CDP Water Reporting Guidance

Guidance for companies
reporting on water on behalf

of investors & supply chain
members 2017
Water Questionnaire 2017
CDP
info@cdp.net
+44 (0) 20 3818 3900
www.cdp.net
Licensing of the CDP Questionnaires
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. Contact license@cdproject.net for details of licenses and fees.
Version Control
Version Revision Date Released Revision Summary
No.
0.1 December 2016 DThis version 0.1 of the guidance has been
eprepared to allow companies to see the full
cformat and requirements of the questionnaire
ein advance of the disclosure period in February
m2017.
bPlease note that this is not the final version of
ethe guidance and may be subject to minor
rrevisions such as spelling errors or improved
guidance for the Online Response System.
2
0
1
3
0.2 January 2017 This version has some minor revisions
including spelling corrections and improved
guidance for the Online Response System.
2|Page
Contents
Version Control ........................................................................................................................ 2
Introduction to the water guidance 2017 ............................................................................................ 6
Introduction to this document .................................................................................................. 6
What has changed for 2017?..................................................................................................... 6
The We Mean Business Water Commitment.................................................................................. 6
CDP’s Sector Approach – Reimagining Disclosure ...................................................................... 7
Water reporting ....................................................................................................................... 7
CDP approach.................................................................................................................................. 8
Water reporting standards ............................................................................................................. 8
The GHG Protocol ........................................................................................................................... 9
Alignment with GRI Standards ........................................................................................................ 9
Alignment with CEO Water Mandate Corporate Water Disclosure Guidelines ........................... 10
Disclosing to CDP.................................................................................................................... 13
Deadline for responses ................................................................................................................. 13
Response changes ......................................................................................................................... 13
Water scoring ................................................................................................................................ 14
Assistance in responding............................................................................................................... 14
Providing feedback to CDP ............................................................................................................ 15
Introduction Module Guidance .............................................................................................................. 16
W0. Introduction .................................................................................................................... 16
Question Pathway ......................................................................................................................... 16
General guidance .......................................................................................................................... 17
Specific question guidance for the introduction........................................................................... 17
Current State Module Guidance ............................................................................................................ 20
W1. Context ........................................................................................................................... 20
Specific question guidance............................................................................................................ 22
3|Page
Risk Assessment Module Guidance ................................................................................................... 49
W2. Procedures and requirements .......................................................................................... 49
Implications Module Guidance .............................................................................................................. 68
W3. Water risks...................................................................................................................... 68
W4. Water opportunities ........................................................................................................ 97
Facility Level Water Accounting Module Guidance .................................................................. 105
W5. Facility level water accounting ....................................................................................... 105
Question Pathway ....................................................................................................................... 105
General guidance ........................................................................................................................ 106
Measuring corporate impacts on water in relation to risk ......................................................... 106
Specific question guidance.......................................................................................................... 107
Response Module Guidance ............................................................................................................... 121
W6. Government & strategy ................................................................................................. 121
W7. Compliance ................................................................................................................... 130
W8. Targets and initiatives ................................................................................................... 135
4|Page
Linkages and Trade-offs Module Guidance .................................................................................. 142
W9. Linkages and trade-offs ................................................................................................. 142
Sign off Module Guidance .................................................................................................................... 146
W10. Sign off........................................................................................................................ 146
Appendix A: Reporting boundary definitions .............................................................................. 149
Appendix B: Disclosure glossary...................................................................................................... 152
Appendix C: River basin list and South African Water Management Areas (WMAs) . 156
5|Page
Introduction to the water guidance
2017
Introduction to this document

This document should be read by anyone responding to CDP Water in 2017, regardless of whether
you have responded to CDP Water before. It contains important information about this year’s
disclosure process and key sources of information to assist in the preparation of your CDP Water
response.
This document has been prepared for companies responding to requests for information on water on
behalf of investors and CDP’s supply chain members. Separate guidance has been prepared to assist
companies that are responding to requests for information on climate change and forests. This can be
found on the Guidance pages of our website: https://www.cdp.net/en-US/Pages/guidance.aspx
For those replying to the water request for CDP Supply Chain, please note that the introduction
module will be different to that reported in this document. For instructions on how to complete the
introduction module and generate the water questionnaire for CDP Supply Chain, please refer to the
supply chain guidance document for water on our website.
If you are unfamiliar with using our Online Response System (ORS), please refer to the guide to the
ORS.
What has changed for 2017?

CDP has stabilized the water questionnaire, with no major changes introduced in 2017. Any minor
changes are indicated at the start of the guidance for each module.
Our decision to stabilize the water questionnaire arises from three main objectives:
1. To allow companies time to align their reporting processes and develop the maturity of their
reporting without any further changes to this questionnaire.
2. To calibrate our new scoring methodologies for water against comparable data to incentivize
improved environmental performance.
3. To facilitate comparable datasets for cross-year analysis for data users.
The We Mean Business Water Commitment

We Mean Business is a coalition of organizations working with businesses and investors to accelerate
the transitions a low carbon economy through a set of public commitments to action.
Improving water security is fundamental to achieving the low carbon ambitions set out in the COP21
Paris Agreement and so in 2016 We Mean Business added a commitment to improving water
6|Page
security to its suite of commitments. The steps companies agree to take are those outlined by the
1
Business Alliance for Water and Climate (BAFWAC) . The three water commitments are:
 Analyzing water-related risks and collaborative response strategies

 Measuring and reporting water use data
 Reducing impacts on water availability and quality in direct operations and along the value
chain
CDP will use responses to its Water Information Request to track the progress of companies which
have made these commitments. The data points used for this tracking are:
WMB Commitment CDP question numbers

Analyzing water-related risks W2.2, W2.3, W2.6 and W2.7
and collaborative response strategies W1.3a, W3.2c and W3.2d, W4.1a and
W8.1a and W8.1b
Measuring and reporting water use data W1.2a, W1.2b and W1.2c; W8.1a
Reducing impacts on water availability and W1.3a, W8.1a and W8.1b, W3.2c, W3.2d
quality in direct operations and along the value and W4.1a
chain
CDP’s Sector Approach – Reimagining Disclosure

Following on from the success of the 2015 Paris agreement on climate change, which CDP helped
‘We Mean Business’ to deliver through our call to action program, CDP’s 2016-2020 strategy is to
build momentum from here to fulfil our mission to incorporate environmental stewardship into the
economic system. We have listened to investors and our stakeholders, who want more sector specific
information, and we will be implementing the recommendations of the Task Force on Climate-related
Financial Disclosure (TCFD) to be finalized in July 2017 (see www.fsb-tcfd.org).
As part of this, CDP is evolving our climate, water and forests questionnaires to be more sector
specific, implement TCFD recommendations, and optimize disclosure. We will focus initially on the
high impact sectors in Energy, Transport, Materials and Agriculture in our new questionnaires and
scoring methodology ready for the 2018 disclosure cycle.
Our goal is to make a step-change improvement in the benefits and process of disclosure for both
reporters and users of data (investors, policy makers and supply chain members).
Water reporting
Water presents a unique set of measurement and reporting challenges on both local and global
scales. First and foremost, water management is a local or regional issue. Challenges and
opportunities depend on patterns of local precipitation, watersheds and aquifers, as well as the
degree and nature of local use. Unlike a ton of carbon dioxide that will have the same impact whether
emitted in Stockholm or Sydney, the geographical scale and location of water use is critical. A cubic
1
BAFWAC is a partnership founded by the CEO Water Mandate, CDP, SUEZ and WBCSD,
supported by UNFCCC. BAFWAC will assess company progress and report back annually to the
UNFCCC and the Global Climate Action Agenda.
7|Page
meter of water used in Sydney has very different consequences from a cubic meter used in
Stockholm. This creates complexities for businesses trying to understand and disclose meaningful
corporate water indicators, as well as managing their water use and water risks.
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.
The next challenge is deciding what to measure. Unlike measuring GHG emissions, which can be
expressed in tons of CO2-e, there is no adequate, all-encompassing unit of measurement for water.
Factors that must be considered when measuring water include available volume, quality, and
whether it is scarce or abundant in the region concerned.
CDP approach
CDP has constructed its water questionnaire to flow in a logical manner from start to finish so it can
add value as an educational tool for companies (in conjunction with our Water Reporting Roadmap)
assisting them to progress their maturity in both water management and corporate water reporting.
CDP believes that establishing standards and improving disclosure must develop in parallel. CDP
2
works closely with the CEO Water Mandate , the World Resources Institute (WRI), WWF, World
Business Council for Sustainable Development (WBCSD), the Global Reporting Initiative and similar
organizations and we strongly support the development of effective standards. This is an area where
we particularly wish to engage stakeholders and help accelerate movement towards a standard which
companies are comfortable reporting against and through which investors can gain meaningful
information.
Since 2015, CDP has invited companies to break down their globally reported water accounting
figures by river basin where relevant. This decision was taken to primarily serve our investor
community which has a growing need for more granular water data. Reporting at the basin level is
also in line with evolving standards whose focus is on the local water impact. Basin level reporting
also represents corporate best practice. An organization will not have a comprehensive
understanding of its risk exposure unless it is able to identify what river basin the risk is in and thus
take account of local basin context and conditions.
Water reporting standards

Standards for water reporting are not yet as consistently established as those for GHG emissions.
However, throughout this guidance, sources, methodologies and calculation tools are referenced to
help companies answer the questions and report relevant information.
CDP’s Water Information Request draws on relevant reporting principles from the GHG Protocol, the
GRI Sustainability Reporting Standards (GRI Standards) and existing water reporting guidance such
3
as the CEO Water Mandate Corporate Water Disclosure Guidelines and Ceres Aqua Gauge .
2
To view a copy of the CEO Water Mandate Corporate Water Disclosure Guidelines please visit:
www.ceowatermandate.org/disclosure
3
To view a copy of CERES Aqua Gauge please visit: http://www.ceres.org/issues/resources/reports/aqua-
gauge/view
8|Page
The GHG Protocol
4
The GHG Protocol outlines five principles to ensure a true and fair account of a company’s GHG
emissions. CDP suggests that all of these principles be adopted for the purpose of water reporting.
These principles are as follows:
1. 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.
2. Completeness: Account for and report on all water activities within the chosen inventory
boundary. Disclose and justify any specific exclusion(s).
3. Consistency: Use consistent methodologies to allow for meaningful comparisons of
company’s use of water over time.
4. 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.
5. 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 (in this case the
investment community).
Alignment with GRI Standards

To assist companies with their responses, CDP and GRI have jointly produced a guide to the linkages
between our 2017 water questionnaire and the GRI Standards. Linkages include GRI 303: Water,
GRI 306: Effluents and Waste, GRI 308: Supplier Environmental Assessment, GRI 102: General
Disclosures and GRI 103: Management Approach.
For example, certain questions in the company-wide (W1) and facility level water accounting sections
(W5) of the CDP questionnaire correspond to the GRI Standards as below:
CDP question number(s) GRI G4 Indicator
W1.2, W1.2a, W5.1, W5.1a, GRI 303 Water: Disclosure 303-1

GRI 306 Effluents and Waste: Disclosure 306-1
For more information on the GRI indicators that align with CDP reporting, please consult the
document “Linking GRI and CDP. How are the GRI Sustainability Reporting Standards and CDP’s
2017 water questions aligned”.
4
For more information, please see “The Greenhouse Gas Protocol: A Corporate Accounting and Reporting
Standard (Revised Edition)”, (GHG Protocol), developed by the World Resources Institute (WRI) and the
World Business Council for Sustainable Development (WBCSD).
9|Page
Alignment with CEO Water Mandate Corporate Water Disclosure Guidelines
In 2014 and 2015 CDP updated the structure and content of its water questionnaire to align with the
CEO Water Mandate Corporate Water Disclosure Guidelines as much as possible in order to
standardize corporate water reporting (see diagram on page 12).
There are some differences which are explained briefly below:
 Context – though both the Guidelines and CDP have a “Context” section, in the Guidelines
this refers more to the state of river basins: water stress and other water challenges, while in
the CDP water questionnaire, the context refers to the importance of water to a business and
their value chain. The context information referred to within the Guidelines is introduced in a
later stage in our questionnaire within the W3 Water Risks section where companies can
report the water risks/challenges they face and provide a more detailed explanation of the
state of the river basin within which they operate or their suppliers operate.
 Compliance – In the Guidelines, “Compliance” is listed under “Current State”, but in the
questionnaire is listed under “Response”. CDP’s reason for choosing the Response section is
because this information acts as an indication of governance performance (as well as
providing information on the current state of a company’s performance on water
management). We also ask companies to filter the compliance data they report using a
financial impact lens as this is of most value to the investors requesting this information. This
financial lens helps to reduce the reporting burden for companies; some sectors e.g. Utilities
may have hundreds of incidents to report including self-enforcement orders, though these
may not all have equal value for investors.
 External impacts – the Guidelines tend to talk about impacts as the effects of the business
on communities and ecosystems, whereas CDP refers to impacts as the effects of water
challenges on the business i.e. “business impacts”, although some external impact
information is captured through the compliance section where companies can describe their
compliance incidents in more detail and their impacts on the local environment. CDP chooses
to put the “W1 Impacts” section under “Current State” as investors tend to view this
information as past trend information upon which to judge a company’s potential future
performance. As section W3 Water risks looks at forward looking information, we keep the
two sections separate.
 Facility level water accounting – while company-wide accounting is under “Current state”,
CDP has created a separate water accounting section for facilities at risk only, not all facilities.
This section was created for investors who wish to understand the operational exposure and
the maturity of a company’s response for facilities facing substantive risk from water (as
supported by Ceres 2015 report “An Investor Handbook for Water Risk Integration”). The
facility water accounting data is taken as a proxy for managing water at these risky river basin
locations and is meant to be combined with the risk data given in W3 Water risks (using river
basin information to connect data points) and compared to the response data given in W6
Governance & strategy, W7 Compliance and W8 Targets and initiatives to provide an
overview of a company’s risk from and response to water challenges. For this reason, it is
kept as a separate section from “Current State” company-wide water accounting.
While investors are interested in water accounting data for facilities at risk, company feedback
in 2015 requested that a separate company-wide water accounting section be created (in
“Current state”) to allow companies who do not have any substantive water risk - and
therefore would not respond to W5 Facility level water accounting questions - to demonstrate
their ability to provide water accounting data and their ability and maturity in managing water.
This is why CDP has two separate water accounting sections.
10 | P a g e
CDP hopes that with further funding we may be able to align more closely to the CEO Water Mandate
reporting framework as necessary and incorporate more metrics from the CEO Water Mandate
Corporate Water Disclosure Guidelines as appropriate as investor and company understanding on
this important environmental and business issue grows.
11 | P a g e
CEO Water Mandate Corporate Water
CDP Water Questionnaire Layout
Disclosure Framework
Current State Implications Response Current State Implications Response
risk and considered part of a company’s response to risk

Reporting facility level water accounting is used as a proxy for management of
Policies,
W2 W3 Water W6 Governance
Context Business risks W1 Context
governance
Procedures risks & Strategy
and targets
and
requirements
W1
(includes W4 Water W7 Compliance
Business Internal Company-
Performance External opportunities (includes
opportunities actions wide water
engagement) Internal actions
accounting
& External
Water Reporting Roadmap

(Performance)
Defining What to Report
Facility level water impacts)

Company Water Profile
External External accounting linked

Compliance
impacts engagement to local sites
W1 Supplier W8 Targets &
identified at risk in
reporting initiatives
section W3 Water
(Performance) W5 Facility (includes
Risks (W3.2a)
level water Internal actions
accounting & External

W1 Business
engagement)
Impacts
Linkages across sustainability issues (e.g., food, energy) W9 Linkages across sustainability issues (e.g. food energy)
Connections between sections and subsections Connections between sections and sub-sections
Disclosing to CDP
Deadline for responses
The opening and closing dates for responses differ depending on the information request you are
responding to.
The request for information on behalf of investors will be issued in February 2017 and the closing date
for submissions is June 29 2017.
The request for information on behalf of CDP’s supply chain members will be issued in April 2017 and
the closing date for submissions is July 31 2017.
If you are responding to both requests, you can begin your response as soon as the modules become
available, but you must submit your investor response in advance of submitting your response to
supply chain members.
Please note that the CDP supply chain request, sent to supplier companies on behalf of CDP Supply
Chain members, is composed of the same questionnaire as the investor request, plus an additional
supply chain module of specific customer focused questions. This means that an organization’s
disclosure for investors will also partially count towards its submission to the CDP supply chain
program.
Please answer the questions comprehensively while considering the relevance of the information you
provide. Answers should:
 Be as specific as possible to your company;

 Be short and direct. These are preferred over long responses that may contain information
that is not relevant to the question. Information is considered relevant if it provides detail that
users, internal and external to your company, need for decision-making; and
 Consider what will be of benefit to the audience requesting information.
A partial response is more valuable than no response: if you do not have all of the information
requested, please respond with what information you have available. Please refer to CDP’s Water
Reporting Roadmap for guidance on how to progress from a basic response to complete disclosure.
Response changes
Amendments to responses submitted prior to the deadline
For companies responding to the request for information from investors, responses submitted prior to
the disclosure deadline of June 29 may be amended by the company and resubmitted by this date.
For companies also completing the supply chain water module, this module can be resubmitted up to
the July 31 deadline. If you need to make amendments to your submitted response prior to the above
deadlines, please email respond@cdp.net.
Amendments to responses after the response deadline

Amendments to responses after the above deadline can be made only by CDP staff and may incur an
administration fee. CDP will not accept amendments to all questions. Therefore, if you discover an
error in your response after the above deadlines, please contact CDP (email respond@cdp.net) to
investigate whether it is possible to amend the error.
Please note that these changes may not be reflected in the CDP annual reports and that CDP
reserves the right to use the information already submitted.
Water scoring
In 2014, CDP worked with a wide range of stakeholders to test and refine a water scoring
methodology. CDP implemented the methodology fully across all respondents in the 2015 disclosure
cycle. An overview of CDP scoring and the water scoring methodology are available on our website:
www.cdp.net/en/guidance/guidance-for-companies.
CDP and other organizations write and publish reports that include an overview of CDP responses.
Some of these reports will include a scoring of responses for the comprehensiveness of the
companies’ disclosure and on performance factors. Companies agree that their response will not be
eligible for scoring unless it is submitted in the format prescribed by CDP.
Only the top-scoring companies that have made their response public will be eligible for recognition
as leaders based on these scoring approaches.
If a company makes a non-public response, the response may be scored on request and that score
may be published. Please contact your local CDP office (see www.cdp.net/en/info/contact) if you want
to find out if your response will be scored.
Companies that are not automatically selected for scoring or miss the deadline can choose to request
an On-Demand score for a fee. Please email scorefeedback@cdp.net for more information.
Assistance in responding
Additional to the guidance listed at the beginning of this document, there are a number of other
sources of assistance for companies when preparing their response to CDP. Full details are available
at https://www.cdproject.net/guidance; some of the main resources are briefly described below.
Internet Explorer
CDP understands there are a number of internet browsers available to organizations to use when
responding to the Online Response System. However, when responding to the Online Response
System, please ensure that you are responding in Internet Explorer as it maximizes the performance
of the system and guarantees the safe disclosure of your response.
Water Reporting Roadmap

A Water Reporting Roadmap has been prepared to assist companies with progressing their
disclosure.
Workshops and webinars

CDP runs a series of workshops and has webinars available on the website to assist companies with
responding to investors. Please visit the Water page on the CDP website for upcoming events at
https://www.cdp.net/en/water/
CDP Reporter Services Water Membership

Reporter Services Membership is designed to empower your organization to build internal expertise
around environmental reporting. It will save you time and help you manage water effectively and
improve business performance, providing on-going support for your journey through compliance to
operational efficiency and ultimately to strategic advantage. The package includes:
14 | P a g e
 A dedicated account manager to personally guide you through the disclosure process and
scoring methodology, answer your technical questions regarding disclosure, and support your
use of the CDP data to ensure you get the full value from the membership. This includes a
gap analysis on your response to highlight areas for improvement against CDP’s guidance
and scoring methodology.
 Enhanced and unlimited access to CDP data – the world’s largest source of primary corporate
data. This enables fast and effective benchmarking and analysis to identify best practice in
reporting and performance from your peers and other leaders.
 Series of expert webinars and events with exclusive networking and marketing/profile
opportunities.
 Questionnaire check prior to submission to ensure your response is as complete as it can be.
For more information and to see which other companies are already benefitting from this membership
please visit our web page or email the team to schedule a presentation to really understand how this
can make a significant difference to your environmental performance.
CDP Water Consultancy Partnerships

CDP is driving a market for water services that until recently was limited in both scope and scale. CDP
accredited water consultancy partners will continue to 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: water
accounting, water risk assessment, the development of water strategies and development and
implementation of corporate water stewardship plans.
To find out more about these partnerships visit CDP’s Accredited Solutions webpage.
Spell Check
The CDP Online Response System (ORS) works best with Internet Explorer (IE). IE10 and IE11 both
have built-in spell checking. Earlier versions of IE don’t have spell check built in, but there are third
party add-ons to do this for you. You can use your favorite search engine to search for a third party
add on for spell checking.
Contact us
If you are not able to resolve your query using any of the resources listed above, please contact us at
respond@cdproject.net.
Providing feedback to CDP

The opportunity to provide routine feedback to CDP on the content of our questionnaires and
supporting documents is available through our online feedback form. Click here or request a link from
respond@cdproject.net.
For the 2018 disclosure cycle, CDP will hold its annual consultation in the middle of 2017.
15 | P a g e
Introduction Module Guidance
W0. Introduction
Question Pathway
The following questions are shown on the Introduction page.
W0.1: Please give a general description and introduction to your organization
W0.2: Please state the start and end date of the year for which you are reporting data
W0.3: Please indicate the category that describes the reporting boundary for companies, entities
or groups for which water-related impacts are reported
W0.4: Are there any geographies, facilities or types of water inputs/outputs within this boundary
which are not included in your disclosure
Yes
W0.4a: Please report the exclusions in the following table
END
16 | P a g e
General guidance
The introduction page must be filled out and saved before the questionnaire modules will
appear. Once the introduction page is saved you will be able to navigate between pages of the
questionnaire using the navigation bar. You may also return to the introduction page at any time to
update information.
Key changes from 2016
 No questions on this page have been changed.
Pre-population of responses for 2017
If you responded to water last year you can automatically populate the following questions with last
year’s response by clicking the “copy from last year” button at the bottom of the relevant page in the
ORS. You can then modify last year’s response as needed. You must click “copy from last year”
before completing any fields on each page of the ORS where this function has been enabled.
• The copy from last year function has been provided for questions W0.1, W0.3, W0.4 and W0.4a.
Please always remember to review your pre-populated selections to make sure they are still
appropriate for 2017. This is particularly important if new data points have been added to questions
or if dropdown lists may have been updated. Regarding the latter, if you selected ‘Other’ to provide a
different category from the dropdown list in 2016, you may find that your category has now been
included in the 2017 dropdown list. We request that companies use the categories provided for
selection as much as possible as this greatly assists investors with data analysis.
Specific question guidance for the Introduction
W0.1 Please give a general description and introduction to your organization.
In the text box provided, please enter a brief introduction to your company, including types of
business activities. This is optional. This is a free text field; all entries should be less than 4,500
characters.
W0.2 Please state the start and end date of the year for which you are reporting data.
You are requested to respond to this question in the table provided in the ORS, reproduced below.
Reporting year
From: [DD/MM/YYYY] To: [DD/MM/YYYY]
In the table provided, please enter the start and end dates of your reporting year in the following
format: day/month/year in full e.g. 31/12/2016. You must enter a reporting year before proceeding to
the full information request. This reporting year should be applied to your answers for the entire
questionnaire.
When answering subsequent questions, you may not have data for the entirety of this reporting year.
In such a case, you may:
 Extrapolate your data to cover the entire reporting year. This potential source of inaccuracy
can be logged in the comments section of the relevant question; or
 Leave survey questions that request annual/annualized data blank.
17 | P a g e
W0.3 Please indicate the category that describes the reporting boundary for
companies, entities or groups for which water-related impacts are reported.
Reporting boundary
[Select from]:
 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
From the drop down list, please choose the relevant response or select “Other” to provide a text entry.
This question asks you to define the organizational boundary (i.e. the group, companies,
businesses or organizations) for which you are supplying data. These may be organized by financial
control, operational control, equity share or another measure and sets the ways the companies are
identified for inclusion within the reporting boundary. The way figures are calculated for corporate
level reporting from more granular data at facility/company level is known as the “consolidation
approach”. Unless stated otherwise, the information you provide throughout the information request
should be presented as “consolidated” results covering all of the companies, entities, or businesses
within your reporting boundary.
For more detailed guidance on determining reporting boundaries, particularly where joint ventures or
complex operational structures are concerned, please refer to Appendix A: Reporting Boundary
Definitions at the end of this document. These definitions are drawn directly from Chapter 3 of the
GHG Protocol. Although this protocol refers to GHG emissions reporting, the general definitions may
be applied to water reporting.
References in the information request to “your company” are to the company, companies, businesses,
organizations or groups within your organizational boundary. Please consistently apply this
organizational boundary when responding to questions unless you are specifically asked for data
about another category of activities.
W0.4 Are there any geographies, facilities or types of water inputs/outputs within this
boundary which are not included in your disclosure?
Please select from:
 Yes
 No
The GHG Protocol comments on the reporting of exclusions and notes that an “acknowledgement
should be made in the report each year in order to enhance transparency; otherwise new users of the
report in the two or three years after the change may make incorrect assumptions about the
performance of the company.” You may exclude sources of water activities in a particular geography,
along a line of business activities, from small facilities for which it is difficult to gather data or by
selected water inputs/outputs. This is provided the principles of relevance and transparency are still
attended for. In other cases, CDP might not ask you for full detailed information, e.g. in the facility
level water accounting section we will ask you to provide data only for the facilities where significant
18 | P a g e
water risk has been identified. However, it is expected that the water risk assessment has been
applied comprehensively to all organizations within the boundary and if that is not the case, a suitable
disclosure should be made. Companies are encouraged to refer to Appendix A: Reporting Boundary
Definitions at the end of this document when determining exclusions. Any exclusion(s) must be
clearly identified in question W0.4a.
W0.4a Please report the exclusions in the following table
This question only appears if you select “Yes” in response to question W0.4.
Exclusion Please explain why you have made the

exclusion
Text box with up to 2,400 characters Text box with up to 2,400 characters
In the table provided, please identify and explain each geographical location, activity, facility or type of
water input/output that is excluded from your disclosure. Each of these columns is a free text field; all
entries should be less than 2,400 characters. If you have more than one exclusion, please add more
rows using the ‘add row’ function to the bottom right.
Elements of your business may be excluded for a number of reasons:
 A geographical location may be excluded if there is low water usage or data limitations which
makes reporting infeasible for operations in that country or region;
 An activity (e.g. a product line, type of business process, or type of supplier) may be excluded
due to limited data or reporting feasibility;
 A facility 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
 Some organizations may not yet have the capacity to track all types of water inputs and
outputs. For example, 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.
For all exclusions, please clearly explain why the geographical location, activity, facility, or type of
water input/output is not included in your disclosure. Please note that CDP seeks comprehensive,
representative data on water use and water impacts on behalf of participating investors. In addition,
please note that the rationale for excluding sources must be consistent with the guidelines in
Appendix A: Reporting Boundary Definitions at the end of this document.
W0.4a Sample Response – for guidance only

Exclusion Please explain why you have made the exclusion
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 2016.
Offices Small leased office spaces (fewer than 50 employees) where water
is provided through the lease and is managed by our landlord.
19 | P a g e
Current State Module Guidance
W1. Context
Question Pathway
The following questions, W1.1 – W1.4, are shown on the current state page.
W1.1 Please rate the importance (current and future) of water quality and water quantity to the success of
your organization
If “Direct use importance rating” in question If “Indirect use importance rating” in W1.1
W1.1 rates “Neutral”, “Important” or “Vital for rates “Neutral”, or “Important” for either the
operations” for either the freshwater or brackish and/or freshwater or brackish water option, the
water option, the following questions will be following questions will be presented:
presented:
If any other selection chosen for W1.1, please proceed directly to W1.4
W1.2 For your total operations, please detail W1.3 Do you request your suppliers to report on
which of the following water aspects are their water use, risks and/or management?
regularly measured and monitored and
provide an explanation as to why or why
not No
Yes
W1.2a Water withdrawals: for the reporting year,

W1.3a Please provide W1.3b Please
please provide total water withdrawal data by
the proportion of choose the option
source, across your operations suppliers you request that best explains
to report on their water why you do not
use, risks and/or request your
management and the suppliers to report on
W1.2b Water discharges: for the reporting year,
proportion of your their water use, risks
please provide total water discharge data by
procurement spend and/or management
destination, across your operations
this represents
W1.2c Water consumption: for the reporting year,

please provide total water consumption data
across your operations
W1.4 Has your organization experienced any detrimental impacts related to water in the reporting
year?
Yes No Don’t know
W1.4a Please describe the W1.4b Please choose the option below that best explains
detrimental impacts experienced why you do not know if your organization experienced any
by your organization related to detrimental impacts related to water in the reporting year and
water in the reporting year any plans you have to investigate this in the future
END
20 | P a g e
General guidance
Similar to the structure of the CEO Water Mandate’s Corporate Water Disclosure Guidelines, CDP has
chosen to start our disclosure request with a section that asks organizations to provide information as
to the current state in which they operate. The questions establish the context of your organization’s
water trends and conditions, and highlight those that are important to both your organization and its
stakeholders.
This section is broken down as follows:

 Question W1.1 asks how your organization values the importance of water quality and
quantity to both its current and future business;
 Question W1.2 asks for company-wide water accounting information;
 Question W1.3 asks whether your organization requests supplier information related to
water;
 The section concludes with question W1.4 which asks about any detrimental business
impacts related to water your organization has experienced during the reporting year. Here
we generally refer to the effects of water challenges on businesses as “impacts”. Note that the
Corporate Water Disclosure Guidelines refer to “impacts” generally as the effects of the
business on ecosystems and communities”.
To ensure that a water risk assessment is robust it is important to first understand how water is valued
and used across an organization and supply chain and how it may have been impacted by water in
the past. This will help provide insight into the future water risks a company may be potentially
exposed to, the potential solutions available to mitigate these water risks and which stakeholders and
contextual issues to consider in a risk assessment.
Maturity of corporate water reporting

