Disclosure focus
This disclosure asks an organisation to explain how its activities interact with water as a shared resource. In practice, that means describing where water is taken from, where it is returned, and how the organisation’s operations may affect water availability or water quality for other users and ecosystems. The focus is on the organisation’s overall relationship with water, not just isolated examples.
The practical emphasis is usually on coverage across the business: which operations, sites, or activities are included in the reporting boundary, and whether the organisation has looked beyond a few flagship locations. A useful explanation will show whether the organisation has identified the main parts of its operations that depend on water or influence water conditions, and how broadly that assessment has been applied.
This LRA educational guidance supports disclosure preparation. For the exact requirements, always refer to the official GRI source.
Before you start
A quick mental checklist before you prepare this disclosure — tick each as you settle it.
Preparation
Key datapoints to prepare
＋ Show GRI 303-1 sub-elements (LRA working checklist)
Set out where water is taken in, used up, and released, and describe the main places this happens.
Explain how you work with suppliers or customers where water issues are material.
Describe the ways the organisation affects, and is affected by, water.
Show how you collaborate with stakeholders to manage water as a shared resource.
Explain how water-related effects are dealt with.
Describe the method used to find water-related impacts, including what was covered, the period reviewed, and the tools or methods applied.
State the water-related impacts the organisation has caused, helped cause, or is linked to through its operations, products, services, or business relationships, including examples such as runoff.
Explain how water-related goals and targets connect with public policy and local conditions in each water-stressed area.
Describe the process used to set any water-related goals and targets within the approach to managing water and effluents.
How to prepare it
1Set the reporting boundary first. Make clear which parts of the business, sites, and activities are included, so the water story is tied to the right operations and relationships.
2Define what you will count as water use and water impact. Cover where water is taken in, used up, and released, and include any effects the business has caused, helped cause, or is linked to through its products, services, or business partners.
3Gather the source material behind the statement. Pull together site records, process notes, assessment outputs, and any tools or methods used to identify water-related effects, including the period covered by the review.
4Draft the disclosure in a way that covers both the facts and the response. Describe the main water interactions, the impacts identified, how those impacts are being handled, how stakeholders are involved in managing water as a shared resource, and how suppliers or customers with material water issues are engaged.
5Explain any goals or targets and how they were set. If water aims are part of the management approach, note the process used to establish them and show how they fit with public policy and the local conditions in areas facing water stress.
6Record any exclusions, changes, or judgement calls, then check the final wording against the official source. Confirm that the disclosure still matches the required points, with no missing items or unintended additions.
Request the data
Request the water-use and impact evidence from EHS / Operations
Translate the disclosure into an internal business question — then adapt it to your organisation's own language.
How does the business use water, what water-related impacts has it identified, and what actions, engagement and targets are in place to manage them?
Use your organisation’s own site, utility and environmental terms first, then map them to the reporting labels. For example, ask for the names you use for sites, process water, cooling water, wastewater, stormwater, discharge points, catchments, water-stress areas, supplier/customer engagement and environmental action plans.
Weak request
Please provide the GRI 303-1 information for water interactions, including withdrawals, consumption, discharges, impacts, stakeholder engagement and targets.
Why it fails: It uses framework language that many operational teams do not use day to day, so the owner may not know which records to pull. It also bundles several topics without telling the team which site names, systems, time period or internal categories to use, making the response harder to assemble and verify.
Better request
Please send the water pack for [period] for [sites/in scope]: how water is taken in, used and released; any water issues or incidents; how you identified them; what you are doing about them; who you have engaged locally; and any water goals or targets. Use your normal site, utility and environmental terms, and include the supporting logs, permits, maps or action plans.
Industry examples
Draft your disclosure
Notes that turn data into a disclosure
LRA training templates — adapt them to your organisation, and check the official source before sign-off.
Method note
Set out, in plain terms, how the organisation defined the water issues it reviewed, the period covered, the parts of the business included, and the tools or methods used to identify effects and assess them.
Context note
Explain what the figures mean in practice by linking water use, releases, and identified effects to the organisation’s activities, sites, and relationships, so readers can understand the operational significance.
Fluctuation statement
If any figures moved materially, note the main drivers, such as changes in activity, site mix, weather, or management actions, and explain whether the shift altered the organisation’s water-related effects or priorities.
Content index entry
GRI 303-1 Interactions with water as a shared resource — [location / page] / [notes]
Download Centre
Preparation tools & forms
Professional preparation tools for GRI 303-1 — free with an LRA Community membership. Register once (it's free) and every download unlocks, together with the Disclosure Library, templates and the LRA AI-assistant.
