Progress on corporate water sustainability ‘not happening quickly enough’: Ceres – ESG Dive

Corporate Progress on Sustainable Development Goal 6: A Report Analysis

Introduction

A recent benchmark analysis by the environmental nonprofit Ceres evaluates the progress of major corporations in water-intensive industries toward achieving water sustainability targets. This report summarizes the findings, placing significant emphasis on corporate contributions to the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), particularly SDG 6: Clean Water and Sanitation. The analysis covers 71 companies across the technology, apparel, beverage, and food sectors, assessing their performance against goals crucial for the 2030 Agenda.

Key Findings on Corporate Water Stewardship

• Corporate progress toward water sustainability targets is reported as “unevenly and not quickly enough” to meet escalating global water challenges.
• While 48 of the 71 companies improved their scores since 2023, the overall pace of action is insufficient to achieve the targets outlined in SDG 6 by 2030.
• The majority of companies (56) scored below 50% on the benchmark, indicating a substantial gap between corporate action and the requirements for sustainable water management.
• The analysis utilizes the “Corporate Expectations for Valuing Water,” a framework that aligns with key targets of SDG 6 and promotes corporate accountability in line with SDG 12: Responsible Consumption and Production.

Corporate Performance Analysis in Relation to SDG 6 Targets

Company performance was categorized based on progress toward a 90-point scale, reflecting varying levels of commitment to sustainable water management.

1. High Achievement (Over 75%)

   • Only one company, Danone, has achieved this status, demonstrating significant progress toward its 2030 water conservation goals and making a direct contribution to SDG 6.4 (increase water-use efficiency and ensure sustainable withdrawals).

2. On Track (50% to 75%)

   • Fourteen companies, including LVMH, Unilever, Microsoft, and PepsiCo, are considered on track. Their efforts represent meaningful progress toward integrating sustainable water practices into their operations.

3. Lagging Performance (Less than 35%)

   • A total of 38 companies, including Apple, Amazon, Tyson Foods, and Fresh Del Monte, scored in this category, indicating a critical need for accelerated action to align with global sustainability goals.
   • Produce supplier Chiquita Brands ranked last for the second consecutive time with a score of 1.1%, highlighting a severe deficiency in its contribution to SDG 6.

Methodological Framework and SDG Alignment

The Ceres benchmark assesses companies against six core expectations for valuing water. These criteria directly support the achievement of multiple SDG targets.

• Water Availability: Measures corporate efforts to manage water use efficiently, aligning with SDG 6.4. Companies performed best in this category.
• Water Quality: Assesses actions to reduce pollution and improve water quality in value chains, a key component of SDG 6.3. This remains the area of weakest corporate performance.
• Ecosystems: Evaluates the protection and restoration of water-related ecosystems, supporting SDG 6.6.
• Access to Water and Sanitation (WASH): Considers corporate impact on community access to clean water, directly linking to SDG 6.1 and SDG 6.2.
• Board Oversight and Public Policy Engagement: Encourages governance and advocacy for sustainable water policies, reinforcing the framework of SDG 12.6 (encourage companies to adopt sustainable practices).

Challenges and Broader SDG Implications

• The continued lack of contextual, supply-chain-inclusive targets for water quality represents a significant barrier to achieving SDG 6.3.
• The report projects that by 2050, over 30% of global GDP will be exposed to high water stress. This poses a direct threat to SDG 8 (Decent Work and Economic Growth) and underscores the economic imperative for corporate water action.
• Inadequate water stewardship jeopardizes global food systems, impacting SDG 2 (Zero Hunger), and undermines corporate resilience to climate change, which is central to SDG 13 (Climate Action).

Analysis of the Article in Relation to Sustainable Development Goals

1. Which SDGs are addressed or connected to the issues highlighted in the article?

The article primarily addresses issues related to several Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) due to its focus on corporate water management, sustainability reporting, and the impact of industrial activities on freshwater resources.