Please note that CDP recognizes the fact that the maturity of the water disclosure practice is often
directly related to the maturity of your organization’s water management policies and practice. In
understanding organizations will be at different levels of maturity and thus not all able to provide the
same level of detail, the company-wide water accounting questions include both ‘basic’ questions
(W1.2) that CDP expects all organizations to be able to answer as well as ‘advanced’ questions
(W1.2a, W1.2b and W1.2c) for companies with more mature disclosure practices.
Scale of corporate water reporting

Organizations that are more advanced and are able to report information at a more granular level e.g.
river basin/sub-basin and facility level, should do so as providing this information is currently deemed
to be best practice. Investors are using the ability of an organization to report at these levels as a
proxy for sound risk management. Organizations that are unable to report at river basin/sub-basin and
facility level and instead provide more basic information e.g. country or regional (intra-country or
multiple countries) level imply that they do not have a full understanding of the risk at a local
operational level and the water resource management of their operating locations.
 W1.4a – column 3 heading has been amended for consistency of terminology. The information
requested is unchanged.
21 | P a g e
• The copy from last year function has been provided for questions W1.1 W1.3 W1.3a, W1.3b, W1.4,
W1.4a and W1.4b.
included in the 2017 dropdown list. We request that companies use the categories provided for
selection as much as possible as this greatly assists investors with data analysis.
Specific question guidance
W1. Context
W1.1 Please rate the importance (current and future) of water quality and water
quantity to the success of your business
Water quality and quantity Direct use importance Indirect use Please explain
rating importance rating
Sufficient amounts of good [Select from]: [Select from]: [open text: 1000
quality freshwater available for  Not important at all  Not important at all characters max]
use  Not very important  Not very important
 Neutral  Neutral
 Important  Important
 Vital for operations  Have not evaluated
 Have not evaluated
Sufficient amounts of recycled, [Select from]: [Select from]: [open text: 1000
brackish and / or produced  Not important at all  Not important at all characters max]
water available for use  Not very important  Not very important
 Neutral  Neutral
 Important  Important
 Vital for operations  Have not evaluated
 Have not evaluated
Please complete this table in the ORS by selecting the importance rating your organization places on
both the quality and quantity of water used in your direct and indirect operations. This question aims to
assess whether the amount of water used and its quality is important to your organization. It does not
ask specifically about water availability, as that may impact an organization irrespective of quality or
quantity required
Please note: W1.1 is a leading question, prompting linked sets of questions to appear
depending on the response given. If question W1.1 is amended after subsequent linked
22 | P a g e
questions are completed, then these related data will also be erased. Please ensure that you
re-enter the data for the linked questions also, if appropriate.
Guidance on responding to each of the columns is provided below:
 Water quality and quantity

This static table field specifies the type of water source we would like responding companies
to consider in both their direct and indirect water use.
o See Box 1: Defining water quality, quantity and water availability for details on the
definition CDP uses for water quality, water quantity and water availability.
o Definitions of freshwater, brackish water/seawater and produced water are given later
in this chapter under question level guidance for question W1.2a
o Recycled water:
According to GRI – G4’s explanation of Indicator EN10, recycled or reused water is
defined as “an act of processing used water/wastewater through another cycle before
discharge to final treatment and/or discharge to the environment”. It specifies three
general types of water recycling/reuse practices:
 Wastewater recycled back in the same process or higher use of recycled water in
the process cycle;
 Wastewater recycled/re-used in a different process, but within the same facility;
and
 Wastewater re-used at another of the reporting organization’s facilities.
In accordance with Indicator EN10, this can include water that was treated prior to re-
use and water that was not treated prior to reuse. It can also include collected
rainwater and wastewater generated by household processes such as washing
dishes, laundry, and bathing (grey water).
 Importance rating
o Please use the drop down menu provided to select how important water quality and
quantity are to your organization or for use across your value chain. Direct water use
includes all water that is used within your organization (as defined by organizational
boundary) whilst indirect water use includes all water use that takes place within your
value chain and outside your direct control. Please see Appendix B: Disclosure
glossary for CDP’s definition of “direct” and “indirect” water use.
o Examples of the importance ratings can be found in Box_2: Examples of importance
ratings for direct and indirect water use
o Please take into account Health and Safety regulations that might be applicable to
your organization when determining the overall importance of having access to fresh
water within an office setting. For example, in the United Kingdom, The Workplace
Health, Safety and Welfare Regulations (1992), Regulation 22 requires all employers
5
to provide an adequate supply of wholesome drinking water to all employees .
5
Please see the Workplace health, safety and welfare guide for more information:
http://www.hse.gov.uk/pubns/indg244.pdf
23 | P a g e
 Please explain
o Please use this open text box to provide additional details as to why your organization
has determined this importance rating for water quality and quantity for both
freshwater and non-freshwater options.
o Please state the primary use of water for both direct and indirect parts of the value
chain for both freshwater and non-freshwater options.
o This column is a free text field; all entries should be fewer than 1000 characters.
Box 1: Defining water quality, water quantity and water availability

For the purpose of this questionnaire, CDP has adopted the definitions below from the CEO Water
Mandate’s Corporate Water Disclosure Guidelines.
Water quality: refers to the physical, chemical, biological and organoleptic (taste-related) properties
of water.
Water quantity: refers to the physical amount of water used, expressed in terms of volume or mass.
Water availability: is defined as 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 Corporate Water Disclosure
Guidelines).
Box 2: Examples of importance ratings for direct and indirect water use
For the purpose of this questionnaire, CDP has provided examples below based on previous CDP
responses and anonymous examples provided from the WWF-DEG Water Risk Filter who also use
these terms in their Company Risk Profile. CDP recognizes that the importance ratings will be
subjective depending on each company, so general examples are provided as a guide to assist
companies and to guide investors for comparability purposes rather than act as rigid definitions.
Vital for operations: If the current water supply is not sufficient in terms of quantity and quality in
locations of direct operation, future production could be compromised, affecting output and finances at
the corporate level.
Important: access to sufficient volumes and good quality water is required in direct or indirect,
operations, those these operations may not be water intensive and/or diversification of supply chain
could mediate risk.
Neutral: water quality can be poor as long 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.
24 | P a g e
W1. Company-wide water accounting
Questions W1.2/a/b/c will be presented only if “Direct use importance rating” in question W1.1 rates
“Neutral”, “Important” or “Vital for operations”, for either the freshwater or brackish water option:
The specific guidance for each question below will provide you with relevant information on water
withdrawals and discharges and sources to help you answer the questions. Questions are
predominantly based on recommendations from the CEO Water Mandate Corporate Water Disclosure
Guidelines and consultation with external CDP stakeholders.
For further assistance, please note that the GRI Standards are aligned with this question as follows:
CDP question number(s) GRI G4 Indicator
W1.2, W1.2a, W1.2b GRI 303 Water: Disclosure 303-1 - Water withdrawal by source
GRI 306: Effluents and Waste: Disclosure 306-1
Box 3: Reporting company-wide water accounting information & water scoring

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 imply a measurement has been made, and the
value is zero, or the item cannot be measured since it is not relevant to the company.
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. A blank consumption value
indicates the company has not calculated this value, or chooses not to disclose it to CDP.
If you have disclosed data within a table question, please read the question level guidance closely for
directions on how to fill out the rest of the table correctly to ensure that points are not lost through
error.
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. However
the emphasis should be placed on reporting transparently and providing an explanation why reported
data cannot be validated by expanding on the uncertainty in your data in the “please explain” or
“comment” explanation columns provided in the water accounting questions.
W1.2 For your total operations, please detail which of the following water aspects are
regularly measured and monitored and provide an explanation as to why or
why not
Water aspect % of Please explain

sites/facilities/operations
Water withdrawals – total volumes [Select from]: [open text: 1000
 Less than 1% characters max]
 1-25
 26-50
 51-75
 76-100
25 | P a g e
Water withdrawals – volume by sources
Water discharges – total volumes
Water discharges – volume by destination
Water discharges – volume by treatment
method
Water discharge quality data – quality by
standard effluent parameters
Water consumption – total volume
Facilities providing fully-functioning WASH
services to all workers
Please complete the table provided by completing the second and third column with information about
your organization.
Please note that CDP is asking for company-wide information in response to this question. The
term “total operations” referred to in question W1.2 indicates the boundary chosen for
reporting in question W0.3. If water accounting information cannot be provided for total
operations within your reporting boundary, then please explain why not in the ‘Please explain’
column of question W1.2 and reference any exclusions reported in question W0.4a.
 % of facilities
o Please select the appropriate proportion of your organization’s facilities that are
regularly measured and monitored for each of the defined aspects.
o For example, company A has 100 facilities across its total operations and regularly
measures and monitors total volumes of water withdrawals for 50% (50 facilities), so
they would select “26-50”.
 Please explain
o Please use the open text box to provide details as to why your organization has
chosen to measure and monitor this proportion of your total operations for each of the
various water aspects. Please also explain why there may be exclusions from the
data reported.
o This column is a free text field; all entries should be fewer than 1000 characters.
o SCORING: Please include some explanation in the “Please explain” column if you
have completed the second column “% of facilities”. This instruction is for
automated scoring purposes. See Box 3: Reporting company-wide water
accounting information & water scoring for further information on how to complete
table questions and avoid unnecessary scoring errors.
For further information when answering these questions, you may want to refer to the GRI Standards
and the latest CDP/GRI linkages guide: “Linking GRI and CDP. How are the GRI Sustainability
Reporting Standards and CDP’s 2017 water questions aligned?”.
Definitions for each type of water use are included below. Due to the correlation on water accounting
between CDP’s water questionnaire and the GRI Standards, the CDP definitions primarily align with
GRI water definitions. In cases where GRI does not specifically define a type of water use, CDP has
aligned itself with definitions provided by the CEO Water Mandate, Ceres Aqua Gauge or other
relevant water definitions.
26 | P a g e
 Water withdrawals – total volumes
o GRI defines total water withdrawals in Disclosure 303-1 as: “The sum of all water drawn
into the boundaries of the organization from all sources (including surface water, ground
water, rainwater, and municipal water supply) for any use over the course of the reporting
year.”
o Please note that cooling water (freshwater or sea water) can often be withdrawn in large
quantities and returned in similar volumes to its original source with negligible losses or
variation in quality. You should report this in question W1.2a.
 Water withdrawals – volume by source

o Volume by source refers to the proportion companies are able to track to different types
of water withdrawal source e.g. freshwater, brackish surface water/ seawater,
produced/process water, and a breakdown of groundwater by renewable and non-
renewable sources. This is to help get a picture of whether they know the potential impact
they may be having on their local environment.
 Water discharge – total volumes

o GRI defines water discharge in Disclosure 303-1 as: “The sum of water effluents
discharged over the course of the reporting year to subsurface waters, surface waters,
sewers that lead to rivers, oceans, lakes, wetlands, treatment facilities, and ground water
either through:
- A defined discharge point (point source discharge)
- Over land in a dispersed or undefined manner (non-point source discharge)
- Wastewater removed from the organization via truck.
Discharge of collected rainwater and domestic sewage is not regarded as water
discharge ”.
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 may wish to include rainwater/runoff
drawn into the boundaries of their operations as a water discharge in question W1.2b. If
so please indicate this in the “Please explain” column for question W1.2b also.
o If wastewater comes from domestic sources but is pre-dominantly generated from sector
business activities e.g. healthcare residential properties, this should be reported.
 Water discharge – volumes by destination

o Volume by destination refers to the proportion companies are able to track to different
types of discharge destination e.g. freshwater, brackish surface water/ seawater,
groundwater, municipal/industrial wastewater treatment plant or wastewater for another
organization. This is to help get a picture of whether they know the potential impact they
may be having on their local environment.
 Water discharge – volumes by treatment method

o Volume by treatment method refers to primary, secondary or tertiary treatment or pre-
treatment/technology types etc. This refers to the degree of treatment before being
returned to the environment. Different industries will have different requirements to meet
compliance standards or a company may have an internal standard they adhere to (all of
this can be stated in the “Please explain” column if you wish to elaborate).
27 | P a g e
 Water discharge quality data – quality by standard effluent parameters
o GRI Disclosure 306-1 states that companies should “Report the total volume of planned
and unplanned water discharges by:
- Destination
- Quality of the water including treatment method
- Whether it was reused by another organization;
Organizations that discharge effluents or process water report water quality in terms of
total volumes of effluent using standard effluent parameters such as Biological Oxygen
Demand (BOD) or Total Suspended Solids (TSS). The specific choice of quality
parameters will vary depending on the organization’s products, services, and operations.
The selection of parameters is to be consistent with those used in the organization’s
sector. Water quality metrics may vary depending on national or regional regulations.”
 Water consumption
o CDP recognizes that the term ‘water consumption’ is not consistently defined or used. For
the purpose of this questionnaire, CDP uses Ceres’s definition of water consumption, an
“amount of water that is used but not returned to its original source”. This includes water
that has evaporated, transpired, has been incorporated into products, crops or waste,
consumed by man or livestock or otherwise removed from the local source.
Facilities providing fully-functioning WASH services for all workers

o CDP recognizes the term ‘WASH’ as being access to water supply, adequate sanitation
and hygiene as used by the World Health Organization.
o For the purposes of this questionnaire, ‘providing fully functioning WASH services for all
workers’ would include providing clean water for drinking, cooking and cleaning purposes,
adequate facilities for excreta purposes, solid waste management and drainage, and
hygiene information and education (adapted from Oxfam website). 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.
o This question aligns with performance disclosure metrics recommended by the CEO
Water Mandate Corporate Water Disclosure Guidelines.
o For further information on how to implement WASH in the workplace please visit the
WBCSD webpage for Business Action for safe water, sanitation and hygiene.
Box 4: Respecting the human rights to water and sanitation (Taken from CEO Water Mandate
Corporate Water Disclosure Guidelines)
In 2011, the United Nations Human Rights Council endorsed a set of Guiding Principles on
Business and Human Rights. The Guiding Principles establish an authoritative global reference point
on how companies should seek to ensure respect for human rights throughout their operations - both
in their own activities and through their business relationships. Respecting rights means focusing on
risks to people, rather than risks to the business. To put this into practice, companies need to
implement due diligence to identify actual and potential impacts on human rights and to prevent,
mitigate, and remediate them.
When a company considers how to report on its efforts to respect human rights to water and
sanitation, relevant information may include:
28 | P a g e
•Descriptions of the company’s policies and processes that address human rights risks and impacts
on the rights to water and sanitation specifically
• Explanations of the company’s key business relationships and how the company addresses risks to
human rights to water and sanitation arising from these relationships
• Information on any severe impacts on the rights to water and sanitation with which the business has
been involved and how they have been addressed, as well as any lessons learned
For example, a company might look to implement WASH services at the workplace to ensure
adequate sanitation while also extending such expectations to other actors within its value chain. Or 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.
W1.2a Water withdrawals: for the reporting year, please provide total water withdrawal
data by source, across your operations
Source Quantity How does total water Comment

(megaliters/year) withdrawals for this source
compare to the last reporting
year?
Fresh surface water [numeric] [Select from]: [open text: 1000
 Much lower characters max]
 Lower
 About the same
 Higher
 Much higher
 This is our first year of
measurement
 Not applicable
Brackish surface
water/seawater
Rainwater
Groundwater –
renewable
Groundwater – non-
renewable
Produced/process
water
Municipal supply
Wastewater from
another organization
Total [numeric]
Guidance on responding to each of the columns in question W1.2a is provided below. For further
information when answering these questions, it may be helpful to refer to the GRI Environmental
Standards 303 and 306.
29 | P a g e
GRI states in Disclosure 303-1 that “Total water use can also indicate the level of risk posed by
disruptions to water supplies or increases in the cost of water. Clean freshwater is becoming
increasingly scarce, and 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.”
Note on withdrawal source definitions: CDP builds on the GRI Disclosure 303-1 when defining
withdrawal sources for reporting purposes, splitting sources into quality categories including fresh and
brackish surface water and renewable and non-renewable groundwater. This distinction is to help
companies to demonstrate their potential risk exposure from different water sources. For example, a
utility company may use large volumes of surface water for cooling purposes but the water quality may
not be fresh. Companies should report this information by selecting ‘Brackish 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.
Sources
 Fresh surface water

o Surface water is naturally occurring water on the Earth's surface in ice sheets, ice
caps, glaciers, icebergs, bogs, ponds, lakes, rivers and streams. (Fresh water
underground is called groundwater and oceans are not freshwater). Fresh water
sources are generally characterized by having low concentrations of dissolved salts
(below 1,000 mg/l) and other total dissolved solids.
 Rainwater
o If a company is managing rainwater, either to harvest and use, or to prevent flooding
for example, they should try to estimate and disclose it as withdrawal from the
hydrological system. This helps companies better understand their water dependency
and risks.
 Groundwater (renewable)
o Water in soil beneath the soil surface, usually under conditions where the pressure in
the water is greater than the atmospheric pressure, and the soil voids are
substantially filled with the water. Renewable groundwater sources can be
replenished relatively quickly and are usually located at shallow depths.
 Groundwater (non-renewable or fossil)

substantially filled with the water. Non-renewable groundwater is generally located at
deeper depths and cannot be replenished easily or is replenished over very long
periods of time. They are sometimes referred to as “fossil” groundwater sources.
 Municipal water
o Water provided by a municipality or other public provider.
 Produced/process water
o Water which, during extraction or processing, comes into direct contact with or results
from the production or use of any raw material (e.g. crude oil or a by-product from
sugar cane crushing), intermediate product, finished product, by-product, or waste
product. Please note this category should NOT be confused with recycled water.
30 | P a g e
 Wastewater from another organization
o Ceres Aqua Gauge defines wastewater as “Water that is of no further immediate
value to the purpose for which it was used or in the pursuit of which it was produced
because of its quality, quantity or time of occurrence.”
o Cooling water is not considered to be wastewater.
 Brackish surface water/Seawater

o Brackish water is water in which the concentration of salts is relatively high (over
10,000 mg/l). Seawater has a typical concentration of salts above 35,000 mg/l.
 Total water withdrawals across your operations broken down by source

o Question W1.2a corresponds to GRI Disclosure 303-1. Information on your
company’s water withdrawals may be collected from several sources. According to
GRI, it can be drawn “from water meters, water bills, calculations derived from other
available water data or (if neither water meters nor bills or reference data exist) the
organization’s own estimates.” Please provide data from these sources.
o Please report the water volumes in megaliters per year (1 megaliter = 1 million liters
3
or 1000 m ). This column will accept numbers up to 999999999999. Please report
this to a maximum accuracy of two decimal places. Your reporting year is the time
period you stated in response to question W0.2 in the introduction module.
o Please add up the total withdrawal volumes for your organization’s sources (in
megaliters) and put the total volume in the second column adjacent to ‘Total’.
o SCORING: For any water source listed that is not used by your organization, please
insert ‘zero’ into the cell in the column titled ‘Quantity’. It is not possible to state ‘N/A’
due to restrictions in the ORS. If you wish to distinguish between a quantity of zero or
negligible value and a water source that is not relevant, please do so in the comment
box. This instruction is for automated scoring purposes. See Box 3: Reporting
company-wide water accounting information & Water scoring for further information
on how to complete table questions and avoid unnecessary scoring errors.
 How does total water withdrawals for this source compare to the last reporting year?
o Please select from the drop down menu if the total water withdrawals for each source
were: “Much higher, Higher, About the same, Lower, Much lower”, than the last
reporting year. If this is the first year you are have measured water withdrawal data,
please select ‘This is our first year of measurement and provide explanation in the
next column.
o Please note that CDP does not define the thresholds for the “Much higher,
Higher, About the same, Lower, Much lower” categories in this column. CDP
sends our water questionnaire to many different industries with huge variations in
water volume use therefore it would difficult to set thresholds for these categories that
would be meaningful for each company.
It is recommended that a company responding to this question define their own

thresholds for each category and make a note of these so that each year their
reporting is consistent based on these thresholds applied and an investor can track
their water use across different years. An explanation of these thresholds can be
provided in the “Comment” column.
31 | P a g e
o SCORING: For any water source listed that is not used by your organization, please
select ‘Not applicable’ for the cell in the column titled “How does total water
withdrawals for this source compare to the last reporting year?” This instruction is
for automated scoring purposes. See Box 3: Reporting company-wide water
accounting information & Water scoring for further information on how to complete
table questions and avoid unnecessary scoring errors.
 Comment
o Please use this field to explain further detail on your selections for the second and
third column if required or desired.
o If there is a level of uncertainty in the “Total” withdrawal figure or if it is an estimated
figure, companies should explain this in the “Comment” field. CDP expects
withdrawals, discharges and consumption from questions W1.2a, W1.2b and W1.2c
to balance (approximately; +/- 5%) so if there is a good reason why this cannot
happen, it should be explained in the “Comment” field.
o This column is a free text field; all entries should be less than 1000 characters.
Source Quantity How does total water Comment

(megaliters/year) withdrawals for this source
compare to the last
reporting year?
Fresh surface water 1440.50 About the same This is for our two
inland production
sites for chocolate
products next to the
River Severn.
Brackish surface 122444.00 About the same This water is used for
water/seawater thermo-electric
production. These
sites are coastal.
Rainwater 56 Much Higher Our rainwater
harvesting has more
than doubled in 2016.
Several of our
facilities have on-site
rainwater / storm-
water harvesting.
However, only sites in
India, and Mexico use
this for on-site
purposes. The
increase in use was
due to increased
awareness in at these
high water risk
locations as well as
taking advantage of
un-seasonally high
rainfall at our
operating locations in
Mexico.
Groundwater - 16000 Higher The volume of water
32 | P a g e
renewable has increased due to
increased production
at a number of our
iron ore producing
sites and a high
proportion of
entrained water in our
ore.
Groundwater – non- 4000 About the same We withdraw this
renewable from a deeper aquifer
to blend with
desalinated water for
our products where
industry standards
require a high quality
of water and local
surface freshwater
resources are
unreliable during the
course of the year
due to the arid
climate.
Produced/process 10 Much Lower Produced water (or
water formation water) is a
by-product brought to
the surface with
natural gas as part of
the gas production
process. This water is
separated from the
gas and condensate
and is generally
discharged to sea. In
2015, we sold our
North Sea gas asset,
Tomahawk, which
has led to a
significant reduction
in produced water
volumes.
Municipal supply 17.02 Lower We use municipal
water for domestic
purposes only – we
rolled out water
saving schemes at
our UK sites in
partnership with our
local water providers.
This has helped to
reduce our water bills
for municipal supply.
Wastewater from 41 Higher Voltcom uses
another organization reclaimed water
provided by local
water districts for
landscape irrigation.
Total usage in 2014
was slightly higher
from 35 megaliters in
33 | P a g e
2013.
Total 144008.00 Higher Water use increased
in line with production
increases. The
uncertainty range of
this figure is +/- 5%
due to limitations in
measurements of
rainwater and water
withdrawals in our
China operations,
which are estimated
figures.
W1.2b Water discharges: for the reporting year, please provide total water discharge
data by destination, across your operations
Destination Quantity How does total water Comment

(megaliters/year) discharged to this
destination compare to
the last reporting year?
Fresh surface water [numeric] [Select from]: [open text: 1000
 Much lower characters max]
 Lower
 About the same
 Higher
 Much higher
 This is our first year
of measurement
 Not applicable
Brackish surface
water/seawater
Groundwater
Municipal/industrial treatment
plant
Wastewater for another
organization
Total [numeric]
For all data points, please report water volumes in megaliters per year for your reporting year (1ML =
3
million liters or 1000 m ). The numeric columns will accept numbers up to 999999999999. Please
report this volume up to two decimal places. (Your reporting year is the time period you stated in
response to question W0.2 in the Introduction module.)
Guidance on responding to each of the columns is provided below. For further information when
answering these questions, you may want to refer to GRI Disclosure 306-1. Search for water
indicators in the section titled “Indicator Sort Search”.
 Destination
Surface water is naturally occurring water on the Earth’s surface in ice sheets, ice caps,
glaciers, icebergs, bogs, ponds, lakes, rivers and streams. (Fresh water underground is called
34 | P a g e
groundwater and oceans are not freshwater). Fresh water sources are generally
characterized by having low concentrations of dissolved salts (below 1,000 mg/l) and other
total dissolved solids.

 (Discharge to) Groundwater

o The discharge of water underground via soil to water beneath the soil surface or
directly to a water bearing layer of rock (aquifer) by human activity or natural activity.
o Examples of discharges to groundwater include disposal of sewage, trade effluent
and surface water (run-off from urban areas). This can be achieved through various
methods such as dug or constructed spreading basins, soakaways, swales or
injection wells.
 Municipal/industrial wastewater treatment plant

o A third party facility for the treatment of municipal or industrial wastewater. The
treatment can be primary, secondary or tertiary.
o Note that waste water treated on site should be recorded according to its ultimate
destination; for example, groundwater, as this is where any potential risks for the
company lie.
 Wastewater for another organization

o Wastewater that is reused by another organization than yours. Please note that this
other organization must be outside the reporting boundary given in question W0.2 to
qualify as “another organization”. If it is within your reporting boundary, then the final
discharge destination outside of the reporting boundary should be stated instead.
 Total water discharged across your operations broken down by source

o According to GRI’s explanation of Disclosure 306-1, water discharges are defined as
“water effluents discharged over the course of the reporting year to subsurface waters,
surface waters, sewers that lead to rivers, oceans, lakes, wetlands, treatment facilities,
and ground water either through:
discharge.”
o 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) many wish to include rainwater/runoff drawn into the boundaries of
their operations as a water discharge in question W1.2b for these reasons and
explain this in the “Comment” column provided.
3
35 | P a g e
o Please add up the total discharge volumes for your organization’s discharge
destinations (in megaliters) and put the total volume in the second column adjacent to
“Total”.
o If reporting zero discharges please refer to Box_5: Reporting “zero discharges”.
o SCORING: For any water destination listed that is not used by your organization,
please insert ‘zero’ into the cell in the column titled ‘Quantity’. It is not possible to
state ‘N/A’ due to restrictions in the ORS. If you wish to distinguish between a quantity
of zero or negligible value and a water destination that is not relevant, please do so in
the comment box. This instruction is for automated scoring purposes. See Box
3: Reporting company-wide water accounting information & Water scoring for further
information on how to complete table questions and avoid unnecessary scoring errors.
 How does total water discharged to this destination compare to the last reporting year?
o Please select from the drop down menu if the total water discharges for each
destination were: “Much higher, Higher, About the same, Lower, Much lower”, than
the last reporting year. If this is the first year you are have measured water discharge
data, please select ‘This is our first year of measurement’ and provide explanation in
the next column.
water use therefore it would be difficult to set thresholds for these categories that

o SCORING: For any water discharge destination listed that is not used by your
organization, please select ‘Not applicable’ into the cell in the column titled “How does
total water discharged to this destination compare to the last reporting year?” This
instruction is for automated scoring purposes. See Box 3: Reporting company-
wide water accounting information & Water scoring for further information on how to
complete table questions and avoid unnecessary scoring errors.
 Comment
o If there is a level of uncertainty in the “Total” discharge figure or if it is an estimated
figure, companies should explain this in the “Comment” field. CDP expects that the
will balance (approximately +/- 5%) so if there is a good reason why this cannot
36 | P a g e
Box 5: Reporting “zero discharges” and “zero consumption”
Typical examples that might qualify for reporting “zero discharges” might include:
1. A closed water circuit or zero liquid effluent discharge complex is in operation e.g. a
facility/facilities do not discharge water as all water is re-used by the operation(s) during
processing/production. In this case, please remember to report any discharged water that
exceeds site storage capacity e.g. excessive rainfall as a separate discharge.
2. Where a facility is a wastewater treatment plant which, following industry best practice, keeps
treated water in evaporation tanks so that the treated water evaporates completely and the
remaining residue is disposed of as solid waste. In this case, please remember to report the
evaporated volume as consumption in questions W1.2c and W5.3.
3. 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.
4. If reporting “zero consumption” please remember to check your discharge volumes. Scorers will
check that discharge and withdrawals volumes balance (approximately) unless there is a relevant
explanation as to why not.
5. If reporting “zero discharges” please provide a brief explanation of why the figure is zero, to give
data users confidence that the calculation is accurate. For example “this facility uses a closed loop
water recycling system”.
When reporting to CDP please remember to read the guidance for defining a discharge in question
W1.2 and W5.2 before deciding whether your discharges can be reported as “zero”. If your company
definition of discharges/outputs only partially matches CDP’s then please still report the other outputs
of water as discharges in CDP’s water questionnaire. For example, a company may define discharges
as the water outputs discharged from a site boundary that were used or treated in operations.
However, rainwater/run-off that enters the site/facility boundary and is captured (though possibly not
used in operations) could also be counted as an output or discharge if returned to the local water
environment via a dedicated discharge destination e.g. river or groundwater via soakaway/filtration
pond.
Please note that for mining companies using the Water Accounting Framework for the Mineral
Industry from the Minerals Council of Australia, CDP’s water accounting categories and definitions for
withdrawal sources and discharge destinations aligns with definitions for the source and destination
categories used in this framework.
W1.2c Water consumption: for the reporting year, please provide total water
consumption data, across your operations
Consumption How does this compare to the Comment

(megaliters/year) last reporting year?
[numeric] [Select from]: [open text: 1000 characters max]
 Much lower
 Lower
 About the same
 Higher
 Much higher
measurement
37 | P a g e
Please report water volumes in megaliters per year for your reporting year (1ML = million liters or
3
1000 m ). Please report this volume up to two decimal places. Your reporting year is the time period
you stated in response to question W0.2 in the Introduction module.
answering these questions, you may want to refer to GRI Disclosure 306-1.
 Consumption (megaliters/year)
o Please report the total water consumption for each facility up to two decimal places.
This column will accept numbers up to 999999999999.
o Ceres Aqua Gauge recognizes that the term “water consumption” is not consistently
defined or used. For the purpose of this questionnaire, CDP uses Ceres’s definition of
water consumption as an “amount of water that is used but not returned to its original
source.” This includes water that has evaporated, transpired, has been incorporated
into products, crops or waste, consumed by man or livestock or otherwise removed
from the local source.
 How does this compare to the last reporting year?

o Please select from the drop down menu if the total consumption for the specified
facility was; “Much higher, Higher, About the same, Lower or Much lower”, than the
last reporting year. If this is the first year you are have calculated water withdrawal
data, please select ‘This is our first year of estimation’ and indicate as such in the
following column.
water use therefore it would be difficult to set thresholds for these categories that

o If reporting zero consumption, please refer to Box_5: Reporting “zero discharges”

 Comment
o If there is a level of uncertainty in the “Total” consumption figure or if it is an estimated
figure, companies should explain this in the “Comment” field. CDP expects that the
will balance (approximately +/- 5%) so if there is a good reason why this cannot
38 | P a g e
W1. Supplier reporting
The following question W1.3/a/b will be presented only if “Indirect use importance rating” in W1.1 rates
“Neutral” or “Important” for either the freshwater or brackish water option:
W1.3 Do you request your suppliers to report on their water use, risks and/or
management?
 Yes
 No
Please select “Yes” or “No”. A supplier is an entity that supplies inputs for production.
Please note that this question is asking if you request supplier information in some form.
Supplier data incorporated into HSE audits, a supplier code of conduct or indirect reporting through
third party consultants are considered supplier reporting if your company is requesting information
related to water use, risks and/or management. For further guidance and examples of supplier
reporting on water use, risks and/or management, please refer to the CEO Water Mandate corporate
water disclosure guidelines and WWF’s case study from the Western Cape, South Africa.
W1.3a Please provide the proportion of suppliers you request to report on their water
use, risks and/or management and the proportion of your procurement spend
this represents
This question only appears if you answer “Yes” to question W1.3.
Proportion of suppliers % Total procurement spend % Rationale for this coverage
[Select from]: [Select from]: [open text: 1500 characters max]

 Less than 1%  Less than 1%
 1-25  1-25
 26-50  26-50
 51-75  51-75
 76-100  76-100
 Proportion of suppliers %
o Please select the proportion of your suppliers that you request to report on their water
use, risks and management. Please note that this question is asking for a proportion
of all suppliers.
 Total procurement spend %

o Please select the proportion of your procurement spend represented by the suppliers
you request to report on their water use, risks and management. For example many
people refer to the 80/20 rule, whereby 80% of your procurement spend is captured
by 20% of your suppliers. However it is not assumed that the proportion of
procurement reported denotes the level of risk to your supply chain.
39 | P a g e
 Rationale for this coverage
o Please use the open text box to provide any further details required to explain why
your suppliers are requested to report on their water use, risks and management.
Please also use this space to provide details as to how your suppliers are identified
(i.e. proportion of revenue generated, geographic location, etc.). You can write up to
1500 characters.
Proportion Total Rationale for this coverage

of procurement
suppliers % spend %
51-75 51-75 As an auto manufacturing organization with global operations in

Mexico and India as well as the United States, a significant proportion
of our supply chain are located in these regions for ease of supply.
These regions are currently, or could potentially, be impacted by
physical risks such as water scarcity or regulatory risks including local
tariffs. So 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 order to maintain key supplier status
within our procurement strategy. We have a supplier education
program which includes training on risk management including water
risks and helps suppliers to understand their exposure to these types
of risks. The information is then used to inform our in-house education
program that also provides assistance to our suppliers in mediating
these risks using customer-supplier collaboration. Ultimately we have
found this collaboration has helped us to maintain our level of
production across the value chain even in the face of environmental
issues like local water scarcity.
W1.3b Please choose the option that best explains why you do not request your
suppliers to report on their water use, risks and/or management
This question only appears if you answer “No” to question W1.3.
Primary reason Please explain

[Select from]: [open text: 1500 characters max]
 Assessed risk but no substantive risk found
 Decentralized business structure
 Important but not an immediate business
priority
 Judged to be unimportant
 Lack of internal resources
 No instruction from management
 Reporting implementation in progress
 Traceability/tracking issues
 Other, please specify
40 | P a g e
 Please select from the drop down menu the primary reason that explains why your organization
does not request its suppliers to report on their water use, risks and management.
 Please use the open text box in the ‘Please explain’ column to provide further details, specific to
your organization, sector or business that qualifies the primary reason provided.
 This latter column is a free text field; all entries should be less than 1500 characters.
W1. Business impacts
W1.4 Has your organization experienced any detrimental impacts related to water in
the reporting year?
• Yes
• No
• Don’t know
Please respond “Yes”, “No” or “Don’t know” to this question. Detrimental impacts on business from
water use are most commonly financial impacts but may also include any other impacts, such as
policy engagement or brand image. For examples of financial detrimental impacts see Box 6:
Examples of detrimental business impacts from water use.
Box 6: Examples of detrimental business impacts from water use.

