting aspect in column 1.
If the accounting data at all facilities in your organization are verified, then you would be able to select 76-100% here. However, if only a sample of your facilities are verified, then you will need to check with your verifier on how many of the facilities at risk were included and then calculate the proportion of all facilities reported in W5.1 that this represents.
If you select "Not verified", or "Not relevant", column 3 will not be presented.

Please explain (column 4)

Only presented if ‘Not verified’ or ‘Not relevant’ is selected in column 2.
If ‘Not verified’ is selected, state the primary reasons for not verifying this water accounting data related to this water aspect and your plans to do so within the next two years.
If ‘Not relevant’ is selected, state the primary reasons that data verification of this water aspect is not relevant to your organization.

Explanation of terms

Verification: The assessment and validation of compliance, performance, and/or actions relative to a stated commitment, standard, or target. Verification processes typically utilize monitoring data but may also include other sources of information an analysis (based on AFi, 2019).
Third party verification: Verification conducted by an independent entity that does not provide other services to the company. The verification services provided by this entity are accredited under commonly recognised standards (based on AFi, 2019).

W6 Governance

Module Overview

This module captures the governance structure and mechanisms of your organization with regards to water security.

It provides data users with an understanding of the organization’s approach to water-related issues at the board level and below board-level.

Board-level oversight of water-related issues, a public water policy and processes for aligning external policy influence with it are considered good practice and an indication of the importance of water-related issues to the organization.

Key changes

New question: W6.2d requests information on board member competency on water-related issues.
New response option (W6.3 column 2): A new response option that allows companies to indicate management responsibility for assessing future trends in water demand has been added.
Additional guidance: A definition of 'Water demand' has been added in W6.3.
Click here for a list of all changes made this year.

Sector-specific content

None.

Pathway diagram - questions

This diagram shows the questions contained in module W6. To access question-level guidance, use the menu on the left to navigate to the question.

(W6.1) Does your organization have a water policy?

Question dependencies

Your response to W6.1 will determine if subsequent questions are presented in this section. If your response to W6.1 is amended, data in those dependent questions may be erased. In this case, be sure to re-enter data for all relevant questions. The guidance for each question indicates if it is a dependent question.

Change from last year

No change

Rationale

CDP data users want to know that companies have articulated and documented a policy that:

recognizes the importance of water-related issues to their business, and;
sets out clear commitments, and guidelines for action and the integration of water into core business decision making and management processes.

For accountability to the organization’s stakeholders, the policy should be publicly available.

Connection to other frameworks

CEO Water Mandate

Response: Policies, governance and targets

Response options

Select one of the following options:

Yes, we have a documented water policy that is publicly available
Yes, we have a documented water policy but it is not publicly available
No, but we plan to develop one within the next 2 years
No

Requested content

General

Click a ‘yes’ option if your organization has a water policy that articulates your water commitments and challenges, and the ways that action will be driven to meet those commitments.
This may be a stand-alone water policy document, no matter what the title is, or an equivalent document that includes the company-wide water policy such as an ‘sustainability policy’.
You should select ‘No’ if the above does not apply and indicate your plans.
CDP understands that companies may additionally or otherwise integrate water matters to some extent into numerous other corporate policy and procedural documents such as supplier codes, agricultural policies, environmental standards and procurement policies. We are not asking for information about those here.

Explanation of terms

Water policy: A statement of an organization’s water-related commitments, and the actions that will achieve them, that applies to all its activities.

(W6.1a) Select the options that best describe the scope and content of your water policy.

Question dependencies

This question only appears if you select “Yes, we have a documented water policy that is publicly available” or “Yes, we have a documented water policy, but it is not publicly available” in response to W6.1.

Change from last year

No change

Rationale

A water policy is a key governance tool. CDP understands that policies are likely to be varied and complex, but we wish to move companies towards good practice regarding content and communication of a policy that sets out:

company-wide water commitments to water security;
the challenges they face due to water-related issues; and
the ways that action to meet those commitments and address the challenges will be driven, and integrated into core business decision making and management processes.

Connection to other frameworks

CEO Water Mandate

Response: Policies, governance and targets

Response options

Please complete the following table.

Scope

Content

Please explain

Select from:

Company-wide
Select facilities, businesses, or geographies only

Select all that apply:

Description of business dependency on water
Description of business impact on water
Description of water-related performance standards for direct operations
Description of water-related standards for procurement
Reference to international standards and widely-recognized water initiatives
Company water targets and goals
Commitment to align with public policy initiatives, such as the SDGs
Commitments beyond regulatory compliance
Commitment to water-related innovation
Commitment to stakeholder awareness and education
Commitment to water stewardship and/or collective action
Commitment to safely managed Water, Sanitation and Hygiene (WASH) in the workplace
Commitment to safely managed Water, Sanitation and Hygiene (WASH) in local communities
Acknowledgement of the human right to water and sanitation
Recognition of environmental linkages, for example, due to climate change
Other, please specify

Text field [maximum 2,500 characters]

Requested content

General

Provide details about the document (or other media) that articulates your water commitments and challenges, and the ways that action to meet those commitments will be driven.
This may be a stand-alone water policy document, no matter what the title is, or another equivalent document that includes your water policy such as a ‘sustainability policy’.

Scope (column 1)

Select the option that best applies to your organization’s water policy. If it covers your entire organization, please select ‘company-wide, otherwise chose “Select facilities, businesses, or geographies only” and give more details and an explanation in column 3.

Content (column 2)

Select the options that apply to your organization’s water policy. If there is important content missing from the list, please select “Other, please specify” and provide a description. If you select “Other, please specify”, provide a label for the content.

Please explain (column 3)

Give more details and an explanation for your selections in columns 1 and 2.
You should include the rationale for the scope and content of your policy; e.g. why your water policy is not company-wide, and why it does not include some of the content listed.

Note:

Attaching a policy document is optional but will help data users understand your public commitments to water security.

Example response

Scope

Content

Please explain

Company-wide

Description of business dependency on water
Description of business impact on water
Description of water-related performance standards for direct operations
Description of water-related standards for procurement
Reference to international standards and widely-recognized water initiatives
Company water targets and goals
Commitment to align with public policy initiatives, such as the SDGs
Commitments beyond regulatory compliance
Commitment to water-related innovation
Commitment to stakeholder awareness and education
Commitment to water stewardship and/or collective action
Acknowledgement of the human right to water and sanitation
Recognition of environmental linkages, for example, due to climate change

Our water policy is company-wide in scope as this reflects a commitment to global consistency in our approach to water security. Its purpose is to make clear our commitment internally, but also externally. It gives a description of our company’s dependency on water to inform our colleagues of the importance of managing this precious resource and to motivate them to engage with our commitment to stewardship. Beyond the company, we affirm the human right to water & sanitation & health issues, and cite health and water-related public policy initiatives as these relate to our core aim as a healthcare company – improving human health. We are happy to be held accountable on this.

We also highlight the impact climate change will have on future water availability at some of our sites, and as part of our water policy framework, we also make public our site-specific Water Stewardship Plans. These refer to the WWF Basin Stewardship Strategies and Water Action Hub to assist local water specialists to identify opportunities to form partnerships to mitigate water stress in their local basin. We stress basin level innovation and stewardship as this can improve our efficiency and reduce risks for all users in the basin.

(W6.2) Is there board level oversight of water-related issues within your organization?

Question dependencies

Your response to W6.2 will determine if subsequent questions are presented in this section. If your response to W6.2 is amended, data in those dependent questions may be erased. In this case, be sure to re-enter data for all relevant questions. The guidance for each question indicates if it is a dependent question.

Change from last year

No change

Rationale

This provides an indication of the importance of water to your business by demonstrating board level oversight of water-related matters.

Connection to other frameworks

CEO Water Mandate

Response: Policies, governance and targets

Response options

Select one of the following options:

Requested content

General

In answering this question, consider whether the board and/or board committees consider water-related issues when carrying out their governance and oversight duties such as reviewing and guiding their business strategy, major plans of action, risk management policies, annual budgets, and budget plans as well as setting the organization’s performance objectives, monitoring implementation and performance, and overseeing major capital expenditures, acquisitions, and divestitures. If any of these options is true, please select ‘yes’.
You should also select ‘yes’:

- if your organization has board-level oversight of an integrated environmental risk assessment that includes water-related risks among other environmental aspects.
- if a specific board member or committee has responsibility for any water-related policies, strategy or information.

Explanation of terms

Board: The board, or board of directors, refers to a body of elected or appointed members who jointly oversee the activities of a company or organization. Some countries use a two-tiered system where “board” refers to the “supervisory board” while “key executives” refers to the “management board” (adapted from the Recommendations of the Task Force for Climate Related Financial Disclosure, 2017).
Board-level oversight: This involves the board having direct responsibility and accountability; for example, for setting commitments and guiding strategy, ensuring the efficacy and efficiency of management, for financial stability and regulatory compliance, and reviewing the progress of objectives and policies.
Governance: A system whereby an organization is influenced and controlled based on the interests of shareholders and stakeholders. This involves relationships and communication between management, the board, the shareholders and stakeholders. Governance provides a framework for an organization to set objectives, monitor performance, and evaluate results (adapted from the Recommendations of the Task Force for Climate Related Financial Disclosure, 2017).

(W6.2a) Identify the position(s) (do not include any names) of the individual(s) on the board with responsibility for water-related issues.

Question dependencies

This question only appears if you select “Yes” in response to W6.2.

Change from last year

No change

Rationale

If you have rated that water is important to your organization (W1.1), and/or have identified risks of high magnitude within your direct operations or value chain (W4.1) that could generate a substantive change to your business, CDP data users might expect to see that a board member has accountability for water within your organization.

Connection to other frameworks

CEO Water Mandate

Response: Policies, governance and targets

Response options

Please complete the following table. You are able to add rows to this table using the “Add Row” button at the bottom of the table.

Position of individual

Please explain

Select from:

Board Chair
Director on board
Chief Executive Officer (CEO)
Chief Financial Officer (CFO)
Chief Operating Officer (COO)
Chief Procurement Officer (CPO)
Chief Risk Officer (CRO)
Chief Sustainability Officer (CSO)
Other C-Suite Officer
President
Board-level committee
Other, please specify

Text field [maximum 1,000 characters]

[Add Row]

Requested content

General

Report where in the board the responsibility for oversight of water issues lies. This may be with an individual member of the board or a board-level committee, e.g. sustainability committee, risk committee, etc.
Note that this question is asking about direct responsibility for oversight. In practical terms, this is the person or committee at the top of the chain of command specifically managing information on water-related issues, making decisions about what the company will do and adapting those decisions based on water-related information. The CEO is ultimately responsible for everything in the company; however, this question is looking to identify board-level responsibility specifically on water-related issues. While this may be the CEO, it is not necessarily the case.

Position of individual(s) (column 1)

Select the position of the individual on the board with responsibility for water-related issues.
If the position is not listed here, please select the closest match for your organization and provide the position title in column 2 ('Please explain').
If oversight falls jointly to the members of a committee, rather than an individual position, you should select 'Board-level committee' and provide the name of the committee in column 2 ('Please explain').
Note that this question asks about the position and not about the names of the staff holding these positions. Do not include the name of any individual or any other personal data in your response.
If there is more than one position, please add a row.

Please explain (column 2)

Provide a description of the position(s)/committee(s) in the corporate structure and the level of responsibility they have towards water-related issues; and
Explain how the responsibilities of the position(s)/committee(s) are related to water issues.
Note that this question asks about the position and not about the names of the staff holding these positions. Do not include the name of any individual or any other personal data in your response.
You can use this text field to enter any relevant information.

Explanation of terms

C-suite: A term used to collectively refer to the most senior executive team.

(W6.2b) Provide further details on the board’s oversight of water-related issues.

Question dependencies

This question only appears if you select "Yes" in response to W6.2.

Change from last year

No change

Rationale

This provides an indication of how water-related issues are overseen at board level and the frequency of briefings on water issues.

CDP data users are interested in understanding an organization’s awareness and management of water-related risks at the board level; how intertwined this is with organizational strategy, plans of action, management policies, performance objectives; and how the board monitors progress against targets and goals, for example.

Response options

Please complete the following table:

Frequency that water-related issues are a scheduled agenda item

Governance mechanisms into which water-related issues are integrated

Please explain

Select from:

Scheduled - all meetings
Scheduled - some meetings
Sporadic - as important matters arise
Other, please specify

Select all that apply:

Monitoring implementation and performance
Overseeing acquisitions and divestiture
Overseeing major capital expenditures
Providing employee incentives
Reviewing and guiding annual budgets
Reviewing and guiding business plans
Reviewing and guiding major plans of action
Reviewing and guiding risk management policies
Reviewing and guiding strategy
Reviewing and guiding corporate responsibility strategy
Reviewing innovation/R&D priorities
Setting performance objectives
Other, please specify

Text field [maximum 3,000 characters]

Requested content

General

This question seeks information about the nature and frequency of board-level oversight of water-related issues.
This includes the frequency that water issues are discussed at board level, an explanation for that frequency, an indication of the aspects of governance that water matters are integrated into, and the competency of the board on water-related issues.

Frequency that water-related issues are a scheduled agenda item (column 1)

Indicate the board’s/board committee’s approach to including water issues as an agenda item by selecting a frequency and providing an explanation in column 3.
You should consider the frequency that water-related issues are a scheduled agenda item for the board-level committee with oversight for water-related issues. This may be a subcommittee of the board, or the full board itself.

Governance mechanisms into which water-related issues are integrated (column 2)

Select all governance mechanisms in which water-related issues are included.
If you select “Other, please specify”, provide a label for the governance mechanism.

Please explain (column 3)

Provide further details of your selection in column 1; e.g., regarding who briefs the board and on what matters: “The committee meets quarterly and a report from each Business Head regarding performance against water targets is reviewed”.
Note that your response to this question may refer to the position of employees relevant to board oversight mechanisms. Do not include the name of any individual or any other personal data in your response.
Describe how the governance mechanisms selected in column 2 contribute to the board's oversight of water-related issues. For example:

- how responsibility for water policies, strategy and information is delegated and how management is held accountable and/ or incentivized for implementation of the organization’s policies;
- the nature of the underlying information and control systems used to provide information to the Board on water related matters;
- who approves the release of water-related information.

As much as possible, please give examples from the reporting year.

(W6.2c) Why is there no board-level oversight of water-related issues and what are your plans to change this in the future?

Question dependencies

This question only appears if you select “No” in response to W6.2.

Change from last year

No change

Rationale

As CDP data users are interested in understanding an organization’s awareness and management of water-related risks at the board-level, this question allows companies to explain why there is no board-level oversight.

Response options

Please complete the following table:

Primary reason

Board level oversight of water-related issues will be introduced in the next two years

Please explain

Text field [maximum 200 characters]

Select from:

Text field [maximum 1,500 characters]

Requested content

Primary reason (column 1)

Provide your organization's rationale for not currently having board-level oversight of water-related issues. While there may be multiple reasons for this, please describe the primary justification.

Please explain (column 3)

Use this column to provide an explanation of what you plan to implement in the next two years or why you have no plans.

(W6.2d) Does your organization have at least one board member with competence on water-related issues?

Change from last year

New question

Rationale

Transitioning a business for success in a sustainable future requires related expertise within its decision-making bodies. This capability at board level signals a company’s commitment to understanding and responding to risks, opportunities, and impacts.

Response options

Please complete the following table:

(*column/row appearance is dependent on selections in this or other questions)

Board member(s) have competence on water-related issues

Criteria used to assess competence of board member(s) on water-related issues*

Primary reason for no board-level competence on water-related issues*

Explain why your organization does not have at least one board member with competence on water-related issues and any plans to address board-level competence in the future*

Select from:

Yes
No, but we plan to address this within the next two years
No, and we do not plan to address this within the next two years
Not assessed

Text field [maximum 2,500 characters]

Select from:

Important but not an immediate priority
Judged to be unimportant, explanation provided
Other, please specify

Text field [maximum 2,500 characters]

Requested content

General

Consider whether any kind of skills, experience or expertise assessment of your board is conducted for environmental issues.
Note that your response to this question may refer to the position of employees relevant to board-level competence. In this case, do not include the name of any individual or any other personal data in your response.

Criteria used to assess competence on water-related issues (column 2)

This column is only presented if “Yes” is selected in column 1.
Detail the specific criteria used to evaluate the board’s water-related competence.

Primary reason for no board-level competence on water-related issues (column 3)

This column is only presented if one of the “No” options is selected in column 1.
Select the primary reason as to why there is no board-level competence on water-related issues in your organization.
If none of the reasons are applicable to your organization, select “Other, please specify” to provide the primary reason.