Free · Community members
Assurance readiness
For each claim, check the evidence
Evidence pack to prepare
Common reporting gaps
The information is presented without a date or as-at point.The scope or boundary of the statement is left undefined.Key terms are used inconsistently across the report.Material changes since the previous period are not disclosed.Assertions are made without supporting detail or a source record.Boilerplate is used that does not actually answer what is asked.
Common gaps
Mistakes to avoid when collecting the data
Wrong owner, wrong language
The team asks a policy or reporting contact instead of the operational manager who can describe how the site uses, takes, and returns water in the business’s own terms.
Scope left fuzzy
No one agrees which sites, activities, products, or business relationships are in scope, so the data set shifts between teams and cannot be compared cleanly.
Boundary not fixed
People mix group-wide figures with site-level records without stating what is included or excluded, which makes the final evidence trail impossible to follow.
Period basis mixed up
One team uses the reporting year while another uses a different cut-off or snapshot date, so the numbers and narratives do not line up to the same time period.
Counting rules not aligned
Volumes, incidents, and site counts are gathered on different bases by different teams, then combined as if they were directly comparable.
Source labels lost
Original file names, system tags, location codes, or incident references are stripped out during consolidation, so the team cannot trace each point back to its source.
Separate populations merged
Water use at owned sites, supplier-related impacts, and customer-linked issues are rolled into one pool even though they should be kept distinct for analysis.
Evidence metadata missing
The pack contains figures but not the date, owner, version, or method used to create them, so reviewers cannot tell whether the data is current or complete.
No sign-off trail
Draft data moves between teams without a clear reviewer and approver record, leaving no proof of who checked the assumptions before submission.
Where judgement is often needed
Newly bought or sold sites during the reporting period
State whether the year-end picture includes sites added or removed through deals, and explain the cut-off used so readers can see why the water picture changed.
Different local meanings for the same water terms
Where country teams use different labels or thresholds for withdrawal, use, discharge, or stress, explain the local basis chosen and how you kept the group view comparable.
Sites that sit partly inside and partly outside the reporting scope
Set out the rule used for mixed-ownership, shared-utility, or co-located operations, and explain how you treated any activity that only partly sits within the organisation’s control.
Choosing the period and method for impact review
Explain the time window, the assessment tools, and the method used to identify water-related impacts so users can understand whether the review was point-in-time or covered a longer cycle.
Measured figures versus estimates or models
Disclose where site readings were available and where values were estimated, including the basis for any assumptions and how you judged the quality of the resulting information.
How to describe impacts linked through suppliers or customers
If the issue sits in the value chain rather than inside owned operations, explain the link to the business relationship and the basis for deciding that the impact is significant enough to include.
How to handle sensitive location detail
When exact site or community locations could expose personal or security-sensitive information, aggregate the data enough to protect privacy while still showing where the water interaction occurs.
Rounding and small differences across totals
If you round site or country figures, state the rounding rule and make clear that minor differences may appear between component figures and the total.
Examples
Illustrative examples
Synthetic, written by LRA — not from a company report, not text from any standard.
Illustrative (synthetic) example — Food processing
*Synthetic example only.* We map how our sites take in, use and release water across processing, cleaning and cooling, and we note where withdrawals, consumption and discharges occur by site and catchment. Our review covered the last 12 months, used site water balances, discharge permits, supplier questionnaires and catchment screening, and found three runoff-related issues linked to our operations and one upstream supplier issue; we responded with drainage upgrades, tighter chemical storage, wastewater checks and supplier action plans. - We work with local catchment groups and water users to support shared stewardship, and we engage suppliers and major customers where water pressure or effluent risk is material. - Our water aims are set through site risk reviews, legal checks and local stakeholder input, so each target reflects public policy and the conditions in water-stressed areas where we operate.
This example shows a concise narrative that covers the organisation’s water use, impact identification, response actions, stakeholder work, supplier/customer engagement, and how targets are set and aligned to local policy and stressed catchments. The figures and issues are synthetic and internally consistent.
Illustrative (synthetic) example — Textile manufacturing
*Synthetic example only.* We describe water across dyeing, washing and finishing, including where we draw it from, where it is used up in process, and where treated effluent leaves our facilities. Over a 12-month review using plant water audits, effluent sampling, satellite-based catchment checks and a supplier risk screen, we identified two direct discharge issues and two runoff-related issues from shared yards; all four were addressed through process changes, bunding, training and follow-up monitoring. - We coordinate with river basin groups and community representatives on shared water management, and we raise water expectations with wet-processing suppliers and key buyers where our shared footprint is significant. - Our goals are set from site-by-site risk ranking, local rules and basin plans, so the targets fit each water-stressed area’s policy setting and practical constraints.