Financial impacts associated with physical risks may include increased costs related to company
operations, such as quantifiable disruptions to scheduled production, increased energy or water prices
due to increased water stress or scarcity, and costs to repair damaged infrastructure.
Changes to regulation can result in increased compliance costs related to a higher price of water, a
higher cost of production due to new standards, product standards decreasing demand for current
products and requiring development of new products, regulation of water discharge, payment of fines
and investment in new technology to meet more stringent standards.
Other financial impacts could include loss of market share or revenue due to changing customer
behavior or reputational strain.
Risks facing your suppliers may also have financial implications for your company. They may include
increased costs of inputs purchased by your company or a decline in productivity due to disruption of
inputs. These may affect your cost of production and your company’s financial stability in water scarce
regions.
N.B. Here we generally refer to the effects of water challenges on businesses as “impacts”. Note that
the CEO Water Mandate’s Corporate Water Disclosure Guidelines refer to “impacts” generally as the
effects of the business on ecosystems and communities
41 | P a g e
W1.4a Please describe the detrimental impacts experienced by your organization related to water in the reporting year
You are requested to respond to this question in the table provided in the ORS, reproduced below. A sample answer is provided below.
Country River Impact driver Impact Description Length of Overall Response strategy Description
basin of impact impact financial of response
impact strategy
[Country [River basin [Select all that apply]: [Select from]: [open text: 1500 [open [open text: 500 [Select all that apply]: [open text:
drop down drop down Physical:  Brand damage characters max] text: 500 characters  Alignment of public policy 1500
list] list] • Climate change  Constraint to growth characters max] positions with water characters
• Declining water quality  Closure of operations max] stewardship goals max]
Not known • Dependency on hydropower  Decrease in  Cost increase
• Drought shareholder value management through
Other, • Ecosystem vulnerability  Delays in permitting regulated tariff-setting
please • Flooding  Employee health and process
specify • Inadequate infrastructure well-being  Develop flood emergency
• Increased water scarcity  Higher operating plans
• Increased water stress costs  Engagement with
• Pollution of water source  Fines/ penalties community
• Rationing of municipal water  Litigation  Engagement with
supply  Loss of license to customers
• Seasonal supply variability/inter operate  Engagement with public
annual variability  Disruption to sales policy makers
Regulatory:  Plant/production
 Engagement with other
• Changed product standards disruption leading to stakeholders in the river
• Higher water prices reduced output basin
• Increased difficulty in obtaining  Property damage
 Engagement with
withdrawals/operations permit  Reduced demand for
suppliers
• Lack of transparency of water product
 Establish site-specific
rights  Reduction in revenue
targets
• Limited or no river  Supply chain
 Infrastructure investment
basin/catchment management disruption
 Infrastructure
• Mandatory water efficiency,  Transport disruption
maintenance
conservation, recycling or  Water supply
 Greater due diligence
process standards disruption
• Poor coordination between Other, please specify  Increased capital
regulatory bodies expenditure
42 | P a g e
• Poor enforcement of water  Increased investment in
regulation new technology
• Regulation of discharge  New products, markets
quality/volumes leading to  River basin restoration
higher compliance costs  Re-siting of facilities
• Regulatory uncertainty  Promote best practice and
• Statutory water withdrawal awareness
limits/changes to water  Supplier diversification
allocation  Strengthen links with local
• Unclear and/or unstable community
regulations on water allocation
 Tighter supplier
and wastewater discharge.
performance standards
Reputational:
 Water management
 Changes in consumer behavior
incentives
 Community opposition Other, please specify
 Cultural and religious values
 Inadequate access to water,
sanitation and hygiene
 Litigation
 Negative media coverage
Other, please specify
Add Row
Please describe any detrimental impacts on your business during the reporting year. Per river basin, it is not possible to choose more than one impact on
your business. Please select the primary impact.
For each impact, it is possible to choose multiple drivers within the river basin, and also multiple response strategies.
For additional river basins, you can add rows to this table by using the ‘Add Row’ button.
43 | P a g e
 Country
o In the first column, please select from the drop down menu the country where your
organization experienced the detrimental impact related to water.
 River basin
o Please select the appropriate river basin from the drop down menu provided. If you
do not see the basin required, please select “Other, please specify” and write in the
correct river basin using the text box provided. If you do not know the river basin in
which your facility resides, the following tools have the functionality to map the river
basin locations of facilities:
o The Water Footprint Network (WFN) Water Footprint Assessment Tool;
o The Water Risk Filter http://waterriskfilter.panda.org/ developed by WWF and
DEG;
o The WRI Aqueduct Water Risk Atlas Tool; and
o The WBCSD Global Water Tool
o CEO Water Mandate’s Interactive Database of the World’s River Basins.
You might want to put a sub-basin of a bigger river basin identified in the drop-down
menu. Please feel free to do it by using the “Other, please specify” and inputting your
value and the main basin, e.g. “Putumayo, Amazon”. Finally 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’ and type in the name of the local aquifer source. However please also ensure
that the correct country name is selected in the ‘Country’ column adjacent.
o Please note that the dropdown 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 new Water
Management Areas for South Africa, as proposed in the South African revised
National Water Resources Strategy (NWRS2). See Appendix C: River basin list and
South African Water Management Areas (WMAs).
 Impact driver
o CDP has provided a substantial list of impact drivers for responding companies to
choose from. They are separated into three main groups: physical, regulatory, and
reputational. Please note that these drivers need to relate the river basins listed in
column one. It is possible to choose multiple drivers for each impact in a river
basin. For more guidance on differentiating between drivers, please see Box 16:
Description of risk drivers.
 Impact
o CDP has included a comprehensive list of potential impacts your organization could
face as a result of the impact driver. Please select the primary impact your
organization felt as a result of water in the reporting year. 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.
44 | P a g e
 Description of impact
o Please use this open text box to provide any additional comments required to explain
how the impact was detrimental to your organization. If you are able to provide
quantitative data, please do so. Please include details as to the length of time
during which your business was impacted. For example, severe drought was
experienced for five months of the reporting year. This field will accept a maximum of
1500 characters. Please note that this maximum includes spaces.
 Length of impact
o Please indicate the length of time the detrimental impact affected your organization
during the reporting year. A numerical figure is desirable e.g. 6 months. If you do not
know the length of impact, please state that length of time is unknown. If the impact
is ongoing for example due to closure of operations please state that the impact is
ongoing. This is an open text field with a maximum of 500 characters. Please note
that this maximum includes spaces.
 Overall financial impact

o Please use this open text box to provide details on the financial impact your
organization suffered as a result of this impact. We are looking for a numerical figure
that includes the total cost to your company, which includes both a figure and a
currency in your response. If you do not know the financial impact, please write
“Impact not quantified financially”. This field will accept a maximum of 500 characters.
Please note that this maximum includes spaces.
 Response strategy
o Please select from the drop down menu the response strategy that most closely
describes how your organization expects to mitigate the identified risk. You may
select multiple response strategies if your organization chooses to implement more
than one. If there is not an appropriate response strategy for your organization,
please select “Other, please specify” and a text box will be provided so that you can
write in your own response.
o For those who indicated that they would be interested in having their public response
data transferred to the Water Action Hub (W10.2), the following strategies align well
with the Water Action Hub Action Areas. However, we ask that you provide specifics
for the strategy in the “Description of response” column.
- Alignment with public policy positions with water stewardship goals

- Cost increase management through regulated tariff-setting process
- Develop flood emergency plans
- Engagement with community
- Engagement with customers
- Engagement with public policy makers
- Engagement with other stakeholders in the river basin
- Engagement with suppliers
- Infrastructure investment
- Infrastructure maintenance
- River basin restoration
- Strengthen links with the local community
45 | P a g e
 Description of response strategy
o Please use this open text box to provide any additional details on your organization’s
response strategy plus an explanation of how you calculated and rated the cost of
your response strategy. If you are able to provide a numerical value for the costs,
including the currency, please do so here. You may also include here secondary
response strategies for the identified risk if necessary. Please include information on
the following three facets on the strategy in regards to preventing either financial or
operational impacts:
- The timeframe expected for the response strategy to be implemented;

- How effective the response is; and
- The feasibility of success in preventing either financial or operational impacts.
You can write up to 1,500 characters in response. This maximum includes spaces.
o For those who have indicated that they would be interested in having their public
response data transferred to the Water Action Hub in W10.2, we ask that you provide
as much information about your response, particularly local projects, as possible
including:
- Who else is involved in the engagement (such as names of organizations or

government offices) or who you would like to work with (government
agencies, other companies, NGOs, etc.)
- What the project seeks to accomplish including expected benefits of the
engagement 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.
46 | P a g e
Country River basin Impact driver Impact Description of Length of Overall financial impact Response strategy Description of
impact impact response strategy
India Ganges Reputational: Delays in Community 10-12 months The increased delays and Engagement with We aim to continue to
Community permitting concerns over legal costs have had strong public policy makers improve our relationship
opposition our proposal to financial impacts for the with the local community
construct a new business. The financial by conducting a series of
dam have led to impact due to delays is vigorous water
the delay of the approximately EUR 4 management
project. million. assessments as well as
strengthening
environmental
performance. We are
creating local
partnerships with local
and national
organizations who
promote sustainable
water management.
Chile Santiago Physical: Fines/ A spill of 3-4 months Received a penalty of Increased We plan to research and
Pollution of penalties approximately US$16,000 for breach of investment in new invest in new shipping
water supply 4,000 to 5,000 Environment Protection Act technology container technology in
liters of Part 3 A. all regions of operation.
concentrated We have already
sulphuric acid invested US$ 3 million
occurred from over the next five years
our operations. to mitigate this risk of
spills occurring in future.
Chile Santiago Reputational: Brand A spill of Ongoing Reputational damage not Increased We plan to research and
Reputational Image approximately quantified. investment in new invest in new shipping
damage 4,000 to 5,000 technology container technology in
liters of all regions of operation.
concentrated We have already
sulphuric acid invested US$ 3 million
occurred from over the next five years
our operations. to mitigate this risk of
spills occurring in future.
47 | P a g e
W1.4b Please choose the option below that best explains why you do not know if your
organization experienced any detrimental impacts related to water in the
reporting year, and any plans you have to investigate this in the future
This question only appears if you select “Don’t know” in response to question W1.4.
Primary reason Future plans

• Detrimental impacts related to water are not
recorded at the corporate level
• No instruction from management to assess this
• Other, please specify
Please select the primary reason why your organization does not know if it has experienced any
detrimental impacts related to water during the reporting year. In the ‘Future plans’ column, please
use the open text field to provide details as to any future plans your organization has to explore this
issue. This latter column is a free text field; all entries should be less than 1500 characters.
48 | P a g e
Risk Assessment Module Guidance
W2. Procedures and requirements

Question Pathway
The following questions are shown on the risk assessment page.
W2.1 Does your organization undertake a water-related risk assessment?
Water risks are assessed Water risks are not assessed

W2.2 Please select the options that best describe your
procedures with regard to assessing water risks W2.8 Please choose the
option that best explains
why your organization
W2.3 Please state how frequently you undertake water risk does not undertake a
assessments, at what geographical scale and how far into the water-related risk
future you consider risks for each assessment assessment
W2.4 Have you evaluated how water risks could affect the
success (viability, constraints) of your organization’s growth
strategy?
If Yes, if Other If not evaluated
W2.4a Please explain how your W2.4b What is the main reason for not having
organization evaluated the effects of evaluated how water risks could affect the success
water risks on the success (viability, (viability, constraints) of your organization’s growth
constraints) of your organization's strategy, and are there any plans in place to do so
growth strategy? in the future?
W2.5 Please select the methods used to assess water risks
W 2.6 Which of the following contextual issues are always factored into your organization’s
water risk assessments?
W2.7 Which of the following stakeholders are always factored into your organization’s water
risk assessments?
END
49 | P a g e
General guidance
Section two of CDP’s water information request asks companies to provide details on their company-
wide risk assessment procedures and requirements.
CDP is incorporating a water risk assessment into the annual questionnaire as it has become
apparent that water risk can no longer be managed through past data sets. According to Ceres’ Aqua
Gauge, metrics such as variations in average frequency, duration and intensity of droughts and
flooding may no longer be reliable. As a result of our changing climate and rapid changes in both land
and water use, models that incorporate data which allows future water projections and risk
assessment approaches are now required.
Water risk assessments are also used by organizations as they try to determine whether water is a
material reporting topic. The CEO Water Mandate suggests organizations assess:
1. The general exposure of their industry sector to water risks and likelihood they may create
adverse water impacts; and
2. The risk exposure and likelihood of creating adverse impacts in the specific basins in which
they operate.
Different sectors are typically exposed to varying degrees of water risk. Please review the CEO Water
Mandate: Corporate Water Disclosure Guidelines for further guidance for your particular sector.
CDP’s water risk assessment module is split into three broad sections:
1. The first collects information on the structure of your organization’s water risk assessment;
2. The second section asks if organizations have used their water risk assessments to evaluate
how water may affect the success of their growth strategy;
3. The final section asks for details as to which stakeholders and contexts are included in your
organization’s assessment and which tools are used to assess water risks and how they are
used.
It is important for responding organizations to understand how the different modules in this year’s
water information request are linked. CDP encourages all responding companies to undertake holistic
and robust water risk assessments to fully understand potential water risks and opportunities. Please
remember that a comprehensive response is always requested and a partial answer is preferable to
no answer at all.
For more information about water risk assessment, please see Guidance notes 1.6 in Ceres Aqua
Gauge: Risk Assessment, or WWF’s water risk tool.
W2.7 column one – a drop down option was reworded for clarity but information requested remains
the same.
• The copy from last year function has been provided for questions W2.1, W2.2, W2.3, W2.4, W2.4a,
W2.4b, W2.5, W2.6, W2.7 and W2.8.
Note: W2.7 row 11 will not pre-populate due to the row heading change.
50 | P a g e
included in the 2017 dropdown list. We request that companies use the pre-selected categories as
much as possible as this greatly assists investors with data analysis.
W2. Procedures and requirements
W2.1 Does your organization undertake a water-related risk assessment?
 Water risks are assessed

 Water risks are not assessed
If “Water risks are assessed”, you will be required to answer questions W2.2-W2.7. If you select
‘Water risks are not assessed’ you will proceed to question W2.8.
If your organization does not currently incorporate a water risk assessment into its core business
procedures, please go directly to question W2.8 and use this space to provide insight as to why not,
whether your organization has any future plans to undertake a water risk assessment and the likely
timescale until they are implemented.
W2.2 Please select the options that best describe your procedures with regard to
assessing water risks
Risk assessment procedure Coverage Scale Please explain

[Select from]: [Select from]: [Select from]: [open text: 1500
 Comprehensive company-  Direct operations  All facilities and characters max]
wide risk assessment and supply chain suppliers
 Water risk assessment  Direct operations  All facilities and
undertaken independently  Supply chain some suppliers
of other risk assessments  Some facilities and
all suppliers
 Some facilities and
some suppliers
 All facilities
 Some facilities
 All suppliers
 Some suppliers
Please select from the drop down menus the options that most accurately describe how your
organization assessed water risk for the reporting year.
 Risk assessment procedure
Indicate whether your organization’s water risk assessment is company wide or if water risk
assessments are undertaken independently.
51 | P a g e
 Coverage
Indicate if your organization’s water risk assessment incorporates your direct operations
and/or your supply chain.
 Scale
Indicate if your water risk assessment incorporates all or only some of your direct operation
facilities; and likewise if it incorporates all or only some of your suppliers.
Note, that if the initial stages of your company-wide risk assessment evaluates ALL your
suppliers and in so doing concludes that some will be excluded from subsequent, more
thorough risk assessments, you should select an "all suppliers" option in the drop down of the
Scale column, and provide an explanation in the “Explain” column.
 Please explain: Please use the open text field provided in the fourth column ‘Please explain’
to include any additional information, specific to your organization that provides further insight
on the following:
o Why you have chosen this procedure, and

o Why you have chosen this level of coverage and scale.
o Whether you apply any risk assessment process standards and which ones, e.g.
ISO31000
You may use up to 1500 characters for this open text field.
Please remember that this question is not a supplier reporting question, it is a broader
water risk assessment procedure question. Companies are not expected to know all the
operating locations of their suppliers e.g. if they buy cotton off the open market, they should
assess the main growing regions to see if they are exposed to water risks or if a company’s main
product uses silicon chips that come via multiple sources and suppliers, assess the main
geographic production hubs. This will allow a company to better understand their supply chain
risks.
W2.3 Please state how frequently you undertake water risk assessments, at what
geographical scale and how far into the future you consider risks for each
assessment
Frequency Geographic scale How far into the Comment

future are risks
considered?
[Select from]: [Select from]: [Select from]: [open text: 500
 Six-monthly or more  Country  Up to 1 year characters
frequently  Region  1 to 3 years max]
 Annually  River basin  3 to 6 years
 Every two years  Business unit  > 6 years
 Sporadically not defined  Facility  Unknown
 Never
Add Row
52 | P a g e
If you have multiple risk assessments at different geographical scales, you can enter them into the
table by adding more rows using the ‘Add Row’ button to the bottom right.
 Frequency
o Please choose from the dropdown menu to describe the frequency with which your
organization undertakes a water risk assessment (e.g. annually).
 Geographic scale
o Please choose the geographic scale associated with the frequency and risk
methodology. This is the scale at which you usually collect, aggregate and analyse
data on risk. Organizations can use the add row function if they have completed the
methodology at different scales e.g. at a country level and a basin level. Please refer
to Box 7: Geographic scale and Box 8: Examples of methods used to characterize
water risk for guidance if required.
 Timeframe
o Please choose from the dropdown menu to describe what timeframe you analyze for
when undertaking a water risk assessment (e.g. the following one to three years).
Please note that this is not referring to how frequently you undertake a risk
assessment (this is requested in the ‘Frequency’ column), but rather looks at
how far into the future your risk assessment considers.
 Comment
o You may provide a brief explanation as to why your organization feels the frequency,
geographic scale and timeframe is appropriate to your business. You can write up to
a maximum of 500 characters per row. This maximum includes spaces.
Box 7: 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.
A ‘River basin’ column has been added to several questions in this questionnaire to encourage
companies to report data at a more granular level where possible.
Organizations that are more advanced and are able to report information at the granular level, e.g.
river basin/sub-basin and facility level, should do so as providing this information is currently deemed
to be best practice. 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. Investors are using the ability of an
organization to report at these levels as a proxy for sound risk management
Organizations that are unable to report at river basin/sub-basin and facility level and instead provide
more basic information e.g. country or regional (intra-country or multiple countries) level imply that
they do not have a full understanding of the risk at a local operational level and the water resource
management of their operating locations.
W2.4 Have you evaluated how water risks could affect the success (viability,
constraints) of your organization’s growth strategy?
 Yes, evaluated over the next 1 year

 Yes, evaluated over the next 5 years
53 | P a g e
 Yes, evaluated over the next 10 years
 Not evaluated
 Other
N.B. This question is linked to question W2.3. Before choosing your timeframe for this question,
please consult Box 8: Consistent response throughout the questionnaire below for guidance.
Please use the drop down menu to select the time frame for which your organization has evaluated
how water quality and quantity is currently affecting, or could potentially affect the success of your
organization’s growth strategy.
Box 8: Consistent response throughout the questionnaire

CDP encourages a comprehensive and consistent response through the questionnaire.
The questionnaire has been structured so the different sections support information requested in
previous sections.
For example, in question W2.4 above, an organization can disclose the fact they have evaluated the
impact of water risks over the next ten years to their growth strategy. In question W2.3 CDP asks
about the timeframe covered during an organization’s risk assessment. These two answers should be
consistent with each other, meaning that if an organization’s risk assessment only covers five years,
the organization should not answer here that their water impacts have been evaluated over the next
ten years. CDP expects a consistent response from all responding organizations.
W2.4a Please explain how your organization evaluated the effects of water risks on
the success (viability, constraints) of your organization’s growth strategy?
[open text with 2,400 characters max]
This question only appears if you select “Yes” or “Other” in response to question W2.4
Please use the open text box to provide details relevant to your organization as to what process and
procedures were followed to evaluate how water risk impacts your organization’s growth strategy.
Please note that this explanation should entail how the results of your risk assessment contribute to
your organization’s growth strategy, including what changed or did not change in the growth strategy
and an example of the risks identified. If you selected ‘Other’ in question W2.4, please use this text
box to provide further details.
W2.4b What is the main reason for not having evaluated how water risks could affect
the success (viability, constraints) of your organization’s growth strategy, and
are there any plans in place to do so in the future?
This question only appears if you select “Not evaluated” in response to question W2.4. If substantive
risks are identified, you will have the opportunity to disclose these in section 3: Implications.
Main reason Current Timeframe until Comment

plans evaluation
[Select from]: [Select [Select from]: [open text: 1500 characters
 Judged to be unimportant from]: • Next reporting max]
 No instruction from management • Yes period
 Lack of internal resources • No • Next 24-36
54 | P a g e
 Evaluation underway months
 Important but not an immediate • Other, please
business priority specify
 Main reason
o Please select the primary reason as to why your organization has not evaluated how
water quality and quantity impacts its growth strategy. If the drop down menu options
are not appropriate for your organization, please select “Other, please specify” and
complete the text box provided.
 Current plans
o Please select from the drop down menu to indicate if your organization has any plans
to evaluate how water risks could impact its success and growth. Please select ‘Yes’
only if your organization has already developed plans or has agreed to a future
evaluation. Otherwise, please select ‘No’ even if your organization is looking to
evaluate water at some point in the future, but this evaluation did not start within the
reporting year.
 Timeframe until evaluation

o Please select from the drop down menu the timeframe until your organization’s next
evaluation. If your organization has no plans to evaluate the impact of water quality
and quantity, please select “Other, please specify” and a text box is provided where
you can indicate ‘no plans.’
 Comment
o Please use the open text box provided to provide any further details as to whether
your organization has plans to evaluate the impact of water quality and quantity on its
growth strategy. If you have no plans, please provide a comment here detailing why
not. You may use up to 1500 characters. This maximum includes the use of spaces.
W2.5 Please select the methods used to assess water risks
Method Please explain how these methods are used

in your risk assessment
 CEO Water Mandate’s ‘Understanding Key [open text: 3000 characters max]
Water Stewardship Terms’
 FAO/AQUASTAT
 Ecolab Water Risk Monetizer
 GEMI Local Water Tool
 Global Water Tool for Cement Sector
 Global Water Tool for Power Utilities
 Internal company knowledge
 IPIECA Global Water Tool for Oil & Gas
 Life Cycle Assessment
 Maplecroft Global Water Security Risk Index
 Regional government databases
55 | P a g e
 UNEP Vital Water Graphics
 Water Footprint Network
 WBCSD Global Water Tool
 WRI water stress definition
 WRI Aqueduct
 WWF-DEG Water Risk Filter
From the drop down menu in the first column, please select the method(s) that your company uses to
assess water risks. Please note that you can select more than one option. Examples of methods are
provided in Box 9: Examples of methods used to characterize water risk. In the column “Please
explain how these methods are used in your risk assessment” you should explain why the methods
you selected were chosen, how they are integrated or used together, and their operational scope, i.e.
whether they relate to direct operations or supply chain, or only part of the company’s operations.
You may also select “Other, please specify” to enter another method. Please provide relevant details
(including the name) of the methods and tools in the open text box that is available.
Box 9: Examples of methods used to characterize water risk
A variety of mapping tools and definitions are available to identify regions subject to water stress and
other water risk including; WRI’s Aqueduct Global Water Risk Mapping Tool, the WBCSD Global
Water Tool, CEO Water Mandate’s ‘Understanding Key Water Stewardship Terms’, UN
FAO/AQUASTAT, UNEP Vital Water Graphics, or the WWF-DEG Water Risk Filter. Many national
and regional water authorities will also have suitable map databases and environmental assessments
available. Internal company knowledge is also considered a vital tool in determining current or
potential regions subject to water risk such as water stress with respect to a company’s operations.
Examples of free and downloadable water risk tools are listed below:
The Water Risk Filter developed by WWF and DEG can assist responding organizations to assess
and quantify their water risks. The tool identifies the company’s relationship with water and quantifies
the potential risks arising from that relationship. The results are displayed on a portfolio level,
individual facility level and on a large set of water map overlays, offering a good basis for decision
making. The results of the Water Risk Filter answers most of the risk questions of the water
questionnaire and may assist for other questions.
The WWF-DEG water risk filter also has an associated Knowledge Base which provides useful
information on collective action (CEO Water Mandate’s Water Action Hub) in river basins for shared
risks, and on how to develop a water stewardship strategy plus links to a facility level certification
scheme for water stewardship (Alliance for Water Stewardship).
The WRI Aqueduct Water Risk Atlas Tool is a customizable global map, based on 12 indicators of
physical, regulatory, and reputational risk. In a user-friendly way, companies can now evaluate how
water stress, flood occurrence, access to water, drought, and other issues may affect operations.
Additionally, the global map can be tailored specifically for nine water-intense industry sectors
including Oil & Gas, Agriculture and Chemicals.
The WBCSD Global Water Tool can assist companies in estimating the proportion of their own
operations located in water-stressed regions. This tool allows companies to identify facilities in water
stressed river basins and country locations, identify how many employees live in countries that lack
56 | P a g e
access to improved water and sanitation, and to identify suppliers in water-stressed river basins.
Please note that this tool provides an assessment of water stress related to water resource availability
and does not consider risks associated with water quality and discharges. Access to the tool and
additional information is available from the WBCSD website.
Each of these tools plus the Water Footprint Network’s (WFN) Water Footprint Assessment Tool has
the functionality to map the river basin locations of facilities. (Please note that the WFN tool is not a
water risk assessment tool, however it can play a vital role in understanding impacts which can then
be translated into risks).
W2.6 Which of the following contextual issues are always factored into your
organization’s water risk assessments?
You are requested to respond to this question in the table provided in the ORS, reproduced below. A
sample is included below for your reference on page 58 with company-specific examples.
Issues Choose option Please explain