Explain why your organization does not have at least one board member with competence on water-related issues and any plans to address board-level competence in the future (column 4)

This column is only presented if one of the “No” options is selected in column 1.
If you selected “Judged to be unimportant, explanation provided” in column 3, explain the criteria used to decide that board-level competence on water-related issues is not important for your organization.
Describe any plans to address board-level competence on water-related issues, such as any measures you have implemented to enhance the water-related competence of the board.

Management responsibility

(W6.3) Provide the highest management-level position(s) or committee(s) with responsibility for water-related issues (do not include the names of individuals).

Change from last year

Modified question; Additional guidance

Rationale

While it is most important for a member of the board to have responsibility for water related issues, assigning management level responsibility indicates that the organization is committed to implementing its water strategy.

Connection to other frameworks

SDG

Goal 6: Clean water and sanitation

Response options

Please complete the following table. You are able to add rows by using the “Add Row” button at the bottom of the table.

(*column/row appearance is dependent on selections in this or other questions)

Name of the position(s) and/or committee(s)

Responsibility*

Frequency of reporting to the board on water-related issues*

Please explain

Select from:

There is currently no management-level responsibility for water-related issues
Chief Executive Officer (CEO)
Chief Financial Officer (CFO)
Chief Operating Officer (COO)
Chief Procurement Officer (CPO)
Chief Risk Officer (CRO)
Chief Sustainability Officer (CSO)
Other C-Suite Officer, please specify
President
Risk committee
Sustainability committee
Safety, Health, Environment, and Quality committee
Corporate responsibility committee
Other committee, please specify
Business unit manager
Energy manager
Environmental health and safety manager
Environment/Sustainability manager
Facilities manager
Process operation manager
Procurement manager
Public affairs manager
Risk manager
Other, please specify

Select all that apply:

Assessing future trends in water demand
Assessing water-related risks and opportunities
Managing water-related risks and opportunities
Other, please specify

Select from:

More frequently than quarterly
Quarterly
Half-yearly
Annually
Less frequently than annually
As important matters arise
Not reported to board

Text field [maximum 1,000 characters]

[Add Row]

Requested content

General

Provide details of the highest management-level position or committee with a responsibility for water-related issues and implementing aspects of the organization’s water policy and strategy.
The responsibility may be for assessing and/or managing water-related risks, opportunities, and trends, or for a different primary focus related to water.

Name of the position(s) and/or committee(s) (column 1)

Select the best match for the position/committee in your organization, or select ‘Other, please specify’.
The list includes senior positions that may sometimes but not always be at board level.
Note that this question asks about the position and not about the names of the staff holding these positions. Do not include the name of any individual or any other personal data in your response.
Note that positions already listed in question W6.2a are also listed here; select one of those positions only if the individual has effective management responsibility for water-related issues.
If there is more than one position/committee with high management-level responsibility and you would like to describe this, you may use the 'Add row' button and describe their responsibilities in column 2. This is optional.
If you are selecting more than one position or committee by adding rows, make sure that the position/committee with the highest level of responsibility is in the top row of the table.

Responsibility (column 2)

Select the best matches for the responsibilities of the position/committee reported in column 1, or select ‘Other, please specify’ and insert the main responsibility.

Please explain (column 4)

Describe the individual’s/committee’s position in the corporate structure.
Note that this question asks about the position and not about the names of the staff holding these positions. Do not include the name of any individual or any other personal data in your response.
Provide further context for the specific responsibilities, duties and actions of this individual/committee.
Describe the nature of the report to the board referred to in column 3.

Explanation of terms

Highest-level management: The most senior individual or committee that holds specific executive power over the management of day-to-day tasks. Highest-level managers would hold ultimate responsibility over the implementation of the decisions taken at the board level.
Water demand: The volume of water required by an organisation to achieve its operational and strategic objectives.

(W6.4) Do you provide incentives to C-suite employees or board members for the management of water-related issues?

Question dependencies

Your response to this question will determine whether the next question is presented. If your response to this question is amended, data in the next question may be erased. In this case, be sure to re-enter data for the next question.

Change from last year

No change

Rationale

Employee incentives linked to sustainability performance send a clear signal about the role the employee is expected to play in achieving the organization’s commitments and targets.
For senior employees this may include incentives that are explicitly related to the organization’s strategy.
By responding to this question, investors and other stakeholders can see that your organization recognizes the business case for water security and is embedding it into its decision making and business culture.

Response options

Please complete the following table:

Provide incentives for management of water-related issues	Comment
Select from: Yes No, not currently but we plan to introduce them in the next two years No, and we do not plan to introduce them in the next two years	Text field [maximum of 1,000 characters]

Requested content

General

When making your selection, consider if your organization provides incentives to its most senior employees that are linked to performance indicators related to water commitments, targets and goals. Such incentives could be monetary or non-monetary, and include salary bonuses or other benefits provided.
Note that this question refers only to C-suite/board-level employees.
Only select "Yes" if your organization provides incentives specifically linked to reducing water impacts/improving water security.
Only select "Yes" if they have been in place in the current reporting period.
If you wish to comment on your selection, you may use the "Comment" column. This is optional.

Explanation of terms

Employee incentives: Payments, benefits or concessions additional to the employee’s usual benefits that depend on the achievement of a performance goal.

(W6.4a) What incentives are provided to C-suite employees or board members for the management of water-related issues (do not include the names of individuals)?

Question dependencies

This question only appears if “Yes” is selected for W6.4.

Change from last year

No change

Rationale

Providing insight into these incentives and the specific water issues they are designed to address will inform investors and data users how these incentives are aligned with the organization’s identified risks and opportunities, water policy, targets, and business strategy.

Response options

Please complete the following table:

Type of incentive

Role(s) entitled to incentive

Performance indicator

Please explain

Monetary reward

Select all that apply:

Board chair
Board/Executive board
Director on board
Corporate executive team
Chief Executive Officer (CEO)
Chief Financial Officer (CFO)
Chief Operating Officer (COO)
Chief Purchasing Officer (CPO)
Chief Risk Officer (CRO)
Chief Sustainability Officer (CSO)
Other C-suite Officer
Other, please specify
No one is entitled to these incentives

Select all that apply:

Reduction of water withdrawals
Reduction in consumption volumes
Improvements in efficiency – direct operations
Improvements in efficiency – supply chain
Improvements in efficiency – product-use
Improvements in waste water quality – direct operations
Improvements in waste water quality – supply chain
Improvements in waste water quality – product-use
Implementation of employee awareness campaign or training program
Supply chain engagement
Increased access to workplace WASH
Implementation of water-related community project
Other, please specify

Text field [maximum of 1,500 characters]

Non-monetary reward

Requested content

Type of incentive (column 1)

Incentive types include:

- Monetary reward - a bonus or some form of financial remuneration;
- Non-monetary reward - a reward not tied directly to any form of financial remuneration, including an employee award (e.g. employee of the year), career progression scheme, increased holiday allowances, special assignment, parking allocations, etc.

Role(s) entitled to incentive (column 2)

Select the best match for the senior role you are reporting on, or select "Other, please specify".
If the option “Other, please specify” is selected, indicate the highest-level position to whom the incentive is provided.
If the option “No one is entitled to these incentives” is selected then you will not be presented with the next column, “Indicator for incentivized performance”. You may explain your approach in column 3.

Performance indicator (column 3)

If the option “Other, please specify” is selected, please provide a label for the incentive and give more details in column 4. For example, the incentive may be linked to progressing a target reported in module W8.

Please explain (column 4)

Provide details of the incentives, including:

- The rationale for the incentive and the choice of indicator to measure performance;
- The threshold used to indicate successful performance; and
- How performance impacts the incentive/reward.

You may provide any other information useful for understanding the incentive such as the timescale for the performance improvement and its geographic/organizational scope. Additionally, you may describe how the incentivized performance is linked to the organization’s water policy, targets and strategy.
Note that this question asks about the position of senior employees receiving incentives. Do not include the name of any individual or any other personal data in your response.

Explanation of terms

Employee incentives: Payments, benefits or concessions additional to the employee’s usual benefits that depend on the achievement of a performance goal.

Example response

Type of incentive	Role(s) entitled to incentive	Performance indicator	Please explain
Monetary reward	Chief Executive Officer (CEO) Chief Operating Officer (COO)	Reduction of water withdrawals Improvements in efficiency – supply chain Improvements in waste water quality – direct operations	We are an organization in the power generation sector which is committed to reducing water withdrawals, increasing water-use efficiency, reducing impact on water resources, and advancing sustainable water management practices across all facilities. This is included in our 10-year strategy and incorporated into senior employee incentives. Our water-related targets are a 10% reduction in consumption volumes, 20% overall increase in water-use efficiency, and stormwater pollution prevention across all facilities by 2025. They are set at company-level and embedded in the CEO's and COO's performance contracts. A 10% salary bonus is given to the CEO and COO if these targets are achieved by 2025. There are also short-term, quarterly cash rewards evaluated on the progression towards these targets.
Non-monetary reward	Corporate executive team Chief Sustainability Officer (CSO)	Implementation of employee awareness campaign or training program Implementation of water-related community project	We believe that awareness among our employees of the importance of water in our operations, local water scarcity issues, and how to reduce impact on resources is a key indicator in advancing water security. Our CSO, along with the corporate executive team, oversee a "Water Stewardship Ambassador Program" that involves 12 hours of courses and an examination to become certified as a Water Stewardship Ambassador. The CSO and corporate executive team are awarded with additional vacation days and other non-cash benefits if this program successfully meets its objectives. Across the organization we also have annual awards for the best water-related community project ideas among our Water Stewardship Ambassadors. The winners of this award are given funding to set up and help run their initiative.

Public policy engagement

(W6.5) Do you engage in activities that could either directly or indirectly influence public policy on water through any of the following?

Question dependencies

Your response to W6.5 will determine whether W6.5a is presented. If your response to W6.5 is amended, data in W6.5a may be erased. In this case, be sure to re-enter data for W6.5a.

Change from last year

No change

Rationale

It is important that boards have established mechanisms to ensure that activity seeking to externally influence policy agendas aligns with the company’s commitments and strategic objectives for water security. This includes engagement with policy makers, trade associations and/or research funding organizations or any other organizations relevant to public policy. This question facilitates increased transparency and helps CDP data understand the company’s priorities and stance on this aspect of water governance.

Response options

Select all that apply from the following options:

Yes, direct engagement with policy makers
Yes, trade associations
Yes, funding research organizations
Yes, other
No

Requested content

General

Select all that apply for your organization and that are relevant to the reporting year.
External engagement is relevant here if it seeks to influence water policy or other water agendas, including policy makers, government departments, or regulatory bodies on a regional, local, national, or international level.
Only select “No” if you do not carry out any policy engagement activities related to water.

(W6.5a) What processes do you have in place to ensure that all of your direct and indirect activities seeking to influence policy are consistent with your water policy/water commitments?

Question dependencies

This question only appears if you select any of the “Yes” options in response to W6.5.

Change from last year

No change

Rationale

It is important that boards establish mechanisms to ensure that any activity seeking to externally influence policy agendas aligns with the company’s commitments and strategic objectives for water security and that they maintain a consistent approach to addressing their water challenges.

This question enables companies to disclose the processes they use to make sure that their stated position on water security is compatible with their engagement and other activities.

Response options

This is an open text question with a limit of 1,500 characters.

Requested content

General

The intention is to understand how your organization manages engagement activities across different business divisions and geographies to ensure that you have a common approach consistent with your strategy on water security/stewardship/management.
If you do not have any processes or plans in place, explain how you will to address this potential for conflict in the future.

(W6.6) Did your organization include information about its response to water-related risks in its most recent mainstream financial report?

Change from last year

No change

Rationale

The integration of information on climate-related risk into mainstream financial reporting is a regularity requirement in some jurisdictions and is a TCFD recommendation. CDP data users wish to understand whether a company includes, or plans to include, water-related information to facilitate their understanding of the company's response to water risk and progress towards water security.

Response options

Select one of the following options:

Yes (you may attach the report – this is optional)
No, but we plan to do so in the next two years
No, and we have no plans to do so

Requested content

General

Select ‘Yes’ if your organization included details on its water-related risks and risk management in its most recent mainstream financial report.
The mainstream report should relate to the reporting year, although it may not have been published during the reporting year.
If your organization's mainstream report contains details on its water-related risks and risk management for the reporting year but has not been published at the the time of submission of your CDP response, select 'No, but we plan to do so in the next two years'.
If you wish to comment on your selection, you may click on the 'speech bubble' icon. This is optional.

Note:

You may attach a copy (or screenshot) of your financial report. This is optional.

W7 Business strategy

Module Overview

The purpose of this module is to collect information on how a company is adapting its long-term business model to secure a sustainable future, in terms of both its own resilience and securing water for all.

It flags that companies need to consider how to include water related issues in long term planning/strategy and they must also be accounted for financially. This strengthens the forward-looking focus of the water security questionnaire.

The questionnaire also seeks information for our data users on the use of an approach to internal water valuation and the use of scenario analysis. The latter is a tool for strategically understanding different potential futures, their implications regarding water security and how a business model might be modified to maximize opportunities. This reflects the recommendations of the Task Force on Climate-related Financial Disclosures. Further information on conducting and disclosing scenario analysis can be found in the CDP Technical Note on Scenario Analysis. Compared to most routine risk assessment approaches, scenario analysis involves a long-term horizon – typically beyond 35 years, a focus on macro, global trends which will interact with the more local trends and allows the analysis of complexity.

Key changes

Modified question: W7.3 question text has been revised to remove the 'climate-related' specification of scenario analysis.
Removed question: W7.3a (2021) on water-related outcomes of scenario analysis.
- As a result, a question number has changed: W7.3b (2021) to W7.3a (2022).
Modified question: W7.3a has been revised for companies to report the type(s) of scenario analysis used, further details of the scenario analysis, identified water-related outcomes, and how the outcomes have influenced their business strategy.
New question: W7.5 requests information on low water impact products and/or services.
Click here for a list of all changes made this year.

Sector-specific content

None.

Pathway diagram - questions

This diagram shows the questions contained in module W7. To access question-level guidance, use the menu on the left to navigate to the question.

(W7.1) Are water-related issues integrated into any aspects of your long-term strategic business plan, and if so how?

Change from last year

No change

Rationale

This question allows companies to explain how they have considered and acted upon water-related issues at a strategic level for the business, rather solely at the operational level.

This is not asking simply about your response to water risks. CDP data users, particularly investors are interested in forward-looking strategic innovations and financial decisions that have been driven by internal and external factors; e.g. both current and future market opportunities, public policy objectives, and corporate responsibility commitments related to water.

Connection to other frameworks

CEO Water Mandate

Response: Policies, governance and targets

SDG

Goal 6: Clean water and sanitation

Response options

Please complete the following table:

Aspect of strategic business plan

Are water-related issues integrated?

Long-term time horizon (years)

Please explain

Long-term business objectives

Select from:

Yes, water-related issues are integrated
No, water-related issues were reviewed but not considered as strategically relevant/significant
No, water-related issues not yet reviewed, but there are plans to do so in the next two years
No, water-related issues were not reviewed and there are no plans to do so

Select from:

5-10
11-15
16-20
21-30
> 30

Text field [maximum 1,500 characters]

Strategy for achieving long-term objectives

Financial planning

Requested content

General

When responding to this question, companies should consider if, what and how water-related issues have affected the 3 aspects of their business planning at the corporate level for a time horizon beyond 5 years.
This could be in response to existing risks or future risks, but could also include other considerations, inside and outside of the company, related to water, such as current and future market opportunities, public policy agendas, and corporate responsibility commitments.
In some cases, your action may be directly motivated by specific water-related issues, and in other cases, water-related issues may be an additional (but not exclusive) driver of the action.

Aspect of strategic business plan (column 1)

Business objectives: when responding to this row, please report how water issues have been integrated into your future business objectives in a time horizon beyond 5 years.
Strategy: when responding to this row, you should report how your future strategy, beyond 5 years, for achieving your business objectives has been influenced by a water-related issue.
Financial planning: When responding to this row, you should consider how your future financial plans, for a period beyond 5 years, have been affected by water-related issues. This includes changes to revenue, expenditure, assets and liabilities, and the specific actions, assets, and resources that are deemed necessary to achieve your organization’s long-term objectives (including changes to capital allocation).

Are water-related issues integrated? (column 2)

You should select ‘Yes’ if water-related issues were considered and they were incorporated into or affected your corporate business objectives, strategy or strategic financial planning, i.e. beyond operational management.
In all other cases, select one of the ‘No’ options to indicate that water risks/opportunities and other water issues have had no influence on your company’s strategy for developing your business.

Long-term time horizon (column 3)

Select the option that best describes how far into the future you considered water-related issues for each of the 3 aspects of strategy.

