41 Percent of Major Companies Now Set Water Quality Targets, Ceres Finds

Water quality targets are now on the books at 41 percent of the 71 global companies benchmarked by Ceres — up from 23 percent in 2023 — but that still trails the 83 percent of the same firms with water-use targets, and the gap defines the next two years of corporate water stewardship.

The figures come from Ceres' most recent water benchmark report, published in 2025 and released every two years. The next edition, in 2027, will assess how companies advance their strategies, adopt industry best practices and raise ambition on water quality.

What does the benchmark actually show?

Ceres' research on water stewardship identifies quality as the area where companies are falling furthest behind. Goals are often disconnected from local water conditions, and strategies frequently fail to follow water risk beyond company operations into supply chains — where the majority of water risk often sits.

Without that supply chain data, it's difficult for companies to pinpoint where risk is highest, justify action, or focus targets and resources where they'll deliver the greatest benefit. Only a handful of the evaluated companies are positioned, on current evidence, to drive real impact and mitigate risk.

The financial exposure is concrete. Ceres points to fines, cleanup costs, orders to cease production and reputational damage — including PFAS-linked cleanup liabilities and a 3M factory closure in Belgium over pollution that disrupted coolant supply for chips and data centers. Industries that need water of a specific quality, such as food and beverage and semiconductor manufacturing, face operational risk when incoming water isn't clean enough for their products.

How is regulation tightening?

Disclosure requirements are closing in from several directions at once:

• The EU's Corporate Sustainability Reporting Directive requires large companies to measure and report water quality impacts.
• The Taskforce on Nature-related Finance Disclosures has added water quality metrics to its guidance.
• CDP continues to push for greater transparency on wastewater management.

Companies that anchor targets in local water conditions, extend strategy into supply chains and improve transparency will be better equipped to meet rising expectations from investors, regulators and communities, Ceres argues — and to strengthen the resilience of both their business and the water resources they depend on.

What does credible action look like?

Three companies in the benchmark illustrate the mechanics.

Cargill has pledged to reduce 5,000 metric tons of pollutants in water-stressed regions by 2030. So far it has reduced 1,580 metric tons of water pollution in water-stressed areas of its supply chain — roughly 32 percent of the way to target — through agricultural practices that cut nutrient runoff and projects restoring lands and watersheds around farmland. It tracks progress using the Volumetric Water Benefit Accounting 2.0 methodology to keep results consistent and credible.

Kering is attacking its water quality footprint by reducing heavy metals, hazardous chemicals and microplastics across industrial processes and its raw material supply chain. Its tanneries are investing in metal-free and chrome-free tanning to reduce freshwater pollution, and the apparel group has pinpointed 10 priority basins for restoring water-stressed ecosystems, improving water quality and supply, and building climate resilience.

Levi Strauss & Co. used the Science Based Target Network framework to assess its water and nature footprint from raw materials to manufacturing. The finding: an estimated 38 percent of its freshwater pollution impacts, measured in kilograms of phosphorus-equivalent, occur during garment manufacturing — tier 1 of its supply chain — mainly from laundry processes. In response, the company has committed that all direct-discharge facilities will meet the Foundational level of the ZDHC Wastewater Guidelines, and 25 percent will reach the stricter Progressive level, by 2030. The guidelines, published by the Zero Discharge of Hazardous Chemicals Foundation, set three tiers of wastewater limits: Foundational, Progressive and Aspirational.

Which tools are practitioners using?

A growing number of companies are measuring impacts, setting targets and tracking progress beyond compliance. The SBTN framework offers guidance for assessing impact and dependencies and setting measurable goals to reduce harm to freshwater ecosystems. Some organizations also use the World Resources Institute's Water Quality Benefit Accounting Guidance to quantify how water replenishment and regenerative agriculture improve shared water challenges, with indicators covering soil health and local water conditions.

The milestone to watch is Ceres' 2027 water benchmark — the point at which pledges either convert into verifiable, watershed-level reductions or show up as the same gap the 2025 report already flagged.