Current water availability and quality [Select from]: [open text:
parameters at a local level  Relevant, included 2000
 Relevant, not yet included characters
 Not relevant, included max]
 Not relevant, explanation
provided
 Not evaluated
Current water regulatory frameworks and
tariffs at a local level
Current stakeholder conflicts concerning
water resources at a local level
Current implications of water on your key
commodities/raw materials
Current status of ecosystems and habitats at
a local level
Current river basin management plans
Current access to fully-functioning WASH

services for all employees
Estimates of future changes in water
availability at a local level
Estimates of future potential regulatory
changes at a local level
Estimates of future potential stakeholder
conflicts at a local level
Estimates of future implications of water on
your key commodities/raw materials
Estimates of future potential changes in the
status of ecosystems and habitats at a local
level
Scenario analysis of availability of sufficient
quantity and quality of water relevant for your
operations at a local level
57 | P a g e
Scenario analysis of regulatory and or tariff
changes at a local level
Scenario analysis of stakeholder conflicts
concerning water resources at a local level
Scenario analysis of implications of water on
your key commodities/raw materials
Scenario analysis of potential changes in the
status of ecosystems and habitats at a local
level
Other
This table has a static first column and requires responding organizations to select from the second
column the relevance of the stated issue. Please note that this question is aligned with the Dow Jones
Sustainability Index.
 Issues
o Each box within the table identifies a contextual issue that could be incorporated into
your organization’s water risk assessment. Please complete the table with as much
data as possible for each of the contextual issues in the table. If a contextual issue
you assess is not available in this table, please fill in the ‘Other’ row, including
information about the issue in the ‘please explain’ column.
o Three types of issue are listed: current, estimate and scenario. A contextual issue
remains “current” until there is a projected or “estimated” future change to data for
that contextual issue. If other variables are introduced into the assessment (e.g.
business growth with respect to climate change) using either current or estimated
data, this then becomes a scenario analysis. Please see the sample response below
for this question for examples of each stage for different contextual issues that could
be factored into a water risk assessment.
 Choose option
o Please select from the drop down menu the option that most accurately represents
your organization. If “Relevant, included” is selected, CDP expects that means that
the identified issue is always factored into your organization’s water risk assessment
throughout the entire organization and is utilized for both direct operations and supply
chain. Further explanations of these options are provided in Box 10: Determining
relevance in risk assessments.
o Note that some companies may have assessed an issue as not relevant for their
water risk assessment, but they nevertheless continue to include it the assessment
process. This may be for a number of reasons: such as completeness or to facilitate
future consideration.
 Please explain
o Please use the open text box to provide further details as to the identified issue. For
those organizations that have included the issue, please provide context as to why
you include this information (why is it important to your business) and how you
assess this contextual issue and how that information is used internally for decision-
making. For those organizations that have said the issue is not relevant, please
provide explanation as to why that is the case. This is an open text field with 2000
characters maximum. This maximum includes spaces.
58 | P a g e
o SCORING: Please always provide an explanation for the option chosen for each
contextual issue. This instruction is for automated scoring purposes. See Box 3:
Reporting company-wide water accounting information & water scoring for further
Box 10: Determining relevance in risk assessments
The following definition of relevance is adapted from the GHG Protocol Corporate Standard.
A relevant issue in a water risk assessment is an issue internal staff in an organization need to
incorporate into their decision making. Companies should use the principle of relevance when
determining whether to exclude any issues from their water risk assessment. Companies should also
use the principle of relevance as a guide when selecting which issues to be included in a risk
assessment. Companies should collect data of sufficient quality to ensure that the issue is relevant
(i.e. it appropriately reflects the risks the organization is exposed to) and should not exclude any
issues from the risk assessment that would compromise the relevance of the reported issue.
You are also advised to consult the CEO Water Mandate Corporate Water Disclosure Guidelines for
the section on Defining What to Report for guidance on how to identify relevant water-related topics
for your organization.
59 | P a g e
W2.6 Sample Response – for guidance only
Issues Choose option Please provide a brief explanation

Current water availability and Relevant, Water is a raw material in Tetra’s final products; water availability and quality is monitored by both Global
quality parameters at a local level included Sustainability, EHS and our Global Quality Organization. Additionally we use the Aqueduct and GEMI tool to
assess this issue.
Current water regulatory Not relevant, Currently there are no specific regulations for plastic boxes at our European manufacturing operations at the
frameworks and tariffs at a local included local level. We adhere to industry best practice and all national regulations instead, including those related to
level water.
Current stakeholder conflicts Relevant, Given that the Limpopo basin which hosts most of our operations provides a number of local communities and
concerning water resources at a included agri-business with their livelihoods, it is essential that we deliver strong water stewardship for the sustainability
local level of the water system and community or this will impact on our social license to operate as well as potentially
impact on our long-term access to water requirements. As part of our risk assessment, we are identifying local
stakeholders using local NGOs as consultants and recording this information in our in-house tracking
Enterprise Risk Management system. We plan to consult with stakeholders and present our risk assessment
for their information and input before deciding any necessary actions for ourselves and actions in collaboration
with the local stakeholders.
Current implications of water on Not relevant, Current water quantity and quality meet our current demands without materially impacting the producing river
your key commodities/raw included basins in all locations where we operate. With the predicted rapid growth of our organization compounded by
materials the increase in frequency and intensity of droughts globally, this could potentially change and have severe
impacts on our key commodities for snack manufacture (oats, cocoa) at some point in the future.
Current status of ecosystems and Relevant, Whilst many of the impacts of ecosystem destruction are still unknown or not immediately, it is essential for
habitats at a local level included good water stewardship to incorporate the impacts on the local water dependent eco-systems into our risk
assessments. To mitigate this risk, we employ a number of environmental scientists to ensure no ecosystem
local to our operations is adversely impacted by our operations in line with our Global Biodiversity Commitment.
This assessment includes accessing regional government databases held by organizations such as English
Nature, as well as conducting site surveys, and tracking this information in our Environmental Risk
Management system.
Current river basin management Relevant, Maintaining and growing our business is dependent on securing our water permits for withdrawals and
plans included discharges at our power generation facilities so we factor current river basin management plans into our risk
assessments to ensure we are understanding any potential limitations or opportunities that may arise in relation
to these plans. We use WRI Aqueduct and WWF- Water Risk Filter to help us identify basins at risk before
60 | P a g e
undergoing a more local analysis at facility level.
Current access to fully-functioning Relevant, We include this in our workplace assessments at every operating location to ensure the health and safety of all
WASH services for all employees included our employees, and also as part of our corporate responsibility to respect and ensure implementation of the
human right to water and sanitation. This is the baseline expectation of the UN Guiding Principles for Business
and Human Rights. We also use the WBCSD implementation guide for Business Action for safe water,
sanitation and hygiene to help us understand our risks and possible actions, in addition to health and safety
assessment KPIs which are included in our Corporate Risk Management process
Estimates of future changes in Relevant, The Yellow river basin in which we operate our main production facility is predicted by WRI Aqueduct to
water availability at a local level included become more stressed following a number of internal and external factors including our predicted future
growth, local community population increases and more intense droughts. As such we have set targets to
reduce our water intensity by 50% by 2017 and decrease our total water withdrawal by 20% through the
installation of new technology.
Estimates of future potential Relevant, We have used WRI Aqueduct, WWF Water Risk Filter and WBCSD Global Water Tool to cross reference
regulatory changes at a local level included results to identify the river basins where we are most exposed to risk from water and create a high priority list.
As the river basin, where 20% of our operations are located, is predicted to become more stressed than the
others, it is expected that local legislation will reflect the growing need for strong water management with
increased limits on water withdrawal. We are preparing for this by engaging with local policy makers and
stakeholders about the best management plan for the region.
Estimates of future potential Relevant, It is predicted that as water scarcity increases in the water stressed southeast of England (using WRI
stakeholder conflicts at a local included Aqueduct), so too will be the potential for stakeholder conflict. We are mitigating this risk by beginning a
level process of dialogue with local stakeholders in Oxfordshire where our operations are based using local
consultants to facilitate the process.
Estimates of future implications of Relevant, Our distilleries in Texas require certain levels of both direct and indirect water so that we remain a successful
water on your key included organization. Using WRI Aqueduct, we forecast that a decrease in the availability of water locally – our barley
commodities/raw materials suppliers are also local to our operations - has the potential to severely impact our organization; as such we
need to carefully manage existing resources sustainably.
Estimates of future potential Relevant, Estimation of changes to the status of ecosystems have been completed, both through internal processes such
changes in the status of included as contributing to our corporate-wide business strategy, and externally, by conforming to local environmental
ecosystems and habitats at a assessment regulations.
local level Several of our power generation facilities have potentially large impacts on aquatic ecosystems due to
discharges of cooling water into watercourses. With future rises in temperature predicted because of climate
change, negative impacts of thermal load such as fish kill events may be exacerbated. We have incorporated
61 | P a g e
NOAA data on predicted future temperature increases into our biodiversity risk assessments at these sites and
are assessing possible alternative management solutions for cooling water to deploy during hot weather.
Scenario analysis of availability of Relevant, Water is a raw material in our final products; sites that have currently or historically been challenged with water
sufficient quantity and quality of included quality and availability in New Mexico and California have completed different types of scenario analysis using
water relevant for your operations historic company knowledge and trend data from government databases in statistical models and we have put
at a local level contingency plans in place to protect the business. Changes in population distribution and domestic water use
are predicted to interact with water availability changes in these regions, by considering different levels of these
variables we have been able to develop a range of different future risk profiles and identify that stakeholder
conflict poses a bigger risk than water availability under certain conditions.
Scenario analysis of regulatory Relevant, not We have secure tenure of water use in Ireland and Scotland as we have government permits for water
and or tariff changes at a local included withdrawal. This means future regulatory changes would not affect pricing for existing operations for the next
level 30 years. Our BDS for capital project development specifies life-of-mine assessment of water demand, water
supply, and water related environmental risk, and risk control strategies.
Scenario analysis of stakeholder Relevant, Our Enterprise Risk Management System tracks/monitors existing stakeholder conflicts, estimates future
conflicts concerning water included potential conflicts and discusses scenario analysis related to water and stakeholder conflicts. We completed an
resources at a local level assessment of operating mine sites using the Basin Related Risk portion of the WWF Water Risk Filter to
determine where there is high potential for stakeholder conflicts around water.
Scenario analysis of implications Relevant, Our global procurement team estimates future implications of water on key agricultural commodities/raw
of water on your key included. materials in-house using statistical analysis and government research. Water related factors are combined with
commodities/raw materials other sources of risk in price and volatility risk analysis of these commodities. Forward looking costs have been
estimated for selected materials and will be input to selected business output scenarios to advise decision
making.
Scenario analysis of potential Relevant, not Our Safety and Environmental Assurance Centre (SEAC) team is developing tools to estimate biodiversity and
changes in the status of yet included ecosystem services’ risks and impacts that may be associated with agricultural material choices and their
ecosystems and habitats at a spatial distribution on the landscape. This work is currently focused on assessment of larger-scale material use
local level rather than production and impacts at the very local level, and includes specific metrics on water availability
and impacts
62 | P a g e
W2.7 Which of the following stakeholders are always factored into your
organization’s water risk assessments?
Stakeholder Choose option Please explain

Customers [Select from]: [open text: 2000
 Relevant, included
characters max]
 Relevant, not yet included
 Not relevant, included
 Not relevant, explanation
provided
 Not evaluated
Employees
Investors
Local communities
NGOs
Other water users at a local level
Regulators
River basin management authorities
Statutory special interest groups at a local
level
Suppliers
Water utilities at a local level
Other
This table has a static first column which identifies different stakeholders and requires responding
organizations to select from the second column the relevance of the stated stakeholder. Guidance on
responding to each of the columns is provided below:
 Stakeholder
o Each box within the table identifies a particular stakeholder that could be incorporated
into your organization’s water risk assessment. Please complete the table with as
much data as possible for each stakeholder in the table. If your stakeholder is not
available, please fill in the ‘Other’ row, including information about the issue in the
‘please explain’ column.
o Note that you should chose the stakeholders which most accurately reflect the bodies
you engage with and then provide a company specific explanation for each
stakeholder. For example, you may engage with government agencies at a national
level, or with regulators that are independent of government. There may not be a
“River Basin Management Authority” but there may be an equivalent body overseeing
water resources in any of the river basins in which you operate, such as a State
government office or a local Catchment Management Agency. This may be different
from or a part of the regulator you normally engage with. If you select “not relevant for
any row, please explain your answer.
o Please note that the stakeholder “water utilities at a local level” includes municipal,
industrial or private water suppliers. This may also include a water utility which treats
municipal or industrial wastewater (if the latter is relevant to your company). Although
the provision of water might be considered part of a company’s supply chain, CDP
has separated this stakeholder out from the broader term “suppliers”. This is due to
the important nature of this particular supplier in the context of a water risk
63 | P a g e
assessment. This table requires a specific explanation regarding the inclusion of this
stakeholder in the company’s risk assessment.
 Choose ‘relevance’ option

o Please select from the drop down menu the option that most accurately represents
your organization and explain. If “Relevant, included” is selected, CDP expects that
means that the identified issue is always factored into your organization’s water risk
assessment throughout the entire organization and is utilized for both direct
operations and supply chain.
o Further explanations of these options are provided in Box 10: Determining relevance
in risk assessments.
 Please explain
o Please use the open text box to provide details as to how the identified stakeholder
are considered as part of your risk assessment. Please provide context as to why you
engage with this stakeholder and details of how, for example, public meetings,
supplier reporting or training, facilitation through other organizations and when e.g.
pre-planning, scheduled engagement, ad-hoc as the need arises. For those
organizations that have said the issue is not relevant, please provide an explanation
as to why that is the case. For example, there may not be a river basin authority, or
equivalent body, for the locations you operate in, or this may be the regulator in which
case please explain that this is the case.
o For those organizations that selected ‘other’, please use this text box to identify the
stakeholder. This is an open text field with 2000 characters maximum. This
maximum includes spaces.
o SCORING: Please always provide an explanation for the option chosen for each
stakeholder. This instruction is for automated scoring purposes. See Box 3:
Reporting company-wide water accounting information & Water scoring for further
o
Stakeholder Choose option Please explain

Customers Relevant, included We assess the environmental performance of
our products from farm to consumer and
beyond using our internally developed
Sustainable Design Tool, including the water
footprint on a five year basis, to assess how
water intensive our products are. The water
used by consumers to prepare or consume our
products is factored in when assessing the
hotspots of our products. We engage with our
customers through marketing surveys.
Employees Relevant, included Water restrictions due to municipal supply
constraints could impact on our employee’s
output in our locations in Mexico. We strive to
continually improve our water performance
through training of all new employees and
raising awareness and review this annually.
Investors Relevant, included We report water risks and responses in our
integrated annual sustainability reporting pack
that is sent to shareholders by our Investor
Reporting team so our investors can assess
64 | P a g e
their investment. This information is also
provided to our CEO Jack White and CFO Mary
Temple.
Local communities Relevant, included We have a particular responsibility toward our

production sites’ neighbors, and discuss current
issues with them in Community Advisory
panels, which meet quarterly, according to
need. In our breweries, local communities and
related water-issues are incorporated into site
management and contingency plans and this is
led by our site managers and human resources
colleagues.
NGOs Relevant, included We conduct an annual materiality analysis

based on the level of stakeholder concern
regarding local water issues and level of
potential impact on our business and engage
with local NGO experts to facilitate stakeholder
meetings to discuss possible solutions as a part
of this annual process.
Other water users at a Relevant, included Our annual Water Resource Reviews help our
local level facility staff to gain a greater
understanding/sense of ownership about water
challenges in their locality such as equity of
supply in the Goring catchment during summer
periods when hands-off flows are applied by the
river catchment authorities. They also enabled
us to identify 5 high priority areas within
operations where water stewardship initiatives
are needed and where engagement with other
local water users (other business, domestic
users, farmers) is necessary to inform our
corporate risk assessments.
Regulators Relevant, included We continue to maintain a strong presence at
multi-stakeholder initiatives linked to our
industry and chaired by the industry regulator,
the Minerals Council of Australia. These
initiatives consider water policy and related
challenges that may impact on our business
and operating environments. Timely renewal of
appropriate water permits is essential for us to
operate our mines and thus regular
engagement with regulators is key to mitigating
this risk in all our operating locations. We
respond to all consultations run by national
regulators as they are held, and in Australia
chaired the Australia Mining Association water
sub-committee during 2015 which met twice
with the regulator.
River basin management Relevant, included Due to the majority of our business being
authorities situated in the UK we have regular contact with
the UK river basin management authority, the
Environment Agency, though in California in the
United States, the equivalent organization
varies by state so our operations staff engage
with the California State Water Resources
Control Board. Our meetings happen on an ad-
hoc basis though an annual catch-up meeting is
65 | P a g e
usually scheduled to maintain the relationship
outside of critical situations (e.g. surface water
drought) and keep parties informed on both
sides.
Statutory special interest Relevant, included We work closely with the Texas State Soil and
groups at a local level Water Conservation Board to align our water
targets to complement their work in our local
catchment of Kintacky River, including water
efficiency so that more water is returned to the
local catchment for environmental flows. This
helps our company reputation in our local
market. We meet on an ad-hoc basis as
projects require.
Suppliers Relevant, included Through our entire supply chain, we are

committed to engage with suppliers to promote
water conservation practices through our
supplier training programs which are run
biannually, and on an ongoing basis through
the water component of our Supplier
Scorecard. Twelve suppliers in water stressed
areas have signed up to our “Water
conservation collaboration” pilot initiative to
implement water efficiency targets and the
results will inform our supply chain risk
assessment.
Water utilities at a local Relevant, included We have an Environmental Target Setting
level Program, designed to further optimize energy
and water consumption. Water experts together
with water suppliers go on-site annually to
identify further improvement opportunities. In
2015, we identified 610 projects expected to
deliver energy savings of about 2 million GJ
and 2.6 million m3 of water. Our collaboration
with local water utilities has enhanced our
understanding of possible risk factors
associated with supply of water and drainage to
our facilities as well as risk mitigation
opportunities.
W2.8 Please choose the option that best explains why your organization does not
undertake a water-related risk assessment
This question only appears if you select “Water risks are not assessed” in response to question W2.1.

 Important but not an immediate business
priority [open text: 1500 characters max]
 Water risk assessment in progress
 Lack of internal resources
66 | P a g e
Please select the primary reason why your organization does not undertake a water-related risk
assessment. In the “Please explain” column, please use the open text field to provide details as to
why and if your organization has any future plans to explore this issue, plus details of any risk
assessment process currently underway, if relevant. This latter column is a free text field; all entries
should be less than 1500 characters.
67 | P a g e
Implications Module Guidance
W3. Water risks
Question Pathway
The following questions, W3.1-W3.2, are shown on the Implications page.
W3.1 Is your organization exposed to water risks, either current and/or future, that could
generate a substantive change in your business, operations, revenue or expenditure?
W3.2 Please provide details as to how your organization defines substantive change in your
business, operations, revenue or expenditure from water risk
Yes, direct operations

in your business, operations, revenue or expenditure from water risk.
W3.2a Please provide the number of operations per river basin exposed to water Yes,
risks that could generate a substantive change in your business, operations, supply
revenue or expenditure; and the proportion of company-wide facilities this chain
represents
W3.2b For each river basin mentioned in W3.2a, please provide the proportion of
the company’s total financial value that could be affected by water risks
W3.2c Please list the inherent water risks W3.2d Please list the inherent water risks
that could generate a substantive change in that could generate a substantive change in
your business, operations, revenue or your business, operations, revenue or
expenditure, the potential impact to your expenditure, the potential impact to your
direct operations and the strategies to supply chain and the strategies to mitigate
mitigate them them
No risk to direct operations No risk to supply chain

W3.2e Please choose the option that best W.3.2f Please choose the option that best
explains why you do not consider your explains why you do not consider your
organization to be exposed to water risks in organization to be exposed to water risks in
your direct operations that could generate a your supply chain that could generate a
substantive change in your business, substantive change in your business,
operations, revenue or expenditure operations, revenue or expenditure
Don’t know
W3.2g Please choose the option that best
explains why you do not know if your
organization is exposed to water risks that could
generate a substantive change in your business
operations, revenue or expenditure and discuss
any future plans you have to assess this
END
68 | P a g e
General guidance
The third section of the questionnaire focuses on the potential risks and opportunities as a result of
water, to both your company and your stakeholders.
It is broken down into two subsections:
 Water risks – what are the physical, regulatory and reputational risks that your organization is
exposed to, in direct and indirect operations, where are they and what impacts do they have?
 Water opportunities – how do global water trends and challenges create opportunities for your
organization to improve its business?
Corporate reporting on risks can be challenging as it requires organizations to provide statements

about their prospective condition. Some organizations, such as accountancy firms and their governing
bodies, have published guidance on how to prepare statements that contain information about future
projections.
Before answering the questions covering risk, you may wish to consult with the financial, legal and/or
compliance departments for advice on your organization’s general approach to the provision of
statements and information of the risks to your direct operations and supply chains.
It is suggested, due to the structure of the questionnaire, that you complete this module after you
have completed the second module of this questionnaire Risk assessment: Procedures and
requirements as an organization will only be aware of substantive risk to their direct operations and/or
supply chain once a comprehensive risk assessment is complete.
 W3.2a: Question wording has been slightly edited and column 4 header has been edited for
clarity. However, the information required remains the same as 2016.
 W3.2b: Question wording and column 4 header have been edited for clarity. However, the
information required remains the same as 2016.
 W3.2c and d column 5 header: the column header has been edited for clarity. However, the
information required remains the same as 2016.
• The copy from last year function has been provided for questions W3.1, W3.2, W3.2a-g .
69 | P a g e
W3. Water risks
W3.1 Is your organization exposed to water risks, either current and/or future, that
could generate a substantive change in your business, operations, revenue or
expenditure?
[Select from]:
 Yes, direct operations and supply chain

 Yes, direct operations only
 Yes, supply chain only
 No
 Don’t know
Please select the most relevant option from the dropdown provided. Please note that your selection
will load the appropriate follow up questions in W3.2a – W3.2g. All responding organizations will be
asked to answer question W3.2.
Please note: W3.1 is a leading question, prompting linked sets of follow up questions to
appear depending on the response given. If question W3.1 is amended after subsequent follow
up questions are completed, then these related data will also be erased. Please ensure that
you re-enter the data for the follow up questions also, as appropriate.
For more information on the definition of water risk, clarity on water risk for business and the
difference between your direct operations and your supply chain, please refer to Box 11: Defining
water risk and water risk for business.
Box 11: Defining water risk and water risk for business
The definitions used in this Guidance reflect those established by the CEO Water Mandate to provide
clarity and share understanding across a number of key definitional issues. CDP will continue to
update the terminology and associated definitions as they become more clearly defined. CDP will
continue to update the terminology and associated definitions as they become more clearly defined.
Water risk: The possibility of an entity experiencing a water-related challenge (e.g., water scarcity,
water stress, flooding, infrastructure decay, drought). 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
itself depends on the intensity of the challenge, as well as the vulnerability of the actor.
Water risk is felt differently by every sector of society and the organizations within them and thus is
defined and interpreted differently (even when they experience the same degree of water-related
challenges). That notwithstanding, many water-related challenges create risk for many different
sectors and organizations simultaneously. This reality underpins the notion of what some refer to as
“shared water risk,” which suggests that different sectors of society have a common interest in
understanding and addressing shared water-related challenges. However, some contest the
appropriateness of this term on the basis that risk is felt uniquely and separately by individual entities
and is typically not shared, per se.
70 | P a g e
Water risk for business: The ways in which water-related challenges potentially undermine
business viability. It is commonly categorized into three interrelated types:
Physical. Having too little water, too much water, water that is unfit for use, or inaccessible water
Regulatory. Changing, ineffective, or poorly implemented public water policy and/or regulations
Reputational. Stakeholder perceptions that a company does not conduct business in a sustainable or
responsible fashion with respect to water
Water risk for businesses is also sometimes divided into two categories that shed light on the source
of that risk and therefore what types of mitigation responses will be most appropriate:
Risk due to company operations, products, and services. A measure of the severity and
likelihood of water-related challenges derived from how a company or organization, and the suppliers
from which it sources goods, operate and how its products and services affect communities and
ecosystems.
Risk due to basin conditions. A measure of the severity and likelihood of water-related challenges
derived from the basin context in which a company or organization and/or its suppliers from which it
sources goods operate, which cannot be addressed through changes in its operations or its suppliers
and requires engagement outside the fence.
Adapted from CEO Water Mandate: Understanding Key Water Stewardship Terms (2015)
In question W3.1, you were asked to separately identify whether your operations and/or supply chain
are subject to water risk.
 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.
W3.2 Please provide details as to how your organization defines substantive change
in your business, operations, revenue or expenditure from water risk [open text
with 2,400 characters max]
Please use the open text box to describe in detail how your organization defines substantive change
in your business, operations, revenue or expenditure from water risk. Please include details of any
qualitative or quantitative metrics used and an indication as to how often these metrics are reviewed
and updated. Metrics may represent assessment of substantive water risk related to both
direct operations and/or supply chain.
Please note that we are not requesting which risk factors may substantively affect business – this
information is requested in question W3.2c and W3.2d – but we are asking you to describe and/or
quantify what substantive change might look like for your business e.g. closure of two strategic
71 | P a g e
facilities, a reduction of 10% in projected revenue, an unexpected prolonged drop in consumer
interest over a busy shopping period etc.
Please see Box 12: Substantive change for an explanation of substantive change and a sample
response for question W3.2 for some qualitative and quantitative examples used to define substantive
change.
Box 12: Substantive change

What constitutes a substantive change will vary between companies. For example, a 1% reduction in
profits will have different effects 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. Factors to consider might include:
(a) The proportion of business units affected;
(b) The size of the impact on those business units, and
(c) The potential for shareholder or customer concern.
A substantive risk of relatively high magnitude could occur because of a large change in one of these
aspects, or small changes in all three combining to create a larger impact.
EXAMPLE 1: Company A defines substantive change to their business to be when more than 10% of
turnover of goods is impacted at the corporate level. This threshold is then applied to reporting
supplier-related substantive water risks. For example, Company A’s tire supply is disrupted for two
weeks as a result of prolonged drought in China and this contributes to a reduction in turnover
globally but it is less than 10% at the corporate level. Consequently this risk would not be reported in
question W3.2d as an example of a water risk that could cause a substantive change to business,
operations, revenue or expenditure as it did not exceed the threshold for substantive change to
Company A’s business at the corporate level. (It may have impacted locally, but we are only asking
for corporate level substantive change)
EXAMPLE 2: Company B defines sites that could contribute to substantive change to their business
by using a screening process as follows: 1) identify sites indicated "High" or "Extremely High" overall
water risk using the WRI Aqueduct water risk tool then 2) cross check whether these sites are
considered strategic and/or if they account for >2% of global production volume. If both criteria are
satisfied, then the risks faced by these sites can contribute to a substantive change in business and
would be reported in questions W3.2a-c.
W3.2a Please provide the number of facilities6 per river basin exposed to water risks
that could generate a substantive change in your business, operations,
revenue or expenditure; and the proportion of company-wide facilities this
represents
sample answer is provided below. Please refer to Box 13: Reporting facilities at risk for further
guidance.
6
The term “facilities” may be used more broadly to describe other types of business operations as well as fixed
buildings or factories. Please explain how you have defined “facility” in the comment column. Please see the
2017 water specific question guidance for question W3.2a for more information.
72 | P a g e
This question only appears if you select “Yes, direct operations and supply chain” or “Yes, direct
operations only” in response to question W3.1.
Country River basin Number of facilities Proportion of Comment

exposed to water company-wide
risk facilities that this
represents (%)
[Country [Select from]: [numeric response] [Select from]: [open text: 1000
drop down  List of  Less than 1% characters max]
list] basins  1-5
 Not known  6-10
 11-20
Other, please  21-30
specify  31-40
 41-50
 51-60
 61-70
 71-80
 81-90
 91-100
Add Row
Please use the Add Row’ button to the bottom right to include additional river basins within your
response.
Please note that CDP is only asking for information on those river basins where the operations
located are exposed to water risk that could generate a substantive change in your business,
operations, revenue or expenditure.
Also note that question W5 requests water accounting data for the facilities referred to in
W3.2a.
Box 13: Reporting facilities at risk

The term ‘facilities’ may be used more broadly to describe other types of business operations as well
as fixed buildings or factories. For example, if your organization is in the extractive industries you
might normally collate information by asset or business unit and may wish to define facility in this way.
Likewise, if you are in an industry like the hotel industry or construction industry where you may
potentially have hundreds of hotels/sites you may wish to report facilities by aggregate, rather than
individual buildings or sites. So to respond to question W3.2a, a hotel chain may wish to group hotels
by grade, resort type etc. combining 20 hotels from within the same river basin into one ‘facility’ for
example, and then assessing this aggregate ‘facility’ against their threshold for substantive change to
business, rather than assessing each of the 20 hotels individually. If your organization does decide to
aggregate for reporting purposes, then please state that this approach has been undertaken and
please briefly describe the methodology for aggregation in the ‘Comment’ column in questions W3.2a
and W3.2b. Then in Section 5 – Facility level water accounting, your organization would be expected
to report the aggregated water accounting figures for each ‘facility’ listed in question W3.2a.
Note re the aggregation of data:

 Due to the local nature of water risks and impacts only facilities in the same river basins
should be aggregated.
73 | P a g e
 Aggregation should only be considered as an option where the facility level data is not
meaningful; for example, because water use in particular facilities is very small and therefore
the associated risks and impacts are more material at the river basin level.
 Country
o In the first column, please select from the drop down menu the country where the
facilities exposed to water risk (that could generate a substantive change in your
business, operations, revenue or expenditure), are located.
 River basin
o The Water Risk Filter developed by WWF and DEG;
o The WRI Aqueduct Water Risk Atlas Tool; and
o The WBCSD Global Water Tool
o CEO Water Mandate’s Interactive Database of the World's River Basins
‘Other’ and type in the name of the local aquifer source. However, please also
ensure that the correct country name is selected in the ‘Country’ column adjacent.
Mandate’s Interactive Database of the World's River Basins.
For companies operating in South Africa, the list also includes the nine new Water
Management Areas for South Africa, as proposed in the South African revised
National Water Resources Strategy (NWRS2). See Appendix C: River basin list and
South African Water Management Areas (WMAs).
 Number of facilities exposed to water risk

o Please provide a numeric response detailing the number of facilities located within
the selected river basin. ‘Facilities’ is used by CDP as a broad term and may be
construction sites, factories, assets or other grouping of operations. See Box 13:
Reporting facilities at risk.
Please note we are not asking for the total number of facilities located within
each river basin, but ONLY those facilities facing water risk that could generate
a substantive change in your business, operations, revenue or expenditure
should the risk associated with that river basin materialize. So while a business
may have 10 facilities in one river basin exposed to water risk, but only three of those
might lead to a substantive change to business at the corporate level, so it is only
those three facilities that should be reported in W3.2a. For more information about
what constitutes ‘substantive’ water risk, please see Box 12: Substantive change. For
74 | P a g e
more information on reporting operations at risk, please see Box13: Reporting
facilities at risk.
 Proportion of company-wide facilities that this represents