Please explain (column 4)

For each row, you should provide an explanation for your answers in column 2 and 3.
You should include company-specific examples of how water has been integrated in strategic planning.
If you answered ‘Yes’, please explain:

- Which water issues were incorporated.
- How the business planning aspect in column 1 was affected. For example, you may have decided to introduce a new product range or cease the manufacturing of particular product, divest from a location, commit to a collective action approach to water management in the river basins where you operate, or increase capital expenditures on new technologies.
- Why this decision was taken; such as to avoid a loss in revenue due to anticipated higher water costs over the longer term, to benefit from increased asset valuations, to realize a positive linkage with long-term carbon emission reductions, to exploit new markets, because of a projected lack of resource availability, because of anticipated consumer behavior shifts.

If you answered ‘No’, depending on which drop down you selected, for each row please describe:

- The primary reason your organization concluded that water-related issues need not impact on that aspect of its business planning in the long-term.
- Any plans to review how water-related issues might impact that aspect of your business planning in the long-term, include the rationale for those plans.
- The primary reason your organization has no plans to review how water-related issues might impact that aspect of its business planning in the long-term.

Explanation of terms

Business objectives: These describe what the organization expects to accomplish over a specified time period, and typically include a statement of purpose and anticipated future state for the organization.
Financial planning: Refers to an organization’s consideration of how it will achieve and fund its objectives and strategic goals. The process of financial planning allows organizations to assess future financial positions and determine how resources can be utilized in pursuit of short- and long-term objectives. Organizations often create “financial plans” that outline the specific actions, assets, and resources (including capital) necessary to achieve its objectives over a 1-5 year period. However, ‘financial planning’ ‘is broader as it includes long-term capital allocation and other considerations that may extend beyond the 5 year period (e.g., investment, research and development, manufacturing, and markets) (adapted from the Recommendations of the Task Force for Climate Related Financial Disclosure, 2017).
Strategy: A plan of action to achieve your organization's long-term objectives/anticipated future state.

(W7.2) What is the trend in your organization’s water-related capital expenditure (CAPEX) and operating expenditure (OPEX) for the reporting year, and the anticipated trend for the next reporting year?

Change from last year

No change

Rationale

Within a company, this information raises the strategic understanding of the value of water for the business (beyond the price paid for it).

Signaling the direction of travel of capital expenditure and operating expenditure to CDP data users helps them understand their potential exposure.

The question asks for a reporting of trends and not absolute values. It identifies changes in water-related investment and operational costs. The information provided here should align with the information provided on risk response strategies and business opportunities (reported in W4.2 and W4.3).

Response options

Water-related CAPEX (+/- % change)	Anticipated forward trend for CAPEX (+/- % change)	Water-related OPEX (+/- % change)	Anticipated forward trend for OPEX (+/- % change)	Please explain
Percentage field [enter a percentage from 0 to +/-999,999,999,999 using a maximum of 2 decimal places]	Percentage field [enter a percentage from 0 to +/-999,999,999,999 using a maximum of 2 decimal places]	Percentage field [enter a percentage from 0 to +/-999,999,999,999 using a maximum of 2 decimal places]	Percentage field [enter a percentage from 0 to +/-999,999,999,999 using a maximum of 2 decimal places]	Text field [maximum 1,000 characters]

Requested content

General

This question requires companies to consider the trend in their water-related capital and operational expenditure.
You may provide estimates if necessary.
You may report the figure as a negative or positive percentage up to 2 decimal places.
Only enter a zero percentage if there has been no change. Please remember that a zero should not be used for an absence of data.

Water-related CAPEX (+/- % change) (columns 1 and 2)

Examples of water-related CAPEX are stormwater drain rehabilitation, sewerage line replacements, pollution control devices, treatment facility retrofitting, solvent recovery units, landfill construction, pipelines.
In column 1, provide a figure for the percentage change in your water-related capital expenditure in the current reporting year compared to the previous year.
In column 2, provide a figure for the anticipated change in your water-related capital expenditure for the forthcoming reporting year (note that anticipated future trends should be at least one year after the end of the reporting year disclosed in W0.2).

Water-related OPEX (+/- % change) (columns 3 and 4)

Examples of water-related OPEX are permit renewals, wetland protection, water quality testing, consulting services, well maintenance, groundwater monitoring, hiring additional specialist employees, and the costs of water supply and wastewater disposal.
In column 3, provide a figure for the percentage change in your water-related operational expenditure in the current reporting year compared to the previous year.
In column 4, provide a figure for the anticipated change in your water-related operational expenditure for the forthcoming reporting year (note that anticipated future trends should be at least one year after the end of the reporting year disclosed in W0.2).

Please explain (column 5)

State if your responses are estimates or if any exclusions apply to the data.
You should provide details as to why your CAPEX or OPEX has increased, decreased, or remained the same compared to the previous reporting year.
Please comment on the direction and magnitude of the anticipated forward trend in CAPEX and OPEX, and explain your response.
You may comment on how the change in expenditure relates to particular aspects of your business; for example, a geography, business division, commodity, mineral, or power generation source.
Please also comment on what the water-related expenditure was for; for example, investment in a particular product innovation, new power sources, or manufacturing technology upgrades.
You could also provide an estimate of the proportion of your total OPEX and CAPEX that is water-related.

Explanation of terms

Capital expenditure (water-related CAPEX): Represents the money invested by a company to acquire or upgrade its fixed assets, such as buildings and equipment, related to water management or water security in any way. Examples are stormwater drain rehabilitation, pollution control devices, and pipelines, or new machinery used to manufacture new low-water use products. Fixed assets are those that are used repeatedly in production processes for more than a year (adapted from the OECD Glossary of Statistical Terms).
Operating expense (water-related OPEX): This is the expenditure an organization incurs as a result of performing its normal business operation. Examples are water supply costs, permit renewals, wetland protection, water quality testing, consulting services, well maintenance, and R&D expenditure related to the development of "low-water products". OPEX does not include taxes, depreciation, and interest (adapted from the European Commission, Eurostat).

W7.3 Scenario analysis

(W7.3) Does your organization use scenario analysis to inform its business strategy?

Question dependencies

Your response to W7.3 will determine whether W7.3a is presented in this section. If your response to W7.3 is amended, data in the dependent questions may be erased. In this case, be sure to re-enter data for all relevant questions.

Change from last year

Modified question

Rationale

Scenario analysis to inform business strategy is considered a valuable tool in transitioning for a water secure future. This question establishes whether your company uses scenario analysis, so that additional information can be reported about any water-related outcomes.

It is good practice for companies that are high impact in terms of water to actively consider water-related issues in their development of possible future scenarios.

Response options

Please complete the following table:

Use of scenario analysis

Comment

Select from:

Yes
No, but we anticipate doing so within the next two years
No, and we do not plan to do so within the next two years

Text field [maximum 1,000 characters]

Requested content

General

If you select 'Yes', you will be presented with a question on the water-related outcomes and further details of the scenario analysis.

Comment (column 2) (optional)

You may use this column to provide information that will help CDP data users to understand your selection; e.g. you may wish to explain your plans, or whether you have used this tool for only some parts of your business.

Explanation of terms

Scenario analysis: The process of highlighting central elements of a possible future and drawing attention to key factors (or critical uncertainties). It is a tool to enhance critical strategic thinking by challenging “business-as-usual” assumptions, and to explore alternatives based on their relative impact and likelihood of occurrence. Scenarios are not forecasts or predictions, but tools to describe potential pathways that lead to a particular outcome or goal.
Water-related outcomes: Scenario analysis enables decision makers to identify and evaluate potential outcomes for different scenarios and their effects on their organization, based on a variety of assumptions/input variables. The consequences may be water-related themselves, or have implications for the water management and governance of the organization, or for its wider business strategy.

Additional information

Credible, publicly available scenario analysis tools for assessing future water risks are WRI Aqueduct and WWF Water Risk Filter. Both tools combine different climate scenarios (IPCC Representative Concentration Pathways - RCP and IIASA Shared Socio-economic Pathways - SSP) to explore future water risks. In WRI Aqueduct tool, users can assess future risk of water stress (in terms of quantity only), and the WWF Water Risk Filter scenarios cover physical risks such as scarcity, flooding, water quality, water-related ecosystem services, as well as regulatory and reputational risks.

(W7.3a) Provide details of the scenario analysis, what water-related outcomes were identified, and how they have influenced your organization's business strategy.

Question dependencies

If 'Yes' is selected in column 1 of W7.3, this question is presented.

Change from last year

Modified question (2021 W7.3b)

Rationale

This question allows CDP data users to understand how scenario analysis has identified water-related outcomes for different possible or probable futures and how this has influenced business strategies.

Response options

Please complete the following table:

Type of scenario analysis used

Parameters, assumptions, analytical choices

Description of possible water-related outcomes

Influence on business strategy

Select all that apply:

Water-related
Climate-related
Socioeconomic
Land-use change
Other, please specify

Text field [maximum 2,500 characters]

Text field [maximum 1,500 characters]

Requested content

Parameters, assumptions, analytical choices (column 2)

Briefly describe key parameters, assumptions, and important analytical choices.
- Parameters refer to measurable factors which develop over time in the scenario, such as GDP or demographic variables.
- Assumptions refer to key drivers of the scenario pathway, such as policy changes or changing precipitation patterns over the scenario time horizon.
- Analytical choices refer to time horizons, data sources, and models used.
- Indicate whether the scenario(s) are quantitative, qualitative, or a mix.

Description of possible water-related outcomes (column 3)

Describe company-specific, possible or probable, water-related outcomes associated with the scenario analysis selected in column 1.
These may be possible or probable challenges or opportunities arising from, e.g., policy-based water restrictions due to drought, disruption to operations due to temperature changes, or water stress due to population change.

Influence on business strategy (column 4)

Describe your company’s response to the water-related outcomes described in column 3 and include the anticipated timescale for your responses.
These should be operational or strategic actions taken or already planned in response to the identification of possible or probable future scenarios and their implications for your company. These might include relocation plans, investment in technology, product diversification, or divestment.
You may wish to explain the extent to which the use of scenario analysis has been useful to your strategic water planning or for building resilience to different possible or probable water futures.

Explanation of terms

Water-related outcomes: Scenario analysis enables decision makers to identify and evaluate potential outcomes for different scenarios and their effects on their organization, based on a variety of assumptions/input variables. The consequences may be water-related themselves, or have implications for the water management and governance of the organization, or for its wider business strategy.

Additional information

Further information on climate-related scenario analysis is available in the CDP Technical Note on Scenario Analysis.

(W7.4) Does your company use an internal price on water?

Change from last year

No change

Rationale

The true value of water is not accounted for in today’s markets in many parts of the world and the costs of treatment and delivery, as well as opportunity costs and environmental and social costs, are not well captured. As water becomes increasingly scarce and contested, businesses could see prices increase.

Applying an internal price on water that more accurately reflects the costs of the organization’s water provision can help it understand opportunities for efficiencies and prepare for potential future price changes. It can help strengthen the business case for water-related investment.

As part of their assessment of a company’s resilience, it is useful for CDP data users to know if companies are using an internal price for water, or exploring any other water valuation options.

Response options

Please complete the following table:

Does your company use an internal price on water?

Please explain

Select from:

Yes
No, but we are currently exploring water valuation practices
No, and we do not anticipate doing so within the next two years

Text field [maximum 1,000 characters]

Requested content

General

CDP recognizes that attributing financial value to water is an emerging field and there are different tools and methodologies available to companies and investors wanting to understand more about the materiality of water risk. For this reason, this question is simply asking companies to let us know whether or not they are using it and to provide details if so. At this stage, we are not recommending any method or evaluating the validity of any activity or method.

Please explain (column 2)

If an internal price on water is used by your organization, please provide the value and currency and how this price was calculated.
You may also describe:

- the approach you adopted to establish the price
- a company-specific example of how the use of water pricing affects/has affected spending and other decisions within the organization
- how it compares to the price you are charged for water.

If you have explored any other valuation practices, please include them here and comment.
If an internal price on water is not currently used by your organization, please detail any plans to incorporate one, or any other valuation practices you are exploring. If you have no plans, please explain why you consider water valuation as unimportant for your business, or state if its relevancy has not been assessed.

Explanation of terms

Internal water price: A metric reflecting the economic value of water to an organization in monetary terms - beyond the market price paid to water utilities or other direct costs of supply. This value may account for internal and/or external costs associated with water use as well as benefits to the company derived from water (e.g. regulatory costs, water-related capital expenditure, river basin water scarcity impacts, services provided by water ecosystems, social benefits, link to share price). This may be current and/or forward looking, and reflect various levels of time-scales, uncertainty, and geographies. An internal water price may be used in strategic, operational or financial planning.
Water valuation: Method for arriving at a water price or any other type of metric associated with the value of water to the organization.

Products and services

(W7.5) Do you classify any of your current products and/or services as low water impact?

Change from last year

New question

Rationale

Reducing the water impact of products, in the production or use phase of the value chain, will hasten the transition to a water-secure future. This question informs investors and other data users on the action that companies are taking towards this.

There is no common definition of what constitutes a low water impact product and/or service, so companies are asked to explain the criteria and threshold used for classifying products and/or services as low water impact.

Response options

Please complete the following table:

(*column/row appearance is dependent on selections in this or other questions)

Products and/or services classified as low water impact

Definition used to classify low water impact*

Primary reason for not classifying any of your current products and/or services as low water impact*

Please explain

Select from:

Yes
No, but we plan to address this within the next two years
No, and we do not plan to address this within the next two years

Text field

[maximum 5,000 characters]

Select from:

Important but not an immediate business priority
Judged to be unimportant, explanation provided
Lack of internal resources
No instruction from management
Other, please specify

Text field

[maximum 1,000 characters]

Requested content

Definition used to classify low water impact (column 2)

State the criteria and thresholds used to classify your products/services as low water impact.
State which part of your company’s value chain (e.g., product use or production) the criteria apply to, which water aspects are considered (e.g., quality, quantity, or intensity), and which international standards are considered.

Primary reason for not classifying any of your current products and/or services as low water impact (column 3)

Only presented if a ‘No’ option is selected in column 1.
If you select “Other, please specify”, provide a label for your primary reason.

Please explain (column 4)

Provide an explanation for your responses in previous columns.
You may provide further information to help data users understand your approach to classifying products and/or services.

Explanation of terms

Low water impact products and services: This refers to products/services that could be considered as having a lower detrimental impact on water resources, water quality and ecosystems than the market norm or than the company’s previous products/services.

W8 Targets

Module Overview

This module collects information on your organization’s water-related quantitative targets and qualitative goals to demonstrate your commitment to progressing water stewardship and security, and to improving water management.

Details are requested only for targets and goals that are significant to the company as a whole and therefore monitored at the corporate level. However, we ask you to describe your approach to how targets are set for any level of your organization, because local context is critical for addressing water challenges. For example, do you have more aggressive targets in areas of most water stress? What changes are your targets and goals driving? How does your target setting link to your business strategy? What processes are used to review their impact?

Key changes

Modified guidance (W8.1a): A new point has been added to the guidance requesting companies to state if targets align with any external frameworks or initiatives.
Click here for a list of all changes made this year.

Sector-specific content

Additional drop-down options W8.1a: Food, Beverage & Tobacco.

Pathway diagram - questions

This diagram shows the questions contained in module W8. To access question-level guidance, use the menu on the left to navigate to the question.

(W8.1) Describe your approach to setting and monitoring water-related targets and/or goals.

Question dependencies

Your response to W8 will prompt which subsequent questions in this section are presented. If your response to W8.1 is amended, data in those dependent questions may be erased. In this case, be sure to re-enter data for all relevant questions. The guidance for each question indicates if it is a dependent question.
- If you select “Our company sets no targets and/or goals” in column 1, you will be presented with W8.1c.
- If you select "Targets are monitored at the corporate level" in column 2, you will be presented with W8.1a.
- If you select “Goals are monitored at the corporate level’ in column 2, you will be presented with W8.1b.

Change from last year

No change

Rationale

CDP data users wish to know about your organization’s targets (quantitative) and goals (qualitative) for achieving its water policy and commitments, improving water management, and responding to current and future water risks.

Companies may set targets and/or goals that are corporate wide, applicable to all parts of their organization, and determined and monitored at the corporate level. Some will be a key tool for achieving the corporate water strategy, though they apply to specific brands, products, facilities, basins, regions, processes etc. Others will be associated with the day to day management of the company at a local level. Some targets will be set at the level of specific regions, brands, business units etc. and will not be monitored at the corporate level.

Context can be particularly relevant for water-related targets and goals. Risks and impacts, and their mitigation actions, are often specific to location and the contextual issues of a basin; such as, water quality/quantity, access to WASH, water governance, and local ecosystems.

Companies may contribute to targets and goals that go beyond or originate beyond their company “fence line” and work with other stakeholders to achieve them, particularly at the basin.

This question allows your organization to explain its approach to target and goal setting at all levels and to demonstrate to CDP data users how the targets and goals are linked to the water risks and impacts you disclose in this questionnaire.

