Christ 2017

Sustainability Accounting, Management and Policy Journal
Supply chain-oriented corporate water accounting: a research agenda

Katherine Leanne Christ, Roger Leonard Burritt,
Article information:
To cite this document:
Katherine Leanne Christ, Roger Leonard Burritt, (2017) "Supply chain-oriented corporate water accounting: a
research agenda", Sustainability Accounting, Management and Policy Journal, Vol. 8 Issue: 2,pp. -, doi: 10.1108/
SAMPJ-05-2016-0029
Permanent link to this document:
http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/SAMPJ-05-2016-0029
Downloaded on: 31 March 2017, At: 05:37 (PT)
References: this document contains references to 0 other documents.
To copy this document: permissions@emeraldinsight.com
The fulltext of this document has been downloaded 15 times since 2017*
Users who downloaded this article also downloaded:
Downloaded by HACETTEPE UNIVERSITY At 05:37 31 March 2017 (PT)
(2017),"Ideas in conflict: a case study on tensions in the process of preparing sustainability reports", Sustainability
Accounting, Management and Policy Journal, Vol. 8 Iss 2 pp. -
(2017),"Corporate social and environmental reporting practices: a case of listed companies in Bangladesh", Sustainability
Accounting, Management and Policy Journal, Vol. 8 Iss 2 pp. -
Access to this document was granted through an Emerald subscription provided by emerald-srm:318550 []
For Authors
If you would like to write for this, or any other Emerald publication, then please use our Emerald for Authors service
information about how to choose which publication to write for and submission guidelines are available for all. Please
visit www.emeraldinsight.com/authors for more information.
About Emerald www.emeraldinsight.com
Emerald is a global publisher linking research and practice to the benefit of society. The company manages a portfolio of
more than 290 journals and over 2,350 books and book series volumes, as well as providing an extensive range of online
products and additional customer resources and services.
Emerald is both COUNTER 4 and TRANSFER compliant. The organization is a partner of the Committee on Publication
Ethics (COPE) and also works with Portico and the LOCKSS initiative for digital archive preservation.
*Related content and download information correct at time of download.

Supply Chain-oriented Corporate Water Accounting: a Research Agenda
Abstract
Purpose
Water is critical to all life on Earth and a crucial business resource which evidence suggests is
often mismanaged. Corporate water accounting is an emerging practice designed to help
corporations address water issues. Indirect water management in supply chains is important but
hitherto little consideration has been given to supply chain water accounting. The paper
synthesises available literature and infers how future research can further knowledge and take
up in practice.
Design/methodology/approach
An integrative literature review is used to synthesise the current state of knowledge, and the
prospects for academic research looking to further practice in supply chain water accounting.
Findings
Literature reveals two contrasting issues in need of further research, first, between normative
and practical approaches to supply chain water accounting and, second, the focus on external
reporting versus management.
Research limitations/implications
One main limitation is recognised. Technical aspects of supply chain water accounting tools,
e.g. water footprints and material flow cost accounting are not considered as focus is on the
take up of corporate supply chain water accounting in practice.
Practical implications
The article sets out an agenda for the future of supply chain water accounting which can be
used to guide research and stimulate extension in practice and take up of important indirect
considerations in corporate water accounting in supply chains.
Originality/value
The integrative literature review leads to identification of future research opportunities and a
set of research questions relating to useful information, links with internal decision making and
external collaboration, application in companies of different sizes, and to furthering the take up
of corporate water accounting practice in the increasingly important collaborative supply chain
relationships which span the globe.
Keywords: Water accounting; Environmental accounting; Supply chain; Integrative literature

review; Future research.
1
Article Classification: Literature review.
1. Introduction
Water management is now among the world’s most pressing concerns (Barton, 2010). Not only
is global climate change impacting the amount of freshwater available, population growth is
increasing demand for what is already a finite resource (Koehler, 2008; Launiainen et al.,
2014). The result of this situation is a perfect storm and the need for responsible water
management across all sectors of society is no longer an issue of vague importance; it is now a
matter of survival. Among those sectors likely to be most affected by water-related problems in
the short and long-terms is the corporate sector.
