Key takeaway
The single biggest scoring lever in the Water module is basin-level disclosure: not "we used 24 million cubic metres of water" but "we used 18 million cubic metres in the Krishna basin, 4 million in the Cauvery basin, and 2 million in the Yamuna basin, with the following stress and stewardship implications for each." This lesson explains why basin-level disclosure matters, how to structure it, and the practical data systems that make it tractable.
Why basin-level matters
Water is flow, not stock. The basin (a watershed area defined by the catchment of a river system) is the natural unit of water management. Within a basin, all users are interconnected: extraction by one user reduces availability for others.
CDP's view: a company that does not know its basin-level footprint cannot meaningfully manage water risk. CDP scoring rewards companies that disclose at basin level for two structural reasons:
- It signals that the company understands water as a local issue, not a global aggregate
- It enables stewardship decisions (engagement with other basin users, watershed restoration investments)
For Indian companies, the relevant basins include the Ganges, Indus, Krishna, Cauvery, Godavari, Mahanadi, Brahmaputra, Yamuna, Sabarmati, Narmada, and dozens of smaller catchments. Each has different stress profiles and different stakeholder dynamics.
Analogy
Think of basin-level disclosure like geographic segmentation in a financial report. A company that reports total revenue is providing useful information. A company that breaks revenue down by India, EU, US, China, and rest-of-world is providing more useful information for risk and opportunity analysis. CDP's water disclosure works the same way: aggregate water use is fine; basin-by-basin water use enables real risk management.
What CDP wants per basin
For each basin where you have material operations, the disclosure expects:
| Field | What goes in |
|---|---|
| Basin name | The river basin or sub-basin (e.g., Krishna, Cauvery, Brahmaputra Tributary) |
| Operations in basin | Number and type of facilities |
| Withdrawal volume | Annual withdrawal in megalitres or m3 |
| Source breakdown | Groundwater, surface water, municipal, etc. |
| Discharge volume and quality | What goes back to the basin, to what standard |
| Net consumption | Withdrawal minus discharge |
| Stress level | WRI Aqueduct or equivalent score |
| Local context | Other major users, regulatory restrictions, community concerns |
| Stewardship activities | Watershed restoration, community engagement, basin-level partnerships |
The Leadership-tier disclosure adds:
- Multi-year trend data per basin
- Risk register with basin-specific risks
- Engagement with other basin users (consortia, water users associations)
- Investment commitments for basin-specific stewardship
Identifying your basins
The first practical step is mapping your facilities to basins. A typical workflow:
- Pull facility addresses with GPS coordinates
- Use a basin map (WRI Aqueduct online tool, India NRSC basin maps, or country-specific tools) to identify the basin for each facility
- Aggregate withdrawals per basin (combining multiple facilities in the same basin)
- Run the Aqueduct or equivalent stress assessment for each basin
This is a 1-2 week project for a company with 10-50 facilities, typically done by the sustainability team with environmental advisors.
Worked example: a multi-basin disclosure
Worked example
ColaBev India (continuation). Year 3 disclosure with basin-level detail.
Basin: Krishna
- Operations: 3 manufacturing plants (Hyderabad, Vijayawada, Pune-spillover)
- Annual withdrawal: 6.8 million m3
- Source: 70 percent groundwater (3 dedicated bore wells), 25 percent municipal supply, 5 percent rainwater harvesting
- Discharge: 5.2 million m3 to local discharge standards (treated through ETP, monitored to CPCB norms)
- Net consumption: 1.6 million m3
- Aqueduct stress: 4.2 (high)
- Local context: Krishna is over-allocated; agriculture consumes more than 80 percent of basin withdrawals; ColaBev is a non-agricultural user.
- Stewardship: Partnership with WWF India for the Krishna basin restoration; INR 2.5 crore committed FY24-FY27; 15 community watershed projects.
Basin: Yamuna
- Operations: 2 plants (Delhi-NCR area, Faridabad)
- Annual withdrawal: 4.2 million m3
- Source: 95 percent municipal supply (DJB), 5 percent recycled water
- Discharge: 3.5 million m3 returned to Yamuna river through STP-treated route
- Aqueduct stress: 4.5 (very high)
- Local context: Yamuna is one of India's most stressed urban basins; significant pollution and over-extraction.
- Stewardship: Partnership with the Centre for Science and Environment (CSE); investment in water reuse technology; commitment to 50 percent water reuse by 2028.