Connection to other frameworks

CEO Water Mandate

Response: Policies, governance and targets

Response options

Please complete the following table:

Levels for targets and/or goals

Monitoring at corporate level

Approach to setting and monitoring targets and/or goals

Select all that apply:

Our company sets no targets or goals
Company-wide targets and goals
Business level specific targets and/or goals
Activity level specific targets and/or goals
Site/facility specific targets and/or goals
Brand/product specific targets and/or goals
Country level targets and/or goals
Basin specific targets and/or goals
Other, please specify

Select all that apply:

None are monitored at corporate level
Targets are monitored at the corporate level
Goals are monitored at the corporate level

Text field [maximum 3,000 characters]

Requested content

General

Consider the range of water-related targets and goals set within your organization and the processes you have in place to ensure that they are meaningful and that their progress and impact is monitored. Also consider whether these are monitored at the corporate level. The targets may be related to your organization’s direct operations, or other parts of its value chain.

Levels for targets and/or goals (column 1)

Select all the options that apply to your organization for the current reporting year. Indicate if your organization uses targets and goals that are company-wide, local, specific to a business unit, product or brand etc. For example, if you have a target associated with water demand for a garment dying process and that target applies across all of your operations and geographies, you would select both ‘Activity specific targets and goals' and ‘Company-wide targets and goals.’
If you select “Other, please specify,” provide a label for the level of targets/goals.

Monitoring at corporate level (column 2)

Indicate if any targets or goals are currently monitored at the corporate level (regardless of the level that they are set or their coverage). Please explain your response in column 3.
Note that this refers to the monitoring of targets and goals, and determines the presentation of questions W8.1a and W8.1b. You may have site/basin/country/product targets and goals that are being monitored at the corporate level because they contribute to a corporate wide initiative, or because they are considered important for the company as a whole.
Only select ‘None’ if no targets or goals are monitored outside of the site/basin/country/business division etc.

Approach to setting and monitoring targets and/or goals (column 3)

Please give a company-specific description of your general approach to setting water-related targets and goals. This may include the following at any level of your organization:

- how you identify targets and goals relevant to your water risks, impacts, and opportunities or relevant to shared water challenges, and how you prioritize them. For example, you may have a company-wide policy to set targets only in water stressed areas, or to set more aggressive targets in water stressed basins and this involves engagement with river basin authorities to ensure a consolidated approach.
- how you ensure that targets and goals reflect geographic, regulatory, and other contextual factors, such as the use of science-based hydrological models or the needs of other users in a basin.
- any formal motivations (company-wide or other) that drive the setting of targets and goals – such as, adherence to water-related public policy agendas such as the Sustainable Development Goals or local environmental initiatives.
- how forward-looking strategic business plans, informed by scenario analysis tools for example, have influenced your targets and goals.
- any other information that ensures your targets and goals are tracked, progressed in monitored, and they deliver meaningful outcomes for your organization or for other water users.

If you set water-related targets and goals but none are currently monitored at the corporate level, you should explain here.
Please provide examples to help CDP data users understand the robustness of your approach to target and goal setting and monitoring.

Explanation of terms

Goal: A long term qualitative outcome or a specific change in behavior or circumstances.
Target: A specific measurable output to be achieved within a specific timeline. Targets often act as steps towards a wider and long-term corporate goal.

Example response

Levels for targets and/or goals

Monitoring at corporate level

Approach to setting and monitoring targets and/or goals

Company-wide targets and goals
Site/facility specific targets and/or goals
Brand/product specific targets and/or goals
Basin specific targets and/or goals

Targets are monitored at the corporate level
Goals are monitored at the corporate level

In the context of our company’s non-financial targets, we have assessed water and performance in a holistic way since 2012. Target setting is driven by our response to risks and impacts, and the identification of water scarce locations using the WWF Risk Filter tool. This ensures that targets are meaningful in terms of our water security commitments. Our company also uses targets to monitor progress of site-specific water projects and any accompanying initiatives in communities.

To address local water issues, our company sets site specific targets and basin-specific targets that fit the individual water contexts. These are set and monitored by regional offices. However, in one key basin where we operate in India, there is a high reputational risk if water flow restoration targets are not met. This is an example of a basin level target that is monitored at a corporate level.

We also set company-wide targets, all of which are monitored at the corporate level. These typically relate to operational efficiency.

In addition to this, we have also set a brand-specific target - the reduction of 10% in product water intensity by 2025 in our flagship line of precooked rice. Even though this line represents a very small proportion of our global revenue, it accounted for over 70% of water use in direct operations in 2017. So, we consider this brand-specific target an ambitious and important aim locally and at the corporate level.

Additional information

The case for meaningful water targets that account for local context has been set out in the following publication: Exploring the case for context-based water targets (2017).
Guidance for companies on how to set site-level water targets that reflect both the local context and global shared goals for water use has been described in the following publication: Setting Site Water Targets Informed by Catchment Context: A Guide for Companies (2019).
This is the result of a collaborative effort between CDP, the CEO Water Mandate, the Pacific Institute, the Nature Conservancy, UNEP-DHI, the World Resources Institute, and WWF.
CDP is part of a network exploring science-based targets for water, mirroring the successful work of the Science-Based Targets initiative for greenhouse gas emissions in mobilizing companies towards robust environmental impact reduction. Details can be found here: Science Based Targets Network.
This module of our questionnaire will evolve to reflect developments in good practice in target setting.

(W8.1a) Provide details of your water targets that are monitored at the corporate level, and the progress made.

Question dependencies

This question only appears if you select “Targets are monitored at the corporate level" in response to column 2 of W8.1.

Change from last year

Minor change; Modified guidance

Rationale

This question provides CDP data users with details about your water-related targets that are monitored quantitatively at the corporate level. They may be significant for progressing water security or reducing other water-related risks, achieving other water commitments or strategic business objectives.

Connection to other frameworks

CEO Water Mandate

Response: Policies, governance and targets

SDG

Goal 6: Clean water and sanitation

Response options

Please complete the following table. The table is displayed over several rows for readability. If you have multiple targets, you are able to add rows by using the “Add Row” button at the bottom of the table.

Target reference number

Category of target

Level

Primary motivation

Description of target

Quantitative metric

Select from:

Reference number drop down

Select from:

Response drop-down options below table

Select from:

Company-wide
Business
Business activity
Site/facility
Brand/product
Country level
Basin level
Other, please specify

Select from:

Response drop-down options below table

Text field [maximum 1,000 characters]

Select from:

Response drop-down options below table

Baseline year	Start year	Target year	% of target achieved	Please explain
Numerical field [enter a number between 1900 and 2022 with no decimal places]	Numerical field [enter a number between 1900 and 2022 with no decimal places]	Numerical field [enter a number between 2017 and 2100 with no decimal places]	Percentage field [enter a percentage from 0-100 using a maximum of 2 decimal places]	Text field [maximum 1,000 characters]

[Add Row]

Category of target (column 2)

Water withdrawals
Water consumption
Water discharge
Product water intensity
Water recycling/reuse
Water use efficiency
Water pollution reduction
Water, Sanitation and Hygiene (WASH) services in the workplace
Water, Sanitation and Hygiene (WASH) services in the community

Monitoring of water use
Product use-phase
Community engagement
Supplier engagement
Watershed remediation and habitat restoration, ecosystem preservation
Impact of packaging material
Procurement/production of sustainable raw materials (food, beverage & tobacco sector only)
Other, please specify

Primary motivation (column 4)

Brand value protection
Cost savings
Increased revenue
Sales of new products / services
Reduced environmental impact
Recommended sector best practice
Risk mitigation

Increasing freshwater availability for users/natural environment within the basin
Commitment to the UN Sustainable Development Goals
Corporate social responsibility
Shared value
Water stewardship
Climate change adaptation and mitigation strategies
Other, please specify

Quantitative metric (column 6)

Water withdrawals

Absolute reduction in total water withdrawals
% reduction in total water withdrawals
% reduction of water withdrawals from surface water
% reduction of water withdrawals from groundwater
% reduction of water withdrawals from municipal supply
% increase in water withdrawals from third-party sources
% increase in rainwater harvesting
% increase in water use met through recycling/reuse
% reduction per business unit
% reduction per revenue
% reduction per product
Absolute increase in investment related to this category
% increase in investment related to this category
% reduction per unit of production
Other, please specify

Water consumption

% reduction in total water consumption
% reduction per business unit
% reduction per revenue
% reduction per product
Absolute increase in investment related to this category
% increase in investment related to this category
% reduction per unit of production
Other, please specify

Water discharge

% reduction per business unit
% reduction per revenue
% reduction per product
Absolute increase in investment related to this category
% increase in investment related to this category
% reduction per unit of production
% increase in water use met through recycling/reuse
Other, please specify

Product water intensity

% reduction per business unit
% reduction per revenue
% reduction per product
Absolute increase in investment related to this category
% increase in investment related to this category
% reduction per unit of production
% increase in water use met through recycling/reuse
Other, please specify

Water recycling/reuse

% increase in water use met through recycling/reuse
Absolute increase in investment related to this category
% increase in investment related to this category
Other, please specify

Water use efficiency

% reduction in total water withdrawals
% reduction of water withdrawals from surface water
% reduction of water withdrawals from groundwater
% reduction of water withdrawals from municipal supply
% increase in withdrawals from third party sources
% increase in water withdrawal efficiency (i.e. revenue generation per water withdrawal volume)
% reduction in total water discharge
% increase in water use met through recycling/reuse
Other, please specify

Water pollution reduction

% proportion of wastewater that is safely treated
% reduction in concentration of pollutants
% reduction in water discharge volumes
Absolute increase in investment related to this category
% increase in investment related to this category
Other, please specify

Water, Sanitation and Hygiene (WASH) services in the workplace

Proportion of employees using safely managed drinking water services
Proportion of employees using safely managed sanitation services, including a hand-washing facility with soap and water
% increase in the proportion of employees using safely managed drinking water services
% increase in the proportion of employees using safely managed sanitation services, including a hand-washing facility with soap and water
Other, please specify

Water, Sanitation and Hygiene (WASH) services in the community

Proportion of local population using safely managed drinking water services around our facilities and operations around our facilities and operations
Proportion of local population using safely managed sanitation services, including a hand-washing facility with soap and water around our facilities and operations
% increase in the proportion of local population using safely managed drinking water services around our facilities and operations
% increase in the proportion of local population using safely managed sanitation services, including a hand-washing facility with soap and water around our facilities and operations
Other, please specify

Monitoring of water use

% sites monitoring water withdrawals total volumes
% sites monitoring water withdrawals by source
% sites monitoring water recycling/reuse
% sites monitoring water discharge total volumes
% sites monitoring water discharge by destination
% sites monitoring water discharge quality - by treatment method
% sites monitoring water discharge quality - by standard effluent parameter
% sites monitoring water discharge quality - temperature
% sites monitoring water consumption total volumes
% sites monitoring the proportion of employees having access to safely managed drinking water and sanitation services around our facilities and operations
% sites monitoring the proportion of population having access to safely managed drinking water and sanitation services around our facilities and operations
Other, please specify

Product use-phase

Absolute increase in revenue from products designed for use-phase resource efficiency
% increase in revenue from products designed for use-phase resource efficiency
% decrease in total revenue associated with water-polluting products
Other, please specify

Community engagement

Total number of population participating in community-engagement activities
% increase in number of population participating in community-engagement activities
% increase in investment in community engagement initiatives
Absolute increase in investment in community engagement initiatives
Other, please specify

Supplier engagement

% increase in proportion of suppliers engaged
% increase in number of suppliers engaged
% increase in investment in supplier engagement initiatives
Other, please specify

Watershed remediation and habitat restoration, ecosystem preservation

Total number of watershed remediation and habitat restoration, ecosystem preservation activities
% increase in watershed remediation and habitat restoration, ecosystem preservation activities
Improvement in health of water-related ecosystems over time
% increase in investment in watershed remediation and habitat restoration, ecosystem preservation activities
Absolute increase in investment in watershed remediation and habitat restoration, ecosystem preservation
Other, please specify

Impact of packaging material

% increase of biodegradable packaging material
% decrease of packaging per product unit
Other, please specify

Procurement/production of sustainable raw materials (food, beverage & tobacco sector only)

% reduction in procurement/production of high water impact commodities (food, beverage & tobacco sector only)
% increase in procurement/production of certified crops (food, beverage & tobacco sector only)
% increase in procurement/production of crops using sustainable agriculture practices (food, beverage & tobacco sector only)
% reduction in procurement/production of commodities from water-stressed areas (food, beverage & tobacco sector only)
% increase in procurement/production of commodities with improved water management practices (food, beverage & tobacco sector only)
Other, please specify

Other

Other, please specify

Requested content

General

This question requests information about your quantitative targets that are currently monitored at the corporate level. These may or may not be company-wide. For example, a company may have a commitment to improve water efficiency that is implemented through locally specific targets and activities that together contribute to a company-wide target. If progress is monitored at the corporate level, this target should be reported here.
We are not requesting details of targets monitored at the facility, business, basin level etc. If a target is set at the facility, business, basin or country level etc. and it is monitored at the corporate level, because it is significant to the business as a whole, it should be reported.
Only report targets that are ongoing or have reached completion during the reporting year.
To add targets, use the “Add Row” button. You may report up to 25 targets.

Target reference number (column 1)

Select a ‘Target number’ from the drop-down list to allocate a unique identifier to your target. This will allow you to track and report progress for this target in future disclosures to CDP, until the target is retired. The target reference number is not specific to your organization.

Category of target (column 2)

Select the type of target you wish to report. Your selection will drive the metrics presented in column 6. Refer to the metrics list under the question table to see which quantitative metrics are linked to each category of targets listed (column 6).
If you select “Other, please specify,” provide a label for the type of target you wish to report.

Level (column 3)

Select the organizational/geographic/other level or scope that the target applies to. For example, the target may apply to a particular product or a particular industrial process within your business.

Primary motivation (column 4)

Select the most applicable primary motivation behind the target you are reporting. If you select “Other, please specify,” provide a label for the primary motivation.

Description of target (column 5)

Provide additional company specific details that will help CDP data users understand your organization’s target, its contribution to water security, and why it was chosen.
Include a company-specific rationale for the target and its level of ambition, why it is important, and why it is being monitored at the corporate level.
Please name any external frameworks or initiatives the target aligns with and that your organization is committed to/working with, for example, Wastewater Zero or Science Based Targets for Nature.
You may also include, for example:

- If the target is the same for all basins/facilities/products, or if it is aligned with local risk levels, for example;
- If a company-wide target is driven by local challenges; e.g. “Discharge treatment was found to be inadequate across several sites in different geographies. We have set a company- wide goal to review this risk and set a company-wide 100% compliance target to meet or go beyond regulatory requirements;”
- How the target is being implemented and what investment in financial or personnel resources is necessary to achieve the target.

Quantitative metric (column 6)

The drop-down list presented will depend on the type of target you selected in column 2. Some metrics are linked to more than one category.
Select the metric used to quantitatively track your progress against the target, or how your organization measures the success of this target. If you select “Other, please specify,” provide a label for the metric.

Baseline year (column 7)

Enter a whole number between 1900 and 2022 to indicate the baseline against which your target is measured.
The baseline year may be before, after, or the same as the start year.

Start year (column 8)

Enter a whole number between 1900 and 2022 to indicate the year that the target was set.
If you have a year-on-year rolling target, this will be the same as the baseline year in column 7.
If you have a target based on financial years, please enter the start year for that period. If you have a target based on an average (e.g. five years average), please enter the year that applies to the start of the average period.

Target year (column 9)

Enter a whole number between 2017 and 2100.
If you have a year-on-year rolling target, your target year will be the current reporting year.
If you have a target based on financial years, please enter the end year for that period. If you have a target based on an average (e.g. five years average), please enter the year that applies to the end of the average period.
The target year should be in the future, or the current reporting year at the earliest. You should not report any target that was completed before the start of the reporting year.

% of target achieved (column 10)

Indicate how much progress your organization has made against the base line year by the end of the reporting year. Please report the value up to two decimal places.
Note that this value is the percentage of the target that has been achieved, not the overall change achieved. For example, if your organization has a target to reduce water withdrawals by 50% and has so far reduced withdrawals by 20%, then the value to enter into this column would be 40%, not 20%.

Please explain (column 11)

Provide an explanation of the level of progress reported in column 10 (% achieved), whether this matches anticipated progress, if the original target has been revised in any way, and if so, why.
You may comment on the Baseline, Start, or Target year.

Explanation of terms

Product water intensity: A metric providing the relationship between a volumetric aspect of water and a unit of product created.