The corporate sector is one of the largest users and polluters of freshwater in modern society
(Larson et al., 2012). Thus the onus is on all business organisations to ensure their use of water
is responsible while limiting negative impacts and externalities. The need for improved water
management by business gave rise in the 2000s to a new practice that came to be known as
corporate water accounting (Christ, 2014). Simply put, corporate water accounting is an
umbrella term for the practice by which organisations can quantify and account for their water
use. Since its initial development corporate water accounting has gained many advocates and
interest in the practice is growing.
As with other forms of environmental accounting, corporate water accounting seeks to

integrate numerous aspects (e.g. analysis of inputs and outputs and their impact on the
environment, and environmental investment appraisal) most of which involve actions that can
be directly attributed to a single organisation. However, one area that has drawn special interest
is how water accounting can be extended to include the corporate supply chain (Global
Reporting Initiative, 2013; Morikawa et al., 2007). For the purpose of the paper a simple but
useful definition of a supply chain is “… a set of three or more entities (organisations or
individuals) directly involved in the upstream and downstream flows of products, services,
finances, and/or information from a source to a customer” (Mentzner et al., 2001, p. 4).
The need to manage water in supply chains cannot be underestimated. For example, it is now
recognised that for most organisations exposure to water-related risk is actually greatest in the
supply chain as this is where the majority of water use and related impacts occur (Allan, 2003;
Morrison et al., 2010; Signori and Bodino, 2013). If operations in one part of the supply chain
are hindered by lack of water the situation can be expected to have flow on effects, especially
in the case of large organisations in which a complex web of suppliers and external parties are
involved. Furthermore, the potential role of regulation of water management in the supply
chain is an important reason for business to be proactively gathering water data (Zhu et al.,
2013). Yet despite its importance, and demonstration of the value of supply chain accounting
elsewhere (Burritt and Schaltegger, 2014), and notwithstanding the effort of a small but
dedicated group of academics and practitioners, Morrison et al. (2010) observe the supply
chain components of corporate water accounting remain underdeveloped and no synthesis
exists concerning the current state of this topic. Corporate water accounting is itself a relatively
new area for research with accountants and other professionals being invited to embrace the
2
challenge (Allan, et al., 2015) and supply chain aspects have only recently come to the fore
(e.g. Ercin et al., 2011; Christ, 2014). Thus it is the purpose of this paper to assess what is
known about supply chain water accounting with a view to identifying shortcomings in current
knowledge and to construct a pragmatic research agenda that will help move the topic to the
next stage in its development. Using an integrative review of extant literature the following
questions are considered:
(RQ1) What is the current state of knowledge concerning corporate supply chain
water accounting?
(RQ2) How can academic research be used to further knowledge and the take up of
corporate supply chain water accounting in practice?
The review suggests researchers need to move beyond normative arguments to better
understand how corporate water accounting is being (can be) applied to supply chains in
practice. The decision settings in which supply chain water accounting could be used also
require attention, as do the needs of the small and medium-sized organisations that make up the
majority of most supply chains. The management aspects of supply chain water accounting
were also found to be less prominent than reporting and the need for transparency representing
an imbalance that needs to be addressed. A series of research questions incorporating these and
other matters is presented and it is hoped the resulting agenda will become a catalyst
encouraging more academics to engage in this area of vital importance.
The remainder of this paper is arranged as follows. Section 2 considers the broader research
setting by elaborating on the current global water crisis, the need for and development of water
accounting in a generic sense as well as the broader supply chain issues. Section 3 outlines the
method used for this literature review. Section 4 examines existing evidence concerning
corporate supply chain water accounting. Section 5 then consolidates what is known and
outlines a number of potential directions for future research that will impact pragmatic, real
world outcomes. Section 6 concludes the paper.
