Go back to the interactive dataset

2016 – Water risks that could impact companies’ direct operations

Row numberAccount NumberCompany NameIncorporated CountryCDP ProgramReporting YearAccessIndustry Activity GroupGiCS SectorCountryRiver basinRisk driverPotential impactDescription of impactTimeframeLikelihoodMagnitude of potential financial impactResponse strategyCosts of response strategyDetails of strategy and costs
6516113Exelon CorporationUSAWater2016PublicElectric Utilities & Independent Power Producers & Energy Traders (including fossil, alternative and nuclear energy)UtilitiesUnited States of AmericaTrinity River (Texas)Physical-Ecosystem vulnerabilityHigher operating costsThermal discharges impacts on indigenous aquatic populations, to assess the impacts of a plant uprate. Should the permit require operation of the supplemental cooling towers to limit discharge water temperature, additional operational costs and reduced generation output would result, with the possibility of a temporary de-rate of plant operations. It could also adversely affect the ability of the plant to obtain the NPDES permitCurrent-up to 1 yearProbableLowAlignment of public policy positions with water stewardship goalslow - mediumAt Colorado Bend and Mt. Creek we will have to conduct thermal studies. The current permit limits do not align with state water quality standards. These studies will assist in determining the impact, if any, on the aquatic species associated with the cooling water discharge.
6526113Exelon CorporationUSAWater2016PublicElectric Utilities & Independent Power Producers & Energy Traders (including fossil, alternative and nuclear energy)UtilitiesUnited States of AmericaTrinity River (Texas)Physical-Increased water stressHigher operating costsThermal discharges impacts on indigenous aquatic populations, to assess the impacts of a plant uprate. Should the permit require operation of the supplemental cooling towers to limit discharge water temperature, additional operational costs and reduced generation output would result, with the possibility of a temporary de-rate of plant operations. It could also adversely affect the ability of the plant to obtain the NPDES permitCurrent-up to 1 yearProbableLowAlignment of public policy positions with water stewardship goalslow - mediumAt Colorado Bend and Mt. Creek we will have to conduct thermal studies. The current permit limits do not align with state water quality standards. These studies will assist in determining the impact, if any, on the aquatic species associated with the cooling water discharge.
6536113Exelon CorporationUSAWater2016PublicElectric Utilities & Independent Power Producers & Energy Traders (including fossil, alternative and nuclear energy)UtilitiesUnited States of AmericaTrinity River (Texas)Physical-Climate changeHigher operating costsThermal discharges impacts on indigenous aquatic populations, to assess the impacts of a plant uprate. Should the permit require operation of the supplemental cooling towers to limit discharge water temperature, additional operational costs and reduced generation output would result, with the possibility of a temporary de-rate of plant operations. It could also adversely affect the ability of the plant to obtain the NPDES permitCurrent-up to 1 yearProbableLowAlignment of public policy positions with water stewardship goalslow - mediumAt Colorado Bend and Mt. Creek we will have to conduct thermal studies. The current permit limits do not align with state water quality standards. These studies will assist in determining the impact, if any, on the aquatic species associated with the cooling water discharge.
6546113Exelon CorporationUSAWater2016PublicElectric Utilities & Independent Power Producers & Energy Traders (including fossil, alternative and nuclear energy)UtilitiesUnited States of AmericaTrinity River (Texas)Regulatory-Increased difficulty in obtaining withdrawals/operations permitHigher operating costsThermal discharges impacts on indigenous aquatic populations, to assess the impacts of a plant uprate. Should the permit require operation of the supplemental cooling towers to limit discharge water temperature, additional operational costs and reduced generation output would result, with the possibility of a temporary de-rate of plant operations. It could also adversely affect the ability of the plant to obtain the NPDES permitCurrent-up to 1 yearProbableLowAlignment of public policy positions with water stewardship goalslow - mediumAt Colorado Bend and Mt. Creek we will have to conduct thermal studies. The current permit limits do not align with state water quality standards. These studies will assist in determining the impact, if any, on the aquatic species associated with the cooling water discharge.
6556113Exelon CorporationUSAWater2016PublicElectric Utilities & Independent Power Producers & Energy Traders (including fossil, alternative and nuclear energy)UtilitiesUnited States of AmericaTrinity River (Texas)Higher operating costsThermal discharges impacts on indigenous aquatic populations, to assess the impacts of a plant uprate. Should the permit require operation of the supplemental cooling towers to limit discharge water temperature, additional operational costs and reduced generation output would result, with the possibility of a temporary de-rate of plant operations. It could also adversely affect the ability of the plant to obtain the NPDES permitCurrent-up to 1 yearProbableLowAlignment of public policy positions with water stewardship goalslow - mediumAt Colorado Bend and Mt. Creek we will have to conduct thermal studies. The current permit limits do not align with state water quality standards. These studies will assist in determining the impact, if any, on the aquatic species associated with the cooling water discharge.
6566147Exxaro Resources LtdSouth AfricaWater2016PublicMining - CoalEnergySouth AfricaOther: Relevent to all OperationsPhysical-Climate changeOther: Constraint to future growthGenerally accepted impact of Climate Change felt through the impact on water. Water supply, water resources, erratic weather patterns, drought, etc1-3 yearsProbableMedium-highOther: Research, Konwledge, and Skills developmentLow-mediumDedicated resources to internal Water Management Programmes, focussing on Climate Change and its impacts; Government lobbying through industry associations and the commissioning of studies that drives internal adaptation strategies
6576147Exxaro Resources LtdSouth AfricaWater2016PublicMining - CoalEnergySouth AfricaOther: Relevent to all OperationsPhysical-Inadequate infrastructureHigher operating costs1-3 yearsProbableMedium-highEstablish site-specific targetsMediumHigher specifications required in mining equipment and standards of mining engineering to compensate for the adaptation required in managing the impacts of climate change in the business, e.g. higher specification in pumps to deal with flash floods, bigger run-off areas and canals, berms, canals and building to 100-year flood levels instead of 50-year levels. Increased insurance costs due to perceived higher risk and the cost of adhering to increased insurance standard requirements. Cost associated with treatment of water before discharging.
6586383FirstEnergy CorporationUSAWater2016PublicElectric Utilities & Independent Power Producers & Energy Traders (including fossil, alternative and nuclear energy)UtilitiesUnited States of AmericaMississippi RiverPhysical-FloodingPlant/production disruption leading to reduced outputAny of the selected risk drivers could impact FirstEnergy's operations and/or cause costs to be incurred.UnknownUnknownUnknownAlignment of public policy positions with water stewardship goals; Develop flood emergency plans; Engagement with community; Engagement with customers; Engagement with public policy makers; Engagement with other stakeholders in the river basin; Infrastructure maintenance; Increased capital expenditure; Increased investment in new technologyThe costs of management are incorporated within the program operations budgets.
6596383FirstEnergy CorporationUSAWater2016PublicElectric Utilities & Independent Power Producers & Energy Traders (including fossil, alternative and nuclear energy)UtilitiesUnited States of AmericaMississippi RiverPhysical-Seasonal supply variability/Inter annual variabilityPlant/production disruption leading to reduced outputAny of the selected risk drivers could impact FirstEnergy's operations and/or cause costs to be incurred.UnknownUnknownUnknownAlignment of public policy positions with water stewardship goals; Develop flood emergency plans; Engagement with community; Engagement with customers; Engagement with public policy makers; Engagement with other stakeholders in the river basin; Infrastructure maintenance; Increased capital expenditure; Increased investment in new technologyThe costs of management are incorporated within the program operations budgets.