Please quantify the proportion of your organization’s total operations, in terms of
numbers of facilities, exposed to water risk (within the specified basin). For example,
the five facilities that are exposed to substantive water risk within one of the specified
river basins reported compose 6-10% of your organization’s total facilities company-
wide.
 Comment
o Please use the open text box provided to provide any further details you wish to add
about these facilities. For example, why these facilities are at risk, whether these
facilities grouped represent a particular business unit or even the water risk tools you
used to decide that these facilities are exposed to substantive water risk. You may
use up to 1000 characters. This maximum includes the use of spaces.
Country River Number of facilities Proportion of Comments

basin exposed to water risk company-wide
facilities that
this represents
(%)
China Xi Jiang 5 1-5 These facilities make up the
biggest collection of facilities
in our technology hardware
business unit per one river
basin. They are located in a
region of frequent flood risk.
China Yalu 2 1-5 These facilities are within a
Jiang region of water stress. They
specialise in producing an
important component linked to
our technology hardware
business unit due to close
links with suppliers of
necessary raw materials.
We sorted all our substantive
risk sites for reporting in this
basin using WRI’s Aqueduct.
W3.2b For each river basin mentioned in W3.2a, please provide the proportion of the
company’s financial value that could be affected by water risks
sample answer is provided below.
75 | P a g e
Country River Financial reporting Proportion of chosen Comment
basin metric metric that could be
affected
[Country  [Select from]: [Select from]: [open text: 1000 characters
drop down [Select  % cost of goods  Less than 1% max]
list] from]: sold  1-5
 List of  % global revenue  6-10
basins  % global  11-20
 Not production  21-30
known capacity  31-40
 Other,  % generation  41-50
please capacity  51-60
specify  % global  61-70
production volume  71-80
 barrels of oil  81-90
equivalent (BOE)  91-100
 Other, please
specify
Add Row
Please use the Add Row’ button to the bottom right to include additional river basins within your
response. Please note that CDP is only asking for information on those river basins that you
selected in response to W3.2a.
 Country
o In the first column, please select from the drop down menu the country where the
facilities exposed to water risk (that could generate a substantive change in your
business, operations, revenue or expenditure), are located.
 River basin
DEG;
o The WRI Aqueduct Water Risk Atlas Tool
o The WBCSD Global Water Tool; and
76 | P a g e
Mandate’s Interactive Database of the World's River Basins. For companies
operating in South Africa, the list also includes the nine new Water Management
Areas for South Africa, as proposed in the South African revised National Water
Resources Strategy (NWRS2). See Appendix C: River basin list and South African
Water Management Areas (WMAs).
 Reporting metric
o Please select a reporting metric appropriate to your organization. For example, for a
Producer or Manufacturing organization, quantifying risk in terms of impact to cost of
goods sold might be appropriate. An electricity provider may wish to choose global
revenue or generation capacity. For those organizations that do not produce a
product, a reporting metric such as the proportion of global revenue at risk or the
proportion of global production capacity at risk might be more relevant. If a metric that
is appropriate to your organization is not available, please select “Other, please
specify” and a text box will be provided so that you can write in your own response.
 Proportion of chosen metric that could be affected

 Please quantify the value at risk within the basins listed in W3.2a by choosing the
proportion of your organization’s chosen financial reporting metric exposed to water
risk. For example, the five facilities that are exposed to substantive water risk within a
specified river basin reported in W3.2a equate to 6-10% of your organization’s global
revenue. A worked example for W3.2b is provided below.
 Comment
o Please use the open text box provided to provide any further details you wish to add
about the potential value at risk in these river basins. You may use up to 1000
characters. This maximum includes the use of spaces.
W3.2b Sample Response – for guidance only
Country River Financial Proportion of Comments

basin reporting chosen metric
metric that could be
affected
China Xi Jiang % costs of 6-10 As a semi-conductor company, in
goods sold the event of a flood, we usually
experience a two week minimum
delay before we can get our
distribution channels open again
from this region
China Yalu Jiang % global 6-10 Annually this region experiences
production water rationing imposed by local
capacity government. It typically lasts up to
3 months in duration depending
on summer rainfall. This slows our
production rate and can impact on
other parts of our business.
77 | P a g e
W3.2c Please list the inherent water risks that could generate a substantive change in your business, operations, revenue or expenditure, the potential impact to your direct operations and the
strategies to mitigate them
Country River basin Risk driver Potential impact Description of Timeframe Likelihood Magnitude of Response strategy Costs of response Details of
potential impact potential financial strategy strategy and
impact costs
[Select from]: [Select from]: [Select all that apply]: [Select from]: [open text: 1500 [Select from]: [Select from]: [Select from]: [Select all that apply]: [open text: 500 [open text: 2000
Physical:  Brand damage characters max]  Current -up to 1  Highly probable  Low  Alignment of public policy positions characters max] characters max]
[Country [list of basins]  Climate change  Constraint to growth year  Probable  Low-medium with water stewardship goals
 1- 3 years  Unlikely  Medium  Cost increase management through
drop down  Declining water quality  Closure of operations
 4- 6 years  Unknown  Medium-high
list] Not known  Dependency on hydropower  Decrease in shareholder regulated tariff-setting process
 >6 years  High
 Drought value  Develop flood emergency plans
 Unknown  Unknown
 Ecosystem vulnerability  Delays in permitting  Engagement with community
Other, please  Flooding  Employee health and  Engagement with customers
specify  Inadequate infrastructure well-being  Engagement with public policy
 Increased water scarcity  Higher operating costs makers
 Increased water stress  Fines/ penalties  Engagement with other stakeholders
 Pollution of water source  Litigation in the river basin
 Projected water scarcity  Loss of license to operate  Engagement with suppliers
 Projected water stress  Disruption to sales  Establish site-specific targets
 Rationing of municipal water supply  Plant/production  Infrastructure investment
 Seasonal supply variability/inter annual disruption leading to  Infrastructure maintenance
variability reduced output  Greater due diligence
Regulatory:  Property damage  Increased capital expenditure
 Changed product standards  Reduced demand for  Increased investment in new
 Higher water prices product technology
 Increased difficulty in obtaining  Reduction in revenue  New products, markets
withdrawals/operations permit  Supply chain disruption  River basin restoration
 Lack of transparency of water rights  Transport disruption  Re-siting of facilities
 Limited or no river basin/catchment  Water supply disruption  Promote best practice and
management  Other, please specify awareness
 Mandatory water efficiency, conservation,  Supplier diversification
recycling or process standards  Strengthen links with local
 Poor coordination between regulatory bodies community
 Poor enforcement of water regulation  Tighter supplier performance
 Regulation of discharge quality/volumes standards
leading to higher compliance costs  Use of risk transfer instruments
 Regulatory uncertainty  Water management incentives
 Statutory water withdrawal limits/changes to  Other, please specify
water allocation 
 Unclear and/or unstable regulations on water
allocation and wastewater discharge.
Reputational:
 Community opposition
 Inadequate access to water, sanitation and
hygiene
 Litigation
78 | P a g e
You are requested to respond to this question in the table provided in the ORS, reproduced above. A
sample answer is provided below. If you have multiple risks to report, you can add rows into the table
by using the ‘Add Row’ button to the bottom right.
Please note that CDP is ONLY asking for information on those river basins where you have
facilities that are exposed to water risk that could generate a substantive change in your
business, operations, revenue or expenditure of your direct operations. For risks to your supply
chain, please see guidance for question W3.2d.
Single risk – multiple impacts and responses: CDP understands that organizations will likely face
similar risks within multiple river basins. Please note that whilst the risk drivers might be the same for
those river basins, it is likely that both the potential impact and response strategy will be different.
Whilst there may be some situations in which a blanket response strategy is adequate, due to the
local nature of river basins, a localized response should be considered.
Multiple risks - single impact: For river basins where multiple risks result in the same potential
impact, it is possible to choose multiple risks for one river basin in the ORS. It is also possible to
choose multiple response strategies in relation to potential impact on your business. It is not possible
to choose more than one potential impact on your business per river basin.
Guidance on responding to each of the columns is provided below.
 Country
o In the first column, please select from the drop down menu the country in which
facilities exposed to water risk that could generate a substantive change in your
business, operations, revenue or expenditure, are located.
 River basin
o CEO Water Mandate’s Interactive Database of the World's River Basins.
o Please note that the dropdown list of river 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 new Water Management Areas for South Africa,
as proposed in the South African revised National Water Resources Strategy
79 | P a g e
(NWRS2). See Appendix C: River basin list and South African Water Management
Areas (WMAs).
 Risk driver
o There is a comprehensive list of potential risk drivers that your organization might
face. They are broadly grouped into three categories; physical risk drivers, regulatory
risk drivers and reputational risk drivers. This list has been created using detailed
analysis of previous CDP responses as well as guidance taken from the CEO Water
Mandate. For more information about potential risk drivers, please see Box 16:
Description of risk drivers below.
 Potential impact
o Please select from the drop down menu the potential primary impact of the identified
risk on your organization. The potential impact is the effect that the risk could have on
your business. This could be through increased costs, decreased revenue or closure
of operations. Impacts can be operational or financial and can affect your
organization, your consumers or other stakeholders. If you cannot identify a potential
impact that accurately describes the risk driver, please choose “Other, please specify”
and a text box will appear to that you can write in your own impact. If you have
identified multiple impacts, please select the primary impact here and include
secondary impacts in the next column: ‘Description of impact’.
o Please use the open text box to include any additional details as to how the identified
risk will impact your organization. N.B. Please also estimate how long the impact to
your business may last. If you have multiple impacts from a risk driver, please include
them here. Please use a maximum of 1500 characters in your answer. This maximum
includes spaces.
 Timeframe
o Please select from the drop down menu the timeframe as to when the risks are likely
to materialize. It is acknowledged that long-term risks are likely to have a higher
degree of uncertainty associated with them.
 Likelihood
o Please select from the drop down menu the likelihood of the identified risk impacting
your organization. The likelihood of the impact occurring, along with the magnitude
are the building blocks of a risk/opportunity matrix – a common method of identifying
and prioritizing risk and opportunities. The likelihood refers to the probability of the
impact to your business occurring within the timeframe provided, which in the
case of an inherent risk might be similar to the probability of the risk event
itself. For example, if the risk relates 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.
80 | P a g e
Box 14: Origin of likelihood terminology
The terms used to describe likelihood are taken from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate
Change’s (IPCC) 2007 report and are consistent cross all CDP information requests. They are
associated with probabilities, indicating the percentage of likelihood of the event occurring. It is not
necessary for responding organizations to have calculated probabilities for the risks they are
considering, however quantifying likelihood on a % basis can give an indication as to the meaning of
the term.
The likelihood terms are: 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.
 Magnitude of potential financial impact

o Please detail the expected financial impact of the identified risk. The magnitude of
financial impact describes the extent to which the impact, if it occurred, would affect
your business financially. Your response should consider the business as a whole
and therefore the magnitude can reflect both the damage that can be caused and the
exposure to that potential damage. The range will vary between organizations so
please select an option that is appropriate to your business.
o For example, two organizations may have identical facilities located on the 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 the potential financial impact will be much
higher for company A. As it is not possible to accurately define terms for magnitude
because of this variation, companies are asked to determine magnitude on a
qualitative scale of ‘High, Medium, Low and Unknown.’ If the financial impact has not
been assessed by your organization, please select ‘Unknown’.
Box 15: Factors to consider with magnitude
When looking to determine the magnitude of potential financial impact please consider including
(a) The proportion of business units affected;
(b) The size of the impact on those business units, and (c) The potential for shareholder or customer
concern.
An impact of a relatively high magnitude could occur because of a large effect in one of these aspects
or small effects in all three combining to create a larger impact.
with the Water Action Hub Action Areas, however we ask that you provide specifics
for the strategy in the “Details of strategy and costs” column.
81 | P a g e
 Costs of response strategy

o Please use this text field to provide information on the cost of your risk response
actions. Where possible, please provide a numerical value for the financial
description (open or closed ranges, or % relative to a stated or publicly available
figure). If there are no costs to managing the risk, this should be made clear. Please
use no more than 500 characters in your answer.
 Details of strategy and costs

your response strategy. You may also include here secondary response strategies for
the identified risk if necessary. Please include information on the following three
facets on the strategy in regards to preventing either financial or operational impacts:
 The timeframe expected for the response strategy to be implemented;
 How effective the response is; and
 The feasibility of success in preventing either financial or operational impacts.
including:

- If possible, the specific location of the project
Please note that these criteria are not scored but are crucial to building a project for the
Water Action Hub. If you do not provide this detail, the project may not be suitable to transfer
to this platform.
82 | P a g e
Box 16: Description of risk drivers
This box provides more detail on the different types of risk drivers your organization might face. For
the purpose of answering question 3.2c, please list the primary risk driver for each river basin. As
there are likely to be multiple drivers for each basin, companies are encouraged to report on drivers
which are able to cause the most substantive impact on their organization.
Any risk driver reported in W3.2c and d should make clear the water-related aspect of the risk.
Physical risks may arise from 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.
These definitions of water scarcity and water stress are adapted from the CEO Water Mandate. (See
Box 11: Defining water risk and water risk for business for more information)
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.
Water stress: The ability, or lack thereof, to meet human and ecological demand for freshwater.
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 (i.e., whether people are able to make use of physically available water
supplies), which is often a function of the sufficiency of infrastructure and the affordability of water,
among other things. Both water consumption and water withdrawals provide useful information that
offers insight into relative water stress. There are a variety of physical pressures related to water,
such as flooding and drought that are not included in the notion of water stress. Water stress has
subjective elements and is assessed differently depending on societal values. For example,
societies may have different thresholds for what constitutes sufficiently clean drinking water or the
appropriate level of environmental water requirements to be afforded to freshwater ecosystems,
and thus assess stress differently.
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 risks may arise from 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 risks may arise from impacts resulting from litigation, product risks due to changes in
consumer behavior, and risks that may impact decisions made by investors, consumers and
83 | P a g e
current/potential employees concerning a company.
Resources
For more information on water impacts, risks facing business and examples of adaptation in practice
you may refer to the following sources:
 Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (2008), “Climate Change and Water: IPCC
Technical Paper VI”.
 World Business Council for Sustainable Development, Meridian Institute, World Resources
Institute (2008), “Corporate Ecosystem Services Review: Guidelines for Identifying Business
Risks and Opportunities Arising from Ecosystem Change”.
 JPMorgan (2008), “Watching Water: A Guide to Evaluating Corporate Risks in a Thirsty World”.
 Pacific Institute (2009), “Water Scarcity and Climate Change: Growing Risks for Business and
Investors”.
 World Wildlife Fund (WWF) (2009), “Understanding Water Risks: A Primer on the Consequences
of Water Scarcity for Government and Business”.
84 | P a g e
W3.2c Sample Response – for guidance only
Country River Risk driver Potential Description of Timeframe Likelihood Magnitude of Response Costs of Details of response
basin impact potential impact potential strategy response and costs
financial strategy
impact
India Sahayadri Physical: Closure of The increased algae Current - Probable Low-medium Infrastructure EUR 100,000 We invested EUR
Declining operations may affect our ability to up to 1 investment approximately 100,000 in algae
water quality pump water at our Pune year as a one-off detection equipment in
based sites and use it for investment order to minimize impact
cooling purposes in our though on critical periods of
operations. This could maintenance water use. This includes
lead to intermittent costs may the installation of
shutdowns while we decrease if cleaning grids and algae
clean the water intakes. monsoon rains retention systems. We
are better next are
year currently implementing
this system and it will be
completed by March
2016.
Indonesia Kapuas Regulatory: Constraint Municipal water supply 4-6 years Highly Medium Comply with Financial We plan to research and
Statutory to growth is overstretched and probable local legal investment will implement a general
water new conditions of requirements or depend on water efficiency strategy
withdrawal industrial water use are company own location and for facilities in all water
limits/changes being drafted for internal facility but this stressed locations by
to water potential future standards, location has end 2016 with local
allocation implementation. whichever is been flagged as conditions tailoring the
Water use limits may be more stringent a high priority implementation of this
imposed on water- by our strategy. Cost estimate is
intensive businesses like Environmental based on previous
our paper mills; if Management implementation in 2
these limits occur during System. similar pulp facilities in
peak production periods, Estimated US Malaysia and Thailand,
reduced output could $ 500,000 – with installation of water
reduce revenue by up to 200,00 per site recycling equipment and
US $ 200,000 per day. training local engineers
as the key expenditure
items.
85 | P a g e
Japan Mogmai Reputational: Brand When making beverage >6 years Unlikely High Engagement Annual As well as disclosing
Changes in damage purchase decisions, with expenditure on information on the
consumer consumers in the stakeholders information group’s water
management practices
behavior Japanese market have disclosure and
and environmental
come to consider not water performance, we work to
only product quality and management promote sustainable
safety, but also activities water management and
producers’ corporate amounts to conserve water
efforts to conserve water approximately resources with NGOs
resources and 20 million yen. active at the local level
like WWF-Japan so that
information disclosure
all local water users and
practices. If consumers environmental eco-
were to gain the systems can access
mistaken impression that sufficient amounts of
the group did not make good quality water.
efforts to conserve water We also donate to the
resources, or if they felt Green Fund operated by
the National Land
that such efforts were Afforestation Promotion
insufficient, our brands Organization to help
would lose consumers’ improve local water
trust, leading to a quality by reducing soil
situation where they erosion.
would not support or
select our products when
making beverage
purchase decisions.
86 | P a g e
W3.2d Please list the inherent water risks that could generate a substantive change in your business, operations, revenue or expenditure, the potential impact to your supply chain and the strategies
to mitigate them
Country River basin Risk driver Potential impact Description of Timeframe Likelihood Magnitude of Response strategy Costs of response Details of
potential impact potential strategy strategy and
financial impact costs
[Select [Select from]: [Select all that apply]: [Select from]: [open text: 1500 [Select from]: [Select from]: [Select from]: [Select all that apply]: [open text: 500 [open text: 2000
from]: Physical:  Brand damage characters max]  Current -up to 1  Highly  Low  Alignment of public policy positions characters max] characters max]
[list of basins]  Climate change  Constraint to growth year probable  Low-medium with water stewardship goals
 1- 3 years  Probable  Medium
[Country  Declining water quality  Closure of operations  Cost increase management
 4- 6 years  Unlikely  Medium-high
drop down Not known  Dependency on hydropower  Decrease in shareholder through regulated tariff-setting
 >6 years • Unknown  High
list]  Drought value • Unknown • Unknown process
 Ecosystem vulnerability  Delays in permitting  Develop flood emergency plans
Other, please  Flooding  Employee health and  Engagement with community
specify  Inadequate infrastructure well-being  Engagement with customers
 Increased water scarcity  Higher operating costs  Engagement with public policy
 Increased water stress  Fines/ penalties makers
 Pollution of water source  Litigation  Engagement with other
 Projected water scarcity  Loss of license to stakeholders in the river basin
 Projected water stress operate  Engagement with suppliers
 Rationing of municipal water supply  Disruption to sales  Establish site-specific targets
 Seasonal supply variability/inter annual  Plant/production  Infrastructure investment
variability disruption leading to  Infrastructure maintenance
Regulatory: reduced output  Greater due diligence
 Changed product standards  Property damage  Increased capital expenditure
 Higher water prices  Reduced demand for  Increased investment in new
 Increased difficulty in obtaining product technology
withdrawals/operations permit  Reduction in revenue  New products, markets
 Lack of transparency of water rights  Supply chain disruption  River basin restoration
 Limited or no river basin/catchment  Transport disruption  Re-siting of facilities
management  Water supply disruption  Promote best practice and
 Mandatory water efficiency, conservation,  Other, please specify awareness
recycling or process standards  Supplier diversification
 Poor coordination between regulatory  Strengthen links with local
bodies community
 Poor enforcement of water regulation  Tighter supplier performance
 Regulation of discharge quality/volumes standards
leading to higher compliance costs  Use of risk transfer instruments
 Regulatory uncertainty  Water management incentives
 Statutory water withdrawal limits/changes to  Other, please specify
water allocation
 Unclear and/or unstable regulations on
water allocation and wastewater discharge.
Reputational:
 Community opposition
 Inadequate access to water, sanitation and
hygiene
 Litigation
87 | P a g e
This question only appears if you select “Yes, direct operations and supply chain” or “Yes, supply
chain only” in response to question W3.1.
You are requested to respond to this question in the table provided in the ORS, reproduced above. A
sample answer is provided below. If you have multiple risks to report, you can add rows into the table
by using the ‘Add Row’ button to the bottom right.
Please note that CDP is ONLY asking for information on those river basins where your supply
chain is exposed to water risk that could generate a substantive change in your business,
operations, revenue or expenditure. For risks to your direct operations, please see guidance for
question W3.2c. For river basins where multiple risks result in the same potential impact, it is
now possible to choose multiple risks for one river basin in the ORS. It is also possible to
choose multiple response strategies in relation to potential impact on your business. It is not
possible to choose more than one potential impact on your business per river basin.
 Country
o In the first column, please select from the drop down menu the country in which you
wish to report on.
 River basin
DEG;
88 | P a g e
 Risk driver
There is a comprehensive list of potential risk drivers relevant to your organization’s
supply chain. They are broadly grouped into three categories; physical risk drivers,
regulatory risk drivers and reputational risk drivers. This list has been created using
detailed analysis of previous CDP response as well as guidance taken from the CEO
Water Mandate. For more information about potential risk drivers, please see Box 16:
Description of risk drivers. For river basins where multiple risks result in the same
potential impact and response strategy it is possible to choose multiple risks for one
river basin.
 Potential impact
o Please select from the drop down menu the potential primary impact of the identified
risk. Impacts can be operational or financial and can affect your organization, your
consumers or other stakeholders. If you cannot identify a potential impact that
accurately describes the risk driver, please choose “Other, please specify” and a text
box will appear to that you can write in your own impact. If you have identified
multiple impacts, please select the primary impact here and include secondary
impacts in the next column: ‘Description of impact’.
o Please use the open text box to include any additional details as to how the identified
risk will impact your organization. Alternatively, please include details as to secondary
impacts. Please use a maximum of 1500 characters in your answer. This maximum
includes spaces.
 Timeframe
o Please select from the drop down menu the appropriate timeframe as to when the
risks are likely to materialize. It is acknowledged that long-term risks are likely to have
a higher degree of uncertainty associated with them.
 Likelihood
o Please select from the drop down menu the likelihood of the identified risk impacting
your organization. The likelihood of the impact occurring, along with the magnitude
are the building blocks of a risk/opportunity matrix – a common method of identifying
and prioritizing risk and opportunities. The likelihood refers to the probability of the
impact to your business occurring within the timeframe provided, which in the
case of an inherent risk might be similar to the probability of the risk event
itself. For example, if the risk relates 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. See Box 14: Origin of likelihood terminology for more
information.
 Magnitude of potential financial impact

o Please detail the expected financial impact of the identified risk. The magnitude of
financial impact describes the extent to which the impact, if it occurred, would affect
your business financially. Your response should consider the business as a whole
and therefore the magnitude can reflect both the damage that can be caused and the
exposure to that potential damage. The range will vary between organizations so
please select an option that is appropriate to your business.
o For example, two organizations may have identical facilities located on the 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
89 | P a g e
production capacity, the magnitude of the potential financial impact will be much
higher for company A. As it is not possible to accurately define terms for magnitude
because of this variation, companies are asked to determine magnitude on a
qualitative scale of ‘High, Medium, Low and Unknown.’ If the financial impact has not
been assessed by your organization, please select ‘Unknown’.
with the Water Action Hub Action Areas, however we ask that you provide specifics
for the strategy in the “Details of strategy and costs” column.

 Costs of response strategy

o Please use this text field to provide information on the cost of your risk management
actions. Where possible, please provide numerical financial descriptions (open or
closed ranges or % relative to a stated or publicly available figure). If there are no
costs to managing the risk, this should be made clear. Please use no more than 500
characters in your answer.
 Details of strategy and costs

your response strategy. If you are able to provide a numerical value for the costs,
including the currency, please do so here. You may also include here secondary
response strategies for the identified risk if necessary. Please include information on
the following three facets on the strategy in regards to preventing either financial or
operational impacts:
 The timeframe expected for the response strategy to be implemented;
 How effective the response is; and
 The feasibility of success in preventing either financial or operational impacts.
90 | P a g e
including:

- If possible, the specific location of the project.
91 | P a g e
W3.2d Sample Response – for guidance only
Country River Risk driver Potential Description of Timeframe Likelihood Magnitude Response Costs of Details of strategy and
basin impact potential impact of strategy response costs
potential strategy
financial
impact
USA Upper Physical: Supply Declining Current - Probable Low Supplier We evaluate We operate a flexible
Colorado Increased chain groundwater levels up to 1 diversification supplier global business model
water stress disruption required for year capacity that allows us to
or scarcity irrigation; key cotton continuously diversify production to
suppliers are as part of apparel suppliers in
experiencing water our normal non-affected regions at
restrictions due to operating short notice to mitigate
prolonged regional costs so or reduce this risk.
droughts, reducing moving
supplies for suppliers
production facilities does not
in these locations. impact our
This is currently operating
causing disruption profits.
to our production
capacity in the US.
92 | P a g e
France Seine Physical: Higher There is a lack of 4-6 years Probable Medium Investment in US $ 2.5m We have invested in the
Declining operating wastewater infrastructure distribution of low-cost
water costs treatment capacity biogas digesters that
quality in rural locations help small-scale
and pollution farmers store their
prevention manure and collect the
regulations for manure’s methane gas
manure and silage as energy for home
storage and cooking, lighting, and
disposal is poorly heating. Biogas
enforced. 21% of production provides
available surface farmers with an
water (nationally) is economic incentive to
now unfit for manage their manure
agriculture use. supplies more
Local production effectively, reducing
costs for fragrance water contamination in
ingredients like the process. We started
lavender could rise this project in 2003 with
between 5-10% the installation of 400
over the next 5 biogas pits across the
years due to the district.
reduced supply of
water needed for
agricultural input.
93 | P a g e
Australia Murray Statutory Supply Following increasing >6 years Highly Medium- Engagement Up to We have developed a
Darling water chain salinity issues with Probable high with public AUS$15m strategy that
withdrawal disruption the Murray Darling policy makers encompasses two
limits/chang Basin, the Federal different facets. The first
es to water Government has of these is our
allocation introduced a policy engagement with local
to limit certain levels policy-makers
of withdrawal within governing this river
the basin. Currently, basin. As our
a number of our organization supports
significant suppliers the idea of stronger
are located within water stewardship in the
the region and it is region, we are working
estimated that 27% with policy makers to
of our dairy products ensure legislation
supply chain for reflects this. Secondly
Australia is at risk we are investing
following this AUS$15million in more
proposed legislation. water efficient
technology and
education for dairy
farmers we work with to
supply our
supermarkets.
94 | P a g e
W3.2e Please choose the option that best explains why you do not consider your
organization to be exposed to water risks in your direct operations that could
generate a substantive change in your business, operations, revenue or
expenditure
This question only appears if you select “No” in response to question W3.1 or if “Direct operations” is
not selected in question W3.1.

 Risks exist, but no substantive impact anticipated [open text: 1500 characters max]
 Evaluation in progress
 Not yet evaluated
In the first column, please select from the drop down menu the primary reason why your organization
is not exposed to water risks that have the potential to generate a substantive change in your
business operation, revenue or expenditure (current or future).
In the ‘Please explain’ column, please provide details as to why there are no water risks to your
organization, or give details of an evaluation currently in progress. This is a free text field and all
entries should be a maximum of 1500 characters. This maximum includes spaces.
W3.2f Please choose the option that best explains why you do not consider your
organization to be exposed to water risks in your supply chain that could
generate a substantive change in your business, operations, revenue or
expenditure
This question only appears if you select “No” in response to question W3.1 or if “Supply chain” is not
selected in question W3.1.

