Corporate Water Accounting: An Analysis of Methods and Tools for ...

41
what is asked of companies in respect to their
understanding of their interaction with water
resources. For this analysis, perhaps the most
relevant of CDP Water Disclosure’s requests
are: 1) an in-depth examination of waterrelated
business risks and 2) an assessment of
the local context in which companies operate
(e.g. the proportion of facilities located
in water-stressed regions). The CDP Water
Disclosure Information Request asks that
companies disclose this data for their own facilities,
as well as their suppliers. CDP Water
Disclosure’s new framework underlines the
fact that not only do these types of analysis
help drive down water-related impacts and
risks, but they are also becoming expected
of companies by investors, consumers, and
other key stakeholders.
Water Footprinting
WFs are beginning to be used as a reporting/
communication tool, though the appropriateness
of this use is questioned by some. These
concerns are based on the notion that generic
and aggregated claims (such as 2,500 liters of
water to produce one cotton shirt or 960 liters
of water to produce a liter of wine) are inherently
misleading and/or meaningless because
they obscure essential information regarding
the local context and nature of the water use,
and therefore do not reflect impacts or risks.
For this reason, total water footprint calculations
can be very easily misused and misconstrued.
For instance, Raisio, a Finnish food
company, has produced a water “ecolabel” for
its products that essentially uses a product’s
total water consumption as the basis for
its scores. Such scores do not speak to the
source of that water (i.e. blue or green) or the
conditions of the watershed from which it
was taken and thus have little value in terms
of assessing the sustainability of a product’s
water use. That said, more detailed reporting
of WF studies has served to help companies
be accountable to (and receive feedback from)
key stakeholders, as well as help build a good
reputation relating to water transparency and
responsible water practices. More generally,
proponents have also identified WF as an
effective awareness-raising tool for business,
consumers, and policy makers on water issues
worldwide.
WF studies typically use maps and other
visualizations to express data and results.
Though such visualizations are not provided
for or required by the WF methodology, they
have become common practice for WF studies.
These maps can illustrate internal data
such as facility locations and water use, as
well as external data that contextualize the
WF data, such as different water users within
a system and the relative water scarcity of different
regions. This not only allows companies
to visually locate (i.e., “hotspot”) potential
impacts and risks (e.g., linking facility
sites with water scarce regions or where their
water uses may potentially infringe upon
other uses), but is also emerging as a particularly
powerful communication tool. Corporate
sustainability managers have found these
maps very effective in communicating with
non-technical audiences, both internal (e.g.,
upper management) and external (e.g., investors,
consumers, local communities).
Water policy and
management interface
Water footprinting has also proven to be
useful for companies who look to engage
with stakeholders (particularly water policy
makers and managers) to manage impacts
and advance sustainable water management
beyond their fenceline. Companies can use
WF to highlight where major water uses are
An example of water footprinting study visualization
Source: Water Footprinting: Identifying and Addressing Water Risks in the Value
Chain. SABMiller and WWF-UK. August 2009.