Basin: Cauvery
- Operations: 2 plants (Bengaluru, Mysuru)
- Annual withdrawal: 3.4 million m3
- Source: 60 percent municipal, 40 percent recycled water
- Aqueduct stress: 3.8 (high)
- Stewardship: Member of the Cauvery Basin Water Users Association; participates in monthly basin-level water management discussions.
Basin: Other (low stress)
- Operations: 5 plants in low-stress regions (Goa, Kolkata, Bhubaneswar, Chennai, Coimbatore)
- Aggregate withdrawal: 10.1 million m3
- Aqueduct stress: <3 (low to moderate)
- Stewardship: Standard operations water management; not the focus of basin-stewardship investment.
Cross-basin summary:
- Total withdrawals: 24.5 million m3
- Withdrawals in basins with stress >3: 14.4 million m3 (59 percent)
- Stewardship investment: INR 8 crore over FY24-FY28 across 4 basin-specific programmes
This level of disclosure earns Leadership tier on the water-basin questions. The components: named basins, volume per basin, source breakdown, stress score, local context, named stewardship programmes with financial commitment.
How basin-level connects to water targets
A basin-level approach also enables more credible water targets. Instead of a single corporate-level "30 percent reduction" target, a Leadership-tier approach is:
- Basin-specific reduction targets. "30 percent reduction in withdrawals from Krishna basin by 2030; 40 percent reduction in Yamuna; 25 percent in Cauvery."
- Stress-weighted targets. "100 percent of high-stress basin withdrawals to be net-positive by 2030 through replenishment programmes."
- Site-specific targets. "Each plant in stress-rated basins to achieve a 50 percent reduction in water intensity per unit of product by 2030."
Companies with basin-level data can set basin-level targets. Companies without it set a corporate-level target that may not actually drive operational change.
Engagement with other basin users
The Leadership-tier signal goes beyond your own operations to engagement with the basin community.
Common engagement venues:
- Water Users Associations (formal in some Indian basins; informal in others)
- Multi-stakeholder watershed initiatives (WWF Water Risk Filter partners, CDP Water Watch, river basin organisations)
- Industry consortia (e.g., Beverage Industry Environmental Roundtable, BIER)
- Government partnerships (NITI Aayog water programmes, state government water conservation schemes)
- NGO partnerships (WWF, CSE, Arghyam, Aga Khan Foundation Rural Support)
A scoring-quality engagement disclosure names the venue, the duration of involvement, the outcomes measured, and the financial commitment.
Several large companies have committed to being "water positive" by 2030 - meaning they replenish to the watershed more water than they withdraw. The math: withdrawal minus discharge = consumption; consumption replenished through watershed restoration projects. Coca-Cola, PepsiCo, AB-InBev, Unilever, ITC, and Hindustan Unilever have all made versions of this commitment. CDP rewards water-positive commitments at Leadership tier when they include credible measurement methodology and third-party verification of replenishment volumes. The methodology is debated (what counts as replenished water?), but the trajectory is clear: net-positive water is becoming the new ambition floor for FMCG companies.
Key Takeaways
- Basin-level disclosure is the single biggest scoring lever in the Water module; aggregate corporate withdrawals do not capture local water risk
- The basin-by-basin disclosure structure includes name, operations, withdrawals, sources, discharge, consumption, stress, local context, and stewardship
- Mapping facilities to basins is a 1-2 week project; the data systems are simple once the GPS-to-basin mapping is done
- Basin-level data enables basin-level targets, which are more credible than aggregate corporate targets
- Engagement with basin communities (associations, consortia, government, NGOs) is the Leadership-tier capstone; named programmes with financial commitments score highest
Knowledge Check
Test what you just learned
6 questions · check each one as you go
Why is basin-level disclosure the single biggest scoring lever in the Water module?
Which fields does CDP want per basin?
Select all that apply
True or false: A basin-level approach enables more credible water targets than a single corporate-level target.
Which is one of the major Indian basins typically referenced in water disclosure?
What is the Volumetric Water Benefit Accounting (VWBA) standard for?
Match each engagement venue to its purpose.
Match each item to its pair
Water Users Associations
WWF Water Risk Filter / WBCSD Water Tools
Beverage Industry Environmental Roundtable (BIER)
NITI Aayog water programmes (India)