 Risks exist, but no substantive impact anticipated [open text: 1500 characters max]
 Evaluation in progress
 Not yet evaluated
 Judged to be unimportant
In the first column, please select from the drop down menu the primary reason why your supply chain
is not exposed to water risks that could generate a substantive change in your business, operations,
revenue or expenditure.
In the “Please explain” column, please provide details to explain why there are no water risks that
have the potential to generate a substantive change in your business operation, revenue or
expenditure, or give details of an evaluation currently in progress. This is a free text field and all
95 | P a g e
W3.2g Please choose the option that best explains why you do not know if your
organization is exposed to water risks that could generate a substantive
change in your business operations, revenue or expenditure and discuss any
future plans you have to assess this
Primary reason Future plans

 Environmental risk assessments are incomplete at this time [open text: 1500 characters max]
 No instruction from management
You will be asked to answer this question only if you have answered “Don’t know” to question W3.1,
indicating that you do not know if your company is exposed to water risks that have the potential to
generate a substantive change in your business operation, revenue or expenditure (current or future).
In the first column, please select from the drop down menu the primary reason why your organization
does not know if your company is exposed to water risk.
In the “Future plans” column, please use the open text box to explain why your company is not able to
identify its exposure and whether you have plans to explore this issue. If a risk assessment is
underway but incomplete, please include details of it, including the risk assessment method, its scope,
time horizon and when it will be completed. This is a free text field and all entries should be a
maximum of 1500 characters. This maximum includes spaces.
96 | P a g e
W4. Water opportunities
Question Pathway
The following questions are shown on the water opportunities page.
W4.1 Does water present strategic, operational or market opportunities that substantively
benefit/have the potential to benefit your organization?
Yes No
W4.1a Please describe the W4.1b Please choose the option that
opportunities water presents to your best explains why water does not present
organization and your strategies to your organization with any opportunities
realize them that have the potential to provide
substantive benefit
Don’t know
W4.1c Please choose the option that best
explains why you do not know if water
presents your organization with any
opportunities that have the potential to
provide substantive benefit
END
97 | P a g e
General guidance
This module allows companies to disclose any strategic opportunities water presents to their
business.
If you do not think that water offers any operational or market opportunities that substantively benefit
your business, you will be asked to explain why not. Similarly, if you do not know if water offers any
substantive benefit to your business, you will be given the opportunity to explain why you do not
know.
Specific methodologies and guidelines are not referenced for these questions. However, information
on impacts to business, water opportunities and water-energy linkages and strategic approaches to
joint management of these resources can be found in the following documents:
 Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (2008), “Climate Change and Water: IPCC
Technical Paper VI”
 Pacific Institute and the United Nations Global Compact (2009), “Climate Change and the Global
Water Crisis: What Businesses Need to Know and Do”
 World Business Council for Sustainable Development (2009), “Water, Energy and Climate
Change: A Contribution from the Business Community”
 CEO Water Mandate Corporate Water Disclosure Guidelines (2015) Chapter 5 Detailed
disclosure
 There are no changes to this section.
• The copy from last year function has been provided for questions W4.1, W4.1a, W4.1b and W4.1c.
98 | P a g e
W4. Water opportunities
W4.1 Does water present strategic, operational or market opportunities that

substantively benefit/have the potential to benefit your organization?
[Select from]:
 Yes
 No
 Don’t know
Please select “Yes”, “No”, or “Don’t know”. Please note that this question asks you about opportunities
that substantively benefit or have the potential to benefit your business.
Opportunities may be current or anticipated. Answer “Yes” even if you are already taking action to
pursue an opportunity. The definition of water opportunities is provided in Box 17: Water opportunities.
Box 17: Water opportunities
Changes in water availability and climatic conditions related to water may provide commercial
opportunities to some companies. These opportunities may include; increased operational efficiency,
cost-reducing processes and/or supply chain re-design, the creation of new markets for water
products, improved finance and/or risk management procedures, enhanced reputation and the ability
to influence government policy. Not all companies will be presented with opportunities. It may be
beneficial to review how changes that have already taken place have affected your company’s
business in the last ten years to begin determining whether further changes are likely to benefit your
company in coming years.
Opportunities may be presented by the following changes and factors:
Physical changes such as changing rainfall patterns may increase the demand for flood defenses
and storm-water systems in some areas. Your organization may provide goods and services that
enable others to adapt to physical changes.
Regulatory changes in water policy and standards may present opportunities for your company if it is
better suited than its competitors to meet regulation and/or is able to help others to do so by supplying
relevant products or is eligible for government subsidies.
Other factors relating to water may also present opportunities for your company, such as changes in
consumer attitudes or improved brand image due to your company’s water actions.
For more information on water opportunities facing business you can refer to the following sources:
CDP Annual Report of Corporate Water Disclosure 2016

CDP’s Water Data Visualization
CEO Water Mandate Water Stewardship Toolbox
World Business Council for Sustainable Development, Meridian Institute, World Resources Institute
(2008), “Corporate Ecosystem Services Review: Guidelines for Identifying Business Risks and
Opportunities Arising from Ecosystem Change”
Ceres (2009), “Water Scarcity and Climate Change: Growing Risks for Business and Investors”
99 | P a g e
W4.1a Please describe the opportunities water presents to your organization and your
strategies to realize them
Country or Opportunity Strategy to Estimated Comment

region realize timeframe
opportunity
[Select from]: [Select from]: [open text: 1500 [Select from]: [open text:
 Company-  Carbon management characters max]  Current - up 1500
wide  Climate change to 1 year characters
 Country adaptation  1-3 years max]
drop down  Collective action  4- 6 years
list  Competitive advantage  >6 years
 Other,  Cost savings  Unknown
please  Ensuring supply chain
specify resilience
 Improved community
relations
 Improved water efficiency
 Increased brand value
 Increased shareholder
value
 Innovation
 Regulatory changes
 R&D
 Sales of new
products/services
 Social license to operate
 Staff retention
If you have more than one opportunity you wish to report, you can enter them into the table by adding
more rows using the ‘Add Row’ button to the bottom right.
 Country or region
o The “Country or region” column requires you to select opportunities from a certain
scale. These include opportunities presented companywide, a country from the drop
down list or for you to select “Other” and fill in the text box provided to specify a
region of your own choosing. For example, a water issue that is important to your
business may be connected to a specific watershed within or across countries. In
such a case, you specify this local impact rather than one of the listed countries or
regions. Refer back to Box 7: Geographical scale if you require guidance on
geographical reach.
 Opportunity
o This column provides a drop-down list of types of opportunities. The list is limited to
general categories. However some opportunities may be unique to your company and
100 | P a g e
you can describe these using the “Other” option. Examples of opportunity types are
provided in Box 18: Opportunity types.
 Strategy to realize the opportunity

Please describe the strategies your company has in place, or has planned, in order to
take advantage of these water opportunities as they relate to your company
specifically. Include details of the financial impact of the opportunity, specify whether
the action is being implemented already, and include a case study or example of the
strategy in action if possible. Actions may include developing new product lines to
address water challenges or increased demand for certain product lines due to
changing consumer attitudes. This column is a free text field; all entries should be a
 Estimated timeframe
o This column asks you to provide the timescale in which you expect your business to
experience the water opportunity. For example, you may expect water opportunities
to arise in less than three years while another may not be anticipated for more than
ten years. In the first case, select “1-3 years” and in the second, select “>6 years”.
 Comment
o The “Comment” column allows you to provide any additional information about the
water opportunity you have not already described. This is a free text field and all
Box 18: Opportunity types
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.
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.
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.
Regulatory changes: 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.
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.
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.
101 | P a g e
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.
Innovation: 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.
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.
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.
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.
Climate change adaptation: 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.
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.
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 licence
to operate in regions of increasing water stress.
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.
Country or Opportunity Strategy to realize Estimated Comment

region opportunity timeframe
Other: Increased We plan to leverage our 1- 3 years We estimate that becoming the
Emerging brand value sector leader status with leading company in water efficient
economies an extensive marketing household wet appliances in these
(India, campaign targeting new emerging markets will increase
China etc.) and existing customers in our market share over the next
emerging markets with three years by 4%;
our new household wet
appliance line – Wash
N’Go. Through increased
advertising and
sponsorship, revenue
102 | P a g e
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%.
South Africa Cost savings Reducing water use by 1-3 years We have already installed water
increasing water recycling efficient measures at 10% of our
will lead to lower costs South African facilities in the past
and associated taxes 18 months which has resulted in
across our South African cost savings of ZAR 20,000 from
facilities; reducing reduced water charges.
wastewater loading will
reduce costs for treatment
and disposal across our
South African facilities.
We aim to install water
efficient technologies in
our entire portfolio of
South African facilities by
2014/15. We estimate
that this may result in
savings of up to ZAR 2
million per year once
implemented.
W4.1b Please choose the option that best explains why water does not present your
organization with any opportunities that have the potential to provide
substantive benefit
This question only appears if you select “No” in response to question W4.1.

 Opportunities exist, but nothing substantive
 Not yet evaluated
 No opportunities identified
The “Primary reason” column provides you with a drop down menu that allows you to either select a
reason or to select “Other” and fill in the text box provided to specify a reason of your own choosing.
In the “Please explain” column, please use the open text field to explain further why there are no
apparent water opportunities for your company, making reference to how you defined “opportunities”,
how you assessed them, and when you will next repeat the assessment. This free text field allows up
to a maximum of 1500 characters. This maximum includes spaces.
103 | P a g e
W4.1c Please choose the option that best explains why you do not know if water
presents your organization with any opportunities that have the potential to
provide substantive benefit

 Incomplete analysis
 Review of opportunities in progress
The “Primary reason” column provides you with a drop down menu that allows you to select a reason
why you do not know if water issues present a substantive opportunity to your company. If your
organization has not explored water opportunities, please give an indication as to why this is. For
example, you might select “No instruction from management” or “Judged to be unimportant”.
Otherwise, you can select “Other” and fill in the text box provided with a reason of your own choosing.
In the “Please explain” column, please explain why your company is not able to identify such
opportunities and whether you have plans to explore this issue. If a review of opportunities is in
progress, please give details of this including its scope and when it will be completed. This is a free
text field; all entries should be a maximum of 1500 characters. This maximum includes spaces.
104 | P a g e
Facility Level Water Accounting
Module Guidance
W5. Facility level water accounting

Question Pathway
The following questions are shown on the facility level water accounting page.
If “Yes, direct operations and supply chain” or if “Yes, direct operations only” are selected in response
to question W3.1, the “Facility level water accounting” section will appear. This water accounting data
is linked to the facilities disclosed in response to question W3.2a.
W5.1 Water withdrawals: for the reporting year, please complete the table below with water
accounting data for all facilities included in your answer to W3.2a
W5.1a Water withdrawals: for the reporting year, please provide withdrawal data, in megaliters
per year, for the water sources used for all facilities reported in W5.1
W5.2 Water discharge: for the reporting year, please complete the table below with water
accounting data for all facilities included in your answer to W3.2a
W5.2a Water discharge: for the reporting year, please provide water discharge data, in
megaliters per year, by destination for all facilities reported in W5.2
W5.3 Water consumption: for the reporting year, please provide water consumption data for all
facilities reported in W3.2a
W5.4 For all facilities reported in W3.2a what proportion of their water accounting data has
been externally verified?
END
105 | P a g e
General guidance
In this section, CDP requests you disclose water accounting data, for only those operations exposed
to water risks that have the potential to generate a substantive change in your business operation,
revenue or expenditure (current or future). This section is linked to question W3.2a.Please ensure you
have completed question W3.2a before continuing with this section.
In question W3.2a you were asked to provide details for those facilities exposed to water risks that
had the potential to generate a substantive change in your business operation, revenue or
expenditure (current or future).
When responding in this section to questions W5.1, W5.1a, W5.2, W5.2a, W5.3, and W5.4 we
request that you provide facility-level information for only those facilities reported in W3.2a,
not all of your facilities.
N.B. If you did not have any operations exposed to water risks that have the potential to
generate a substantive change in your business operations, revenue or expenditure and
therefore were not asked to complete question W3.2a, you do not need to complete this
section.
This section requests information on water accounting as currently practiced by your company. This
module is broken down into the following sections:
 Questions W5.1 and W5.2 covers measurement of water withdrawals and discharges;
 Water consumption data is requested in question W5.3;
 Question W5.4 requests information as to level of verification your organization is able to
provide on their accounting figures at facility level.
 None.
Measuring corporate impacts on water in relation to risk

Measuring corporate impacts on water resources is difficult. While some companies regularly collect
data on operational water use and wastewater discharges, communicating those metrics into
measures of local impact, such as those impacts on the water quality, ecosystems or local
communities remains challenging.
Please note that CDP recognizes the fact that the maturity of the water disclosure practice is often
directly related to the maturity of your organization’s water management policies and practice. In
understanding organizations will be at different levels of maturity and thus not all able to provide the
same level of detail, the facility level water accounting section includes both ‘Basic’ questions (W5.1
and W5.2) that CDP expects all organizations to be able to answer as well as ‘Advanced’ questions
(W5.1a, W5.2a and W5.3) for companies with more mature disclosure practices.
Organizations that are more advanced and are able to report information at a facility and river basin or
catchment level should do so as this more granular reporting is currently deemed to be best practice
for corporate reporting. Investors are using the ability of an organization to report at this level as a
proxy for sound risk management. Organizations that are unable to report at this level and instead
provide more basic information imply that they do not have a full understanding of the risk.
106 | P a g e
Box 19: Reporting facility level water accounting information and its relation to risk
Please note that we encourage you to report accounting figures only for those facilities you
have already identified as being at substantive water risk in question W3.2a. For any facilities
for which you do not have data, please leave the field blank. We encourage this approach because
water accounting (withdrawals and discharges) figures:
 Can be difficult to collect for all countries in which you operate and reporting these breakdown of
figures for all facilities/operations may represent significant resource costs to your company; and
 Are only meaningful when coupled with the location in which the water transactions take place.
Water transactions in areas of substantive water stress or water risk are more significant than water
transactions in areas with no or unsubstantial risk.
N.B. Please note that we aware that we are requesting facility level water accounting figures
regardless of the type of substantive water risk being reported for those river basins. In occasional
cases, such as in the case of flooding of mining operations, disclosure of facility level water
accounting may not be directly meaningful for management of that water risk. However investors are
using the ability of an organization to report information at facility and river basin level as a proxy for
sound risk management and therefore this information may also be applied broadly as confidence in
other types of water risk management. CDP hopes to be able to offer more tailored options for
response in future as our reporting technology advances.
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. However
the emphasis should be placed on reporting transparently and providing an explanation why reported
data cannot be validated by expanding on the uncertainty in your data in the “please explain” or
“comment” explanation columns provided in the water accounting questions.
The specific guidance for each question below will provide you with relevant information on water
withdrawals and discharges to help you answer the questions. Questions in the water accounting
section of the 2017 information request are predominantly based on recommendations from
the CEO Water Mandate Corporate Water Disclosure Guidelines and consultation with external
CDP stakeholders.
For further assistance please note that in the GRI Standards, Disclosures 303-1 and 306-1 are
aligned with CDP questions in the accounting section.
Prep-population is not enabled for this page.

Definitions for each type of water use are included below. Due to the correlation on water accounting
between CDP’s water questionnaire and GRI Standards, the definitions have been primarily aligned
with GRI water definitions. In cases where GRI does not specifically define a type of water use, CDP
107 | P a g e
has aligned itself with those definitions provided by the CEO Water Mandate, Ceres Aqua Gauge or
other relevant water definitions.
Definitions for each type of water use requested:
 Water withdrawals
o GRI defines total water withdrawals in Disclosure 303-1 as: “The sum of all water drawn
into the boundaries of the organization from all sources (including surface water, ground
water, rainwater, and municipal water supply) for any use over the course of the reporting
year.”
o Please note that cooling water (freshwater or sea water) can often be withdrawn in large
quantities and returned in similar volumes to its original source with negligible losses or
variation in quality. You should report this in question W5.1a.
 Water discharge
o GRI defines water discharge in Indicator Disclosure 306-1 as: “The sum of water effluents
discharged over the course of the reporting year to subsurface waters, surface waters,
sewers that lead to rivers, oceans, lakes, wetlands, treatment facilities, and ground water
either through:
 A defined discharge point (point source discharge)
 Over land in a dispersed or undefined manner (non-point source discharge)
 Wastewater removed from the organization via truck.
discharge”.
o 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 may wish to include rainwater/runoff
drawn into the boundaries of their operations as a water discharge in question W5.2a.
 Water consumption
o CDP recognizes that the term ‘water consumption’ is not consistently defined or used.
For the purpose of this questionnaire, CDP uses Ceres’s definition of water consumption,
an “amount of water that is used but not returned to its original source”. This includes
water that has evaporated, transpired, has been incorporated into products, crops or
waste, consumed by man or livestock or otherwise removed from the local source.
For further information when answering these questions, you may want to refer to the GRI Standards.
W5. Facility level water accounting
W5.1 Water withdrawals: for the reporting year, please complete the table below with
water accounting data for all facilities included in your answer to W3.2a
In question W3.2a you were asked to provide details to those facilities exposed to water risks that
have the potential to generate a substantive change in your business operation, revenue or
expenditure (current or future). When responding to questions W5.1, W5.1a, W5.2, W5.2a W5.3 and
W5.4 we request that you provide facility-level information for all of those facilities reported in
question W3.2a. Please note that CDP is not asking for information for all facilities, just those
exposed to substantive water risk as defined in question W3.2. A sample answer is provided
below.
108 | P a g e
Please note that the facilities listed in W3.2a should match the river basin locations for W5.1 and
subsequent questions in W5.
Please note: W5.1 is a leading question, prompting linked sets of follow up questions to
appear depending on the response given. If question W5.1 is amended after subsequent follow
up questions are completed, then these related data will also be erased. Please ensure that
you re-enter the data for the follow up questions also, as appropriate.
Facility Country River Facility Total water How does the Please explain
reference basin name withdrawals total water
number (megaliters / withdrawals at
year) at this this facility
facility compare to the
last reporting
year?
[drop down [Select [Select [Select [numeric] [Select from]: [open text: 500
reference from]: from]: from]:  Much lower characters max]
number] [Country  Lower
drop [list of [open text:  About the
down river 500 same
list] basin] characters  Higher
max]  Much higher
Not
 This is our first
known
year of
Other, measurement
please
specify
Please note that CDP considers question W5.1 to be a basic level accounting question.
answering these questions, you may want to refer to the GRI Standards.
 Facility reference number

o Please select a facility reference number from the drop down menu provided. The
facility reference number is not specific to your organization, but is used by CDP to
track information related to the same facility in following questions. The use of the
facility reference number prevents responding companies from having to provide the
same information for both the river basin and facility name for following questions
W5.1a-W5.3.
 Country
o In the second column, please select from the drop down menu the country in which
facilities exposed to water risk that could generate a substantive change in your
business, operations, revenue or expenditure are located.
 River basin
109 | P a g e
that the correct country name is selected in the “Country” column adjacent.
o Examples of tools/methods that can help you identify the river basin location for your
withdrawal information are given in Box 9: Examples of methods used to characterize
water risk.
 Facility name
Please use the text box provided to specify the facility name you will be providing
water accounting data for. Please note that this should be the same facility used
throughout questions W5.1a – W5.3.
 Total water withdrawals at this facility

o Question W5.1 corresponds to GRI Disclosure 303-1 in the Standards. Information on
your company’s water withdrawals may be collected from several sources. According
to GRI, it can be drawn “from water meters, water bills, calculations derived from
other available water data or (if neither water meters nor bills or reference data exist)
the organization’s own estimates.” Please provide data from these sources.
3
 How does the total water withdrawals compare at this facility to the last reporting year?
o Please select from the drop down menu if the water withdrawals for the specified
facility were: “Much higher, Higher, About the same, Lower, Much lower”, than the
data, please select “This is our first year of measurement” and provide explanation in
the next column.
water use therefore it would difficult to set thresholds for these categories that would
be meaningful for each company.
110 | P a g e
 Please explain
o Please use the text box provided to give details if the water data was or was not
different to the previous reporting year or if there has been no change. Please also
use this text box to indicate if this is the first year your organization has recorded
water accounting data for the specified facility. You can use up to a maximum of 500
characters.
o SCORING: If the change to your water data is NOT substantially different to the
previous reporting year, then please put ‘No change’ into the cell in the column titled
“Please explain” This instruction is for automated scoring purposes. See Box 3:
Country River Facility Facility Total water How does the total Please explain
basin name reference withdrawals water withdrawals at
number (megaliters / this facility compare
year) at this to the last reporting
facility year?
Scotland St. The Oxford Facility 1 120842.34 Higher Due to the overall growth of
Lawre pass our business, our total
nce Distillery water withdrawals
increased at this facility by
10%. Despite this, the
water intensity of our
operations decreased by
17% compared to the
previous reporting year and
by 22% compared to a
baseline of 2008. As this
facility is in a water-
stressed area, we aim to
reduce the total water
withdrawal by 5% by 2015
and 25% by 2020. This will
be achieved by the
installation of new water
pumps in early 2014.
W5.1a Water withdrawals: for the reporting year, please provide withdrawal data*, in
megaliters per year, for the water sources used for all facilities reported in W5.1
*This table is pre-populated with the same number of rows chosen to respond to question W5.1
111 | P a g e
CDP requests that you provide facility level information, using the facility reference number
selected in W5.1. This should only include those facilities identified in W3.2a that were listed
as exposed to water risks that have the potential to generate a substantive change in your
business operation, revenue or expenditure (current or future).
Facility Fresh Brackish Rain Groundwater Groundwater Produced/ Municipal Waste water Comment
reference surface surface water (renewable) (non- process water from another
number water water renewable) water organization
/seawater
[drop down [numeric] [numeric] [numeric] [numeric] [numeric] [numeric] [numeric] [numeric] [open text
reference 500
number] characters
max]
Please remember to assign water accounting data to the correct water facility as identified in question
W5.1. Please note that each facility reference number should correspond to a single facility.
Please note that CDP considers question W5.1a to be an advanced level accounting question.
3
report this volume up to two decimal places. Your reporting year is the time period you stated in
response to question W0.2 in the introduction module.
SCORING: If any of the listed water sources are not used in your water withdrawal, please do not
leave the field blank but report 0.00 megaliters/year. It is not possible to state ‘N/A’ due to restrictions
in the ORS. If you wish to distinguish between a quantity of zero or negligible value and a water
source that is not relevant, please do so in the comment box. This instruction is for automated
scoring purposes. See Box 3: Reporting company-wide water accounting information & Water
scoring for further information on how to complete table questions and avoid unnecessary scoring
errors.
Note on withdrawal source definitions: CDP makes a further distinction than GRI when defining
withdrawal sources for reporting purposes, splitting sources into quality categories including fresh and
brackish surface water and renewable and non-renewable groundwater. This distinction is to help
companies to demonstrate their potential risk exposure from different water sources. For example, a
utility company may use large volumes of surface water for cooling purposes but the water quality
may not be fresh. Companies should report this information by selecting ‘Brackish 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.

o Please select from the drop down menu the facility reference number for the facility
you wish to report basic water withdrawal accounting data.

o Surface water is naturally occurring water on the Earth's surface in ice sheets, ice
112 | P a g e
 Groundwater (renewable)
substantially filled with the water. Renewable groundwater sources can be
replenished relatively quickly and are usually located at shallow depths.
 Groundwater (non-renewable or fossil)

substantially filled with the water. Non-renewable groundwater is generally located at
deeper depths and cannot be replenished easily or is replenished over very long
periods of time. They are sometimes referred to as “fossil” groundwater sources.
 Municipal water
o Water provided by a municipality or other public provider.
 Produced/process water
o Water which, during extraction or processing, comes into direct contact with or results
from the production or use of any raw material (e.g. crude oil or a by-product from
sugar cane crushing), intermediate product, finished product, by-product, or waste
product. Please note this category should NOT be confused with recycled water.
 Wastewater from another organization

o Ceres Aqua gauge defines wastewater as “Water that is of no further immediate
value to the purpose for which it was used or in the pursuit of which it was produced
because of its quality, quantity or time of occurrence.”
o Cooling water is not considered to be wastewater.

 Comment
o Please use this field to explain further detail for any of your withdrawal source
information.
W5.2 Water discharge: for the reporting year, please complete the table* below with
water accounting data for all facilities included in your answer to W3.2a
113 | P a g e
Facility Total water discharged How does the total water discharged Please explain
reference (megaliters/year) at this at this facility compare to the last
number facility reporting year?
[drop down [numeric] [Select from]: [open text: 500
reference  Much lower characters max]
number]  Lower
 About the same
 Higher
 Much higher
measurement
Please note that CDP considers question W5.2 to be a basic level accounting question.
3
report this volume up to two decimal places. (Your reporting year is the time period you stated in
response to question W0.2 in the Introduction module.)

o Please select from the drop down menu the facility reference number for the facility
you wish to report water discharge from.
 Total water discharged (megaliters/year) at this facility.

o Please report the total water discharged for each facility up to two decimal places.
o According to GRI’s explanation of Indicator G4-EN22, water discharges are defined
as “water effluents discharged over the course of the reporting year to subsurface
waters, surface waters, sewers that lead to rivers, oceans, lakes, wetlands, treatment
facilities, and ground water either through:
discharge”.
o 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) many wish to include rainwater/runoff drawn into the boundaries of
their operations as a water discharge in question W1.2b for these reasons and
explain this in the “Comment” column provided.
3
114 | P a g e
 How does the total water discharged at this facility compare to the last reporting year?
o Please select from the drop down menu if the total water discharged for the specified
next column.
water use therefore it would difficult to set thresholds for these categories that would
be meaningful for each company.

 Please explain
o Please use the text box provided to give details if the water data was or was not is
characters.
Facility reference Total water How does the total water Please explain the change if
number discharged discharged at this facility substantive
(megaliters/year) at compare to the last
this facility reporting year?
Facility 1 80348.98 Lower At the Oxford Pass Distillery, we
introduced new technology which
combines anaerobic digestion and
water recovery. Whilst this was
introduced in the middle of the
reporting year, it is expected that it
will reduce the total volume of
wastewater discharge by 40%.
115 | P a g e
W5.2a Water discharge: for the reporting year, please provide water discharge data*,
in megaliters per year, by destination for all facilities reported in W5.2
Facility Fresh Municipal/industrial Seawater Groundwater Wastewater Comment

reference surface wastewater/ for another
number water treatment plant organization
[drop [numeric] [numeric] [numeric] [numeric] [numeric] [open text;
down 500
reference characters
number] max]
Please note that CDP considers question W5.2a to be an advanced level accounting question.
3
report this volume up to two decimal places. Your reporting year is the time period you stated in
response to question W0.2 in the Introduction module.
SCORING: If any of the listed water sources are not used in your water withdrawal, please do not
leave the field blank but report 0.00 megaliters/year. It is not possible to state ‘N/A’ due to restrictions
in the ORS. If you wish to distinguish between a quantity of zero or negligible value and a water
source that is not relevant, please do so in the comment box. This instruction is for automated
scoring purposes. See Box 3: Reporting company-wide water accounting information & Water
scoring for further information on how to complete table questions and avoid unnecessary scoring
errors.
Guidance on responding to each of the columns is provided below.

o Please select from the drop down menu provided the facility reference number for the
facility you wish to report basic water discharge accounting data.

o Surface water is naturally occurring water on the Earth’s surface in ice sheets, ice

 (Discharge to) Groundwater

o The discharge of water underground via soil to water beneath the soil surface or
directly to a water bearing layer of rock (aquifer) by human activity or natural activity.
116 | P a g e
o Examples of discharges to groundwater include disposal of sewage, trade effluent
and surface water (run-off from urban areas). This can be achieved through various
methods such as dug or constructed spreading basins, soakaways, swales or
injection wells.
 Municipal/industrial wastewater treatment plant

o A facility for the treatment of municipal wastewater. The treatment can be primary,
secondary or tertiary
 Wastewater for another organization

o Wastewater that is reused by another organization than yours. Please note that this
other organization must be outside the reporting boundary given in question W0.2 to
qualify as “another organization”. If it is within your reporting boundary, then the final
discharge destination outside of the reporting boundary should be stated instead.
 Comment
o Please use this field to explain further detail for any of your discharge destination
information.
W5.3 Water consumption: for the reporting year, please provide water consumption
data* for all facilities reported in W3.2a
Facility reference Consumption How does this compare to the last Please explain
number (megaliters/year) reporting year?
[drop down [numeric] [Select from]: [open text: 500
reference  Much Lower characters max]
number]  Lower
 About the same
 Higher
 Much Higher
measurement
3
million liters or 1000 m ). Please report this volume up to two decimal places. Your reporting year is
the time period you stated in response to question W0.2 in the Introduction module.
answering these questions, you may want to refer to the Standards.

o Please select a facility reference number from the drop down list provided. The facility
reference number is not specific to your organization, but is used by CDP through the
following questions to track information related to the same facility. The use of the
117 | P a g e
facility reference number prevents responding companies from having to provide the
same information for both the river basin and facility name throughout the Accounting
module.
 Consumption (megaliters/year)
o Please report the total water consumption for each facility up to two decimal places.
o Ceres Aqua Gauge recognizes that the term ‘water consumption’ is not consistently
defined or used. For the purpose of this questionnaire, CDP uses Ceres’s definition of
water consumption as an “amount of water that is used but not returned to its original
source.” This includes water that has evaporated, transpired, has been incorporated
into products, crops or waste, consumed by man or livestock or otherwise removed
from the local source.
o If reporting zero consumption please refer to Box_5: Reporting “zero discharges”.
 How does this compare to the last reporting year?

o Please select from the drop down menu if the total consumption for the specified
following column.
 Please explain
o Please use the text box provided to give details if the water data was or was not
characters.
118 | P a g e
W5.4 For all facilities reported in W3.2a what proportion of their water accounting
data has been externally verified?
Water aspect % verification What standard and methodology

was used?
Water withdrawals – total volumes [Select from]: [open text: 500 characters max]
 Not verified
 1-25
 26-50
 51-75
 76-100
Water withdrawals – volume by sources
Water discharges – total volumes
Water discharges – volume by destination
Water discharges – volume by treatment
method
Water discharge quality data –
quality by standard effluent parameters
Water consumption – total volume
Please complete the table provided by first selecting the proportion of verification your organization
has completed for each water aspect only for those facilities exposed to water risks that have the
potential to generate a substantive change in your business operation, revenue or expenditure
(current or future), as referenced in question W3.2a.
Please note, we are not asking for verification of water accounting data across your entire
organization. Please see Box 20: Verification for an example on how to calculate the proportion of
facilities at risk verified using a sampling methodology.
For those water aspects that are verified, please use the open text box provided in the column labeled
‘What standard and methodology was used’ and provide details as to the standard your organization
uses to verify your accounting data plus the methodology used and scope of that methodology e.g. a
sampling method, so that investors are aware that this approach has been taken and may check the
data if necessary.
If you do not verify your water accounting data, please select ‘Not verified’ from the options available.
Please also provide an explanation as to why this water aspect is not verified in the column labeled
‘What standard and methodology was used’.
119 | P a g e
Box 20: Verification
By Verification, CDP refers to third-party, independent verification according to a recognized, relevant
standard.
At the present time, CDP recognizes the lack of universally applied verification standards for water.
So CDP requests that companies disclose the extent of any current verification practices and the
standards they are using. This information will guide future development of questions on verification.
The GHG Protocol defines verification for greenhouse gas emissions and this definition can equally
be applied to the verification of water information:
Verification involves the assessment of the risks of material discrepancies in reported data.
Discrepancies relate to differences between reported data and data generated from the proper
application of the relevant standards and methodologies.
Verification may have different objectives, which are agreed upon by the verifier and the
commissioning company. The GHG protocol specifies possible objectives for the verification which,
again, may also apply to water. These include:
 Enhancing stakeholder trust by increasing the credibility of the publicly reported information
and demonstrating progress towards targets;
 Increasing senior management confidence in reported information on which to base
investment and target setting decisions;
 Improving internal accounting and reporting practices and facilitating learning and knowledge
transfer within the company; and
 Preparation for mandatory verification requirements.
How to report the proportion of verification for facilities at risk
If any of the water aspects requested in W5.4 are assured globally then 100% of that water aspect is
verified. This would capture all facilities exposed to substantive water risk and it would be possible to
report 76-100% for the water aspects measured.
If a company reports 50% global numbers assured then you would need to check how many of the
water risky sites, reported in question W3.2a, are assured within this sample and then report this
proportion in response to W5.4.
If a sampling method has been applied to your assurance then you will need to check with your
verifier to understand the scope of the verification and whether your water risky sites are captured.
Please report the methodology and scope covered in the column’ What standard and methodology
was used?’ in question W5.4.
120 | P a g e
Response Module Guidance
W6. Government & strategy