Example response

Target reference number	Category of target	Level	Primary motivation	Description of target	Quantitative metric	Baseline year	Start year	Target year	% achieved	Please explain
Target 1	Water withdrawals	Company-wide	Cost savings	Our intention is to reduce absolute water withdrawals by our wholly-owned breweries across the whole company by 50% by 2030, against a baseline year of fiscal 2010. Water use was identified as our most material environmental impact and this challenging reduction target is a key pillar of water security as published in our Corporate Sustainability Strategy for the next 3 years. It will also lead to efficiency savings. In order to achieve this, we have invested heavily in developing new products and processes which require less water.	Absolute reduction in total water withdrawals	2010	2018	2030	65	As we have achieved 65% already, we are on track to meet this target early as long as progress maintains present pace.
Target 2	Water pollution reduction	Basin level	Water stewardship	As a major stakeholder in the Tana river basin, we are working towards reducing our impact on freshwater resources. To this end we have set an ambitious target of reducing concentrations of nitrogen and phosphorous in all our facility discharges in the Tana basin by 70% by 2020.. We have been working collaboratively with the basin regulator to help safeguard the quality and availability of resources in the basin.	% reduction in concentration of pollutants	2005	2015	2020	75	We started this in 2015 and have achieved 75% of the target with two years to go. Several large investments which are now coming to fruition will help us exceed the full target in the next two years. We expect that by 2020 we will have reduced concentrations of nitrogen and phosphorous by at least 80% across all facilities in the Tana basin, and in many facilities nitrogen concentrations in discharges will be nil. We may revise this target accordingly before 2020.
Target 3	Product use phase	Water stewardship	Sales of new products / services	We are aiming to have all products in our ranges that are branded as ‘smart appliances’ equipped with meters to monitor their water use by 2025 where appropriate. In the last four years we have already introduced energy and water saving technology into most of our home appliances and in achieving this target we aim to capitalize on this by demonstrating to consumers how our commitment to sustainability translates into concrete savings.	Absolute increase in revenue from products designed for use phase efficiency	2017	2017	2025	14.2	By 2018 our ‘smart appliances’ range comprised 7 different products of which 1 was equipped with a networked meter. We are therefore 14.2% towards achieving this target. We predict that by 2020 we will have 23 smart appliances on the market and plan to have 10 of these equipped with monitoring technology. In addition, 4 current products will be retired before 2025, giving us good confidence in our abilities as a company to meet our target by 2025.

(W8.1b) Provide details of your water goal(s) that are monitored at the corporate level and the progress made.

Question dependencies

This question only appears if you select "Goals are monitored at the corporate level" in response to column 2 of W8.1.

Change from last year

No change

Rationale

CDP data users wish to know if your organization has any qualitative goals (without a tracked, time-specific, quantitative target) related to water and how they contribute to water security, reducing other water-related risks, and/or achieving other water commitments or strategic business objectives.

Connection to other frameworks

CEO Water Mandate

Response: Policies, governance and targets

SDG

Goal 6: Clean water and sanitation

Response options

Please complete the following table. You are able to add rows by using the “Add Row” button at the bottom of the table.

Goal	Level	Motivation	Description of goal	Baseline year	Start year	End year	Progress
Select from: Response drop-down options below table	Select from: Company-wide Business Business activity Site/facility Brand/product Country level Basin level Other, please specify	Select from: Response drop-down options below table	Text field [maximum 1,500 characters]	Numerical field [enter a number between 1900 and 2022 with no decimal places]	Numerical field [enter a number between 1900 and 2022 with no decimal places]	Numerical field [enter a number between 2017 and 2100 with no decimal places]	Text field [maximum 1,500 characters]

[Add Row]

Goal (column 1)

Providing access to safely managed Water, Sanitation and Hygiene (WASH) in workplace

Providing access to safely managed Water, Sanitation and Hygiene (WASH) in local communities

Engaging with local community

Engaging with customers to help them minimize product impacts

Engagement with public policy makers to advance sustainable water management and policies

Engagement with suppliers to help them improve water stewardship

Engagement with suppliers to reduce the water-related impact of supplied products

Promotion of sustainable agriculture practices

Watershed remediation and habitat restoration, ecosystem preservation

Promotion of water data transparency

Reduce environmental impact of product in use phase

Improve wastewater quality beyond compliance requirements

Other, please specify

Motivation (column 3)

Brand value protection
Cost savings
Increased revenue
Sales of new products / services
Reduced environmental impact
Recommended sector best practice
Risk mitigation

Commitment to the UN Sustainable Development Goals
Increasing freshwater availability for users/natural environment within the basin
Corporate social responsibility
Shared value
Water stewardship
Climate change adaptation and mitigation strategies
Other, please specify

Requested content

General

A goal is considered to be a qualitative outcome or a change in behavior or circumstances (such as ‘improving water governance’), whereas a target is generally a specific, measurable output to be achieved within a specific timeline. A target could act to support a goal - as a quantitative assessment of progress.
This question requests information about your goals that are currently monitored at the corporate level. These may or may not be company-wide goals but if progress is monitored at the corporate level, this goal may be reported here.
We are not requesting details of goals set or monitored at the facility, business, basin level etc., unless they are significant to the business as a whole and therefore monitored at the corporate level.
Only report goals that are ongoing or have reached completion during the reporting year.
To add goals, use the “Add Row” button. You may report up to 25 goals.

Goal (column 1)

Select the option that best matches your organization’s goal. If there is not an option that is applicable, select “Other, please specify” to provide a label for the goal.
You should provide more details of your goal in column 4.

Level (column 2)

Select the organizational/geographic/other level or scope that the goal applies to. For example, the goal may apply to a particular product or a particular industrial process within your business. If you select “Other, please specify,” provide a label for the level.

Motivation (column 3)

Select the most applicable motivation behind the goal you are reporting. If you select “Other, please specify,” provide a label for the primary motivation.

Description of goal (column 4)

Provide additional details that will help data users to understand your organization’s goal, its contribution to water security and why it was chosen.
Include a company-specific rationale for the goal and its level of ambition, why it’s important, and why it is being monitored at the corporate level.
You should also include:

- Why this goal was adopted for the level indicated in column 2;
- If the goal is the same for all basins/facilities/products, or if it is aligned with local risk levels, for example;
- How your company is implementing the goal at the associated level. You may give details of the financial and personnel resources that have been committed to achieving it.

Baseline year (column 5)

Please enter a whole number between 1900 and 2022 to indicate the baseline against which your goal is assessed.
The baseline year may be before, after, or the same as the start year.

Start year (column 6)

Please enter a whole number between 1900 and 2022 to indicate the year that the goal was set.
If you have a year-on-year rolling goal, this will be the same as the baseline year in column 5.
If you have a goal based on financial years, please enter the start year for that period.
If you have a goal based on an average (e.g. five years average), enter the year that applies to the start of the average period.

End year (column 7)

Please enter a whole number between 2017 and 2100.
If you have a year-on-year rolling goal, your end year will be the current reporting year.
If you have a goal based on financial years, please enter the end year for that period.
If you have a goal based on an average (e.g. five years average), enter the year that applies to the end of the average period.
The end year should be in the future, or the current reporting year at the earliest. You should not report any goal that was completed before the start of the reporting year.

Progress (column 8)

For each goal, specify the progress that has been achieved by the end of the reporting year.
Provide details as to how your organization assesses the progress made, the indicators you use and how will you know when the goal has been achieved, e.g. the thresholds of success.

(W8.1c) Why do you not have water target(s) or goal(s) and what are your plans to develop these in the future?

Question dependencies

This question only appears if you select “Our company sets no targets or goals" in response to column 1 of W8.1.

Change from last year

No change

Rationale

Investors need an explanation as to why you do not have water-related targets or goals in place, especially if you have indicated a dependency on water or substantive water risks.

Response options

Please complete the following table:

Primary reason

Please explain

Select from:

We are planning to introduce a target or goal within the next two years
Important but not an immediate business priority
Judged to be unimportant, explanation provided
Lack of internal resources
Insufficient data on operations
No instruction from management
Other, please specify

Text field [maximum 1,500 characters]

Requested content

Primary reason (column 1)

If you select “Other, please specify,” provide a label for the primary reason.

Please explain (column 2)

Please use this open text field to provide any relevant details explaining why your organization does not have any targets or goals for the reporting year.
If your organization has plans to develop these in the future, please include any information detailing your future plans here.

W9 Verification

Key changes

Modified guidance (W9.1): The definition of 'Verification' has been modified.
Click here for a list of all changes made this year.

Pathway diagram - questions

This diagram shows the questions contained in module W9. To access question-level guidance, use the menu on the left to navigate to the question.

Verification of water information

(W9.1) Do you verify any other water information reported in your CDP disclosure (not already covered by W5.1a)?

Question dependencies

Your response to W9.1 will determine whether W9.1a is presented. If your response to W9.1 is amended, data in W9.1a may be erased. In this case, be sure to re-enter data for W9.1a.

Change from last year

Modified guidance

Rationale

CDP data users often ask about the credibility/quality of data disclosed. The information requested in this question could help strengthen confidence in your organization’s response to the water security questionnaire. CDP supports the development and use of verification methodologies as it promotes good practice in environmental disclosure.

To date the water security questionnaire has asked about verification of water accounting metrics only (W5). However, we have heard from companies, investors, and buyers that other data and reported activities are being verified and assured. CDP will collect this information to allow leading companies to report their efforts, and to highlight trends that CDP data users might begin to view as best practice among companies in the future.

Response options

Select one of the following options:

Yes
In progress
No, but we are actively considering verifying within the next two years
No, we are waiting for more mature verification standards and/or processes
No, we do not currently verify any other water information reported in our CDP disclosure

Requested content

General

CDP recognizes the lack of universally applied verification standards for water and therefore requests that you disclose the extent of any current verification practices and the standards currently used. This information will guide future development of questions on verification.
Verified information about facilities which are not exposed to risks with the potential to have a substantive financial or strategic impact on your organization (and which were therefore not reported on in module W5) can be disclosed here.
If you select ‘Yes’, you may attach a copy of your verifier’s report or equivalent document. This is optional but will support the robustness of your disclosure.

Explanation of terms

Verification: The assessment and validation of compliance, performance and/or actions relative to a stated commitment, standard, or target. Verification processes typically utilize monitoring data but may also include other sources of information and analysis (based on AFi, 2019).

(W9.1a) Which data points within your CDP disclosure have been verified, and which standards were used?

Question dependencies

This question only appears if you select “Yes” in response to W9.1.

Change from last year

No change

Rationale

This information gives data-users confidence in the information provided in the company’s response. It allows leading companies to report their efforts on this, and highlights trends in verification and assurance that investors and purchasing companies might expect in the future.

Response options

Please complete the following table. You are able to add rows to this table using the “Add Row” button at the bottom of the table.

Disclosure module

Data verified

Verification standard

Please explain

Select from:

W0 Introduction
W1 Current state
W2 Business impacts
W3 Procedures
W4 Risks and opportunities
W6 Governance
W7 Strategy
W8 Targets
SW Supply chain module

Text field [maximum 1,000 characters]

Select from:

AA1000AS
ASAE3000
Alliance for Water Stewardship certification
Compagnie Nationale des Commissaires aux Comptes (CNCC)
IDW AsS 821: IDW Assurance Standard: Generally Accepted Assurance Principles for the Audit or Review of Reports on Sustainability Issues
ISAE 3000
RevR6 Procedure for assurance of sustainability report
Other, please specify

Text field [maximum 2,000 characters]

[Add Row]

Requested content

General

Companies with existing verification programs may report their current verification practice to CDP and its data users. CDP is not making any judgement of the validity of any particular verification approach or standard, or a lack of verification, at this stage.
For organizations presented with Module 5, information about the verification of facility-level accounting data is requested in W5.1a.

Data verified (column 2)

For each module selected in column 1, state the reported information that has been verified. Where possible reference specific CDP question numbers and columns/rows where applicable.

Verification standard (column 3)

The list contains some standards relevant to water which have previously been reported to CDP. Inclusion here does not mean that CDP has made a judgement about any standards or is promoting the use of any particular standard above another.
Note that this list is not a comprehensive list of all acceptable water-related verification standards. It is provided to aid CDP data analysis and facilitate reporting.
If you select “Other, please specify”, provide a label for the verification standard. When providing a verification standard not currently listed as a drop-down response, please be as accurate as possible. This ensures CDP will be able to assess these options in future years and consider adding to the list of standards provided in this question.

Please explain (column 4)

Use this opportunity to describe why your company has chosen to verify the selected data points, and how the use of the standard was determined.
You can also describe here the frequency with which you complete this verification and the scope it encompasses.

W10 Signoff

Pathway diagram - questions

This diagram shows the questions contained in module W10. To access question-level guidance, use the menu on the left to navigate to the question.

(W-FI) Use this field to provide any additional information or context that you feel is relevant to your organization's response. Please note that this field is optional and is not scored.

Response options

This is an open text question with a limit of 9,999 characters.

When copying from another document into the disclosure platform, formatting is not retained.

Note

You may attach a file. This is optional.

(W10.1) Provide details for the person that has signed off (approved) your CDP water response.

Change from last year

No change

Rationale

CDP asks companies to identify the job title and corresponding job category of the person signing off (approving) the CDP response.

This information indicates to investors where in the corporate structure direct responsibility is being taken for the response and the information contained therein.

Response options

Please complete the following table:

Job title

Corresponding job category

Text field [maximum 200 characters]

Select from:

Board Chair
Board/Executive board
Director on board
Chief Executive Officer (CEO)
Chief Financial Officer (CFO)
Chief Operating Officer (COO)
Chief Procurement Officer (CPO)
Chief Risk Officer (CRO)
Chief Sustainability Officer (CSO)
Other C-Suite Officer
President
Business unit manager
EHS manager
Energy manager
Environment/Sustainability manager
Facilities manager
Process operation manager
Procurement manager
Public affairs manager
Risk manager
Other, please specify

Requested content

General

Please enter the job title for the person who has approved this disclosure to CDP.
Select the best match for the "Corresponding job category", or select 'Other, please specify'. For example, if the job title is Director of Sustainability, the best match selection in column 2 would be Chief Sustainability Officer.
If you select “Other, please specify”, provide a label for the corresponding job category.
Note that this question asks about the position and not about the name of the individual holding this position. Do not include the name of any individual or any other personal data in your response.

(W10.2) Please indicate whether your organization agrees for CDP to transfer your publicly disclosed data on your impact and risk response strategies to the CEO Water Mandate’s Water Action Hub [applies only to W2.1a (response to impacts), W4.2 and W4.2a (response to risks)].

Change from last year

No change

Rationale

Addressing water risks effectively, in many instances, requires collective action. CDP would like to support you in finding potential partners that are also working to tackle water challenges in the river basins you report on.
The CEO Water Mandate Water Action Hub is an online platform that catalogues water stewardship projects around the world and enables interested parties to connect and work together to solve local and regional water challenges.
Note: If you select ’Yes’, CDP will provide your public response data from three questions to the CEO Water Mandate’s Water Action Hub. Only your responses to W2.1a (response to impacts), W4.2 and W4.2a (response to risks) will be shared and reviewed as potential water stewardship projects for upload to the Water Action Hub website.

Response options

Select one of the following options:

Requested content

General

By selecting “Yes”, you agree that CDP may share your response to specific data points and the email address of your Main User with the CEO Water Mandate Secretariat.
Only your responses to the following data points will be shared:

- W2.1a (Water-related detrimental impacts): Country/Area; River basin; Primary response; Description of response
- W4.2 and W4.2a (Water risks and responses): Country/Area; River basin; Primary response to risk; Description of response

Your contact information will be kept confidential. This will allow the Hub administrator to alert your company if its response data includes a project with potential for inclusion on the Hub. For a two-week period, you will have an opportunity to review and amend the project details. You can also choose not to publish the project. After this period, the project will be published and your company notified. Sign in information provided to you directly from the CEO Water Mandate Secretariat will enable you to make amendments to the project profile at any time.

Appendix: River basin list — and South African Water Management Areas — by country

Sources: Includes all river basins in the CEO Water Mandate (2016) Interactive Database of the World’s River Basins (developed in partnership with the WRI).

(* denotes overseas dependent territory with a river basin and included in the ISO 3166 Country code list of UN member states).

Note: CDP's on-line country list includes countries/areas without river basins. Disclosing companies operating in these countries may report the aquifers relevant to their disclosure.