6606383FirstEnergy CorporationUSAWater2016PublicElectric Utilities & Independent Power Producers & Energy Traders (including fossil, alternative and nuclear energy)UtilitiesUnited States of AmericaMississippi RiverRegulatory-Regulatory uncertaintyPlant/production disruption leading to reduced outputAny of the selected risk drivers could impact FirstEnergy's operations and/or cause costs to be incurred.UnknownUnknownUnknownAlignment of public policy positions with water stewardship goals; Develop flood emergency plans; Engagement with community; Engagement with customers; Engagement with public policy makers; Engagement with other stakeholders in the river basin; Infrastructure maintenance; Increased capital expenditure; Increased investment in new technologyThe costs of management are incorporated within the program operations budgets.
6616383FirstEnergy CorporationUSAWater2016PublicElectric Utilities & Independent Power Producers & Energy Traders (including fossil, alternative and nuclear energy)UtilitiesUnited States of AmericaMississippi RiverRegulatory-Mandatory water efficiency, conservation, recycling or process standardsPlant/production disruption leading to reduced outputAny of the selected risk drivers could impact FirstEnergy's operations and/or cause costs to be incurred.UnknownUnknownUnknownAlignment of public policy positions with water stewardship goals; Develop flood emergency plans; Engagement with community; Engagement with customers; Engagement with public policy makers; Engagement with other stakeholders in the river basin; Infrastructure maintenance; Increased capital expenditure; Increased investment in new technologyThe costs of management are incorporated within the program operations budgets.
6626383FirstEnergy CorporationUSAWater2016PublicElectric Utilities & Independent Power Producers & Energy Traders (including fossil, alternative and nuclear energy)UtilitiesUnited States of AmericaMississippi RiverRegulatory-Regulation of discharge quality/volumes leading to higher compliance costsPlant/production disruption leading to reduced outputAny of the selected risk drivers could impact FirstEnergy's operations and/or cause costs to be incurred.UnknownUnknownUnknownAlignment of public policy positions with water stewardship goals; Develop flood emergency plans; Engagement with community; Engagement with customers; Engagement with public policy makers; Engagement with other stakeholders in the river basin; Infrastructure maintenance; Increased capital expenditure; Increased investment in new technologyThe costs of management are incorporated within the program operations budgets.
6636383FirstEnergy CorporationUSAWater2016PublicElectric Utilities & Independent Power Producers & Energy Traders (including fossil, alternative and nuclear energy)UtilitiesUnited States of AmericaMississippi RiverPhysical-Climate changePlant/production disruption leading to reduced outputAny of the selected risk drivers could impact FirstEnergy's operations and/or cause costs to be incurred.UnknownUnknownUnknownAlignment of public policy positions with water stewardship goals; Develop flood emergency plans; Engagement with community; Engagement with customers; Engagement with public policy makers; Engagement with other stakeholders in the river basin; Infrastructure maintenance; Increased capital expenditure; Increased investment in new technologyThe costs of management are incorporated within the program operations budgets.
6646383FirstEnergy CorporationUSAWater2016PublicElectric Utilities & Independent Power Producers & Energy Traders (including fossil, alternative and nuclear energy)UtilitiesUnited States of AmericaSt. LawrencePhysical-FloodingPlant/production disruption leading to reduced outputAny of the selected risk drivers could impact FirstEnergy's operations and/or cause costs to be incurred.UnknownUnknownUnknownAlignment of public policy positions with water stewardship goals; Develop flood emergency plans; Engagement with community; Engagement with customers; Engagement with public policy makers; Engagement with other stakeholders in the river basin; Infrastructure maintenance; Increased capital expenditure; Increased investment in new technology The costs of management are incorporated within the program operations budgets.
6656383FirstEnergy CorporationUSAWater2016PublicElectric Utilities & Independent Power Producers & Energy Traders (including fossil, alternative and nuclear energy)UtilitiesUnited States of AmericaSt. LawrenceRegulatory-Mandatory water efficiency, conservation, recycling or process standardsPlant/production disruption leading to reduced outputAny of the selected risk drivers could impact FirstEnergy's operations and/or cause costs to be incurred.UnknownUnknownUnknownAlignment of public policy positions with water stewardship goals; Develop flood emergency plans; Engagement with community; Engagement with customers; Engagement with public policy makers; Engagement with other stakeholders in the river basin; Infrastructure maintenance; Increased capital expenditure; Increased investment in new technology The costs of management are incorporated within the program operations budgets.
6666383FirstEnergy CorporationUSAWater2016PublicElectric Utilities & Independent Power Producers & Energy Traders (including fossil, alternative and nuclear energy)UtilitiesUnited States of AmericaSt. LawrencePhysical-Seasonal supply variability/Inter annual variabilityPlant/production disruption leading to reduced outputAny of the selected risk drivers could impact FirstEnergy's operations and/or cause costs to be incurred.UnknownUnknownUnknownAlignment of public policy positions with water stewardship goals; Develop flood emergency plans; Engagement with community; Engagement with customers; Engagement with public policy makers; Engagement with other stakeholders in the river basin; Infrastructure maintenance; Increased capital expenditure; Increased investment in new technology The costs of management are incorporated within the program operations budgets.
6676383FirstEnergy CorporationUSAWater2016PublicElectric Utilities & Independent Power Producers & Energy Traders (including fossil, alternative and nuclear energy)UtilitiesUnited States of AmericaSt. LawrenceRegulatory-Regulation of discharge quality/volumes leading to higher compliance costsPlant/production disruption leading to reduced outputAny of the selected risk drivers could impact FirstEnergy's operations and/or cause costs to be incurred.UnknownUnknownUnknownAlignment of public policy positions with water stewardship goals; Develop flood emergency plans; Engagement with community; Engagement with customers; Engagement with public policy makers; Engagement with other stakeholders in the river basin; Infrastructure maintenance; Increased capital expenditure; Increased investment in new technology The costs of management are incorporated within the program operations budgets.
6686383FirstEnergy CorporationUSAWater2016PublicElectric Utilities & Independent Power Producers & Energy Traders (including fossil, alternative and nuclear energy)UtilitiesUnited States of AmericaSt. LawrenceRegulatory-Regulatory uncertaintyPlant/production disruption leading to reduced outputAny of the selected risk drivers could impact FirstEnergy's operations and/or cause costs to be incurred.UnknownUnknownUnknownAlignment of public policy positions with water stewardship goals; Develop flood emergency plans; Engagement with community; Engagement with customers; Engagement with public policy makers; Engagement with other stakeholders in the river basin; Infrastructure maintenance; Increased capital expenditure; Increased investment in new technology The costs of management are incorporated within the program operations budgets.
6696383FirstEnergy CorporationUSAWater2016PublicElectric Utilities & Independent Power Producers & Energy Traders (including fossil, alternative and nuclear energy)UtilitiesUnited States of AmericaSt. LawrencePhysical-Climate changePlant/production disruption leading to reduced outputAny of the selected risk drivers could impact FirstEnergy's operations and/or cause costs to be incurred.UnknownUnknownUnknownAlignment of public policy positions with water stewardship goals; Develop flood emergency plans; Engagement with community; Engagement with customers; Engagement with public policy makers; Engagement with other stakeholders in the river basin; Infrastructure maintenance; Increased capital expenditure; Increased investment in new technology The costs of management are incorporated within the program operations budgets.
6706383FirstEnergy CorporationUSAWater2016PublicElectric Utilities & Independent Power Producers & Energy Traders (including fossil, alternative and nuclear energy)UtilitiesUnited States of AmericaSusquehanna RiverRegulatory-Regulation of discharge quality/volumes leading to higher compliance costsPlant/production disruption leading to reduced outputAny of the selected risk drivers could impact FirstEnergy's operations and/or cause costs to be incurred.UnknownUnknownUnknownAlignment of public policy positions with water stewardship goals; Develop flood emergency plans; Engagement with community; Engagement with customers; Engagement with public policy makers; Engagement with other stakeholders in the river basin; Infrastructure maintenance; Increased capital expenditure; Increased investment in new technologyThe costs of management are incorporated within the program operations budgets.