2. The water crisis and water accounting
The world is facing what some have described as a water crisis (Lambooy, 2011). It has always
been confronted by drought and deluge at different locations and at different times, however,
these events are expected to worsen in coming years. In particular, periods of water shortage
are predicted to become more frequent and extreme. The reasons for the current situation are
manifold. First climate change is affecting rainfall patterns worldwide. When combined with
increased evaporation associated with warmer temperatures dramatic droughts are anticipated
to become commonplace in many regions (Koehler, 2008). In addition, the global population is
increasing. This has not only increased direct water consumption but also indirect water
consumption via the resources embedded within consumer products and food (Money, 2014).
A larger population also impacts global water quality. The World Business Council for
Sustainable Development (WBCSD) (2012, p. 2) argues that around 80% of the world’s
population now live in areas where “the threat to water security is high”. This has flow on
effects for business as will be discussed next.
3
Lambooy (2011, p. 853) notes that “people and business are competing users of water”.
Humans depend on water for life and business depends on water to support its activities and to
prosper. In the past business entities have frequently been found to be wasteful with regard to
water management treating water as a free good as opposed to a valued asset and resource to be
managed with care (Christ, 2014; Martinez, 2015). With less water available and increased
demand business is being forced to become more pragmatic with regard to its water
management activities, leading to the development of corporate water accounting.
Corporate water accounting can be defined as the system by which companies measure and
account for their water use and includes issues associated with water quantity and storage,
water quality and the impact of use (Morrison et al., 2010). Water accounting provides
information for managers to assess risks and improve efficiency (Beske-Janssen et al., 2015).
This information can also be used in stakeholder engagement to provide parties outside the
organisation with data for decision-making (Morrison et al., 2010). Organisations instrumental
in the early development of corporate water accounting include the Water Footprint Network,
the United Nations, the Pacific Institute, the WBCSD, the World Resource Institute (WRI) and
the Alliance for Water Stewardship (WBCSD, 2012). In addition a number of tools have been
developed, e.g. the UN CEO Water Mandate, Ceres Aqua Gauge, the European Water
Stewardship Standard and the GEMI Local Water Tool (WBCSD, 2012)1.
Although substantial progress has been made with the development of water accounting
methods in recent years, problems still remain. For example, Morrison et al. (2010) observed a
lack of common definitions even for seemingly simple terms (e.g. companies referring to
‘water use’ often use different kinds of methods, scopes, boundaries, and units (p. 26)).
Available tools also deal with different levels of corporate activity and different aspects of
water management are often measured in different ways (WBCSD, 2012). In contrast to carbon
emissions that are comparable and have an equivalent impact no matter where in the world they
are generated, the issues associated with water management are temporally and spatially
specific (Perry, 2014). While this complexity may have stalled some water accounting efforts,
with regard to tools it is a case of fitness for purpose. For example, if reporting to external
parties is the purpose of corporate water accounting then comparability is likely to be important
(Chalmers et al., 2012a). However, if management within organisations is the purpose it may
be more realistic to assess each tool on its own merits with regard to specific corporate
decisions (Christ, 2014).
Notwithstanding the problems in developing a comparable system by which corporate water

use can be managed, reported and improved, one important issue that appears consistent across
the existing literature on corporate water accounting is the need to consider water use and
impacts in the supply chain.
For many companies the largest portion of water use and related impacts occurs in their supply
chain (Barton, 2010; Morrison et al., 2010). Thus even companies that are not exposed to high
levels of water risk via direct operations can face ongoing threat of financial loss and
operational disruption via suppliers whose level of exposure is greater (Nikolaou et al., 2016;
1
For a general overview of the historical development of water accounting please see Russell and Lewis (2014).
4
Ridoutt et al., 2009). For example, Signori and Bodino (2013) report that 98% of beer brewer
SABMiller’s water use in South Africa occurs in its supply chain primarily via agricultural
production over which the company has limited control. Yet any disruption as a result of water
shortage in say SABMiller’s hop supply, could have a devastating economic impact for the
organisation in the short-term (Barton, 2010).