Country	Water Area
Afghanistan	Amu Darya, Helmand, Indus, Murghab - Hari Rud, Tarim
Albania	Danube, Drin, Vijose
Algeria	Chelif, Dra, Lake Chad, Medjerda, Niger, Tafna
Andorra	Ebro, Garonne
Angola	Congo, Cuanza, Cunene, Okavango, Zambezi
Argentina	Baker, Biobio, Chubut, Colorado (Argentina), Gallegos-Chico, Huasco, Lake Mar Chiquita, Lake Titicaca, Limari, Negro (Argentina), Palena, Parana, Rapel, Rio Grande, Rio Salado, Salado, Santa Cruz, Uruguay
Armenia	Kura - Ozero Sevan
Australia	Ashburton River, Blackwood River, Burdekin, Daly, De Grey River, Eyre Lake, Fitzroy, Fitzroy River, Flinders River, Fortescue River, Gascoyne River, Gilbert River, Leichhardt River, Macarthur River, Mitchell River (N. Au), Murchison River, Murray - Darling, Ord, Roper River, South Esk River, Victoria River
Austria	Danube, Elbe River, Rhine
Azerbaijan	Kura - Ozero Sevan
Bangladesh	Ganges - Brahmaputra
Belarus	Dniepr, Narva, Neman, Vuoksi - Neva, Western Dvina (Daugava), Wisla
Belgium	Meuse, Rhine, Seine
Belize	Grisalva
Benin	Mono, Niger, Oueme, Volta
Bhutan	Ganges - Brahmaputra
Bolivia (Plurinational State of)	Amazonas, Lake Titicaca, Loa, Parana
Bosnia and Herzegovina	Danube
Botswana	Limpopo, Okavango, Orange, Zambezi
Brazil	Amazonas, Corantijn, Cuyuni - Essequibo, Jequitinhonha, Lagoon Mirim, Maroni, Mucuri, Negro (Uruguay), Orinoco, Oyapock, Paraiba Do Sul, Parana, Rio Acarau, Rio Araguari, Rio Capim, Rio De Contas, Rio Doce, Rio Gurupi, Rio Itapecuru, Rio Itapicuru, Rio Jacui, Rio Jaguaribe, Rio Mearim, Rio Paraguacu, Rio Paraiba, Rio Parnaiba, Rio Pindare, Rio Prado, Rio Ribeira Do Iguape, Rio Vaza-Barris, Sao Francisco, Tocantins, Uruguay
Bulgaria	Danube, Maritsa, Rezvaya, Struma, Vardar, Veleka
Burkina Faso	Comoe, Niger, Volta
Burundi	Congo, Nile
Cambodia	Chao Phraya, Mekong, Saigon
Cameroon	Congo, Cross, Lake Chad, Niger, Ntem, Nyong, Ogooue, Sanaga
Canada	Albany River, Alsek River, Anderson River, Arnaud, Attawapiskat River, Baleine Grande Riviere De La, Caniapiscau - Aux Melezes, Churchill River, Churchill Fleuve (Labrador), Columbia River, Connecticut River, Copper River, Coppermine River, Eastmain, Ellice River, Ferguson River, Feuilles (Riviere Aux), Fraser River, George River, Grande Riviere, Grande Riviere De La Baleine, Hayes River (Trib. Arctic Ocean) - Back River, Hayes River (Trib. Hudson Bay), Hornaday River, Horton River, Little Mecatina River, Mackenzie River, Manicouagan (Riviere), Mississippi River, Moose River (Trib. Hudson Bay), Nass River, Natashquan (Riviere), Nelson River, Nottaway, Penobscot River, Quoich River, Rupert River, Saguenay (Riviere), Saint John River, Seal River, Severn River (Trib. Hudson Bay), Skeena River, St.Croix River, St.Lawrence, Stikine River, Taku River, Thelon River, Thlewiaza River, Winisk River, Yukon River
Central African Republic	Congo, Lake Chad, Nile, Sanaga
Chad	Lake Chad, Niger
Chile	Baker, Biobio, Chubut, Colorado (Argentina), Gallegos-Chico, Huasco, Lake Titicaca, Limari, Loa, Negro (Argentina), Palena, Rapel, Rio Grande, Santa Cruz
China	Amu Darya, Amur, Balkhash, Dalinghe, Dong Jiang, Fuchun Jiang, Ganges - Brahmaputra, Han Jiang, Hong(Red River), Huang He (Yellow River), Indus, Irrawaddy, Liao He, Luan He, Mekong, Min Jiang, Ob, Salween, Syr Darya, Tarim, Xi Jiang - Bei Jiang, Yalu Jiang, Yangtze River (Chang Jiang), Yongding He
Colombia	Amazonas, Atrato, Magdalena, Mira, Orinoco, Patia, San Juan (Columbia - Pacific)
Congo	Congo, Kouilou, Nyanga, Ogooue
Costa Rica	San Juan
Côte d'Ivoire	Bandama, Cavally, Cestos, Comoe, Niger, Sassandra - Davo, St John, Tano, Volta
Croatia	Danube
Czechia	Danube, Elbe river, Oder river
Democratic People's Republic of Korea	Amur, Han-Gang (Han River), Yalu Jiang
Democratic Republic of the Congo	Congo, Kouilo, Nile, Zambezi
Denmark	Gudena, Skjern A
Djibouti	Awash
Ecuador	Amazonas, Chira, Daule & Vinces, Esmeraldas, Mira, Patia, Tumbes, Zarumilla
Egypt	Dead Sea, Nile
El Salvador	Lempa
Equatorial Guinea	Ntem, Ogooue
Eritrea	Baraka, Nile
Estonia	Narva, Western Dvina (Daugava)
Eswatini	Incomati, Maputo
Ethiopia	Awash, Lake Turkana, Nile, Shebelle
Finland	Iijoki, Kem, Kemijoki, Kokemaenjoki, Kymijoki, Muonio, Oulujoki, Tana (No, Fi), Tuloma, Vuoksi - Neva
France/French Guiana*	Amazonas, Ebro, Garonne, Loire, Maroni, Meuse, Muga, Oyapock*, Po, Rhine, Rhone, Roia, Seine
Gabon	Congo, Kouilou, Ntem, Nyanga, Ogooue
Gambia	Gambia
Georgia	Coruh, Kuban, Kura - Ozero Sevan, Terek
Germany	Danube, Elbe River, Meuse, Oder River, Rhine, Weser
Ghana	Comoe, Pra, Tano, Volta
Greece	Maritsa, Struma, Vardar, Vijose
Guatemala	Grisalva, Lempa, Motagua
Guinea	Cavally, Cestos, Corubal, Gambia, Geba, Great Scarcies, Little Scarcies, Lofa, Mano-Morro, Moa, Niger, Sassandra - Davo, Senegal, St John, St Paul
Guinea-Bissau	Corubal, Geba
Guyana	Amazonas, Barima, Corantijn, Cuyuni - Essequibo, Orinoco
Honduras	Coco, Lempa, Motagua, Patacua, Ulua
Hungary	Danube
Iceland	Joekulsa A Fjoellum, Lagarfljot, Oelfusa, Svarta, Skagafiroi, Thjorsa
India	Brahmani River (Bhahmani), Cauvery River, Damodar River, Ganges - Brahmaputra, Godavari, Indus, Irrawaddy, Kaladan, Krishna, Mahanadi River (Mahahadi), Mahi River, Narmada, Penner River, Tapti River
Indonesia	Batang Hari, Batang Kuantan, Brantas, Eilanden, Fly, Lorentz, Mamberamo, Rajang, Sembakung, Sepik, Solo (Bengawan Solo), Sungai Kajan, Sungai Kapuas, Sungai Mahakam, Uwimbu
Iran (Islamic Republic of)	Atrek, Daryacheh-Ye Orumieh, Dasht, Helmand, Kura - Ozero Sevan, Murghab - Hari Rud, Tigris & Euphrates, Van Golu
Iraq	Daryacheh-Ye Orumieh, Dead Sea, Tigris & Euphrates
Ireland	Bann, Fane, Foyle
Israel	Dead Sea
Italy	Danube, Po, Rhine, Rhone, Roia
Japan	Gono (Go), Ishikari, Kiso, Kitakami, Mogami, Shinano, Chikuma, Tenryu, Tone, Yodo
Jordan	Dead Sea, Tigris & Euphrates
Kazakhstan	Amu Darya, Aral Drainage, Balkhash, Issyk-Kul, Ob, Syr Darya, Tarim, Ural, Volga
Kenya	Galana, Lake Natron, Lake Turkana, Nile, Pangani, Shebelle, Tana
Kuwait	Tigris & Euphrates
Kyrgyzstan	Amu Darya, Balkhash, Issyk-Kul, Syr Darya, Tarim
Lao People's Democratic Republic	Ca, Chao Phraya, Hong (Red River), Ma, Mekong, Tranh (Nr Thu Bon)
Latvia	Narva, Neman, Western Dvina (Daugava)
Lebanon	Asi (Orontes), Dead Sea
Lesotho	Orange, Tugela
Liberia	Cavally, Cestos, Lofa, Mano-Morro, Moa, St John, St Paul
Libya	Lake Chad
Liechtenstein	Rhine
Lithuania	Neman, Western Dvina (Daugava)
Luxembourg	Meuse, Rhine
Madagascar	Betisboka, Mangoky, Tsiribihina
Malawi	Congo, Rovuma, Zambezi
Malaysia	Kelantan, Kinabatangan, Pahang, Perak, Rajang, Sembakung, Sungai Kajan, Sungai Kapuas, Sungai Mahakam
Mali	Bandama, Comoe, Niger, Senegal, Volta
Mauritania	Niger, Senegal
Mexico	Armeria, Balsas, Bravo, Colorado River (Pacific Ocean), Conception, Fuerte, Grisalva, Panuco, Papaloapan, San Pedro, Santiago, Verde, Yaqui
Mongolia	Amur, Lake Ubsa, Ob, Yenisei
Montenegro	Danube, Drin
Morocco	Dra, Sebou, Tafna
Mozambique	Buzi, Incomati, Limpopo, Lurio, Maputo, Messalo, Rovuma, Save, Zambezi
Myanmar	Chao Phraya, Ganges - Brahmaputra, Irrawaddy, Kaladan, Mae Klong, Mekong, Salween, Sittang River
Namibia	Cunene, Okavango, Orange, Zambezi
Nepal	Ganges - Brahmaputra, Indus
Netherlands	Meuse, Rhine
New Zealand	Clutha, Waikato River
Nicaragua	Coco, Grande De Matagalpa, Patacua, San Juan
Niger	Lake Chad, Niger
Nigeria	Cross, Lake Chad, Niger, Oueme, Sanaga
North Macedonia	Danube, Drin, Struma, Vardar
Norway	Angerman, Dalalven, Dramselv, Gloma, Kemijoki, Lule, Muonio, Tana (No, Fi), Vaenern-Goeta
Pakistan	Amu Darya, Dasht, Helmand, Indus, Tarim
Panama	Atrato
Papua New Guinea	Fly, Mamberamo, Purari, Sepik, Uwimbu
Paraguay	Parana
Peru	Amazonas, Canete, Chira, Lake Titicaca, Majes, Ocona, Santa, Tumbes, Zarumilla
Poland	Danube, Dniestr, Elbe River, Neman, Oder River, Wisla
Portugal	Douro, Guadiana, Lima, Mino, Tejo
Republic of Korea	Han-Gang (Han River), Naktong
Republic of Moldova	Danube, Dniestr
Romania	Danube
Russian Federation	Alazeya, Amur, Anabar, Anadyr, Dniepr, Don, Indigirka, Kamchatka, Kem, Kemijoki, Khatanga, Kolyma, Kovda, Kuban, Kura - Ozero Sevan, Lake Taymur, Lake Ubsa, Lena, Mezen, Nadym, Narva, Neman, Nizhny Vyg (Soroka), Northern Dvina (Severnaya Dvina), Ob, Olenek, Omoloy, Onega, Oulujoki, Palyavaam, Pechora, Ponoy, Popigay, Pur, Pyasina, Taz, Terek, Tuloma, Ural, Varzuga, Volga, Vuoksi - Neva, Western Dvina (Daugava), Yana, Yenisei
Rwanda	Congo, Nile
Saudi Arabia	Dead Sea, Tigris & Euphrates
Senegal	Gambia, Geba, Senegal
Serbia	Danube, Drin, Struma, Vardar
Sierra Leone	Great Scarcies, Little Scarcies, Mano-Morro, Moa, Niger
Slovakia	Danube, Oder River, Wisla
Slovenia	Danube
Somalia	Shebelle
South Africa	Doring, Gamka, Groot, Groot-Kei, Groot-Vis, Incomati, Limpopo, Maputo, Orange, Tugela, Olifants, Inkomati-Usuthu, Pongola-Uzimkulu, Vaal, Mzimvubu-Tsitsikamma, Breede-Gouritz, Berg-Olifants
South Sudan	Congo, Lake Turkana
Spain	Douro, Ebro, Garonne, Guadalquivir, Guadiana, Lima, Mino, Muga, Tejo
Sudan	Baraka, Congo, Lake Chad, Nile
Suriname	Amazonas, Coppename, Corantijn, Maroni, Suriname
Sweden	Angerman, Dalalven, Gloma, Kalixaelven, Lake Vattern, Lule, Muonio, Vaenern-Goeta
Switzerland	Danube, Po, Rhine, Rhone
Syrian Arab Republic	Asi (Orontes), Dead Sea, Tigris & Euphrates
Tajikistan	Amu Darya, Syr Darya, Tarim
Thailand	Chao Phraya, Kelantan, Mae Klong, Mekong, Perak, Salween
Togo	Mono, Oueme, Volta
Tunisia	Medjerda
Turkey	Asi (Orontes), Coruh, Daryacheh-Ye Orumieh, Kel Kit, Kizilirmak, Kura - Ozero Sevan, Maritsa, Rezvaya, Sakarya, Tigris & Euphrates, Van Golu, Veleka
Turkmenistan	Amu Darya, Atrek, Murghab - Hari Rud
Uganda	Congo, Lake Turkana, Nile
Ukraine	Danube, Dniepr, Dniestr, Don, Southern Bug, Wisla
United Kingdom of Great Britain And Northern Ireland	Bann, Fane, Foyle, Spey, Thames, Trent, Tweed
United Republic of Tanzania	Congo, Galana, Lake Natron, Nile, Pangani, Rovuma, Rufiji, Ruvu, Zambezi
United States of America	Alabama River & Tombigbee, Alsek River, Altamaha River, Apalachicola River, Bravo, Brazos River, Cape Fear River, Colorado River (Caribbean Sea), Colorado River (Pacific Ocean), Columbia River, Colville River, Conception, Connecticut River, Copper River, Delaware River, Eel River (Calif.), Fraser River, Great Salt Lake, Hudson River, James River, Klamath River, Kobuk River, Kuskokwim River, Merrimack River, Mississippi River, Nelson River, Noatak River, Nueces River, Nushagak River, Pearl River, Pee Dee River, Penobscot River, Potomac River, Roanoke River, Rogue River, Sabine River, Sacramento River - San Joaquin River, Saint John River, Salinas, San Antonio River, Santee River, Savannah River, St. Croix River, St. Johns River, St. Lawrence, Stikine River, Susitna River, Susquehanna River, Suwannee River, Taku River, Trinity River (Texas), Yaqui, Yukon River
Uruguay	Lagoon Mirim, Negro (Uruguay), Uruguay
Uzbekistan	Amu Darya, Aral Drainage, Issyk-Kul, Syr Darya
Venezuela (Bolivarian Republic of)	Amazonas, Barima, Cuyuni - Essequibo, Magdalena, Orinoco
Viet Nam	Ca, Chao Phraya, Hong(Red River), Ma, Mekong, Saigon, Tranh (Nr Thu Bon), Xi Jiang - Bei Jiang
Zambia	Congo, Zambezi
Zimbabwe	Buzi, Limpopo, Okavango, Save, Zambezi

Glossary - Water

Acute physical risk: Risk that is event-driven, including increased severity of extreme weather events, such as cyclones, hurricanes, or floods (adapted from the Recommendations of the Task Force for Climate-related Financial Disclosures, 2017).

Area with water stress: There is no universally accepted methodology for classifying an area as water stressed, nor for identifying whether facilities are located in a water stressed area. CDP’s reporting guidance for W1.2d suggests some publicly available and credible tools for identifying water stressed areas based on physical scarcity. As good practice, a water stressed area should be at the catchment level as a minimum.

Baseline water stress: The ratio of total annual water withdrawals to total available annual renewable supply.

Board: The board, or board of directors, refers to a body of elected or appointed members who jointly oversee the activities of a company or organization. Some countries use a two-tiered system where “board” refers to the “supervisory board” while “key executives” refers to the “management board” (adapted from the Recommendations of the Task Force for Climate-related Financial Disclosures, 2017).

Boundaries of your organization: For CDP disclosure this is a management boundary, rather than a physical boundary or a legal entity. Water is considered to have crossed the boundary of your organization, at either the corporate or site level, when your organization in any way uses it, comes into contact with it, is required to manage it or when it becomes incorporated into your products. It therefore includes any water use and management by your organization outside of its physical corporate fence.