6716383FirstEnergy CorporationUSAWater2016PublicElectric Utilities & Independent Power Producers & Energy Traders (including fossil, alternative and nuclear energy)UtilitiesUnited States of AmericaSusquehanna RiverPhysical-Climate changePlant/production disruption leading to reduced outputAny of the selected risk drivers could impact FirstEnergy's operations and/or cause costs to be incurred.UnknownUnknownUnknownAlignment of public policy positions with water stewardship goals; Develop flood emergency plans; Engagement with community; Engagement with customers; Engagement with public policy makers; Engagement with other stakeholders in the river basin; Infrastructure maintenance; Increased capital expenditure; Increased investment in new technologyThe costs of management are incorporated within the program operations budgets.
6726383FirstEnergy CorporationUSAWater2016PublicElectric Utilities & Independent Power Producers & Energy Traders (including fossil, alternative and nuclear energy)UtilitiesUnited States of AmericaSusquehanna RiverPhysical-FloodingPlant/production disruption leading to reduced outputAny of the selected risk drivers could impact FirstEnergy's operations and/or cause costs to be incurred.UnknownUnknownUnknownAlignment of public policy positions with water stewardship goals; Develop flood emergency plans; Engagement with community; Engagement with customers; Engagement with public policy makers; Engagement with other stakeholders in the river basin; Infrastructure maintenance; Increased capital expenditure; Increased investment in new technologyThe costs of management are incorporated within the program operations budgets.
6736383FirstEnergy CorporationUSAWater2016PublicElectric Utilities & Independent Power Producers & Energy Traders (including fossil, alternative and nuclear energy)UtilitiesUnited States of AmericaSusquehanna RiverPhysical-Seasonal supply variability/Inter annual variabilityPlant/production disruption leading to reduced outputAny of the selected risk drivers could impact FirstEnergy's operations and/or cause costs to be incurred.UnknownUnknownUnknownAlignment of public policy positions with water stewardship goals; Develop flood emergency plans; Engagement with community; Engagement with customers; Engagement with public policy makers; Engagement with other stakeholders in the river basin; Infrastructure maintenance; Increased capital expenditure; Increased investment in new technologyThe costs of management are incorporated within the program operations budgets.
6746383FirstEnergy CorporationUSAWater2016PublicElectric Utilities & Independent Power Producers & Energy Traders (including fossil, alternative and nuclear energy)UtilitiesUnited States of AmericaSusquehanna RiverRegulatory-Mandatory water efficiency, conservation, recycling or process standardsPlant/production disruption leading to reduced outputAny of the selected risk drivers could impact FirstEnergy's operations and/or cause costs to be incurred.UnknownUnknownUnknownAlignment of public policy positions with water stewardship goals; Develop flood emergency plans; Engagement with community; Engagement with customers; Engagement with public policy makers; Engagement with other stakeholders in the river basin; Infrastructure maintenance; Increased capital expenditure; Increased investment in new technologyThe costs of management are incorporated within the program operations budgets.
6756383FirstEnergy CorporationUSAWater2016PublicElectric Utilities & Independent Power Producers & Energy Traders (including fossil, alternative and nuclear energy)UtilitiesUnited States of AmericaSusquehanna RiverRegulatory-Regulatory uncertaintyPlant/production disruption leading to reduced outputAny of the selected risk drivers could impact FirstEnergy's operations and/or cause costs to be incurred.UnknownUnknownUnknownAlignment of public policy positions with water stewardship goals; Develop flood emergency plans; Engagement with community; Engagement with customers; Engagement with public policy makers; Engagement with other stakeholders in the river basin; Infrastructure maintenance; Increased capital expenditure; Increased investment in new technologyThe costs of management are incorporated within the program operations budgets.
6766394FIRMENICH SASwitzerlandWater2016PublicChemicalsMaterialsSwitzerlandRhonePhysical-FloodingHigher operating costsProperty damage due to excessive flooding. This is one of the larger production facilities, with 15% production globally. The higher cost of operations will affect Firmenich.1-3 yearsUnlikelyLow-mediumOther: Global diversification of manufacturing operationsWe feel that through our risk assessment framework, business continuity plans and external insurance coverage that we have adequately mitigated this risk and that any financial exposure to the company due to this risk is considered minimal (less than $100,000).We have a robust risk management program with site-specific business continuity plans. Also, the company maintains a comprehensive 3rd –party insurance program with 6 world-class carriers. We have periodic testing of the business continuity plans including the conduct of crisis management exercises against our documented crisis management framework and protocol. In the period 2013 through 2016, the company did not have a single property claim against its insurance policy and therefore, there were no incidents in that period requiring cost due to a site closure. To provide a documented example, Firmenich had a fire at its Argentina Plant in 2012. The fire forced the temporary closure of the entire site for more than a year while rebuilding was carried out. This was a true test for our business continuity plan and overall risk management framework. We did not miss a single customer deadline and within 48 hours of the fire, all manufacturing and customer activity was moved to one of five plants globally. The total cost to the company was limited to approximately $100,000 as our insurance policies covered fully the cost of the property damage and business interruption. We have a few other smaller examples (i.e Hurricane Sandy in the US which resulted in the temporary closure of two of our main sites in New Jersey). In this example, the cost of this risk was insignificant (less than $100,000). Even when the site had no power or water, we were able to fully manage the situation through the use of alternate sites. Thanks to the strength of our risk management program, we were one of the first companies in New Jersey to reopen following the storm. Firmenich has 25 manufacturing sites worldwide. More than 95% of our manufacturing activity globally can be covered by a redundant site. For those activities where we do not have an alternate Firmenich back-up site, we have identified third party companies where we can temporarily relocate these minor operations.
6776394FIRMENICH SASwitzerlandWater2016PublicChemicalsMaterialsSwitzerlandRhonePhysical-Declining water qualityHigher operating costsVariability in water supply may result in potentially higher production costs from limited water supply. Will cost extra to provide water purification systems or to purchase water from another source.Current-up to 1 yearUnlikelyLow-mediumOther: Global diversification of manufacturing operationsWe feel that through our risk assessment framework, business continuity plans and external insurance coverage that we have adequately mitigated this risk and that any financial exposure to the company due to this risk is considered minimal (less than $100,000).We have a robust risk management program with site-specific business continuity plans. Also, the company maintains a comprehensive 3rd –party insurance program with 6 world-class carriers. We have periodic testing of the business continuity plans including the conduct of crisis management exercises against our documented crisis management framework and protocol. In the period 2013 through 2016, the company did not have a single property claim against its insurance policy and therefore, there were no incidents in that period requiring cost due to a site closure. To provide a documented example, Firmenich had a fire at its Argentina Plant in 2012. The fire forced the temporary closure of the entire site for more than a year while rebuilding was carried out. This was a true test for our business continuity plan and overall risk management framework. We did not miss a single customer deadline and within 48 hours of the fire, all manufacturing and customer activity was moved to one of five plants globally. The total cost to the company was limited to approximately $100,000 as our insurance policies covered fully the cost of the property damage and business interruption. We have a few other smaller examples (i.e Hurricane Sandy in the US which resulted in the temporary closure of two of our main sites in New Jersey). In this example, the cost of this risk was insignificant (less than $100,000). Even when the site had no power or water, we were able to fully manage the situation through the use of alternate sites. Thanks to the strength of our risk management program, we were one of the first companies in New Jersey to reopen following the storm. Firmenich has 25 manufacturing sites worldwide. More than 95% of our manufacturing activity globally can be covered by a redundant site. For those activities where we do not have an alternate Firmenich back-up site, we have identified third party companies where we can temporarily relocate these minor operations.
