Management of water dischargerelated impacts

Please provide the GRI 303-2 evidence for effluent discharge standards and the methodology for determining standards, including internal guidelines, sector-specific standards, and receiving waterbody considerations.

Why it fails: It uses framework language that many operational teams will not use day to day, so it is harder to action. It also bundles several ideas into a compliance-style ask without telling the owner what records to pull, which sites or systems to check, or what format to return.

Please send the wastewater or trade effluent discharge standards pack for [period] and [sites]. Include the current limits or site rules, how they were set, what we do at sites with no local discharge limit, any internal water quality guidance, any sector guidance used, and whether the receiving waterbody or outfall was considered. Please add the source file, version, and approver.

Explain which discharge-quality benchmarks were used, how each one was chosen, and how you dealt with sites that had no local discharge rules, including any company-made guidance, outside sector benchmarks and any assessment of the receiving water.

Set out what the figures mean by showing the standards used to manage effluent quality and how they differ by site, so readers can see whether the approach was locally driven or based on broader internal or sector practice.

If the standards changed from one site or period to another, note whether that was because local rules differed, a different benchmark was selected, or the receiving water conditions led to a different approach.

Evidence pack to prepare

Common reporting gaps

*Synthetic illustration only.* We set our discharge controls by starting with the legal limits that apply to each site, then tightening them where our own water team judged the local river or estuary to be more sensitive. For sites with no local rulebook, we used the same internal water-quality guide across the group, with extra checks where the receiving water was already under pressure. - Our minimum release conditions covered pH, temperature, suspended solids, nutrients and selected process chemicals; the exact thresholds varied by site and were approved through our environmental management process. - In 6 of 8 sites, the local permit was the main basis for the limit set; in the other 2 sites, we applied our internal guide because no local discharge limit existed. - We also looked at the waterbody taking the effluent: 5 sites discharged to rivers with low seasonal flow, 2 to estuarine waters and 1 to a municipal treatment system, and that profile influenced how strict we made the site controls. - Sector guidance for food and drink manufacturing was reviewed alongside the permit conditions, but we did not adopt any sector benchmark without checking it against site-specific conditions.

This example shows how a reporter can explain the basis for effluent controls, including internal rules, sector guidance and the condition of the receiving water, without using standard language.

*Synthetic illustration only.* Our discharge criteria were built from the permit conditions that apply at each plant, then aligned with a group-wide water standard that we wrote for operations in places without a local discharge framework. Where we had no local limit to follow, we used that internal standard and checked it against the nature of the water receiving the outflow. - The internal standard set minimum values for acidity, oil and grease, metals, and oxygen-demanding substances; it was created by our environmental specialists using past monitoring results, treatment capability and risk review. - We considered chemical-industry guidance on wastewater quality, but only as a reference point; it did not replace site controls or the group standard. - Of our 10 plants, 7 relied mainly on local permit conditions and 3 used the group standard because no local discharge requirement was in place. - The receiving waters were part of the decision: 4 plants discharged to small inland streams, 3 to larger rivers and 3 to a coastal outfall, and we applied tighter internal checks where dilution was lower or ecological sensitivity was higher.

This example shows a different way to describe the same disclosure, with emphasis on how internal criteria were developed and how the receiving water influenced the final limits.

A manufacturing site sends treated wastewater to a river where the local permit only covers a few pollutants. The team has also set extra internal limits for temperature and suspended solids because the river is already under pressure.

A site in a country with no local wastewater discharge rules uses a group-wide standard that was written by the company’s environmental team. The standard was based on a review of similar operations and a benchmark from the sector.

A food-processing plant discharges into a small lake used for recreation and wildlife. The environmental team checked the lake’s sensitivity, seasonal flow, and existing nutrient levels before finalising the discharge limits.

A group has three facilities: one follows a municipal permit, one uses a company-made water quality guideline, and one in a specialist industry also aligns with a sector benchmark. The draft report lists the limits but not where each one came from.