Chronic physical risk: Risk driven by long-term changes, such as rising sea levels, changing precipitation patterns and types, or declining water quality (adapted from the Recommendations of the Task Force for Climate-related Financial Disclosures, 2017).

Company: Throughout this information request, “your company” refers collectively to all the companies, businesses, organizations, other entities or groups that fall within you’re the definition of your reporting boundary. It is used interchangeably with "your organization".

C-suite: A term used to collectively refer to the most senior executive team.

Direct operations: An organization’s operations include anything it does itself for the purpose of producing goods and services and maintaining the functionality of the business. This covers any internal supply chains between the organization’s business units. For example, a business unit within a company that supplies components to another business unit within the company would be considered part of the organization’s direct operations.

Direct water use: includes all water that is used for activities within your organization (as defined by your ‘reporting boundary’).

Downstream (value chain): Part of the value chain, beyond direct operations, where finished materials, products and services flow from the organization to users/customers/consumers via distributors/retailers etc.

Ecosystem services: The direct and indirect contributions of ecosystems to human well-being (synonymous with ‘ecosystem goods and services’) (The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity, 2010).

Employee incentives: Payments, benefits or concessions additional to the employee’s usual benefits that depend on the achievement of a performance goal.

Entrained water (Metals & mining sector only): In the metals & mining sector entrained water refers to the volumes of water in the raw material.

Facility: “Facilities” may be used throughout this questionnaire as a broad term and not restricted to a particular site or grouping of fixed buildings and factories. For example, if your organization is in the extractive industries you might normally collate business information for assets or business units, and so you may wish to define ‘facility’ information in this way.

Facility boundary: This is a management boundary, rather than a physical boundary or a legal entity. Water is considered to have crossed the boundary of your facility when your organization in any way uses it, comes into contact with it, is required to manage it or when it becomes incorporated into your products. It therefore includes any water use and management by your organization outside of the physical fence of a facility; for example, to provide a street cleaning service or when used in fields that are remote from a processing plant.

Facility reference number: The facility reference number is used to track information related to a facility that is disclosed in different questions. The number is not specific to an organization, but simply avoids an organization having to repeat contextual information such as river basin and facility name.

Financial planning: Refers to an organization’s consideration of how it will achieve and fund its objectives and strategic goals. The process of financial planning allows organizations to assess future financial positions and determine how resources can be utilized in pursuit of short- and long-term objectives. Organizations often create “financial plans” that outline the specific actions, assets, and resources (including capital) necessary to achieve its objectives over a 1-5 year period. However, ‘financial planning’ ‘is broader as it includes long-term capital allocation and other considerations that may extend beyond the 5 year period (e.g., investment, research and development, manufacturing, and markets) (adapted from the Recommendations of the Task Force for Climate-related Financial Disclosures, 2017).

Fresh surface water, including rainwater, water from wetlands, rivers and lakes: Water that is naturally occurring water on the Earth's surface in ice sheets, ice caps, glaciers, icebergs, bogs, ponds, lakes, rivers and streams, and has a low concentration of dissolved solids. For the purposes of reporting water accounting data to CDP, this surface water source includes water of a quality generally acceptable for, or requiring minimal treatment to be acceptable for, domestic, municipal or agricultural uses (at least <10,000 mg/l TDS, though a range of additional quality properties may also be considered). ‘High quality’ fresh water sources considered acceptable for potable use are typically characterized as having concentrations of dissolved solids less than 1,000 mg/l.

Freshwater: The generally accepted definition of high quality freshwater is water with concentration of dissolved solids equal to or below 1,000 mg/l TDS (World Health Organization, Guidelines for Drinking-water Quality, 2017). For the purposes of CDP’s questionnaire, ‘freshwater’ is used to refer to a broader category that includes water of a standard generally acceptable for, or requiring minimal treatment to be acceptable for, domestic, municipal or agricultural uses (at least <10,000 mg/l TDS, though a range of additional quality properties may also be considered).

Goal: A long term qualitative outcome or a specific change in behavior or circumstances.

Good quality freshwater: Any water used for your organization’s activities that must be of a quality requiring only minimal treatment to be acceptable for domestic, municipal or agricultural uses or safe for freshwater ecosystems. A company is considered dependent on this if it is not possible to use a lower quality water instead. Water quality can refer to physical, chemical, biological, and organoleptic properties of water. ‘High quality’ fresh water sources, of potable standard, are typically characterized as having concentrations of dissolved solids less than 1,000 mg/l.

Governance: A system whereby an organization is influenced and controlled based on the interests of shareholders and stakeholders. This involves relationships and communication between management, the board, the shareholders and stakeholders. Governance provides a framework for an organization to set objectives, monitor performance, and evaluate results (adapted from the Recommendations of the Task Force for Climate-related Financial Disclosures, 2017).

Groundwater (non-renewable): Water which is being held in, and can be recovered from, an underground formation. Non-renewable groundwater has a negligible rate of natural recharge on the human time-scale (more than 50 years), and is generally located at deeper depths than renewable groundwater. This is sometimes referred to as “fossil” water.

Groundwater (renewable): Water which is being held in, and can be recovered from, an underground formation. Renewable groundwater sources can be replenished within 50 years and are usually located at shallow depths.

Impact driver: The factor/ driving force causing the impact being reported. Impact drivers are typically physical (e.g. weather extreme events), regulatory, reputational and markets related, or technological.

Indirect water use: includes all water use that takes place anywhere within your value chain outside your direct operations and direct control. This includes water use upstream of your direct operations, use such as by your suppliers, and downstream, for example water needed for the use of your products.

Inherent risk: The risk that exists in the absence of controls, i.e. not taking into account any potential mitigation or management measures that could be implemented.

Internal water price: A metric reflecting the economic value of water to an organization in monetary terms - beyond the market price paid to water utilities or other direct costs of supply. This value may account for internal and/or external costs associated with water use as well as benefits to the company derived from water (e.g. regulatory costs, water-related capital expenditure, river basin water scarcity impacts, services provided by water ecosystems, social benefits, link to share price). This may be current and/or forward looking, and reflect various levels of time-scales, uncertainty, and geographies. An internal water price may be used in strategic, operational or financial planning.

Measurement: The collection of quantified data for a water aspect - either as a single volume/quality figure or an aggregation of volumes/ quality figures.

Monitoring: This is the tracking of measurements over time, i.e. a trend or indication of change in measured figures.

Onboarding: The process used to support and facilitate working with a new supplier.

Organization: This refers collectively to all the companies, businesses, other entities or groups that fall within the definition of the reporting boundary. This term is used interchangeably with “company”, as CDP recognizes that some disclosing organizations may not consider themselves to be, or be formally classified, as “companies”.

Other stages of the value chain: Refers to the activities or partners, either upstream or downstream of direct operations, that provide value to or receive value from an organization's products and services; for example, in the supply chain, during product use and activities by franchisees. See also 'Value chain (beyond direct operations)'.

Physical risk: Risk driven by water stress or scarcity (too little water), flooding (too much water) or pollution (lower water quality).

Potential water pollutants: Physical (including thermal), biological, or chemical agents (organic, inorganic substances or heavy metals) that have the direct or indirect potential to negatively modify/contaminate water bodies and/or water ecosystems or affect human health.

Produced water (Oil & gas sector only): Water that is brought to the surface during the production of hydrocarbons including formation water, flow-back water and condensation water (adapted from IPIECA's Oil and gas industry guidance on voluntary sustainability reporting 3rd edition, 2016).

Produced water: Water which enters the organization’s boundary as a result of the extraction, processing, or use of any raw material, so that it must be managed by the organization.

Recycled/reused water: Water and wastewater (treated or untreated) that has been used more than once before being discharged from the organization’s boundary, so that water demand is reduced. This may be in the same process (recycled), or used in a different process within the same facility or another of the organization’s facilities (reused).

Regulatory risk: Risks driven by an expected or unexpected change or uncertainty, in law or regulation that may have direct or indirect impacts on a company.

Reporting boundary: This determines which organizational entities, such as groups, businesses and companies, are included in or excluded from your disclosure. These may be included according to your financial control, operational control, equity share, or another measure.

Reputational risk: Risk driven by litigation, product risks due to changes in consumer behavior, and risks that may impact decisions made by investors, consumers and current/potential employees concerning a company.

Requesting CDP supply chain member: Companies working with CDP’s supply chain program to manage climate change impacts, deforestation risks, and/or water security in their supply chain. If you are responding to CDP because of a request from your customer(s), you will need to answer the relevant (SC, SF, and/or SW) Supply chain module in addition to the main questionnaire.

Residual risk: The risk remaining after a specific action has been taken to manage the risk.

Revenue: Income arising in the course of an entity's ordinary activities (less discounts, allowances and returns) - before deducting costs for the goods/services sold and operating expenses to arrive at profit (based on the International Financial Reporting Standard, 2016).

Risk driver: The factor/ driving force that could cause the potential impact. Risk drivers are typically physical (e.g. weather extreme events), regulatory, reputational and markets related, or technological.

Safely managed WASH services: The universal provision of safely managed water, sanitation, and hygiene services has dedicated targets within the Sustainable Development Goals (SDG 6.1 and 6.2). As a minimum, this disclosure refers to a company’s tracking of its provision of drinking water for all workers, available when needed and from sources compliant with faecal and chemical standards, as well as sanitation facilities where excreta are safely disposed in situ or transported and treated offsite.

Scenario analysis: The process of highlighting central elements of a possible future and drawing attention to key factors (or critical uncertainties). It is a tool to enhance critical strategic thinking by challenging “business-as-usual” assumptions, and to explore alternatives based on their relative impact and likelihood of occurrence. Scenarios are not forecasts or predictions, but tools to describe potential pathways that lead to a particular outcome or goal.

Strategy: A plan of action to achieve your organization's long-term objectives/anticipated future state.

Substantive impact: An impact that has a considerable or relatively significant effect on an organization at the corporate level. This could include operational, financial or strategic effects that undermine the entire business or part of a business.

Sustainable development goals (SDGs): The UN Sustainable Development Goals are a set of 17 goals for 2030 that look to balance the three dimensions of sustainable development: the economic, social and environmental.

Target: A specific measurable output to be achieved within a specific timeline. Targets often act as steps towards a wider and long-term corporate goal.

Technological risk: Risk driven by technological improvements or innovations; for example, those that support water security or the transition to a lower-carbon, energy-efficient economic system.

Total water use: The sum of water used for all activities in direct operations in the reporting year. This volume can be calculated as the sum of water drawn into the organization’s boundary (water withdrawals put into storage should be subtracted where this is more than 5% of withdrawals), plus water taken from storage for use prior to discharge, plus water that is recycled/reused within your operations.

Upstream (value chain) Part of the value chain, beyond direct operations, where the materials used as inputs for manufactured products are produced, extracted, processed, and/or traded.

Value chain (beyond direct operations): The sequence of activities or partners, either upstream or downstream of direct operations, that provide value to or receive value from an organization’s products and services; for example, suppliers, product users and franchisees.

Value chain partner: A value chain partner includes any organization/individual that provides or receives value from the organisation’s products and services, up or downstream of its direct activities; for example, a customer, a franchisee or contractor the company engages with on water stewardship strategies.

Value chain: The entire sequence of activities or partners that provide value to or receive value from an organization’s products and services, either within, upstream or downstream of direct operations.

Verification: The assessment and validation of compliance, performance, and/or actions relative to a stated commitment, standard, or target. Verification processes typically utilize monitoring data but may also include other sources of information and analysis (based on AFi, 2019).

Water availability: The natural runoff (through groundwater and rivers) minus the flow of water that is required to sustain freshwater and estuarine ecosystems and the human livelihoods and well-being that depend on these ecosystems. Water availability typically varies within the year and also from year to year. Water availability might be reduced by decreases in both the water quantity and quality of water resources (adapted from the CEO Water Mandate's "Corporate Water Disclosure Guidelines", 2014).

Water balance: an account of the volumes of water flowing into and leaving an organization across its boundary. When the two volumes are equal, the net water balance will be zero.

Water consumption: The amount of water that is drawn into the boundaries of the organization and not discharged back to the water environment or a third party over the course of the reporting year.

Water depletion: A metric based on the percentage of consumptive use to renewable available water in a water shed.

Water discharge: The sum of effluents and other water leaving the boundaries of the organization and released to surface water, groundwater, or third parties over the course of the reporting period (adapted from GRI Standard 306-1, 2016).

Water intensity A metric providing the relationship between a volumetric aspect of water and a unit of production, financial metric or any other unit.

Water policy: A statement of an organization’s water-related commitments, and the actions that will achieve them, that applies to all its activities.

Water quality: Refers to the physical, chemical, biological and organoleptic (taste-related) properties of water (see CDP’s definition for “Good quality freshwater”) (adapted from the CEO Water Mandate's "Corporate Water Disclosure Guidelines", 2014).

Water scarcity: Refers to the volumetric lack of freshwater resources. It is a human-driven concept; it is a function of the volume of human water consumption relative to the volume of water resources in a given area. A region with very little water, but no human water consumption would not be considered “scarce,” but rather “arid.” (adapted from the CEO Water Mandate's "Understanding Key Water Stewardship Terms", 2014).

Water stress: The ability, or lack thereof, to meet human and ecological demand for fresh water. Compared to scarcity, “water stress” is more inclusive, considering physical scarcity, water quality, and the accessibility of water (adapted from the CEO Water Mandate's "Understanding Key Water Stewardship Terms", 2014).

Water valuation: Method for arriving at a water price or any other type of metric associated with the value of water to the organization.

Water withdrawal: The sum of all water drawn into the boundaries of the organization from all sources for any use over the course of the reporting period.

Water-related impact: The effects on an organization of a physical, regulatory, reputational or technological challenge, event or action related directly or indirectly to water. Note that the CEO Water Mandate’s Corporate Water Disclosure Guidelines, and the GRI standards, generally refer to “impacts” as the effects of the business on ecosystems and communities.

Water-related opportunity: Refers to the potential positive impact on an organization resulting from improved water security or an action to progress it, e.g. cost savings, access to new markets, supply chain resilience.

Water-related outcomes (scenario analysis): Scenario analysis enables decision makers to identify and evaluate potential outcomes for different scenarios and their effects on their organization, based on a variety of assumptions/input variables. The consequences may be water-related themselves, or have implications for the water management and governance of the organization, or for its wider business strategy.

Water-related risk: The possibility of an organization experiencing a water-related challenge, e.g., water scarcity, water stress, flooding, infrastructure decay, drought (adapted from the CEO Water Mandate's "Understanding Key Water Stewardship Terms", 2014).

Important Information

Companies should not consider their CDP response a means of complying with any regulatory requirement to share financially sensitive non-public information with the market. You may wish to consult with your financial, legal, and/or compliance departments for advice on your company’s general approach to the provision of forward-looking statements and information concerning risks.

CDP questionnaire copyright and licensed use

The copyright to CDP’s annual questionnaire/s is owned by CDP Worldwide, a registered charity number 1122330 and a company limited by guarantee, registered in England number 05013650. Any use of any part of the questionnaire, including the questions, must be licensed by CDP. Any unauthorized use is prohibited and CDP reserves the right to protect its copyright by all legal means necessary.

Terms for responding to the CDP Water Security Questionnaire 2022

These terms apply if you are submitting a response to the CDP Water Security Questionnaire 2022. If you are also submitting a response to the CDP Climate Change Questionnaire 2022 or the CDP Forests Questionnaire 2022 the corresponding Terms for responding to each questionnaire will also apply.

1.DEFINITIONS

Affiliate(s): means any entity that controls, is controlled by, or is under common control with a party. For the purposes of this definition, “control” of an entity means the ownership, directly or indirectly, of more than fifty percent of the outstanding voting securities or capital stock of such entity, or the legal power to direct or cause the direction of the general management and policies of such entity.

Bank Program Member: means a bank that has entered into a Bank Program member agreement with us and is requesting data from its clients.

Billing Company: means the organization determined in accordance with the table at the end of these terms.

CDP: means CDP Worldwide, a charitable company registered with the Charity Commission of England and Wales (registered charity no. 1122330 and company number 05013650). References to “we”, “our” and “us” in these terms are references to CDP.

Deadline: means 27 July 2022.

Fee: means the fee set out in the table at the end of these terms, which is exclusive of any applicable taxes.

Investor Signatory: means an organization that has entered into an investor signatory agreement with us and is listed on our website from time to time.

Full Version: means the version of the Questionnaire which contains all questions that are applicable to you.

Minimum Version: means the version of the Questionnaire which contains a subset of the questions included in the Full Version.

Personal Data: means data which relates to an individual who can be identified from the data, such as a person’s name and job title.

Questionnaire: means the Full Version and the Minimum Version of the CDP Water Security Questionnaire 2022.