• SDG 6: Clean Water and Sanitation: This is the most central SDG to the article. The entire text revolves around corporate water stewardship, water sustainability targets, water availability, water quality, and access to water and sanitation within company value chains. The article explicitly discusses the challenges companies face in managing freshwater resources sustainably.
• SDG 12: Responsible Consumption and Production: The article evaluates the sustainability practices of major companies in water-intensive industries. It focuses on how these corporations are managing a key natural resource (water) and their progress in integrating sustainability into their operations and reporting, which directly aligns with promoting sustainable production patterns. The mention of the Corporate Sustainability Reporting Directive (CSRD) further strengthens this connection.
• SDG 9: Industry, Innovation, and Infrastructure: The report mentioned in the article analyzes companies in “tech, apparel, beverage, and food — four water-intensive industries.” This SDG is relevant as it calls for upgrading industries to make them sustainable and increasing resource-use efficiency, which is the core theme of the corporate water stewardship efforts described.
• SDG 15: Life on Land: The article states that the corporate expectations used for evaluation measure how companies affect “ecosystems.” This directly connects to the goal of protecting and restoring water-related ecosystems, which are a key component of this SDG.

2. What specific targets under those SDGs can be identified based on the article’s content?

Based on the details provided, several specific SDG targets can be identified:

1. Under SDG 6 (Clean Water and Sanitation):
   • Target 6.3: By 2030, improve water quality by reducing pollution. The article directly addresses this by noting that corporate “performance remains weakest on water quality, due to a continued lack of supply chain inclusion and contextual targets.”
   • Target 6.4: By 2030, substantially increase water-use efficiency across all sectors. The article’s focus on “water-intensive industries” and their progress on “water sustainability targets” is fundamentally about improving water-use efficiency.
   • Target 6.6: By 2020, protect and restore water-related ecosystems. The analysis framework mentioned, Ceres’ “Corporate Expectations for Valuing Water,” explicitly measures how companies impact “ecosystems,” linking directly to this target.
2. Under SDG 12 (Responsible Consumption and Production):
   • Target 12.2: By 2030, achieve the sustainable management and efficient use of natural resources. The entire article is an assessment of how major corporations are managing water, a critical natural resource, within their value chains.
   • Target 12.6: Encourage companies, especially large and transnational companies, to adopt sustainable practices and to integrate sustainability information into their reporting cycle. The article is based on a benchmark analysis of “publicly available company disclosures” and notes that progress was driven by “expanded disclosure of water-related impacts and dependencies, often through reporting in line with the European Union’s Corporate Sustainability Reporting Directive.”
3. Under SDG 9 (Industry, Innovation, and Infrastructure):
   • Target 9.4: By 2030, upgrade infrastructure and retrofit industries to make them sustainable, with increased resource-use efficiency and greater adoption of clean and environmentally sound technologies and industrial processes. The article’s evaluation of water-intensive industries’ efforts to meet sustainability goals is a direct reflection of this target.

3. Are there any indicators mentioned or implied in the article that can be used to measure progress towards the identified targets?

Yes, the article mentions and implies several specific indicators used to measure corporate progress:

• Corporate Performance Score: The Ceres report assesses companies on a point scale, with a maximum of 90 points. The article mentions specific scores, such as Chiquita Brands scoring “just 1.1%,” which serves as a direct quantitative indicator of performance.
• Percentage of Progress Towards Goals: The article uses percentage-based thresholds to categorize companies. It states that Danone “has achieved over 75% progress toward its 2030 sustainability and water conservation goals” and groups other companies based on whether they hit 35%, 50%, or 75% of the possible points. This percentage is a clear indicator of progress.
• Number of Companies Meeting Thresholds: The article provides counts of companies within different performance tiers, such as “only 14 companies… are considered to be ‘on track,’ scoring 50% to 75%” and “38 companies… scored less than 35%.” This acts as an industry-wide progress indicator.
• Disclosure and Reporting Rate: The article implies that the act of reporting is an indicator itself. It notes that gains were driven by “expanded disclosure of water-related impacts and dependencies, often through reporting in line with the European Union’s Corporate Sustainability Reporting Directive.” The rate and quality of this disclosure can be measured.
• Performance on Specific Water Metrics: The article implies that progress is measured against distinct criteria by stating that companies “perform best on water availability” but that “performance remains weakest on water quality.” These specific areas (availability, quality, ecosystem impact, etc.) serve as sub-indicators.

4. Create a table with three columns titled ‘SDGs, Targets and Indicators” to present the findings from analyzing the article.

Source: esgdive.com