6786394FIRMENICH SASwitzerlandWater2016PublicChemicalsMaterialsChinaYangtze River (Chang Jiang)Regulatory-Regulation of discharge quality/volumes leading to higher compliance costsEmployee health and well-beingIncreased regulation will lead to higher operating costs because of increased treatment equipment that would increase in CAPEX.Current-up to 1 yearProbableLow-mediumOther: Global diversification of manufacturing operationsWe feel that through our risk assessment framework, business continuity plans and external insurance coverage that we have adequately mitigated this risk and that any financial exposure to the company due to this risk is considered minimal (less than $100,000).We have a robust risk management program with site-specific business continuity plans. Also, the company maintains a comprehensive 3rd –party insurance program with 6 world-class carriers. We have periodic testing of the business continuity plans including the conduct of crisis management exercises against our documented crisis management framework and protocol. In the period 2013 through 2016, the company did not have a single property claim against its insurance policy and therefore, there were no incidents in that period requiring cost due to a site closure. To provide a documented example, Firmenich had a fire at its Argentina Plant in 2012. The fire forced the temporary closure of the entire site for more than a year while rebuilding was carried out. This was a true test for our business continuity plan and overall risk management framework. We did not miss a single customer deadline and within 48 hours of the fire, all manufacturing and customer activity was moved to one of five plants globally. The total cost to the company was limited to approximately $100,000 as our insurance policies covered fully the cost of the property damage and business interruption. We have a few other smaller examples (i.e Hurricane Sandy in the US which resulted in the temporary closure of two of our main sites in New Jersey). In this example, the cost of this risk was insignificant (less than $100,000). Even when the site had no power or water, we were able to fully manage the situation through the use of alternate sites. Thanks to the strength of our risk management program, we were one of the first companies in New Jersey to reopen following the storm. Firmenich has 25 manufacturing sites worldwide. More than 95% of our manufacturing activity globally can be covered by a redundant site. For those activities where we do not have an alternate Firmenich back-up site, we have identified third party companies where we can temporarily relocate these minor operations.
6796394FIRMENICH SASwitzerlandWater2016PublicChemicalsMaterialsChinaNot knownPhysical-Declining water qualityHigher operating costsVariability in water quality may result in potentially higher production costs from limited water supply. Will cost extra to provide water purification systems or to purchase water from another source.1-3 yearsProbableLow-mediumOther: Global diversification of manufacturing operationsWe feel that through our risk assessment framework, business continuity plans and external insurance coverage that we have adequately mitigated this risk and that any financial exposure to the company due to this risk is considered minimal (less than $100,000).We have a robust risk management program with site-specific business continuity plans. Also, the company maintains a comprehensive 3rd –party insurance program with 6 world-class carriers. We have periodic testing of the business continuity plans including the conduct of crisis management exercises against our documented crisis management framework and protocol. In the period 2013 through 2016, the company did not have a single property claim against its insurance policy and therefore, there were no incidents in that period requiring cost due to a site closure. To provide a documented example, Firmenich had a fire at its Argentina Plant in 2012. The fire forced the temporary closure of the entire site for more than a year while rebuilding was carried out. This was a true test for our business continuity plan and overall risk management framework. We did not miss a single customer deadline and within 48 hours of the fire, all manufacturing and customer activity was moved to one of five plants globally. The total cost to the company was limited to approximately $100,000 as our insurance policies covered fully the cost of the property damage and business interruption. We have a few other smaller examples (i.e Hurricane Sandy in the US which resulted in the temporary closure of two of our main sites in New Jersey). In this example, the cost of this risk was insignificant (less than $100,000). Even when the site had no power or water, we were able to fully manage the situation through the use of alternate sites. Thanks to the strength of our risk management program, we were one of the first companies in New Jersey to reopen following the storm. Firmenich has 25 manufacturing sites worldwide. More than 95% of our manufacturing activity globally can be covered by a redundant site. For those activities where we do not have an alternate Firmenich back-up site, we have identified third party companies where we can temporarily relocate these minor operations.
6806394FIRMENICH SASwitzerlandWater2016PublicChemicalsMaterialsMexicoSantiagoPhysical-Increased water stressWater supply disruptionVariability in water supply may result in potentially higher production costs from limited water supply. Will cost extra to provide water purification systems or to purchase water from another source.1-3 yearsProbableLow-mediumOther: Global diversification of manufacturing operationsWe feel that through our risk assessment framework, business continuity plans and external insurance coverage that we have adequately mitigated this risk and that any financial exposure to the company due to this risk is considered minimal (less than $100,000).We have a robust risk management program with site-specific business continuity plans. Also, the company maintains a comprehensive 3rd –party insurance program with 6 world-class carriers. We have periodic testing of the business continuity plans including the conduct of crisis management exercises against our documented crisis management framework and protocol. In the period 2013 through 2016, the company did not have a single property claim against its insurance policy and therefore, there were no incidents in that period requiring cost due to a site closure. To provide a documented example, Firmenich had a fire at its Argentina Plant in 2012. The fire forced the temporary closure of the entire site for more than a year while rebuilding was carried out. This was a true test for our business continuity plan and overall risk management framework. We did not miss a single customer deadline and within 48 hours of the fire, all manufacturing and customer activity was moved to one of five plants globally. The total cost to the company was limited to approximately $100,000 as our insurance policies covered fully the cost of the property damage and business interruption. We have a few other smaller examples (i.e Hurricane Sandy in the US which resulted in the temporary closure of two of our main sites in New Jersey). In this example, the cost of this risk was insignificant (less than $100,000). Even when the site had no power or water, we were able to fully manage the situation through the use of alternate sites. Thanks to the strength of our risk management program, we were one of the first companies in New Jersey to reopen following the storm. Firmenich has 25 manufacturing sites worldwide. More than 95% of our manufacturing activity globally can be covered by a redundant site. For those activities where we do not have an alternate Firmenich back-up site, we have identified third party companies where we can temporarily relocate these minor operations.