Requesting Authority: means the organisation(s) requesting you to complete the Questionnaire as listed on your CDP response dashboard from time to time (accessed by signing in to our website), which may include (1) Investor Signatories; (2) Supply Chain Members; and (3) Bank Program Members.

Responding Company: means the company responding to the Questionnaire. References to “you” and “your” in these terms are references to the Responding Company.

Supply Chain Member: means an organization that is requesting data from its suppliers.

2.PARTIES

The parties to these terms shall be CDP, the Billing Company (where a Fee is payable and the Billing Company is not CDP) and the Responding Company.

3.THESE TERMS

These are the terms that apply when you submit a response to our Questionnaire. If you do not agree to these terms, please contact us at our Help Center: https://casemgmt-crm.cdp.net/en-US/

4.RESPONDING TO OUR QUESTIONNAIRE

4.1 General. When responding to our Questionnaire, you will be given a choice as to whether your response can be made public or whether your response is non-public. We strongly encourage you to make your response public.

4.2 Deadline for responding. You must submit your response to us using our online response system by the Deadline for your response to be eligible for scoring. If you submit your response after the Deadline but on or before 28 September 2022 (the date our online response system will close in 2022) it will not be scored and may not be included in any report, data product or other analysis.

4.3 Responding

Public responses. If you agree that your response can be made public, we may use and make it available as soon as it is received by CDP for all purposes that we decide (whether for a fee or otherwise), including, for example, making your response available on our website, to your Requesting Authorities and other third parties and scoring your response. Where a Responding Company is headquartered in the EU, we may share your reported climate and environmental actions on the European Climate Pact website if you give us your consent to do so when making your submission on our online response system. The European Climate Pact is a European Commission initiative bringing citizens and organisations together to achieve a climate-neutral Europe, and more information can be found here: https://europa.eu/climate-pact/about/about-pact_en

Non-public responses. If your response is non-public, we may use it only as follows:

(a) other than information you submit in response to the Supply Chain module (2022 Water Security) to which (d) below applies, make it available as soon as it is received by CDP to each of your Requesting Authorities either directly or through Bloomberg terminals in the case of Investor Signatories, for any use within their organizations (including their Affiliates) but not for publication unless any data from your response has been anonymized or aggregated in such manner that it has the effect of being anonymized;

(b) make it available as soon as it is received by CDP to our group companies, companies we license to operate using the CDP name and brand (for example, CDP North America, Inc and CDP Europe AISBL), our country partners, research partners, report writers and scoring partners (each from time to time):

(i) to score your response;

(ii) for any other use within their organizations but not for publication unless any data from your response has been anonymized or aggregated in such manner that it has the effect of being anonymized;

(c) where your Requesting Authorities include Investor Signatories, as soon as your response is received by CDP, list your company on our website or otherwise make it known that your company has responded to our Questionnaire (i.e. if your Requesting Authorities are Supply Chain Members and/or Bank Program Members only and you respond non-publicly this will not apply); and

(d) information you submit in response to the Supply Chain module (2022 Water Security) (questions SW0, SW1, SW2 and SW3 of the Questionnaire) will be treated as non-public even if you choose to make your response public. Questions SW1.1a, SW2.1 and SW2.2a ask you to select a Supply Chain Member using a drop-down menu in our online response system, and only the Supply Chain Member (and its Affiliates) you select for each row will have access to the information in it. For all other questions in the Supply Chain module (2022 Water Security) the information you submit will be accessible to any Supply Chain Member (and its Affiliates) that has asked you to respond to the Questionnaire. All information you submit in the Supply Chain module (2022 Water Security) will be accessible to CDP and to our group companies, companies we license to operate using the CDP name and brand, our country partners, research partners, report writers and scoring partners (each from time to time), all of which are obliged to keep such information confidential.

Sharing responses with the CEO Water Mandate. If you tick ‘Yes’ in response to question W10.2 of the Questionnaire, then you agree to us sharing your response to questions W2.1a (response to impacts), W4.2 and W4.2a (response to risks) with the CEO Water Mandate for publication of suitable projects on its Water Action Hub website, and you also confirm that we may also share the e-mail address of the person within your company registered in our online response system as the 'Main User' with the CEO Water Mandate. This is so that the Hub administrator can alert your company that its data includes a project of potential interest to other parties sharing water resources in the geographies in which you operate. The Hub will publish the project and the associated contact details after providing your company with secure log-in information which enables amendments to be made to the project profile and contact details.

4.4 Amending your response. You may reopen a response you have submitted before the Deadline (27 July 2022). To do so you must notify us that you wish to reopen your response by 13 July 2022 and you must resubmit it by the Deadline for it to be eligible for scoring. If you choose not to submit your reopened response before the ORS closes for submissions (on 28 September 2022), your original submission will be stored within the disclosure system but no further processing will be undertaken, meaning that we will not use it and it will no longer be made available to your Requesting Authorities or other third parties.

From 14 July 2022, amendments to submitted responses can only be made by our staff and at our discretion and we may charge a fee for making them. Most such amendments to your response will be made from 5 October 2022 at the earliest. Please note that the final date for requesting an amendment is 30 November 2022 and any changes you request to your submitted response from 14 July 2022 may not be reflected in any score, report, data product or other analysis or use of your response. You may not make amendments if the Scoring Special Provisions apply to you. Please contact our Help Center: https://casemgmt-crm.cdp.net/en-US/ for more information about amending your response.

4.5 Scoring of responses to the Full Version (of the Questionnaire). Except where the Scoring Special Provisions apply, if you submit your response to the Full Version in English (or the applicable language for your location set out below) using our online response system:

(a) by the Deadline, your response will be scored;

(b) after the Deadline but on or before 10 August 2022 you can request an ‘On-Demand’ score for a fee. Only a limited number of On-Demand scores are available in 2022 so your request may not be granted. Please contact your local CDP office for more information about On-Demand scoring.

Please contact your local CDP office for information about scoring if you intend to submit your response in a language other than English. The following languages may be used to submit your response to the Full Version of the Questionnaire: Chinese (if you are located in China); Japanese (if you are located in Japan); Portuguese (if you are located in Brazil); or Spanish (if you are located elsewhere in Latin America).

Scoring Special Provisions: Where you are headquartered or operate in Ukraine and do not submit a response, we will not attribute any score to your response and will recognise a pause in reporting where appropriate. Where you are headquartered in Belarus or the Russian Federation, your response will not be eligible for scoring.

Scoring of responses to the Minimum Version (of the Questionnaire). Responses to the Minimum Version will only be scored in certain circumstances. Please contact your local CDP office for further information.

4.6 Publication and use of scores.

If you are responding to a CDP Water Security Questionnaire for the first time you may choose for your score to be “private” but in all other cases CDP may publish your score, and use and make it available for all purposes that we decide (whether for a fee or otherwise), regardless of whether your response is public or non-public. If you choose for your score to be “private” then, unless you achieve an A grade in which case we may in any event make your score public, we will only make it available to your Requesting Authorities, our group companies, companies we license to operate using the CDP name and brand, our country partners, research partners, report writers and scoring partners (each from time to time), in each case for any use within their organizations but not for publication.

If you are responding to Supply Chain Members and Bank Program Members only (i.e. these are your only Requesting Authorities), unless you achieve an A grade, in which case we may in any event make your score public, we will only make your score available to any Supply Chain or Bank Program Member that has asked you to respond to the Questionnaire, our group companies, companies we license to operate using the CDP name and brand, our country partners, research partners, report writers and scoring partners (each from time to time), in each case for any use within their organizations but not for publication.

4.7 Future Questionnaires. Your submission of your response for the current year also constitutes your request to us to invite you and to remind you to respond in future years but you acknowledge that any future responses will be made upon the then-current version of these terms which you will need to accept at that time.

5.FEE

Fee. We are a not-for-profit organization and charge certain companies an annual administrative fee to enable us to maintain the disclosure system. Unless you are exempt from paying the Fee, as set out below, or you are listed, incorporated or headquartered in a country/region that is listed in the next paragraph, you are required to pay the Fee plus any applicable taxes to the Billing Company. The Fee is payable once regardless of how many responses (Climate Change, Forests and Water Security) you submit in 2022. Please note that you may be charged an additional fee if you want to amend your response after the Deadline or if you submit your response after the Deadline and you would like it to be scored.

Countries/regions where the Fee applies. A Responding Company will be required to pay the Fee plus any applicable taxes to the Billing Company unless it is listed, incorporated or headquartered in one of the following countries:

Albania, Belarus, Bulgaria, Croatia, the Czech Republic, Estonia, Hungary, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, Romania, Russia, the Slovak Republic, Slovenia and Ukraine.

Exemptions from the Fee. A Responding Company is exempt from paying the Fee if:

(a) you have been requested to respond by Investor Signatories and you have not submitted a response to CDP in the last three years; or

(b) your only Requesting Authorities are Supply Chain Members and/or Bank Program Members (and you have not been requested to respond by Investor Signatories).

Please note we will decide in our absolute discretion as to whether the Fee is payable to the Billing Company or not and we will notify you before you submit your response. A full list of companies in our investor samples is available on our website.

Payment of the Fee. You must pay the Fee to the Billing Company by credit or debit card or request an invoice via CDP’s online corporate dashboard, which must be paid within such time as set out in the invoice. Please note that you will not be able to submit your response unless you have paid the Fee, you have requested an invoice or you are exempt from paying the Fee.

6.RIGHTS IN THE RESPONSES

Ownership. All intellectual property rights in your response will be owned by you or your licensors.

License. You grant to us, or shall procure for us, a perpetual, irrevocable, non-exclusive, assignable, sub-licensable, royalty-free and global license to use your response and any intellectual property rights including copyright and database rights in your response for the uses set out in these terms.

7.IMPORTANT REPRESENTATIONS

You confirm that:

(a) the person submitting the response to us is authorized by you to submit the response;

(b) you have obtained all necessary consents and permissions to submit the response to us;

(d) the response that you submit:

(i) does not infringe the rights of any third party (including privacy, publicity or intellectual property rights);

(ii) does not defame any third party; and

(iii) does not include any Personal Data.

8.LIABILITY

We do not exclude or limit in any way our liability to you where it would be unlawful to do so. This includes liability for death or personal injury caused by our negligence or the negligence of our employees, agents or subcontractors, or for fraud or fraudulent misrepresentation.

We are not liable for financial losses. Subject to these terms, each of CDP and the Billing Company have no liability to you in any circumstances for any loss of revenue, loss of profit, loss of business, business interruption, loss of business opportunity, loss of goodwill, loss of reputation, loss of, damage to or corruption of data or software.

We are not liable for consequential losses. Subject to these terms, each of CDP and the Billing Company have no liability to you in any circumstances for any indirect or consequential loss or damage of any nature whatsoever.

Exclusion of liability. Subject to these terms, each of CDP and the Billing Company have no liability to you in any circumstances arising from the content or submission of your response to us, our use of your response or your score and/or the use of or any reliance placed upon your response or your score by you or by any third parties.

Limitation of liability. Subject to these terms, CDP and the Billing Company’s total liability to you in all circumstances shall be limited to an amount equivalent to the Fee or to £848 if you are not required to pay the Fee.

9.DATA PROTECTION

Each party acknowledges that during the course of their relationship CDP may process personal data including personal data which may be provided to it by or on behalf of the Responding Company including the personal data of its registered users of the CDP dashboard and other contacts. CDP will only process such personal data for purposes related to its relationship with the Responding Company including inviting and assisting the Responding Company to complete the reporting process and sharing the personal data with Supply Chain Members and Bank Program Members to assist in effective communications and engagement between CDP stakeholders. You shall ensure that any relevant data subjects receive a fair processing notice which includes the above information and includes a reference to CDP’s privacy notice available at https://www.cdp.net/en/info/privacy-policy and shall otherwise ensure that CDP is able to process all personal data provided to it by or on behalf of the Responding Company for the above purposes in compliance with applicable data protection legislation including the Data Protection Act 2018 as amended by the Data Protection, Privacy and Electronic Communications (Amendments etc.) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019 which merge the previous requirements of that Act with the requirements of the General Data Protection Regulation ((EU) 2016/679) (“UK GDPR”).

10.GENERAL

We may transfer our rights to someone else. We may transfer our rights and obligations under these terms to another organization.

Nobody else has any rights under these terms. These terms are between you and us. The Billing Company may enforce these terms for its own benefit but otherwise no other person shall have any rights to enforce any of its terms.

Entire agreement. These terms constitute the entire agreement between you and us in relation to your response to the CDP Water Security Questionnaire 2022.

Variation. CDP reserves the right to change these terms at any time. The consent of the Billing Company is not needed and any such changes shall be effective immediately or such other time as CDP elects. In the event of any materially adverse changes, you may request to withdraw your response within 30 days of us notifying you of the change.

If a court finds part of these terms illegal, the rest will continue in force. Each of the paragraphs of these terms operates separately. If any court or relevant authority decides that any of them are unlawful, the remaining paragraphs will remain in full force and effect.

Governing law and jurisdiction. These terms are governed by English law and you and us both submit to the exclusive jurisdiction of the English courts to resolve any dispute or claim arising out of or in connection with these terms or their subject matter or formation.

Language. If these terms are translated into any language other than English, the English language version will prevail.

11.AMOUNT OF FEE

Location of Responding Company	Fee (exclusive of any applicable taxes)
Brazil	BRL 6,060
China	CN¥ 7,800
Europe (excluding UK)	EUR 1,000
India	INR 86,400
Japan	JPY 105,300
UK	GBP 848
All other countries	USD 1,055

12.BILLING COMPANY

Billing Company	Location of Responding Company
CDP Worldwide	All countries/regions not listed elsewhere in this table
CDP Worldwide (Europe) gGmbH	Austria, Belgium, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Iceland, Italy, Luxembourg, Netherlands, Norway, Portugal, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland
CDP North America, Inc	Canada, USA
Carbon Disclosure Project (Latin America)	Antigua and Barbuda, Argentina, Aruba, Bahamas, Barbados, Belize, Bolivia, Brazil, Chile, Colombia, Costa Rica, Cuba, Dominica, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, El Salvador, Grenada, Guatemala, Guyana, Haiti, Honduras, Jamaica, Mexico, Nicaragua, Panama, Paraguay, Peru, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Suriname, Trinidad and Tobago, Uruguay, Venezuela
Beijing Carbon Disclosure Project Environment Consulting Co., Ltd. (北京诚度普环境咨询有限公司）	China
CDP Operations India Private Limited	India
一般社団法人 CDP Worldwide-Japan	Japan

Jan 2022	Preview of 2022 questionnaires and reporting guidance released on CDP website (English versions).
March 2022	Preview of 2022 questionnaires and reporting guidance released on CDP website (translated versions).
April 2022	Online Response System (ORS) opens.
July 2022	Companies must submit their responses to investors and/or customers using the ORS to be eligible for scoring and inclusion in reports (where applicable).

CDP Water Security 2022 Reporting Guidance

Copyright © 2022 CDP Worldwide. All rights reserved.

CDP Water Security Questionnaire Preview and Reporting Guidance 2022 - Version Control

CDP disclosure cycle 2022

Accessing questionnaire previews, reporting guidance, and scoring methodologies

Submitting a response to the questionnaire(s)

Sector-specific questions

Full and Minimum versions of the questionnaire

Timeline:

CDP water security questionnaire

Introduction to CDP’s water security questionnaire

General water security questionnaire structure

Sector approach

2022 water sectors:

Water security questionnaire changes for 2022

Preparing your CDP response

CDP disclosure support materials

Reporting guidance

Webinars and workshops

CDP Reporter Services

CDP water consultancy solutions providers

Important notes for completing your disclosure

Acronyms

Blank responses

Character limits

'Comment' column

Company-specific information

Consistency

Copy forward

Data accuracy

Drop-down options ('Other, please specify')

'Further information' field

Mergers and acquisitions (M&As)

Personal data

Providing feedback to CDP

Introduction to CDP water security reporting guidance

Water reporting

CDP’s approach to water reporting

Alignment

Journey to water security

Water accounting

Context and geographic scale

Reporting risk

Reporting impacts

Principles of true and fair reporting

Instructions for responding to the water security questionnaire

W0 Introduction

Module Overview

Key changes

Sector-specific content

Pathway diagram - questions

Introduction

(W0.1) Give a general description of and introduction to your organization.

Change from last year

Rationale

Response options

Requested content

General

Explanation of terms

(W0.2) State the start and end date of the year for which you are reporting data.

Change from last year

Rationale

Response options

Requested content

General

(W0.3) Select the countries/areas in which you operate.

Change from last year

Rationale

Response options

Requested content

General

(W0.4) Select the currency used for all financial information disclosed throughout your response.

Question dependencies

Change from last year

Rationale

Response options

Requested content

General

(W0.5) Select the option that best describes the reporting boundary for companies, entities, or groups for which water impacts on your business are being reported.

Change from last year