Question Pathway
The following questions are shown on the Response: Government & strategy page.
W6.1 Who has the highest level of direct responsibility for water within your organization and how
frequently are they briefed?
W6.2 Is water management integrated into your business strategy?
Yes No
W6.2a Please choose the option(s) that
best explains how water has positively
influenced your business strategy
W6.2c: Please choose the option that best
explains why your organization does not
integrate water management into its
W6.2b: Please choose the option(s) that business strategy and discuss any future
best explains how water has negatively plans to do so
W6.3: Does your organization have a water policy that sets out clear goals and guidelines for
action?
Yes No
W6.3a: Please select the content that best
describes your water policy (tick all that apply)
W6.4: How does your organization’s water capital expenditure (CAPEX) and operating expenditure
(OPEX) during the most recent reporting year compare to the previous reporting year?
END
121 | P a g e
General guidance
This section of the CDP water questionnaire focuses on your organization’s response to its water use
and is comprised of three subsections:
 Governance & strategy – has your organization integrated water into its core management
process and planning?
 Compliance – does your organization comply with water regulation?
 Targets & initiatives – has your organization developed targets and initiatives that aim to
improve its water performance and reduce water risks?
The government & strategy module asks you to disclose information about your company’s water
policies, strategies or management plans. It also allows you to report on water actions that your
company has taken which fall outside your water policy strategy or plan.
The questions in the government and strategy module focus on the following aspects:
 Question W6.1 identifies the highest level of direct responsibility within your organization;
 Question W6.2 explores the integration of water into your organization’s business strategy
focused on understanding either positive or negative impacts;
 Questions W6.3 asks about goals and guidelines your organization has set for action; and
 Question W6.4 asks about your organizations water related capital and operational
expenditure.
 None
• The copy from last year function has been provided for questions W6.1, W6.2, W6.2a, W6.2b and
W6.2c, W6.3, W6.3a and W6.4.
122 | P a g e
W6. Governance & strategy
W6.1 Who has the highest level of direct responsibility for water within your
organization and how frequently are they briefed?
Highest level of direct responsibility for water Frequency of briefings on water issues Comment
issues
[Select from]: [Select from]: [open text:
 Board of individuals/Sub-set of the Board  Scheduled - quarterly 1000
or other committee appointed by the  Scheduled – annual characters
Board  Scheduled - twice per year max]
 Senior Manager/Officer  Scheduled - monthly
 Other Manager/Officer  Sporadic - as important matters
 No individual or committee with overall arise
responsibility for water  Never (does not happen)
 Other, please specify  Other, please specify
 Highest level of direct responsibility for water issues

o Using the drop down menu, please select the highest level of direct responsibility for
which water management applies. If there is no relevant drop down option that best
represents your organization’s responsibility for water management, please select the
“Other” option and complete the text field with the appropriate title.
 Frequency of briefings on water issues

o Please select the closest dropdown option that reflects the frequency of briefings on
water issues at your organization that incorporate the highest level of direct
responsibility selected in the first column.
o Please put any detailed or more explicit information about the frequency of briefings
e.g. that the briefing is an annual review against targets, within the ‘Comment’ field
rather than selecting ‘Other’ within the ‘Frequency’ column. Please keep this column
for frequency of reporting only e.g. scheduled quarterly.
 Comment
o If no individual or committee has overall responsibility with water, or if there are never
any briefings on water issues within your company, or if you would like to be more
explicit about the type of briefing undertaken, please use the comment box to provide
an explanation as to why. This is a free text field and all entries should be a maximum
of 1000 characters.
o Alternatively, please also use the comment box to provide any additional information
as to the level of water responsibility and frequency of briefings in your company.
W6.2 Is water management integrated into your business strategy?
[Select from]:
 Yes
 No
123 | P a g e
Please select “Yes” only if water management is integrated into your business strategy at the
corporate level. If water management is only integrated into your organization at the facility level,
please select “No”.
Box 21: Water management

In a corporate context, water management will mean a general or specific plan to manage water
issues affecting your company. Water management may imply CSR or environmental reporting and
may incorporate tools and resources used in water initiatives. Although your water management plan
can take many forms, it generally must be guided by a mission or vision, have clear objectives and
have an action plan.
Water management should extend beyond technical intervention that impacts water at a specific
facility and instead be embedded within the organization’s strategy. An organization’s water
management should include governance structure, accountability, water performance standards,
supply chain and policy, and will also go beyond an organization’s own water use and look to engage
stakeholders such as the local community and policy makers. Integration and understanding between
water and other sustainability issues, such as energy, also enhance water management and establish
best practice.
W6.2a Please choose the option(s) below that best explains how water has positively
Influence of water on business strategy Please explain

[Select from]: [open text: 1500
 Alignment of public policy positions with water stewardship goals characters max]
 Establishment of sustainability goals
 Establishment of a clear water strategy
 Exploration of water valuation practices
 Exploration of environmental impact
 Greater due diligence
 Introduction of water management KPIs
 Investment in staff / training
 Water resource considerations are factored into location planning for new
operations
 Water resources considerations are factored into site expansions
 Water resource considerations are factored into new product development
 Water resource considerations are factored into new market exploration
 Publicly demonstrated our commitment to water
 Water is factored into procurement directives
 Greater supplier diversification
 Greater supplier engagement
 Greater customer engagement
 Greater employee engagement
 Greater regulator engagement
 Tighter operational performance standards
 Tighter supplier performance standards
124 | P a g e
 Water management incentives established for employees
 Water management incentives established for senior management
 Water management incentives established for suppliers
 Accelerating vital research and development
 No measurable influence
Add Row
If you have multiple drivers that have positively influenced your business strategy, you can add rows
into the table by using the “Add Row” button to the bottom right.
Please select from the options that best explain how water has positively influenced your business
7
strategy. CDP has taken guidance from The Ceres Aqua Gauge in addition to analysis of previous
CDP responses to develop and provide a comprehensive list of drop down options. If, however, you
cannot find an option that is applicable to your organization, please select “Other, please specify” and
a text box will appear where you can write in your own response.
In the “Please explain” column, please provide additional details that explain the circumstances as to
how water has positively influenced your organization’s business strategy, a company-specific
example of how this influenced the company and an outcome. This box is an open text field; all

Greater supplier diversification Water shortages can disrupt dyeing operations,
particularly in China, and this has caused disruption
to our supply chain in the past. We now operate a
flexible global business model that allows us to
diversify production to apparel suppliers in non-
affected regions at short notice, allowing the
company to continue to achieve forecasted annual
targets.
Water resource considerations are factored Increased demand for water efficient household
into new market exploration appliances in the Western US is being driven by
new regulations to tackle drought conditions in
several states. We estimate that becoming the
leading company in water efficient household wet
appliances will increase our market share by 4%
over the next three years. We forecast increased
revenue of US$ 150 million as a result of this
increased market share.
Alignment of public policy positions with water Our company is committed to the long-term
stewardship goals stewardship of water resources. As such we
support strong water policy such as the proposed
Murray-Darling Basin Plan, which aims to
7
For more information about Ceres Aqua Gauge tool here:
http://www.ceres.org/resources/reports/aqua-gauge/view
125 | P a g e
encourage improved water management by all
stakeholders. We provided a consultation response
to the Plan, encompassing our stakeholders,
including representatives of our agricultural supply
chain, employees and communities near our food
canning facilities during the consultation, and have
initiated sector engagement in support of the Plan.
Our commitment to positive engagement means we
are better placed to respond to changes in
regulation, and ensure that long term water risks to
our business in the region are diminished.
W6.2b Please choose the option(s) below that best explains how water has negatively
This question is a follow up question from W6.2a and only appears if you select “Yes” in response to
question W6.2.

 Closure of operations
 Divestment from regions exposed to water risks
 Increased capital expenditure
 Increased insurance cover
 Reduction in business expansion
 Delays in business expansion
 Reduction in projected sales/demand
 Impacts on other sustainability KPIs
 No measurable influence
Add Row
If you have multiple drivers that have negatively influenced your business strategy, you can add
further options into the table by adding more rows using the “Add Row” button to the bottom right.
Please select from the options provided in the drop down menu how water has negatively influenced
your business strategy.
If none of the available options are suitable for your business, please select “Other, please specify”
and a text box will appear so that you can write in your response.
In the text box provided in the “Please explain” column, please provide additional details on the
circumstances why water has had a negative impact on your organization’s business strategy a
company-specific example of how this influenced the company and an outcome. If there is no
influence, please explain why and how you expect this to change in the future. This box is an open
text field; all entries should be a maximum of 1500 characters. This maximum includes spaces.
126 | P a g e
W6.2c Please choose the option that best explains why your organization does not
integrate water management into its business strategy and discuss any future
plans to do so

 Water does not pose a substantive risk to the
business strategy
 Under review/in progress
In the drop down menu, please select the primary reason as to why your organization does not
currently integrate water management into its business strategy.
Please note that organizations should only select “Water does not pose a substantive risk to the
business strategy”, if they have completed a robust risk assessment that ensures water does not pose
a substantive risk to the business. If your organization has not performed a complete water risk
assessment, please select an alternative option.
In the text box provided in the “Please explain” column, please explain why your organization has not
integrated water management into its business strategy and if you intend to put one in place. If “Under
review/in progress” has been selected please include when this process is due to be completed. This
box is an open text field and all entries should be a maximum of 1500 characters. This maximum
includes spaces.
W6.3 Does your organization have a water policy that sets out clear goals and
guidelines for action?
[Select from]:
 Yes
 No
Whilst CDP understands that individual organizational policies are likely to be varied and complex,
this question aims to gain an understanding as to the inclusion of a number of key elements;
 Is your organization’s water policy publicly available and is it incorporated within the group
environmental, sustainability or EHS policy?
 Does your organization’s water policy cover your entire organization? Or is it only applicable
for select facilities?
 Does your organization’s water policy include performance standards for all of the following:
direct operations, suppliers, and procurement process and procedures?
 Does your organization’s water policy include recognized best practice process and
procedures?
 Does your organization’s water policy include a commitment to customer education?
 Does your organization’s water policy include guidelines as to the human right to water,
health and sanitation?
127 | P a g e
If “Yes”:
W6.3a Please select the content that best describes your water policy (tick all that
apply)
Content Please explain why this content is included

[Select all that apply]: [open text: 1500 characters max]
 Publicly available
 Company-wide
 Select facilities only
 Performance standards for direct
operations
 Performance standards for supplier,
procurement and contracting best
practice
 Commitment to customer education
 Incorporated within group
environmental, sustainability or EHS
policy
 Acknowledges the human right to water,
sanitation and hygiene
 Other
Please tick all options that describe the content that best describes your water policy. If there is
content not covered in the options presented, please select ‘Other’ to provide a description.
In the text box provided in the “Please explain why this content is included” column, please explain
why your organization has included this content within their water policy, and why you exclude any
content, if relevant. This box is an open text field and all entries should be a maximum of 1500
characters. This maximum includes spaces.
W6.4 How does your organization’s water-related capital expenditure (CAPEX) and
operating expenditure (OPEX) during the most recent reporting year compare to the
previous reporting year?
Water CAPEX (+/- % change) Water OPEX (+/- % change) Motivation for these changes
[numeric response] [numeric response] [open text: 1000 characters max]
A worked example is available in Box 22: CAPEX and OPEX below.
o Water spending (CAPEX)

o Please provide a figure that specifies the proportion of total water capital expenditure
your organization has spent in the last reporting year. You may report the figure as a
negative or positive percentage up to four decimal places.
128 | P a g e
o Water spending (OPEX)
o Please provide a figure that specifies the proportion of total water operating
expense your organization has spent in the last reporting year. You may report
the figure as a negative or positive percentage up to four decimal places.
o Motivation for these changes

o Please use the open text box to provide details as to why your organizations
CAPEX or OPEX has increased, decreased, or remained the same when
comparing this reporting year to the previous reporting year. This is an open text
box that can take a maximum of 1000 characters. This maximum includes
spaces.
Box 22: CAPEX and OPEX
For the purpose of this questionnaire CAPEX AND OPEX are defined as:
Capital expenditure (CAPEX) “Represents the money invested by a company to acquire or upgrade
fixed assets [related to water], such as buildings and equipment. Capital expenditure measures the
value of purchases of fixed assets that are used repeatedly in production processes for more than a
year.”
OECD, Glossary of Statistical Terms (Adapted.)
Operating expense (OPEX) is the “Expenditure your organization incurs as a result of performing its
normal business operation [for example, water bills]. Expenses such as employee wages, research
and development and administrative costs are included. OPEX does not include cost of goods sold
(COGS), taxes, depreciation, and interest.”
European Commission, Eurostat (Adapted).
How to calculate Water CAPEX comparison for question W6.4
In 2015 (previous reporting year), Water CAPEX is $1m. In 2016 (current reporting year) Water
CAPEX is $1.1m.
(Water CAPEX 2016)$1.1m – (Water CAPEX 2015) $1.0m = +$0.1m (difference between 2016 and
2015)
($0.1m (difference) / $1.1m (Water CAPEX 2016)) x 100 = +9.09 %
This is reported as ‘+9.09%’ because 2016 Water CAPEX is greater than 2015 Water CAPEX
How to calculate Water OPEX comparison for question W6.4
In 2015 (previous reporting year), Water OPEX is $0.20m. In 2016 (current reporting year) Water
OPEX is $0.15m.
(Water OPEX (2016) $0.15m - Water OPEX (2015) $0.20m) = - $0.05m (difference between 2016
and 2015)
(- $0.05m (difference) / $0.15m (Water OPEX 2016)) x 100 = - 33.33 %
This is reported as ‘- 33.33%’ because 2015 Water OPEX is less than 2016 Water OPEX
129 | P a g e
W7. Compliance
Question Pathway
The following questions are shown on the Response: Compliance page.
Was W7.1 Was your organization

your organization subject to subject to any penalties,
any penalties, fines enforcement
fines and/or and/or enforcement
ordersorders
for for
breaches of abstraction licenses, discharge consents or other water and wastewater
breaches of abstraction licenses, discharge consents or other water and wastewater related
related
regulations in the reporting year?regulations in the reporting year?
Yes, significant Yes, not significant
W7.1a Please describe the penalties, fines and/or

enforcement orders for breaches of abstraction licenses,
discharge consents or other water and wastewater related
regulations and your plans for resolving them
W7.1b What proportion of your total facilities/operations

are associated with the incidents listed in W7.1a?
W7.1c Please indicate the total financial impacts of all incidents

reported in W7.1a as a proportion of total operating expenditure
(OPEX) for the reporting year. Please also provided a comparison
of this proportion compared to the previous reporting year
No Don’t know
END
130 | P a g e
General guidance
The compliance module asks companies to disclose to CDP any penalties, fines and/or enforcement
orders your organization was subject to in the reporting year. Companies are also encouraged to
provide an incident description of the external impacts or effects of the business on ecosystems
and/or communities, plus the internal actions or external engagement your company undertook to
resolve the incident. Please refer to the CEO Water Mandate Corporate Water Disclosure Guidelines
for further guidance on external impacts, internal actions and external engagement.
 There are no changes for 2017.
If you responded to the water questionnaire last year you can automatically populate the following
questions with last year’s response by clicking the “copy from last year” button at the bottom of the
relevant page in the ORS. You can then modify last year’s response as needed. You must click “copy
from last year” before completing any fields on each page of the ORS where this function has been
enabled.
• The copy from last year function has been provided for question W7.1 only.
W7. Compliance
W7.1 Was your organization subject to any penalties, fines and/or enforcement
orders for breaches of abstraction licenses, discharge consents or other water
and wastewater related regulations in the reporting year?
[Select from]:
 Yes, significant
 Yes, not significant
 No
 Don’t know
Please select one of the options from the dropdown menu. Whilst CDP does not provide guidance as
to what constitutes ‘significant’, it is expected that organizations should develop a consistent use of
the term throughout their response. Please note that what constitutes a significant breach will vary by
local context; however it will usually imply a major impact on the environment, community and/ or
business(es).
If your organization needs further guidance as to what constitutes ‘significant’, CDP recommends
companies consider the general definition of “materiality” provided in the GRI Standards as a starting
131 | P a g e
point. This definition puts the onus on companies to determine a materiality threshold based on
internal, industry, and external stakeholder interests. More information is available at the GRI website.
W7.1a Please describe the penalties, fines and/or enforcement orders for breaches of
abstraction licenses, discharge consents or other water and wastewater
related regulations and your plans for resolving them
This question only appears if you select “Yes, significant” or “Yes, not significant” in response to
question W7.1.
Facility Incident Incident Frequency of Financial Currency Incident

name description occurrence in impact resolution
reporting
year
[open text:  Penalty [open text: [Numeric] [Numeric] [Dropdown] [open text:
500  Fine 500 1500
characters  Enforcement characters characters
max] order max] max]
Add Row
If you have multiple penalties or fines, you can enter them into the table by adding more rows using
the ‘Add Row’ button to the bottom right.
 Facility name
o Please specify the name of the facility that was impacted by the penalty and/or fine. This
is an open text field that can accept up to a maximum of 500 characters. This maximum
includes spaces.
 Incident category
o Please choose the category that most closely matches the type of financial penalty your
incident(s) were given.
o Companies should only report directly related financial costs e.g. fine/penalty/costs
related to actions resulting from a breach or enforcement order. Direct costs could be
interpreted as costs to the company separate to or in addition to financial penalties and/or
fines, such as having to install new technology to meet the requirements of an
enforcement order, employ new staff to monitor for compliance etc. This is because
compliance breaches may not result in financial penalties and fines but could result in
unplanned operational or capital expenditure nonetheless. If there is no cost to the
company (that fits this general description), then it is not necessary to report the incident.
 Incident description
o Please use the open text box to provide a brief description of the incident, specifying if the
penalty/fine/enforcement order was a result of a breach in abstraction license, a result of
a breach in discharge consent or was a result of other water and wastewater related
regulations. Companies are also encouraged to provide an incident description of
the external impacts or effects of the business on ecosystems and/or communities.
132 | P a g e
o Discharge agreements refer to the volume of water permitted to be discharged and to the
quality of this water in terms of chemical constituents. For a list of standard parameters
of water pollutants you may refer to Appendix 3 (pp. 103-111) of the Guidance Document
for the Implementation of the European PRTR by the European Commission.
 Frequency of occurrence in reporting year

o Please report the number of times each incident occurred within a reporting year.
 Financial impact
o Please report any associated fines and penalties or costs related to an enforcement
order as a result of this breach of permit/consent. Please report for each facility up to
two decimal places. This column will accept numbers up to 99999999999.
 Currency
o Please select the most appropriate currency in relation to the fine.
 Incident resolution
o Please use the open text box to provide a brief description of how your organization has
resolved the incident or what plans your organization will be taking to resolve the incident
if it is still ongoing, including internal actions and/or external engagement (please
see CEO Water Mandate Corporate Water Disclosure Guidelines). Please include any
action to minimize the risks of future non-compliance. Actions may include: 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, please
provide details in your response in this column. If you have not been taking such actions,
please specify whether you intend to do so in the future. This is an open text field with
1500 characters maximum. This maximum includes spaces.
W7.1b What proportion of your total facilities/operations are associated with the
incidents listed in W7.1a?
Please provide the proportion of affected facilities in W7.1a compared to your total facilities globally.
For example, if 10 facilities are listed in W7.1a and you have 100 facilities worldwide, then the
response to W7.1b would be 10 percent.
A figure between 0-100 will be accepted only. If the figure is below 100, up to two decimal places are
permitted.
W7.1c Please indicate the total financial impacts of all incidents reported in W7.1a as
a proportion of total operating expenditure (OPEX) for the reporting year.
Please also provide a comparison of this proportion compared to the previous
reporting year
Impact as % of OPEX Comparison to last year

[numeric] N.B. can be positive or negative [Select from]:
percentage so keep as numeric field  Much lower
 Lower
 No change
 Higher
 Much higher
133 | P a g e
This question assesses if your organization has seen an increase or a decrease in water penalties as
a year on year proportion of total operating expenditure.
Firstly, please determine your organization’s total amount of penalties (as listed in W7.1a) as a
proportion of total OPEX for the reporting year. Please report this proportion in the first column.
Secondly please determine from the previous reporting year your organization’s total amount of water
penalties and/or fines for breaches of abstraction, licenses, discharge contents or other water and
wastewater related regulations as a proportion of OPEX for the previous reporting year and compare
this figure to the current reporting year proportion.
Finally please select from the drop down menu provided whether the proportion of total penalties
and/or fines, as a proportion of OPEX, has increased or decreased and by how much or if there has
been no change.
134 | P a g e
W8. Targets and initiatives
Question Pathway
The following questions are shown on the Response: Targets and initiatives page.
W8.1 Do you have any company-wide targets (quantitative) or goals (qualitative) related to
water?
Yes, targets and goals Yes, targets and goals

Yes, targets only Yes, goals only
W8.1b Please describe any company-wide
W8.1a Please complete the following table
qualitative goals (ongoing or reached
with information on company-wide
completion during the reporting year) and
quantitative targets (ongoing or reached
your progress in achieving these
completion during the reporting year) and
an indication of progress made
No
W8.1c Please explain why you do not
have any water-related targets or goals and
discuss any plans to develop these in the
future
End
135 | P a g e
General guidance
The final module aims to understand the company-wide targets and initiatives set for your
organization for the reporting year. CDP asks that you detail both the quantitative and qualitative
targets and goals your organization sets and communicates.
Several categories of activities are provided as starting points, based on the six principles of the CEO
Water Mandate, and examples of these activities are provided in the specific question guidance. A
comprehensive listing of your company’s activities is encouraged.
The questions allow you to:
 report on water actions that your organization has taken which fall outside your ‘company
fence line’.
 demonstrate to investors how your targets and goals are linked to the water risks and impacts
you have disclosed.
 There are no changes from last year.
• The copy from last year function has been provided for W8.1, columns 1-4 in W8.1a, columns 1-3 in
W8.1b, and W8.1c.
W8. Targets and initiatives
W8.1 Do you have any company wide targets (quantitative) or goals (qualitative)
related to water?
[Select from]:
 Yes, target and goals

 Yes, targets only
 Yes, goals only
 No
136 | P a g e
Please select from the drop down menu the option that best describes your organization’s current
practice. Please select a “Yes” route only if your organization has set targets and goals for the current
reporting year.
W8.1a Please complete the following table with information on company-wide

quantitative targets (ongoing or reached completion during the reporting year)
and an indication of progress made
This question only appears if you select “Yes, targets and goals” or “Yes, targets only” in response to
question W8.1.
sample answer is included for your reference.
Category of target Motivation Description Quantitative unit of Base- Target Proportion of

of target measurement line year year target
achieved,
% value
[Select from]: [Select from]: [open text: [Select from]: [Numeric] [Numeric] [Numeric]
 Absolute reduction  Brand value 1500  % increase in rainwater
of water protection characters harvesting per facility
withdrawals  Cost savings max]  % increase in rainwater
 Reduction in  Increased harvesting per product
consumptive revenue  % increase in recycling
volumes  Recommended / reuse per facility
 Reduction of sector best  % increase in recycling
product water practice / reuse per product
intensity  Risk mitigation  % increase of
 Reduction in  Sales of new wastewater
wastewater products / reclamation per facility
 Water pollution services  % increase of
prevention  Shared value wastewater
 Increased access  Water reclamation per
to Water, stewardship product
Sanitation and Other, please  % reduction in
Hygiene specify concentration of
 Community contaminants per
engagement discharge volume
 Improvement in  % reduction of water
monitoring of sourced from
water use groundwater
Other, please specify  % reduction of water
sourced from municipal
supply
 % reduction of water
sourced from surface
water
 % reduction per
business unit
 % reduction per dollar
revenue
 % reduction per
employee
 % reduction per
product
 % reduction per unit of
137 | P a g e
production
 % sites monitoring
water use
Add Row
If you have multiple targets, you can enter them into the table by adding more rows using the ‘Add
Row’ button to the bottom right.
 Category of target
o Please select the category of target applicable to your organization. You will have an
opportunity to describe your target in more detail in the third column, so please pick the
option that is closest to what your organization’s target specifies. If there is not an option
that is applicable, please select “Other, please specify” and a text box will become
available so that you can write in your own category of target. This is suitable for targets
that aim to stabilize previous targets, for example, in water efficiency.
 Motivation
o Please select from the drop down menu the primary motivation behind the target set by
your organization. If there is not an option that is applicable to your organization, please
select “Other, please specify” and write in your own motivation.
 Description of target
o Please provide additional company specific details that will help CDP understand your
organization’s target and why it was chosen. Please include how company level targets
are informed by substantive challenges at the local level. For example: “Discharge
treatment was found to be inadequate across several sites in different geographies. We
have set a company- wide goal of reviewing this risk and setting a company-wide 100%
compliance target to meet or go beyond regulatory requirements”. Please aim to include
what investment in financial or personnel resources is necessary to achieve the target.
This is an open text box with a maximum of 1500 characters. This maximum includes
spaces.
 Quantitative unit of measurement

o Please select from the drop down menu how your organization quantitatively measures
the success of this target. There are a number of options available that provide a unit of
measure for targets related to your organization’s direct operations, supply chain, and
watershed management. If none of the options are applicable to your target, please select
“Other, please specify” and include your organization’s unit of measurement, including
metrics measuring the stabilization of previous targets, for example, in water
efficiency.
 Baseline year
o Please enter a whole number between 1900 and 2016. If you have a year-on-year rolling
target, your base year will be the previous reporting year. If you have a target based on
financial years, please enter the year that applies to the end of your previous financial
year. If you have a target based on an average (e.g. five year average), please enter the
year that applies to the end of the average period.
138 | P a g e
 Target year
o Please enter a whole number between 2000 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 year that applies to the end of your financial year. 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. You should not be reporting any target that was
completed before the start of the reporting year e.g. 2015 when the reporting year is 2016.
 Proportion of target achieved, % value

o Please include a numerical value that indicates how much progress your organization has
made in the reporting year towards achieving your target. Please report the value up to
two decimal places
Category of target Motivation Description of target Quantitative unit of Base Target Proportion
measurement -line year of target
year achieved,
% value
Absolute reduction Cost savings Our goal is to reduce % reduction of water 2010 2018 47%
of water our absolute water sourced from surface
withdrawals withdrawals from water from the River
wholly-owned Kennet
breweries by 40% by
2018 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
our Corporate
Sustainability Strategy
for the next 3 years.
Water pollution Water As a major stakeholder % reduction in 2008 2020 20%
prevention stewardship in the Tana river basin, concentration of
we are working with contaminants per
other catchment discharge volume
stakeholders to
mitigate water pollution
by creating a self-
regulated water
management plan with
shared responsibilities
and concrete goals- to
be implemented in
2014 to ensure a long-
term sustainable river
environment for all
river users.
139 | P a g e
W8.1b Please describe any company wide qualitative goals (ongoing or reached
completion during the reporting year) and your progress in achieving these
This question only appears if you select “Yes, targets and goals” or “Yes, goals only” in response to
question W8.1.
Goal Motivation Description of Progress

goal
[Select from]: [Select from]: [open text: 1500 [open text: 1500
 Providing access to WASH in  Brand value
characters max] characters max]
workplace protection
 Providing access to WASH in local  Cost savings
communities  Increased
 Strengthen links with local revenue
community  Recommended
 Educate customers to help them sector best
minimize product impacts practice
 Engagement with public policy  Risk mitigation
makers to advance sustainable  Sales of new
water policies and management products /
 Engagement with suppliers to help services
them improve water stewardship  Shared value
 Water
 Sustainable agriculture
stewardship
 Watershed remediation and habitat
 Other, please
restoration, ecosystem
specify
preservation
Add Row
If you have multiple targets, you can enter them into the table by adding more rows using the ‘Add
Row’ button to the bottom right.
 Goal
o Please select the goal that is most applicable to your organization. You will have an
opportunity to describe your goal in more detail in column three, so please pick the option
that is closest to what your organization’s goal specifies. If there is not an option that is
applicable, please select “Other, please specify” and a text box will become available so
that you can write in your own category of target.
o A goal is considered to achieve a longer term qualitative outcome or a specific change in
behavior or circumstances, as opposed to a target which is generally a specific
measurable output within a specific timeline. Goals are often under constant review and
targets could feed into goals. Please see the sample response for W8.1b below for
examples of goals.
 Motivation
o Please select from the drop down menu the primary motivation behind the goal set by
your organization. If there is not an option that is applicable to your organization, please
select “Other, please specify” and write in your own motivation.
140 | P a g e
 Description of goal
o Please provide additional details that will help CDP understand your organization’s goal.
Please include the measure of success of your goal (consider; how will you know when
the goal has been achieved?); what your date or timescale for completion of the goal is
(consider; how long do you plan to work on this goal?); and why this goal was adopted by
your company. This is an open text box with up to a maximum of 1500 characters.
 Progress
o Please provide details as to how your organization measures the progress made in
achieving your organization’s goal. Please specify the progress made against each goal
achieved by the end of your reporting year as well as the financial and personnel
resources that have been committed towards achieving it. This is an open text box with a
W8.1b Sample Response – for guidance only
Goal Motivation Description of goal Progress