6816394FIRMENICH SASwitzerlandWater2016PublicChemicalsMaterialsUnited States of AmericaNot knownPhysical-Declining water qualityHigher operating costsVariability in water quality may result in potentially higher production costs from limited water supply. Will cost extra to provide water purification systems or to purchase water from another source.>6 yearsHighly probableLow-mediumOther: Global diversification of manufacturing operationsWe feel that through our risk assessment framework, business continuity plans and external insurance coverage that we have adequately mitigated this risk and that any financial exposure to the company due to this risk is considered minimal (less than $100,000).We have a robust risk management program with site-specific business continuity plans. Also, the company maintains a comprehensive 3rd –party insurance program with 6 world-class carriers. We have periodic testing of the business continuity plans including the conduct of crisis management exercises against our documented crisis management framework and protocol. In the period 2013 through 2016, the company did not have a single property claim against its insurance policy and therefore, there were no incidents in that period requiring cost due to a site closure. To provide a documented example, Firmenich had a fire at its Argentina Plant in 2012. The fire forced the temporary closure of the entire site for more than a year while rebuilding was carried out. This was a true test for our business continuity plan and overall risk management framework. We did not miss a single customer deadline and within 48 hours of the fire, all manufacturing and customer activity was moved to one of five plants globally. The total cost to the company was limited to approximately $100,000 as our insurance policies covered fully the cost of the property damage and business interruption. We have a few other smaller examples (i.e Hurricane Sandy in the US which resulted in the temporary closure of two of our main sites in New Jersey). In this example, the cost of this risk was insignificant (less than $100,000). Even when the site had no power or water, we were able to fully manage the situation through the use of alternate sites. Thanks to the strength of our risk management program, we were one of the first companies in New Jersey to reopen following the storm. Firmenich has 25 manufacturing sites worldwide. More than 95% of our manufacturing activity globally can be covered by a redundant site. For those activities where we do not have an alternate Firmenich back-up site, we have identified third party companies where we can temporarily relocate these minor operations.
6826394FIRMENICH SASwitzerlandWater2016PublicChemicalsMaterialsUnited States of AmericaNot knownPhysical-Declining water qualityHigher operating costsVariability in water quality may result in potentially higher production costs from limited water supply. Will cost extra to provide water purification systems or to purchase water from another source.>6 yearsHighly probableLow-mediumOther: Global diversification of manufacturing operationsWe feel that through our risk assessment framework, business continuity plans and external insurance coverage that we have adequately mitigated this risk and that any financial exposure to the company due to this risk is considered minimal (less than $100,000).We have a robust risk management program with site-specific business continuity plans. Also, the company maintains a comprehensive 3rd –party insurance program with 6 world-class carriers. We have periodic testing of the business continuity plans including the conduct of crisis management exercises against our documented crisis management framework and protocol. In the period 2013 through 2016, the company did not have a single property claim against its insurance policy and therefore, there were no incidents in that period requiring cost due to a site closure. To provide a documented example, Firmenich had a fire at its Argentina Plant in 2012. The fire forced the temporary closure of the entire site for more than a year while rebuilding was carried out. This was a true test for our business continuity plan and overall risk management framework. We did not miss a single customer deadline and within 48 hours of the fire, all manufacturing and customer activity was moved to one of five plants globally. The total cost to the company was limited to approximately $100,000 as our insurance policies covered fully the cost of the property damage and business interruption. We have a few other smaller examples (i.e Hurricane Sandy in the US which resulted in the temporary closure of two of our main sites in New Jersey). In this example, the cost of this risk was insignificant (less than $100,000). Even when the site had no power or water, we were able to fully manage the situation through the use of alternate sites. Thanks to the strength of our risk management program, we were one of the first companies in New Jersey to reopen following the storm. Firmenich has 25 manufacturing sites worldwide. More than 95% of our manufacturing activity globally can be covered by a redundant site. For those activities where we do not have an alternate Firmenich back-up site, we have identified third party companies where we can temporarily relocate these minor operations.
6836394FIRMENICH SASwitzerlandWater2016PublicChemicalsMaterialsIndiaNot knownPhysical-Seasonal supply variability/Inter annual variabilityWater supply disruptionVariability in water supply may result in potentially higher production costs from limited water supply. Will cost extra to provide water purification systems or to purchase water from another source.>6 yearsProbableLow-mediumOther: Global diversification of manufacturing operationsWe feel that through our risk assessment framework, business continuity plans and external insurance coverage that we have adequately mitigated this risk and that any financial exposure to the company due to this risk is considered minimal (less than $100,000).We have a robust risk management program with site-specific business continuity plans. Also, the company maintains a comprehensive 3rd –party insurance program with 6 world-class carriers. We have periodic testing of the business continuity plans including the conduct of crisis management exercises against our documented crisis management framework and protocol. In the period 2013 through 2016, the company did not have a single property claim against its insurance policy and therefore, there were no incidents in that period requiring cost due to a site closure. To provide a documented example, Firmenich had a fire at its Argentina Plant in 2012. The fire forced the temporary closure of the entire site for more than a year while rebuilding was carried out. This was a true test for our business continuity plan and overall risk management framework. We did not miss a single customer deadline and within 48 hours of the fire, all manufacturing and customer activity was moved to one of five plants globally. The total cost to the company was limited to approximately $100,000 as our insurance policies covered fully the cost of the property damage and business interruption. We have a few other smaller examples (i.e Hurricane Sandy in the US which resulted in the temporary closure of two of our main sites in New Jersey). In this example, the cost of this risk was insignificant (less than $100,000). Even when the site had no power or water, we were able to fully manage the situation through the use of alternate sites. Thanks to the strength of our risk management program, we were one of the first companies in New Jersey to reopen following the storm. Firmenich has 25 manufacturing sites worldwide. More than 95% of our manufacturing activity globally can be covered by a redundant site. For those activities where we do not have an alternate Firmenich back-up site, we have identified third party companies where we can temporarily relocate these minor operations.
6846394FIRMENICH SASwitzerlandWater2016PublicChemicalsMaterialsIndonesiaNot knownPhysical-Declining water qualityHigher operating costsVariability in water quality may result in potentially higher production costs from limited water supply. Will cost extra to provide water purification systems or to purchase water from another source.UnknownProbableLow-mediumOther: Global diversification of manufacturing operationsWe feel that through our risk assessment framework, business continuity plans and external insurance coverage that we have adequately mitigated this risk and that any financial exposure to the company due to this risk is considered minimal (less than $100,000).We have a robust risk management program with site-specific business continuity plans. Also, the company maintains a comprehensive 3rd –party insurance program with 6 world-class carriers. We have periodic testing of the business continuity plans including the conduct of crisis management exercises against our documented crisis management framework and protocol. In the period 2013 through 2016, the company did not have a single property claim against its insurance policy and therefore, there were no incidents in that period requiring cost due to a site closure. To provide a documented example, Firmenich had a fire at its Argentina Plant in 2012. The fire forced the temporary closure of the entire site for more than a year while rebuilding was carried out. This was a true test for our business continuity plan and overall risk management framework. We did not miss a single customer deadline and within 48 hours of the fire, all manufacturing and customer activity was moved to one of five plants globally. The total cost to the company was limited to approximately $100,000 as our insurance policies covered fully the cost of the property damage and business interruption. We have a few other smaller examples (i.e Hurricane Sandy in the US which resulted in the temporary closure of two of our main sites in New Jersey). In this example, the cost of this risk was insignificant (less than $100,000). Even when the site had no power or water, we were able to fully manage the situation through the use of alternate sites. Thanks to the strength of our risk management program, we were one of the first companies in New Jersey to reopen following the storm. Firmenich has 25 manufacturing sites worldwide. More than 95% of our manufacturing activity globally can be covered by a redundant site. For those activities where we do not have an alternate Firmenich back-up site, we have identified third party companies where we can temporarily relocate these minor operations.
