From Aqueduct to SBTN, AWS and CDP: which frameworks should you choose for your water strategy?

Anyone getting to grips with corporate water strategy will quickly run into an alphabet soup of frameworks: Aqueduct, SBTN, AWS, CDP, GRI 303, ESRS E3, TNFD, the CEO Water Mandate ... Each serves its own purpose and is rarely interchangeable with the others. This insight brings structure to that landscape. Discover how these frameworks complement each other and form the building blocks of a robust water strategy.

July 28, 2026

by

Katelijne Norga

Climate

Water and marine materials

The 4 functions of a water strategy

The simplest way to bring order to the water strategy frameworks is to group them by function. Broadly speaking, there are four:

‍

Mapping water risks.
Setting targets.
Implementing and verifying measures.
External reporting.

‍

Confusion usually arises when companies use a framework for a function it was not designed for.

1. Mapping water risks

Before you can take action, you need to know where the water risk lies. There are dedicated risk and measurement tools for this:

‍

The Aqueduct Water Risk Atlas (World Resources Institute) maps water stress worldwide at regional level and shows where demand for water exceeds supply − as is the case in Flanders.
Water footprint calculations under ISO 14046 or the Water Footprint Network methodology measure actual water use per product, process or site, enabling comparison and monitoring over time.

‍

These tools do not set targets and do not lead to certification. They provide insight and typically form the first step of a water risk analysis.

2. Setting targets

Once the water risk is known, the next question is: what level of ambition is scientifically justified?

‍

That's the domain of Science Based Targets for Nature (SBTN), an initiative backed by organisations including the Carbon Disclosure Project, WWF, the United Nations Global Compact and the World Economic Forum. SBTN has developed technical guidance for context-based water targets: targets that account for local water availability at each individual site, rather than applying generic reduction percentages.

‍

A target for a site in a water-rich region will therefore look fundamentally different from one for a site in a water-scarce region such as Flanders.

‍

The first companies to publicly adopt SBTN water targets were pharmaceutical company GSK, luxury group Kering and building materials producer Holcim. Holcim, for instance, set a context-based target for its Belgian sites in the Haine river basin, aiming to cut freshwater withdrawal by 38% by 2035 compared with the 2020–2024 average. Worldwide, more than 150 companies are currently preparing to set targets through SBTN.

3. Implementing and certifying

For implementation and certification, the Alliance for Water Stewardship (AWS) Standard (also known as the International Water Stewardship Standard) is the leading international framework.

‍

Unlike the previous categories, the AWS Standard is not a measurement tool or a target-setting framework, but an operational management system at site and catchment level that can be independently audited and certified. It is the only international framework for responsible water stewardship that fully complies with the ISEAL Code of Good Practice for Sustainability Systems.

‍

The standard is applied by major companies including Nestlé, Coca-Cola, Unilever and Diageo, across more than 400 certified sites worldwide.

‍

In early 2026, AWS launched a substantially revised version 3.0. Requirements were cut by more than a quarter and more closely aligned with European CSRD regulation, reflecting the growing number of companies approaching water through that lens.

4. Reporting

The final function covers the frameworks companies use to disclose their water management externally:

‍

CSRD/ESRS E3 requires companies to report on water impact, dependencies and risks across the full value chain, based on a materiality assessment.
CDP Water Security is the most widely used voluntary water reporting questionnaire globally and is attracting growing attention from investors. In 2024, over 22,700 companies were scored, but only 133 achieved the top score (A) for water security.
GRI 303 (Water and Effluents) is the water standard within the GRI guidelines and is often used alongside, or as preparation for, CSRD reporting.
The Taskforce on Nature-related Financial Disclosures (TNFD) is a broader framework for nature-related risks, within which water is one of the core themes.

The question isn't which water framework is best, but which combination fits your risk profile, sector, and reporting obligations

Where does the CEO Water Mandate fit in?

The CEO Water Mandate, a partnership between the UN Global Compact and the Pacific Institute, is not a standard or a reporting tool, but a commitment platform.

‍

Participating companies commit to making continuous progress across six core areas:

‍

direct operations;
supply chain and watershed management;
collective action;
public policy;
community engagement;
transparency.

‍

The Mandate functions as an overarching commitment, within which organisations use other frameworks as practical tools.

How do these frameworks complement each other?

The frameworks build logically on one another.

‍

A company will typically use Aqueduct or a water footprint calculation to map water risk, SBTN to set science-based targets, AWS to implement those targets on-site and have the results independently certified, and CDP, GRI or CSRD to report externally.

‍

This connection is explicitly recognised by the organisations behind the frameworks themselves. The most recent SBTN guidance, for example, was aligned with CDP, AWS and TNFD, while AWS version 3.0 was deliberately brought closer in line with CSRD requirements.

‍

Collaboration is also growing around value chain risk. In spring 2026, four partner organisations − the World Resources Institute, WWF, the CEO Water Mandate and SCS Global Services − announced plans to develop a standardised method for assessing water risks across the full value chain: the Corporate Guidance for Assessing Water Scopes 1-3 in Value Chains. This guidance, too, is explicitly designed to align with existing frameworks such as CDP and AWS.

What does your organisation need?

For most companies, the question isn't which framework is best, but which combination best fits their risk profile, sector and reporting obligations.

‍

A company reporting primarily under CSRD will have different priorities from one seeking AWS certification to meet the expectations of international customers.

‍

That is why it rarely makes sense to follow a single framework blindly, without first gaining a clear picture of your own risk profile and ambitions.

‍

Our approach

Pantarein helps organisations make the right choices in this landscape − from water risk and materiality analysis to a concrete water policy with targets and KPIs, aligned with CSRD/ESRS E3, CDP or AWS, depending on what is relevant to you.

‍

For the technical translation − from water audits to circular water treatment and reuse, including guidance towards AWS certification − we work closely with sister company Pantarein Water, which develops circular water solutions for industry.

Ready to build a water strategy tailored to your business?

We help you determine which frameworks are relevant to you, and make sure your analysis, targets, implementation and reporting align seamlessly. So you do not have to wade through the alphabet soup yourself.

‍

Feel free to contact our team at mail@pantarein.be.