This example illustrates a different sector with a different water profile, while still covering the required narrative points: how water is used, where it moves, what impacts were found, how they were assessed, what was done, and how targets connect to local policy and stressed-water contexts. The example is synthetic and the counts are internally consistent.
Company reports
How companies report GRI 303-1
Real reports where this topic is disclosed. These are report practice, not exact disclosure templates to copy.
O-Bank Co., Ltd.
Banks / Diverse Financials / Insurance · Taiwan · 2024
O-Bank Co., Ltd.'s 2024 Sustainability Report provides reported values related to water discharge impacts and water withdrawal, referencing GRI 303-3 on pages 25 and 308, and discusses management of water as a shared resource on page 25. The report also offers supporting context on the impact and affected value chain of selected material topics on page 23, though without headline values. However, there is no clear methodology or detailed narrative explaining these disclosures, as several narrative items remain unclear or not found in the report.
Zydus Wellness Limited
Food Production — Agricultural · India · 2025
Zydus Wellness Limited's Integrated Annual Report 2024-25 provides detailed quantitative data on water management, including water withdrawal, discharge, and consumption figures on pages 39 and 51, with specific values such as total water withdrawal of 358,818 kilolitres and total water discharge of 410,270 kilolitres (p.39). The report also references compliance with applicable environmental laws and regulations related to water use on page 143 and discusses water discharge-related impacts under natural capital on page 51. However, there is no clear methodological narrative or explanation of how these water metrics are calculated or managed, as several narrative items remain unclear or not found in the report.
ReNew Energy Global Plc
Electric Utilities / IPP / Energy Traders · United Kingdom · 2025
ReNew Energy Global Plc’s 2025 report provides several specific data points on water management, including water withdrawal volumes in thousand cubic meters (p.159) and water discharge-related impacts (p.163). The company also details implementation of multiple low-cost, high-impact water-saving measures in its manufacturing operations (p.78) and addresses waste management impacts related to water (p.163). However, the report lacks clear methodological explanations and headline values for water-related risk management, with some narrative elements remaining unclear or absent.
✓ LRA AI Assistant · Human-in-the-loop
Ask Study Studio AI assistant about this disclosure
Get a practical answer for your reporting context. Your first answer is free — create a free account to continue the conversation.
TryHow do I prepare GRI 303-1?What data do I need to collect?Where can I see a real-report example?What mistakes should I avoid?
1 free answer
Check your understanding
Scenarios to work through
A manufacturing site takes water from a local river, uses it in cooling and cleaning, and sends treated water back to the same catchment. The site also buys ingredients from a supplier whose farm runoff has been linked to poorer water quality nearby.
QWhat should the narrative cover so readers can see the site’s full water relationship, not just its own meter readings?
Reveal model answer →Hide answer ↑It should describe how the organisation uses water in practice, where water is taken from, where it is used up, and where it is returned. It should also mention any water-related effects it has caused or helped cause, including effects connected through business partners such as runoff from a supplier.
Why this matters · Give a plain account of the organisation’s direct water use and any wider effects linked to its activities or value chain.
A preparer has a list of water issues from the last two years, but the review only covered owned sites and ignored contract manufacturers. The team also used different methods for each region, with no clear explanation of the time period assessed.
QWhat needs to be explained about the way water impacts were identified?
Reveal model answer →Hide answer ↑The description should make clear the scope of the review, the period it covered, and the tools or methods used. If the assessment only covered some parts of the business, that limitation should be visible so readers understand what was and was not checked.
Why this matters · Explain how the review was done, not just the final list of issues found.
A food business has set a target to cut water use at two plants in a dry region, but the draft report only states the target and the headline reduction. It does not say how the target was chosen or how it fits with local water rules and community pressures.
QWhat extra context should be added about the target-setting process?
Reveal model answer →Hide answer ↑The report should explain how the water goal or target was set and how it sits alongside public policy and the local conditions in each water-stressed area. That means showing the link between the target, the local setting, and any relevant public measures rather than presenting the target in isolation.
Why this matters · Targets need context: show how they were set and how they fit the local water situation.
A retailer has worked with a farming supplier to reduce irrigation losses and has joined a local water forum with community groups and other businesses. The draft report mentions the forum but says nothing about how the supplier was engaged or what was done with stakeholders to manage shared water pressures.
QHow should the organisation describe its response and collaboration on shared water issues?
Reveal model answer →Hide answer ↑It should describe the actions taken to deal with the water impacts and explain how it worked with stakeholders to look after water as a shared resource. If suppliers or customers have significant water-related effects, the report should also explain how the organisation engaged with them to address those effects.