6856394FIRMENICH SASwitzerlandWater2016PublicChemicalsMaterialsIndonesiaNot knownRegulatory-Regulation of discharge quality/volumes leading to higher compliance costsHigher operating costsPotential threats to threatened species could result in loss of license to operate at a local level.UnknownProbableLow-mediumOther: Global diversification of manufacturing operationsWe feel that through our risk assessment framework, business continuity plans and external insurance coverage that we have adequately mitigated this risk and that any financial exposure to the company due to this risk is considered minimal (less than $100,000).We have a robust risk management program with site-specific business continuity plans. Also, the company maintains a comprehensive 3rd –party insurance program with 6 world-class carriers. We have periodic testing of the business continuity plans including the conduct of crisis management exercises against our documented crisis management framework and protocol. In the period 2013 through 2016, the company did not have a single property claim against its insurance policy and therefore, there were no incidents in that period requiring cost due to a site closure. To provide a documented example, Firmenich had a fire at its Argentina Plant in 2012. The fire forced the temporary closure of the entire site for more than a year while rebuilding was carried out. This was a true test for our business continuity plan and overall risk management framework. We did not miss a single customer deadline and within 48 hours of the fire, all manufacturing and customer activity was moved to one of five plants globally. The total cost to the company was limited to approximately $100,000 as our insurance policies covered fully the cost of the property damage and business interruption. We have a few other smaller examples (i.e Hurricane Sandy in the US which resulted in the temporary closure of two of our main sites in New Jersey). In this example, the cost of this risk was insignificant (less than $100,000). Even when the site had no power or water, we were able to fully manage the situation through the use of alternate sites. Thanks to the strength of our risk management program, we were one of the first companies in New Jersey to reopen following the storm. Firmenich has 25 manufacturing sites worldwide. More than 95% of our manufacturing activity globally can be covered by a redundant site. For those activities where we do not have an alternate Firmenich back-up site, we have identified third party companies where we can temporarily relocate these minor operations.
6866595Ford Motor CompanyUSAWater2016PublicAutomobiles & ComponentsConsumer DiscretionaryMexicoBravoPhysical-Increased water stressHigher operating costsIn Chihuahua City, most of thelocal residents are only able to receive water in their homes at certain times during the day. Theindustrial park where the Ford Chihuahua Engine Plant (ChEP) is located has its own wells and its own water supply lines; however, the underground wells pump water from the same underground reservoirs that supply fresh water tolocal residents.Current-up to 1 yearHighly probableMediumIncreased investment in new technologyModerate cost increaseIn Chihuahua City, most of the local residents are only able to receive water in their homes at certain times during the day. Ford Chihuahua Engine Plant (ChEP) purchases treated wastewater from the municipality for use as process water. Therefore, the plant uses purchased potable water for human consumption only. Additionally CHEP treats its wastewater onsite and reuses approximately 80 percent back into the industrial process. The rest is used for land irrigation around the plant.
6876595Ford Motor CompanyUSAWater2016PublicAutomobiles & ComponentsConsumer DiscretionaryTurkeySakaryaPhysical-Increased water stressHigher operating costsThe Sakarya basin has a high baseline water stress according to Ford's internal review using Global Water Tool. High water stress can lead to availability issues as well as conflicting basin stakeholder interests.Current-up to 1 yearProbableLow-mediumIncreased investment in new technologyModerate cost increaseFord’s water strategy requires all facilities to implement actions to achieve strategy objectives and targets. Annually evaluate water opportunities and implement applicable/feasible ones to achieve objectives and targets. At Ford, we have focused on reducing our water impacts since 2000 when we first began setting year-over-year reduction targets as part of our Global Water Management Initiative. Ford is proactive in confronting water issues.
6886595Ford Motor CompanyUSAWater2016PublicAutomobiles & ComponentsConsumer DiscretionaryIndiaOther: PalarPhysical-Increased water stressHigher operating costsSome Ford facilities in India are shown as having a high baseline water stress according to Ford's internal review using Global Water Tool. High water stress can lead to availability issues as well as conflicting basin stakeholder interests.Current-up to 1 yearProbableLow-mediumIncreased investment in new technologyModerate cost increaseFord has implemented a membrane biological reactor (MBR) and reverse-osmosis process to recycle water from our on-site wastewater treatment plants in a number of our global production facilities that are located in more arid regions. This allows us to avoid using high-quality water suitable for human consumption in our manufacturing processes. By doing so at plants in Chihuahua and Hermosillo, Mexico; Pretoria, South Africa; Chennai, India; and Chongqing, China, we have been able to reuse more than 976,000 cubic meters of water, which means we have not had to withdraw that water from the environment.
6896595Ford Motor CompanyUSAWater2016PublicAutomobiles & ComponentsConsumer DiscretionaryThailandChao PhrayaPhysical-Increased water stressPlant/production disruption leading to reduced outputSome Ford facilities in Thailand are shown as having a high baseline water stress according to Ford's internal review using Global Water Tool. High water stress can lead to availability issues as well as conflicting basin stakeholder interests.Current-up to 1 yearProbableLow-mediumEstablish site-specific targetsMinimal cost increaseFord's water strategy required all facilities to implement low cost actions to achieve strategy objectives and targets. Annually evaluate water opportunities and implement applicable/feasible ones to achieve objectives and targets. At Ford, we have focused on reducing our water impacts since 2000 when we first began setting year-over-year reduction targets as part of our Global Water Management Initiative. Ford is proactive in confronting water issues. As of 2014, we have conducted assessments at 39% of Ford global sites and continue to add new plants for assessment each year. In Thailand in particular, we are in the process of evaluating the results to determine what measures can feasibly be taken to reduce water and save our company money at the same time.
6907084Gas Natural SDG SASpainWater2016PublicGas UtilitiesUtilitiesMexicoOther: Company widePhysical- Pollution of water sourceHigher operating costsAn increase in the pollution of supply water makes prior treatment necessary before water is used in processes, which represents an increase in costs.>6 yearsProbableMediumIncreased investment in new technologyMediumImpact controlled by using more efficient treatment systems that allow the supply of unpolluted water.
6916595Ford Motor CompanyUSAWater2016PublicAutomobiles & ComponentsConsumer DiscretionarySouth AfricaLimpopoPhysical-Increased water stressHigher operating costsThe Ford facility in the Limpopo basin are shown as having a high baseline water stress according to Ford's internal review using Global Water Tool. High water stress can lead to availability issues as well as conflicting basin stakeholder interests.Current-up to 1 yearProbableLow-mediumIncreased investment in new technology$2.5 million capital investment which represents a minimal portion of Ford's global budget.Ford constructed a $2.5 million on-site wastewater treatment plant at the Silverton Assembly Plant. The plant increases the amount of water that can be reused by up to 15 percent, thereby reducing the quantity of water withdrawn from the environment .