Pressure is also being exerted by the public, government bodies and NGOs for organisations to
ensure they only transact with suppliers who are responsible in their use of water resources
(Ernst & Young, 2012). Thus a growing number of companies, such as major supermarket
chains, are demanding water information from organisations with whom they have dealings as
a way to avoid the public backlash when water use is found to be wasteful and/or negligent
(Carbon Disclosure Project (CDP), 2012). In consequence, it can be argued organisations face
two pressures to engage with supply chain water accounting. First, is economic self-interest.
Then there is the need for legitimacy to protect the organisation’s licence to operate. As noted
by Morrison et al., (2010), despite protestations of environmental concern it is expected most
organisations that engage in corporate water accounting do so to identify and reduce different
forms of business risk. Although both pressures are evident from the literature, given the very
recent focus on water, evidence of the take-up of supply chain water and wastewater issues in
external reporting is limited with the identified focus instead being on general matters
developed in parallel such as material and other inputs and outputs (Tate et al., 2010, Table II).
Nonetheless, if the result is improved efficiency and a reduction in environmental impact the
outcome is in fact a win-win for both society and the corporation.
Given the growing importance of corporate supply chain water accounting there is now a need
to consolidate what knowledge has been generated in recent years and to identify areas
requiring further research and development by addressing the research questions outlined in
Section 1.
The next section will consider the method used to conduct this research.
3. Method
In order to answer the research questions presented in Section 1 an integrative review of extant
literature was conducted. An integrative literature review requires the author to present and
summarise “the current state of knowledge on a topic” (Neuman, 2006, p. 112) and to provide a
synthesis. Torraco (2005, p. 363) posited that the purpose of a literature review is to outline a
“research agenda that flows logically from the critical analysis of the literature”. Yorks (2008,
p. 139) argued it is important that new theory and research be “justified on the grounds of
offering potential answers to new and interesting questions not brought to light by existing
theory” and that, in order to identify unanswered questions, it is useful for existing literature to
be “critiqued or integrated in a new and provocative way”. Thus literature reviews play an
important role in the development of knowledge which can ultimately lead to improved real
world outcomes (Whittemore and Knafl, 2005).
To identify appropriate publications on the topic of interest the term “supply chain” was
entered into Google Scholar with the search term “corporate water management”, after which
“supply chain” was entered with “water accounting”. This process resulted in 54 articles being
5
identified in the first case and 470 in the second. Articles were reviewed in full with those
where the primary purpose was other than the study or critique of corporate practice (e.g.
national level data) excluded. In addition, papers where the term “supply chain” only appeared
in the reference list or where water was not among the main concerns were also removed from
the analysis. This resulted in an end sample of 26 and 98 respectively. The remaining papers
were read in full with relevant themes documented. Given NGOs and some professional bodies
have played an important role supplementing academic references in the development of
supply chain water accounting a normal Google search was also conducted. The search engine
was set to order results based on relevance with the first 100 references for the two
combinations of search terms being reviewed (out of 256 and 1,350 results respectively), 200
in total such that constant comparison would reveal the relevant themes (Whittemore and Knafl,
2005). The sources identified using the method outlined above were then analysed thematically.
Notwithstanding the fact there is no commonly agreed definition as to what thematic analysis is
or how one goes about it, it is accepted thematic analysis involves qualitatively ascertaining
themes embodied within a predetermined set of qualitative data sources (Braun and Clarke,
2006). As with most qualitative analysis flexibility on the part of researchers is required and
rigid rules are likely to be inappropriate. Further to the above, the analysis was conducted
inductively meaning the “themes identified [were] strongly linked to the data [itself]” and not
“driven by the researcher’s theoretical interest in the area or topic” (Braun and Clarke, 2006 p.
83). This was preferred over a theoretical thematic analysis which tends to provide a less “rich
description of the data overall” by focusing on very specific areas of concern (Braun and
Clarke, 2006 p. 84). As a result the analysis in this case was predominantly data driven. In
addition, the data set was analysed by each member of the research team independently which
led to a set of commonly accepted themes being identified. It is, however, recognised that
identification of key themes in the literature using this qualitative approach is subjective and
flows from triangulation of the literature allowing new insights on core issues gained from the
resulting synthesis (Manning, 1997).