Show Other: As a signatory KPIs are reviewed, For 2015 85% of KPIs were
consistent and supporter of the updated and extended ranked as “In progress” or
progress Mandate, the annually to reflect water “Implemented”, “Ahead of
towards the importance of water to stewardship best schedule” or “On schedule”,
six focus our production practice and progress is which exceeded our target of
areas of the processes and being measured against them. 75%.
CEO Water one of the key water For example, a KPI on
Mandate users in the areas we transparency (one of the
operate in (Vaal region), CEO Water Mandate’s
it is a strategic priority focus areas) is to
for us to show continue to publicly
consistent progress on disclose to CDP Water.
the Mandate six focus For each KPI we rate
areas. We have been progress as
self-assessing our “Implemented”, “In
progress against the progress”, “Stalled” or
focus areas following “On hold”, with
development of relevant additional ratings of
KPIs that are specific to “Ahead of schedule / On
our operations. schedule” or “Behind
schedule. We aim for
75% of KPIs to be in
progress and on time or
better each year.
W8.1c Please explain why you do not have any water-related targets or goals and
discuss any plans to develop these in the future [open text: 1500 characters
max]
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.
141 | P a g e
Linkages and Trade-offs Module
Guidance
W9. Linkages and trade-offs
Question Pathway
The following questions are shown on the linkages and trade-offs page.
W9.1 Has your organization identified any linkages or trade-offs between water and other
environmental issues in its value chain?
Yes No
W9.1a Please describe the linkages or trade-offs

and the related management policy or action
End
142 | P a g e
General guidance
This question seeks to understand how water may impact on risks, impacts, opportunities and
decision-making in other areas of sustainability, e.g. maintaining local ecological standards, transfer
to renewable energy sources, securing food quotas, reducing deforestation etc.
You may wish to report linkages and trade-offs in your direct operations between areas like water
efficiency and carbon management for example, or in your supply chain such as better agricultural
practices linked to improving water quality.
You may wish to also report on regulatory issues where government have set policies that indirectly
impact on water use or water quality in an effort to solve another environmental issue. Or conversely
you may describe current or future policy or regulation on water that has had a positive or negative
impact on other sustainability issues for your industry. This will provide insight to investors and policy-
makers how these policies are being implemented and managed at operational level by businesses
and which environmental issues are considered a priority for your business and why.
 There are no changes for 2017.
If you responded to the water questionnaire last year you can automatically populate the following
questions with last year’s response by clicking the “copy from last year” button at the bottom of the
relevant page in the ORS. You can then modify last year’s response as needed. You must click “copy
from last year” before completing any fields on each page of the ORS where this function has been
enabled.
• The copy from last year function has been provided for questions W9.1 and W9.1a.
W9. Managing trade-offs between water and other environmental issues

W9.1 Has your organization identified any linkages or trade-offs between water and
other environmental issues in its value chain?
[Select from]:
 Yes
 No
Please select “Yes” or “No. This question asks about linkages and trade-offs identified and/or
considered when taking actions to manage risks or pursue opportunities related to water and other
environmental issues. You may include linkages and tradeoffs throughout your operations and supply
chain and may also include local, national and regional environmental policy. For definitions please
see Box 23: Linkages and trade-offs between water and other environmental issues.
143 | P a g e
Box 23: Linkages and trade-offs between water and other environmental issues
Changes in the physical, regulatory, and market environment are likely to increase pressure to
consider water in multiple environmental contexts. Increasingly, companies will be required to
manage water withdrawals, consumption, and discharges simultaneously with management of other
environmental issues e.g. energy consumption and greenhouse gas emissions. Understanding the
linkages and trade-offs between water and other environmental issues will help companies seize the
potential of managing them more holistically.
A linkage is a relationship where water and another environmental issue are correlated. For example,
extracting, processing and treating water requires energy, and energy production often requires water
as a medium of heat transfer. Increasing water efficiency where there is a linkage with energy will
most likely also lead to greater energy efficiency.
Improved farming practices such as more effective application of fertilizer may increase the
productivity of crop yields but also contributing to less polluted run-off entering local streams and
rivers.
A trade-off is an inverse correlation between an environmental issue and water use. For example,
mitigating water scarcity by desalination can significantly increase energy use because desalination is
traditionally energy intensive. Conversely, using bio-fuels to reduce greenhouse gas emissions may
result in much greater water use because of the agricultural production required to manufacture most
bio-fuels.
Information on water-energy linkages/trade-offs and strategic approaches to joint management of

these resources can be found in the following documents:
 The Role of Water in the Low-Carbon Transition, CDP Policy Briefing (2016)
 Pacific Institute and the United Nations Global Compact (2009), “Climate Change and the
Global Water Crisis: What Businesses Need to Know and Do”.
 World Business Council for Sustainable Development (2009), “Water, Energy and Climate
Change: A Contribution from the Business Community”.
If “Yes”:
W9.1a Please describe the linkages or trade-offs and the related management policy
or action
Environmental issue Linkage or trade-off Policy or action

[open text: 500 characters  Linkage
[open text: 1500 characters
max]  Trade-off
max]
Add Row
In the first column, please report briefly what the environmental issue is that you wish to report (this
field has a maximum of 500 characters). In the second column, please choose whether you wish to
report a linkage or tradeoff that you have identified between water and this environmental issue (see
Box 23: Linkages and trade-offs between water and other environmental issues). Next please
144 | P a g e
describe the related management policy or action. The latter column is a free text field; all entries
should be less than 1500 characters.
Your answer should aim to include the following:
 A description of the linkages and/or trade-offs between water and the other environmental issues
identified by your company
 Detail on the actions taken that gave rise to these linkages and/or tradeoffs
 Detail on the management policy when facing the challenge of a tradeoff or the opportunity of a
linkage between water and another environmental issue.
Qu9.1a – SAMPLE RESPONSE
Environmental issue Linkage or trade-off Policy or action
Refrigeration and air-conditioning systems that

use water cooling towers are often more carbon-
efficient than air cooled or mechanical systems
that use more energy. However, this creates a
demand for more water from overstretched
municipal supplies Such cooling systems are
essential to our ability to distribute food to our
supermarkets with minimum spoilage and waste
but potentially have a severe impact in water-
Carbon management Trade-off stressed parts of South Africa.
We invested in refrigeration and air conditioning

systems at two distribution centers in 2015 that
utilize rainwater harvesting, saving both energy
and water (16.4 million liters). compared to the
older systems they replaced that used water
cooling towers dependent on municipal water
supplies.
Reducing water usage in our facilities reduces

the impact on wetland habitats threatened by
water scarcity. In addition to implementing water
efficiency measures such as condensing
equipment at our potato processing factory in
East Anglia, we have partnered with the Fens
Restoration Trust to provide staff volunteering
Biodiversity Linkage programs to help protect the local wetland
habitat. Educating staff about the linkages
between reduced water use and protection of
local threatened species helps induce positive
behavior changes around water to complement
the technical solutions we installed. We are
investigating how we can repeat this model at
other sites globally.
145 | P a g e
Sign off Module Guidance
W10. Sign off

Question Pathway
The following questions are shown on the linkages and trade-offs page.
W10.1 Please provide the following information for the person that has signed off (approved) your
CDP water response
W10.2 Please indicate that your organization agrees for CDP to transfer your publicly disclosed
data regarding your response strategies to the CEO Water Mandate Water Action Hub
End
146 | P a g e
General guidance
These questions are included for sign-off by a senior representative of your organization.
Question W10.1 is mandatory and will be scored. Question W10.2 is voluntary and is not scored.
 W10.1: Additional options for job categories.

 W10.2: Question rewording for clarification only
 W10.2: Description of the process for sharing data has been updated. the .
The copy from last year function is not available for this module.

W10.1 Please provide the following information for the person that has signed off
(approved) your CDP water response.
CDP asks companies to identify the person that has signed off (approved) your CDP water response.
This information signals to investors that responsibility is being taken for the response and the
information contained therein.
Please provide your response in the table in the ORS and reproduced below.
Name Job title Corresponding job category

[open text: 200 [open text: 200 characters  President
characters max] max]  Board chairman
 Board/Executive board
 Director on board
 Chief Executive Officer (CEO)
 Chief Financial Officer (CFO)
 Chief Operating Officer (COO)
 Other C-Suite Officer
 Business unit manager

 EHS manager
 Energy manager
 Environment/Sustainability
manager
 Facilities manager
 Process operation manager
 Procurement manager
 Public affairs manager
 Risk manager
This question is not enabled for pre-population.
147 | P a g e
Transfer of public CDP data to the CEO Water Mandate Water Action Hub
W10.2 Please indicate that your organization agrees for CDP to transfer your publicly
disclosed data regarding your response strategies to the CEO Water Mandate
Water Action Hub
[Select from]:
 Yes
 No
Note: Only your responses to W1.4a (response to impacts) and W3.2c&d

(response to risks) will be shared and then reviewed as a potential collective
action project for inclusion on the WAH website.
By selecting Yes, you agree that CDP may also share the email address of your
registered CDP user with the CEO Water Mandate. This will allow the Hub
administrator to alert your company if its response data includes a project of
potential interest to other parties using water resources in the geographies in
which you operate. The Hub will publish the project with the associated contact
details. Your company will be provided with a secure log-in enabling it to
amend the project profile and contact details.
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 against. The CEO Water Mandate Water Action Hub is a collective action platform
allowing interested parties working in multiple geographic locations to connect and work together to
solve local and regional water challenges. For more details on the CEO Water Mandate Water Action
Hub, please visit https://wateractionhub.org/
If you select “Yes”, CDP will provide 2017 public response data from three questions to the CEO
Water Mandate Water Action Hub. Only responses for the following specific data points will be
transferred:
o W1.4a: Country; River basin; Response strategy; Description of response strategy

o W3.2c & d: Country; River basin; Response strategy; Details of strategy and costs
If your responses are a good fit for sharing publicly on the Hub’s website, CDP will provide the CEO
Water Mandate with the email address of the registered user for your CDP water response.
The Hub administrator will alert them that your company’s data includes a suitable project. For a fixed
period of time, there will be an opportunity to review and amend the project details and determine
whether the associated contact information will be public or private. After this period, the project will
be published and your company notified. Displaying contact details allows other users of the CEO
Water Mandate Water Action Hub to request further information, engagement and potential
collaboration on your projects/response strategies. Log-in information provided to you directly from
the CEO Water Mandate will enable you to make amendments to the project profile and contact
details at any time.
This question is not enabled for pre-population.
148 | P a g e
Appendix A:
Reporting boundary definitions
When determining the organizational boundary for inventory or reporting purposes, CDP recommends
that companies consult their legal or accounting advisors.
For more detailed guidance on determining organizational boundaries and in particular where joint
ventures or complex operational structures are concerned, please refer to Chapter 3 of the GHG
Protocol. Although this refers to GHG emissions inventory and reporting, the general definitions can
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.
In brief, under the 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.
Companies can also report their water data based on their economic share. The following text is
adapted from the GHG Protocol to refer to water instead of GHG emissions:
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.
149 | P a g e
As financial control can be difficult to establish, the table overleaf has been provided to clarify how
water accounting data should be consolidated and reported in certain situations. The table is based
on a table found on page 19, Chapter 3 of the GHG Protocol (Revised Edition). It has been adapted to
refer to water accounting instead of GHG accounting.
150 | P a g e
Accounting Financial accounting definition Accounting for GHG emissions according
category to the GHG Protocol Corporate Standard
Based on equity Based on financial
share control
Group companies/ The parent company has the ability to direct Equity share of 100% of volumes of
subsidiaries the financial and operating policies of the volumes of water water withdrawn/
company with a view to gaining economic withdrawn/ discharged/etc.
benefits from its activities. Normally, this discharged/etc.
category also includes incorporated and non-
incorporated joint ventures and partnerships
over which the parents company has
financial control.
Associated/ affiliated The parent company has significant influence Equity share of 0% of volumes of
companies over the operating and financial policies of volumes of water water withdrawn/
the company, but does not have financial withdrawn/ discharged/etc.
control. Normally, this category also includes discharged/etc.
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.
Non-incorporated Joint ventures/ partnerships/ operations are Equity share of Equity share of
joint ventures/ proportionally consolidated, i.e., each partner volumes of water volumes of water
partnerships/ accounts for their proportionate interest of the withdrawn/ withdrawn/
operations where joint venture’s income, expenses, assets and discharged/etc. discharged/etc.
partners have joint liabilities.
financial control
Fixed asset The parent company has neither significant 0% 0%
investments 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.
Franchises Franchises are separate legal entities. In Equity share of 100% of volumes of
most cases, the franchiser will not have volumes of water water withdrawn/
equity rights or control over the franchise. withdrawn/ discharged/etc.
Therefore franchises should not be included discharged/etc.
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.
151 | P a g e
Appendix B:
Disclosure glossary
Capital expenditure (CAPEX): Represents the money invested by a company to acquire or upgrade
fixed assets, such as buildings and equipment. Capital expenditure measures the value of purchases
of fixed assets that are used repeatedly in production processes for more than a year.
Source: OECD, Glossary of Statistical Terms (Adapted)
Corporate water disclosure: This is a multistep process which firstly involves the collection of
relevant data on the current state of a company’s water management. This is followed by an
assessment of the implications of this data and information for business leading to the development of
a strategic response. The final step is communicating this information to stakeholders (investors,
NGOs, consumers, communities, suppliers, employees, and others).
Source: CEO Water Mandate: Corporate Water Disclosure Guidelines (Adapted)
Direct water use: Refers to the freshwater consumption and pollution from water use by consumers
and producers. It differs from indirect water use which refers to the water consumption and pollution
that can be associated with the production of the goods and services consumed by the consumer or
the inputs used by the producer. Direct water use includes all water that is used within your own
operations.
Source: WFN, WaterStat (Adapted)
Fines and/or penalties: Monetary amount paid in response to regulatory violations.

Indirect water use: Refers to the freshwater consumption and pollution that are inactively part of
products being consumed or produced. It is equal to the sum of all water used to produce products
consumed by the consumer or all (non-water) inputs used by the producer. Indirect water use
includes all water use that takes place within your value chain but is outside your direct control.
Source: WFN, WaterStat
Measurement: Quantification of a single volume or quality or aggregates of single volumes or quality

measurements.
Monitoring: This is the tracking of measurements over time i.e. a trend or indication of change in
measurement.
Operating expenditure (OPEX): Expenditure your organization incurs as a result of performing its
normal business operation. Expenses such as employee wages, research and development and
administrative costs are included. OPEX does not include cost of goods sold (COGS), taxes,
depreciation, and interest.
European Commission, Eurostat (Adapted)
River basin: An area which has a common outlet for its surface runoff.
152 | P a g e
Source: CEO Water Mandate: Corporate Water Disclosure Guidelines
WASH: access to water supply, adequate sanitation and hygiene as used by the World Health
Organization (accessed 01/12/14).
Water availability: 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 consumption: Ceres Aqua Gauge, in their definition, recognizes that the term ‘water
consumption’ is not consistently defined or used. For the purpose of this questionnaire, CDP uses
Ceres’s definition of water consumption as an “amount of water that is used but not returned to its
original source”. This includes water that has evaporated, transpired, has been incorporated into
products, crops or waste, consumed by man or livestock or otherwise removed from the local source.
Source: Ceres Aqua Gauge
Water discharge: The sum of water effluents discharged over the course of the reporting year to
subsurface waters, surface waters, sewers that lead to rivers, oceans, lakes, wetlands, treatment
facilities, and ground water either through:
 A defined discharge point (point source discharge)
 Over land in a dispersed or undefined manner (non-point source discharge)
 Wastewater removed from the organization via truck. Discharge of collected rainwater and
domestic sewage is not regarded as water discharge.
Source: GRI Standards
Water quality: Refers to the physical, chemical, biological, and organoleptic (taste-related) properties
of water.
Source: CEO Water Mandate: Corporate Water Disclosure Guidelines
Water risk: “Water risk” refers to the possibility of an entity experiencing a water-related challenge
(e.g., water scarcity, water stress, flooding, infrastructure decay, and drought). 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 itself depends on the intensity of the challenge, as well as the vulnerability of
the actor.
Water risk is felt differently by every sector of society and the organizations within them and thus is
defined and interpreted differently (even when they experience the same degree of water-related
challenges). That notwithstanding, many water-related challenges create risk for many different
sectors and organizations simultaneously. This reality underpins the notion of what some refer to as
“shared water risk” that suggests that different sectors of society have a common interest in
understanding and addressing shared water-related challenges. However, some contest the
appropriateness of this term on the basis that risk is felt uniquely and separately by individual entities
and is typically not shared, per se.
“Water risk for businesses” refers to the ways in which water-related challenges potentially undermine
business viability. It is commonly categorized into three inter-related types:
 Physical – Having too little water, too much water, water that is unfit for use, or inaccessible
water
153 | P a g e
 Regulatory – Changing, ineffective, or poorly-implemented public water policy and/or
regulations
 Reputational – Stakeholder perceptions that a company does not conduct business in a
sustainable or responsible fashion with respect to water
“Water risk for businesses” is also sometimes divided into two categories that shed light on the source
of that risk and therefore what types of mitigation responses will be most appropriate:
 Risk due to company operations, products, and services – A measure of the severity and
likelihood of water challenges derived from the way in which a company or organization, and
the suppliers from which it sources goods, operate and how its products and services affect
people and ecosystems.
 Risk due to basin conditions – A measure of the severity and likelihood of water challenges
derived from the watershed/basin context in which a company or organization and/or its
suppliers from which it sources goods operate, which cannot be addressed through changes
in its operations or its suppliers and requires engagement outside the fence.
If a company experiences a high degree of water-related risk due to company operations then it likely
will seek to implement water efficiency, wastewater treatment, and other improvements in its own
facilities or through its suppliers in response. However, if a company primarily experiences risk due to
basin conditions then such operational measures would likely not sufficiently address this risk.
Because of this, the company might instead seek to collaborate with other interests in the basin to
advance an aspect of sustainable water management (e.g., by facilitating water use efficiency in other
water users or supporting infrastructure improvements).
Source: CEO Water Mandate: Understanding Key Water Stewardship Terms
Water scarcity: “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 fresh water 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.
Tool developers and organizations differ on whether environmental water requirements should be
included when assessing water scarcity. Water Footprint Network (WFN), for example, takes
environmental water requirements into consideration when calculating water scarcity, whereas other
organizations do not and rather opt to address environmental water requirements in their respective
approaches to characterizing water stress.
Water stress: “Water stress” refers to 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 (i.e., whether people are able to make use of physically-
available water supplies), which is often a function of the sufficiency of infrastructure and the
affordability of water, among other things. Both water consumption and water withdrawals provide
useful information that offers insight into relative water stress. There are a variety of physical
pressures related to water, such as flooding, that are not included in the notion of water stress. Water
stress has subjective elements and is assessed differently depending on societal values. For example,
154 | P a g e
societies may have different thresholds for what constitutes sufficiently clean drinking water or the
appropriate level of environmental water requirements to be afforded to freshwater ecosystems, and
thus assess stress differently.
In contrast to other available water risk assessment tools, WFN’s Water Footprint Assessment Tool
does not use the term “water stress”, but instead identifies water-challenged regions (sometimes
referred to as “hot spots”) based on water scarcity, water pollution levels, benchmarks, (i.e., where the
water consumption can be reduced or avoided for reasonable cost) and indicators of social equity. It
can be understood that these hot spots are areas experiencing water stress.
Water withdrawals: The sum of all water drawn into the boundaries of the reporting organization
from all sources (including surface water, groundwater, rainwater, and municipal water supply) for any
use over the course of the reporting year. Water withdrawals should include both water that was
withdrawn directly by your company and water withdrawn through intermediaries (e.g. water utilities).
Source: GRI Standards (Adapted)
155 | P a g e
Appendix C:
River basin list and South African
Water Management Areas (WMAs)
156 | P a g e
ALABAMA RIVER & TOMBIGBEE CORUBAL GUADIANA LUAN HE
ALAZEYA CORUH GUDENA LULE
ALBANY RIVER CROSS HAN-GANG (HAN RIVER) LURIO
ALSEK RIVER CUANZA HAN JIANG MA
ALTAMAHA RIVER CUNENE HAYES RIVER (TRIB. ARCTIC OCEAN) - BACK RIVER
MACARTHUR RIVER
AMAZONAS CUYUNI - ESSEQUIBO HAYES RIVER (TRIB. HUDSON BAY) MACKENZIE RIVER
AMU DARYA DALALVEN HELMAND MAE KLONG
AMUR DALINGHE HONG(RED RIVER) MAGDALENA
ANABAR DALY HORNADAY RIVER MAHANADI RIVER (MAHAHADI)
ANADYR DAMODAR RIVER HORTON RIVER MAHI RIVER
ANDERSON RIVER DANUBE HUANG HE (YELLOW RIVER) MAJES
ANGERMAN DARYACHEH-YE ORUMIEH HUASCO MAMBERAMO
APALACHICOLA RIVER DASHT HUDSON RIVER MANGOKY
ARAL DRAINAGE DAULE & VINCES IIJOKI MANICOUAGAN (RIVIERE)
ARMERIA DE GREY RIVER INCOMATI MANO-MORRO
ARNAUD DEAD SEA INDIGIRKA MAPUTO
ASHBURTON RIVER DELAWARE RIVER INDUS MARITSA
ASI (ORONTES) DNIEPR IRRAWADDY MARONI
ATRATO DNIESTR ISHIKARI MEDJERDA
ATREK DON ISSYK-KUL MEKONG
ATTAWAPISKAT RIVER DONG JIANG JAMES RIVER MERRIMACK RIVER
AWASH DORING JEQUITINHONHA MESSALO
BAKER DOURO JOEKULSA A FJOELLUM MEUSE
BALEINE, GRANDE RIVIERE DE LA DRA KALADAN MEZEN
BALKHASH DRAMSELV KALIXAELVEN MIN JIANG
BALSAS DRIN KAMCHATKA MINO
BANDAMA EASTMAIN KEL KIT MIRA
BANN EBRO KELANTAN MISSISSIPPI RIVER
BARAKA EEL RIVER (CALIF.) KEM MITCHELL RIVER (N. AU)
BARIMA EILANDEN KEMIJOKI MOA
BATANG HARI ELBE RIVER KHATANGA MOGAMI
BATANG KUANTAN ELLICE RIVER KINABATANGAN MONO
BETISBOKA ESMERALDAS KISO MOOSE RIVER (TRIB. HUDSON BAY)
BIOBIO EYRE LAKE KITAKAMI MOTAGUA
BLACKWOOD RIVER FANE KIZILIRMAK MUCURI
BRAHMANI RIVER (BHAHMANI) FERGUSON RIVER KLAMATH RIVER MUGA
BRANTAS FEUILLES (RIVIERE AUX) KOBUK RIVER MUONIO
BRAVO FITZROY KOKEMAENJOKI MURCHISON RIVER
BRAZOS RIVER FITZROY RIVER KOLYMA MURGHAB - HARI RUD
BURDEKIN FLINDERS RIVER KOUILOU MURRAY - DARLING
BUZI FLY KOVDA NADYM
CA FORTESCUE RIVER KRISHNA NAKTONG
CANETE FOYLE KUBAN NARMADA
CANIAPISCAU - AUX MELEZES FRASER RIVER KURA - OZERO SEVAN NARVA
CAPE FEAR RIVER FUCHUN JIANG KUSKOKWIM RIVER NASS RIVER
CAUVERY RIVER FUERTE KYMIJOKI NATASHQUAN (RIVIERE)
CAVALLY GALANA LAGARFLJOT NEGRO (ARGENTINIA)
CESTOS GALLEGOS-CHICO LAGOON MIRIM NEGRO (URUGUAY)
CHAO PHRAYA GAMBIA LAKE CHAD NELSON RIVER
CHELIF GAMKA LAKE MAR CHIQUITA NEMAN
CHIRA GANGES - BRAHMAPUTRA LAKE NATRON NIGER
CHUBUT GARONNE LAKE TAYMUR NILE
CHURCHILL RIVER GASCOYNE RIVER LAKE TITICACA NIZHNY VYG (SOROKA)
CHURCHILL, FLEUVE (LABRADOR) GEBA LAKE TURKANA NOATAK RIVER
CLUTHA GEORGE RIVER LAKE UBSA NORTHERN DVINA(SEVERNAYA DVINA)
COCO GILBERT RIVER LAKE VATTERN NOTTAWAY
COLORADO (ARGENTINIA) GLOMA LEICHHARDT RIVER NTEM
COLORADO RIVER (CARIBBEAN SEA) GODAVARI LEMPA NUECES RIVER
COLORADO RIVER (PACIFIC OCEAN) GONO (GO) LENA NUSHAGAK RIVER
COLUMBIA RIVER GRANDE DE MATAGALPA LIAO HE NYANGA
COLVILLE RIVER GRANDE RIVIERE LIMA NYONG
COMOE GRANDE RIVIERE DE LA BALEINE LIMARI OB
CONCEPTION GREAT SALT LAKE LIMPOPO OCONA
CONGO GREAT SCARCIES LITTLE MECATINA RIVER ODER RIVER
CONNECTICUT RIVER GRISALVA LITTLE SCARCIES OELFUSA
COPPENAME GROOT LOA OGOOUE
COPPER RIVER GROOT- KEI LOFA OKAVANGO
COPPERMINE RIVER GROOT-VIS LOIRE OLENEK
CORANTIJN GUADALQUIVIR LORENTZ OMOLOY
157 | P a g e
ONEGA SAINT JOHN RIVER TRENT
ORANGE SAKARYA TRINITY RIVER (TEXAS)
ORD SALADO TSIRIBIHINA
ORINOCO SALINAS TUGELA
OUEME SALWEEN TULOMA
OULUJOKI SAN ANTONIO RIVER TUMBES
OYAPOCK SAN JUAN TWEED
PAHANG SAN JUAN (COLUMBIA - PACIFIC) ULUA
PALENA SAN PEDRO URAL
PALYAVAAM SANAGA URUGUAY
PANGANI SANTA UWIMBU
PANUCO SANTA CRUZ VAENERN-GOETA
PAPALOAPAN SANTEE RIVER VAN GOLU
PARAIBA DO SUL SANTIAGO VARDAR
PARANA SAO FRANCISCO VARZUGA
PATACUA SASSANDRA - DAVO VELEKA
PATIA SAVANNAH RIVER VERDE
PEARL RIVER SAVE VICTORIA RIVER
PECHORA SEAL RIVER VIJOSE
PEE DEE RIVER SEBOU VOLGA
PENNER RIVER SEINE VOLTA
PENOBSCOT RIVER SEMBAKUNG VUOKSI - NEVA
PERAK SENEGAL WAIKATO RIVER
PO SEPIK WESER
PONOY SEVERN RIVER (TRIB. HUDSON BAY) WESTERN DVINA (DAUGAVA)
POPIGAY SHEBELLE WINISK RIVER
POTOMAC RIVER SHINANO, CHIKUMA WISLA
PRA SITTANG RIVER XI JIANG - BEI JIANG
PUR SKEENA RIVER YALU JIANG
PURARI SKJERN A YANA
PYASINA SOLO (BENGAWAN SOLO) YANGTZE RIVER (CHANG JIANG)
QUOICH RIVER SOUTH ESK RIVER YAQUI
RAJANG SOUTHERN BUG YENISEI
RAPEL SPEY YODO
REZVAYA ST JOHN YONGDING HE
RHINE ST PAUL YUKON RIVER
RHONE ST.CROIX RIVER ZAMBEZI
RIO ACARAU ST.JOHNS RIVER ZARUMILLA
RIO ARAGUARI ST.LAWRENCE
RIO CAPIM STIKINE RIVER Source: Interactive Database of the
World's River Basins, CEO Water
RIO DE CONTAS STRUMA Mandate and WRI (Sep, 2014)
RIO DOCE SUNGAI KAJAN
LIMPOPO
RIO GRANDE SUNGAI KAPUAS
RIO GURUPI SUNGAI MAHAKAM OLIFANTS
RIO ITAPECURU SURINAME INKOMATI-USUTHU

RIO ITAPICURU SUSITNA RIVER
PONGOLA-UZIMKULU
RIO JACUI SUSQUEHANNA RIVER
VAAL
RIO JAGUARIBE SUWANNEE RIVER
RIO MEARIM SVARTA, SKAGAFIROI ORANGE
RIO PARAGUACU SYR DARYA MZIMVUBU-TSITSIKAMMA

RIO PARAIBA TAFNA
BREEDE-GOURITZ
RIO PARNAIBA TAKU RIVER
BERG-OLIFANTS
RIO PINDARE TANA
RIO PRADO TANA (NO, FI) Source: South African National Water
Resources Strategy 2 (NWRS2) Second
RIO RIBEIRA DO IGUAPE TANO Edition June 2013
RIO SALADO TAPTI RIVER
RIO VAZA-BARRIS TARIM
ROANOKE RIVER TAZ
ROGUE RIVER TEJO
ROIA TENRYU
ROPER RIVER TEREK
ROVUMA THAMES
RUFIJI THELON RIVER
RUPERT RIVER THJORSA
RUVU THLEWIAZA RIVER
SABINE RIVER TIGRIS & EUPHRATES
SACRAMENTO RIVER - SAN JOAQUIN RIVER TOCANTINS
SAGUENAY (RIVIERE) TONE
SAIGON TRANH (NR THU BON)
158 | P a g e

CDP Water Reporting Guidance

Uploaded by

Document Informationclick to expand document information

Document Informationclick to expand document information

Copyright:

Available Formats

CDP Water Reporting Guidance

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

CDP Water Reporting Guidance

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Guidance for companies

reporting on water on behalf

Licensing of the CDP Questionnaires

Introduction to this document

What has changed for 2017?

The We Mean Business Water Commitment

 Analyzing water-related risks and collaborative response strategies

WMB Commitment CDP question numbers

CDP’s Sector Approach – Reimagining Disclosure

Water reporting standards

Alignment with GRI Standards

CDP question number(s) GRI G4 Indicator

W1.2, W1.2a, W5.1, W5.1a, GRI 303 Water: Disclosure 303-1

There are some differences which are explained briefly below:

Current State Implications Response Current State Implications Response

risk and considered part of a company’s response to risk

Water Reporting Roadmap

Facility level water impacts)

External External accounting linked

accounting & External

 Be as specific as possible to your company;

Amendments to responses after the response deadline

Water Reporting Roadmap

Workshops and webinars

CDP Reporter Services Water Membership

CDP Water Consultancy Partnerships

Providing feedback to CDP

W0.1: Please give a general description and introduction to your organization

W0.4a: Please report the exclusions in the following table

Key changes from 2016

 No questions on this page have been changed.

Pre-population of responses for 2017

Specific question guidance for the Introduction

W0.1 Please give a general description and introduction to your organization.

Please select from:

W0.4a Please report the exclusions in the following table

Exclusion Please explain why you have made the

Elements of your business may be excluded for a number of reasons:

W0.4a Sample Response – for guidance only

W1.2a Water withdrawals: for the reporting year,

W1.2c Water consumption: for the reporting year,

This section is broken down as follows:

Maturity of corporate water reporting

Scale of corporate water reporting

Key changes from 2016

Specific question guidance

Guidance on responding to each of the columns is provided below:

 Water quality and quantity

Box 1: Defining water quality, water quantity and water availability

Neutral: water quality can be poor as long enough water is available.

CDP question number(s) GRI G4 Indicator

Box 3: Reporting company-wide water accounting information & water scoring

Water aspect % of Please explain

Guidance on responding to each of the columns is provided below:

 Water withdrawals – volume by source

 Water discharge – total volumes

 Water discharge – volumes by destination

 Water discharge – volumes by treatment method