6926595Ford Motor CompanyUSAWater2016PublicAutomobiles & ComponentsConsumer DiscretionaryUnited KingdomThamesPhysical-Increased water stressHigher operating costsThe Thames basin has a high baseline water stress according to Ford's internal review using Global Water Tool. High water stress can lead to availability issues as well as conflicting basin stakeholder interests.Current-up to 1 yearProbableLow-mediumEstablish site-specific targetsMinimal cost increaseFord's water strategy required all facilities to implement low cost actions to achieve strategy objectives and targets. Annually evaluate water opportunities and implement applicable/feasible ones to achieve objectives and targets. At Ford, we have focused on reducing our water impacts since 2000 when we first began setting year-over-year reduction targets as part of our Global Water Management Initiative. Ford is proactive in confronting water issues.
6936595Ford Motor CompanyUSAWater2016PublicAutomobiles & ComponentsConsumer DiscretionarySpainOther: JucarPhysical-Increased water stressHigher operating costsThe Ford facility in Spain is shown as having a high baseline water stress according to Ford's internal review using Global Water Tool. High water stress can lead to availability issues as well as conflicting basin stakeholder interests.Current-up to 1 yearProbableLow-mediumIncreased investment in new technologyModerate cost increaseAs of 2015, we have conducted assessments at 43% of Ford global sites and continue to add new plants for assessment each year. In Spain in particular, we are in the process of evaluating the results to determine what measures can feasibly be taken to reduce water while lowering costs.
6946595Ford Motor CompanyUSAWater2016PublicAutomobiles & ComponentsConsumer DiscretionaryIndiaOther: SabarmatiPhysical-Increased water stressHigher operating costsThe Ford facility in India's Sabarmati River Basin is shown as having a high baseline water stress according to Ford's internal review using Global Water Tool. High water stress can lead to availability issues as well as conflicting basin stakeholder interests.Current-up to 1 yearProbableLow-mediumIncreased investment in new technology
6956634Fortescue Metals GroupAustraliaWater2016PublicMining - Iron, Aluminum, Other MetalsMaterialsAustraliaFortescue RiverPhysical-FloodingClosure of operationsSeasonal storm and flooding risk in the Pilbara is relatively common, including heavy rainfall and cyclonic run-off. Inundation of open pits as a consequence of large rainfall events and surface water flooding and can result in significant delays to mining operations (10-30 days). Flood water can lead to damage of critical infrastructure such as roads, rail, culverts and bridges, which can have a range delays in closure for safety and rehabilitation. Port operations will be closed in response to Cyclone risks.Current-up to 1 yearProbableLow-mediumDevelop flood emergency plans; Infrastructure investment; Infrastructure maintenance; Other: Site preparation and emergency action response plansAnnual cost is estimated to be approximately$15M averaged across all of the operations combined.Flood preparation and management is an integral component of seasonal mine planning and risk management. Flooding is an inherent risk of our location and seasonal climate, and our mine sites aim to minimise damage during these events to facilitate the efficient return to operations. Maintaining flood protection and contingency measures is a standard part of operations and costs vary considerably year to year. Initiatives that make mining operations more resilient against flooding are part of regular design standards. Emergency response and site closure in the event of flooding is part of standard emergency and contingency planning. The estimated cost is based on a review of actual and estimated capital and operational expenditure over the past three years.
6966634Fortescue Metals GroupAustraliaWater2016PublicMining - Iron, Aluminum, Other MetalsMaterialsAustraliaFortescue RiverPhysical-Projected water scarcityPlant/production disruption leading to reduced outputThe risk of increased activity in the Pilbara by Fortescue and other companies leading to reduced availability of groundwater supplies. If water resources are not adequately managed, there is a risk of water quantity and quality falling below the required standard for both the natural flora, and fauna and Fortescue’s operational water requirements.>6 yearsUnlikelyHighIncreased investment in new technologyMedium-high$40M across all operations (based on CAPEX investment of $1M per GL of water and consumption demands (Module 5.3)Fortescue’s Managed Aquifer Recharge (MAR) scheme allows for an efficient and resilient groundwater supply without significantly impacting the quantity of water present in natural aquifers. The cost of developing groundwater reinjection technology and infrastructure has been significant for Fortescue. However, this infrastructure is vital for operations and is likely to be cost positive due to it enabling a reliable water supply system for operations, without detrimentally damaging or depleting natural aquifers.
6976634Fortescue Metals GroupAustraliaWater2016PublicMining - Iron, Aluminum, Other MetalsMaterialsAustraliaFortescue RiverRegulatory-Increased difficulty in obtaining withdrawals/operations permitDelays in permittingFortescue is subject to licence limits on the volume allocation and conditions of groundwater abstraction. During our expansion of operations, increased water allocation limits have been required and granted. Difficulties with continued licensing may restrict the rate of further operations growth.4-6 yearsUnlikelyLow-mediumEngagement with public policy makers(Unlikely to be of monetary cost)Fortescue currently operates well within our annual license for groundwater abstraction volumes. During the expansion of our production capacity we have consistently been granted increases in water allocations when required. We will continue to comply with regulatory requirements for water usage and management planning. The cost of compliance includes maintaining water monitoring and reporting systems, as well as groundwater reinjection infrastructure that is vital for minimising net water usage.
6986634Fortescue Metals GroupAustraliaWater2016PublicMining - Iron, Aluminum, Other MetalsMaterialsAustraliaFortescue RiverReputational-Community oppositionBrand damageWater-related environmental incidents by Fortescue or other mining organisations have the potential to impact on Fortescue’s reputation as a reliable and responsible company.>6 yearsUnlikelyLow-mediumAlignment of public policy positions with water stewardship goalsLow-medium(Unlikely to be of monetary costFortescue’s water management is currently among the best in the mining industry and has been recognised by industry innovation awards. Fortescue will continue to build upon leading practice to ensure that water management is undertaken effectively and that there are no negative impacts upon the Environment or Community as a result of our Water Management activities. Fortescue’s reputation is based on consistent operational performance and responsibility. The cost of maintaining a reputation cannot be estimated, since it relates to our track record of keeping everyday operations and strategy to a high standard.
6996806Fresnillo plcMexicoWater2016PublicMaterialsMexicoOther: Rio Grande de Santiago (Fresnillo and el Saucito)Physical-Increased water stressConstraint to growthWater use limits may be imposed on water-intensive businesses affecting production levels or growth opportunities. Conflicts with the communities (resource competition) may scale to temporary interruption of operations or opposition to project expansions.>6 yearsProbableUnknownEngagement with community; Engagement with public policy makers; Engagement with other stakeholders in the river basin; Establish site-specific targets; Increased investment in new technology; Promote best practice and awareness; Strengthen links with local communityUnable to estimate at this stage. This cost is embedded in our operating cost and community investment.Our water management approach is based on operational excellence and cooperation with stakeholders, notably communities, authorities and NGOs. Municipal wastewater has been used for mineral processing to minimize the exposure to the physical risk (quantity).
7006806Fresnillo plcMexicoWater2016PublicMaterialsMexicoOther: Rio Grande de Santiago (Fresnillo and el Saucito)Regulatory-Statutory water withdrawal limits/changes to water allocationConstraint to growthWater use limits may be imposed on water-intensive businesses affecting production levels or growth opportunities. Conflicts with the communities (resource competition) may scale to temporary interruption of operations or opposition to project expansions.>6 yearsProbableUnknownEngagement with community; Engagement with public policy makers; Engagement with other stakeholders in the river basin; Establish site-specific targets; Increased investment in new technology; Promote best practice and awareness; Strengthen links with local communityUnable to estimate at this stage. This cost is embedded in our operating cost and community investment.Our water management approach is based on operational excellence and cooperation with stakeholders, notably communities, authorities and NGOs. Municipal wastewater has been used for mineral processing to minimize the exposure to the physical risk (quantity).