Why this matters · Show both the response to impacts and the collaboration needed to manage shared water resources.
Framework references
Related framework references
How this disclosure maps across the major reporting frameworks.
Primary
Related & explore
FAQ
Questions this page answers
How do I use the GRI 303-1 Water and Effluents page to draft the disclosure from scratch?+−
Start with the plain-language explainer, then work through the step-by-step preparation section and the datapoints to prepare. The page also gives draft-output prompts, so you can turn the collected information into a narrative, a visual, and a content-index line.
What data do I need to collect for GRI 303-1 Water and Effluents on this page?+−
The page points you to nine datapoints: water interaction overview, water flow profile, water impact sources, impact assessment method, water response actions, shared water stewardship, supplier and customer engagement, goal-setting process, and local policy alignment. Use those as your data checklist before drafting.
How should I set the scope and methodology for the GRI 303-1 Water and Effluents disclosure?+−
Use the page’s impact assessment method and water flow profile prompts to define what is in scope and how the data is being interpreted. The page is designed to help you make those choices explicit in the draft rather than leaving them implicit.
Who should own the GRI 303-1 Water and Effluents data collection and sign-off?+−
The page is set up for use by a sustainability or ESG manager, HR or data owner, and an assurance reviewer, so ownership can be split across those roles. Use the step-by-step preparation section to assign who gathers the data, who checks it, and who signs off the evidence pack.
What evidence pack do I need to make GRI 303-1 Water and Effluents assurance-ready?+−
The page includes an evidence pack with five items and six assurance claims to verify, each framed around claim, risk, and evidence. That gives you a practical checklist for building support before review or assurance.
What are the common mistakes or reporting gaps to avoid in GRI 303-1 Water and Effluents?+−
The page has a section on common reporting gaps and mistakes, so it is meant to help you spot weak or missing information before you publish. Use it alongside the evidence pack and assurance claims to catch issues early.
How do I use the workbook and printable Library Card for GRI 303-1 Water and Effluents?+−
The Download Centre includes a Prep & Assurance workbook in .xlsx format and a printable Library Card in .pdf. Use the workbook to organise the preparation and evidence, and the card as a quick reference while drafting or reviewing.
What kind of draft output can I build from the GRI 303-1 Water and Effluents page?+−
The page includes draft-output support with visualisation ideas, narrative starters, and a GRI content-index line. That means you can move from raw notes and data into a first-pass disclosure without starting from a blank page.
Can I use the synthetic example on the GRI 303-1 Water and Effluents page as a template for my own disclosure?+−
Yes, but only as an illustrative guide: the example is synthetic and meant to show how the disclosure might look in practice. Use it to understand structure and presentation, then replace it with your own internally consistent data.
How does the ESRS E3 Water and Marine Resources reference help me with GRI 303-1 Water and Effluents?+−
The page says ESRS E3 is the closest correspondence, so it can help you think about whether data already collected for another framework can be reused. It does not say the requirements are identical, so treat it as a cross-reference rather than a direct substitute.
More questions this page can help with
GRI 303-1 Water and Effluents: what should I check before I start drafting the disclosure?GRI 303-1 Water and Effluents: which datapoints from the page should I request from site teams and data owners?GRI 303-1 Water and Effluents: how do I document the water flow profile in a way that is usable for reporting?GRI 303-1 Water and Effluents: what should the evidence pack contain for assurance review?GRI 303-1 Water and Effluents: what are the six assurance claims and how do I test them?GRI 303-1 Water and Effluents: how do I use the Prep & Assurance workbook to track evidence and sign-off?GRI 303-1 Water and Effluents: what should a good narrative starter include?GRI 303-1 Water and Effluents: how do I turn the synthetic example into a draft disclosure?GRI 303-1 Water and Effluents: what common gaps should I look for in a first draft?GRI 303-1 Water and Effluents: how can supplier and customer engagement be reflected in the disclosure?GRI 303-1 Water and Effluents: how do shared water stewardship and local policy alignment fit into the draft?GRI 303-1 Water and Effluents: can I reuse data prepared for ESRS E3 Water and Marine Resources?
Free · LRA Community
Get your GRI 303-1 tools — free
Your preparation tools are free for LRA Community members and students. Register once (it's free) and your download starts right away — plus the Disclosure Library, templates and the LRA AI-assistant.
✓
You're in — your download is starting
Your file is downloading now. Your Community Cabinet — with the Disclosure Library, templates and the LRA AI-assistant — is ready too.
Open your Cabinet →