About

Profile Picture Simeran

created Sep 18 2017

updated Oct 4 2018

Description

CDP's water program motivates companies to disclose and reduce their environmental impacts by using the power of investors and customers. The data CDP collects help influential decision makers to reduce risk, capitalize on opportunities and drive action towards a more sustainable world. This dataset comes from question W3.2c asking companies to list the inherent water risks that could generate a substantive change in their business, operations, revenue or expenditure, the potential impact to their direct operations and the strategies to mitigate them.

Activity
Community Rating
Current value: 0 out of 5
Raters
0
Visits
376
Downloads
112
Comments
0
Contributors
0
Meta
Category
Companies
Permissions
Public
Tags
water, 2016
Row Label
SODA2 Only
Yes
Licensing and Attribution
Data Provided By
(none)
Source Link
(none)
License Type
License Type
CDP Open Database License

Filter

  • ;
  • ;
  • ;
  • ;
  • ;
  • ;
  • ;
  • ;
  • ;
  • ;
  • ;
  • ;
  • ;
  • ;
  • ;
  • ;
  • ;
  • ;
  • ;

Sort

  • ;
  • ;
  • ;
  • ;
  • ;
  • ;
  • ;
  • ;
  • ;
  • ;
  • ;
  • ;
  • ;
  • ;
  • ;
  • ;
  • ;
  • ;
  • ;

Search

Post a Comment

Comments

  • Total Comments: 0
  • Average Rating: 0.0

Sharing

This dataset is public

Publishing

See Preview