The next section will now commence the review by considering RQ1.
4. Corporate supply chain water accounting – existing evidence
Available literature on supply chain water accounting can be evaluated along a number of
dimensions. Two of the more prominent areas of distinction identified include normative
versus more practical applications for water accounting and external reporting/disclosure
versus management and are discussed next.
4.1. Normative versus practical
Much of the literature on corporate water accounting subsumes supply chain issues into a
broader set of measures and ideas which can be divided into normative and practical. Perhaps
because of the relative newness of corporate water accounting for supply chains actual practical
implementation of tools might appear to be low (see e.g. Ceres and Sustainalytics, 2014), but as
yet there is insufficient systematic evidence to tell. Instead, the vast majority of attention in the
literature has been on normative ideas about what companies should do. For example, Barton
(2010, p. 12) recommends companies should address material water risks “ideally referencing
specific at risk operations or supply chains, and attempting to quantify risks wherever possible”.
6
Various water tools which include supply and value chains in their focus have been suggested
for voluntary adoption by organisations (see Table 1).
The GEMI Water Sustainability Tool™ (GEMI, 2015) suggests that a value chain in which
indirect (embedded/virtual) water is used can be represented by five stages – inputs/raw
materials, process/production, delivery/distribution, product/service use/disposition. More
thoroughly, the Alliance for Water Stewardship in its International Standard defines a supply
chain as “A system of organisations, people, technology, activities, information and resources
involved in moving a product or service from supplier to customer. General supply chains are
organised as follows: producer, processor, manufacturer, distributer, retailer and customer”
(AWS, 2014). In a supply chain these functions can be spread across different institutions, the
supplier, focal organisation and purchaser, rather than vertically integrated within a single
company (GEMI, 2015). GEMI provides a specific example in 2001 ‘Exploring Water
Connections along the Supply Chain’ at Anheuser-Busch Inc. the world’s largest brewer of
beer which had faced unexpected water shortages affecting its supply chain. The case is used to
suggest to others what good water managers should do.
***INSERT TABLE 1 AROUND HERE***
The World Business Council for Sustainable Development developed a Sustainable

Development Global Water Tool which includes supply chain as one aspect (WBCSD, 2015).
Questions addressed by the WBCSD included identification of the number of suppliers in water
scarce areas now, and the expected number in 2025. The Tool is also seen as a way of helping
with the education of supply chain partners about water policy, strategy and risk and the trade-
offs between water risks and other environmental issues including land use, energy
consumption, and greenhouse gas emissions. The Global Water Tool is a fast, first-tier risk
screen developed to suggest how organisations can assess the water stress and potential risk
they are facing in their facilities worldwide. The Tool is not a guide as to “how to” implement
water accounting, provides no local site based information for the organisation or suppliers and
does not include monetary information about impacts.
Water footprint and life cycle analysis are two specific main tools for water accounting
developed and often recommended to provide information for corporations about direct and
indirect water use by products. A water footprint is the volume of freshwater used during the
production process, measured over the whole supply chain (Hoekstra et al., 2011). Reference is
made to three main footprints: “‘Green’ refers to the use of soil moisture, ‘blue’ refers to the
use of withdrawn freshwater, and ‘grey’ concerns polluted water” (Gerbens-Leenes and
Hoekstra, 2008; Yang et al., 2013, p. 599). Chalmers et al. (2012a, p. 279) observe that before
2002 when Arjen Hoekstra pioneered the water footprint concept, methods for evaluating water
consumption and pollution along the entire supply chain were limited. The authors argue the
water footprint concept represented an important step as it allowed managers to “visualise the
hidden water use behind products” with this improved understanding hopefully forming the
basis for improved management decisions.
Where academic water footprint studies are conducted, they often focus on raising awareness
and drawing attention to the importance of supply chain water accounting. For example, Ercin
et al. (2011, p. 731) report 99.7-99.8% of the water footprint of a carbonated beverage as
7
stemming from the supply chain and argue this shows the importance of “a detailed supply
chain assessment”. Similarly, Ridoutt et al. (2009, p. 1229) argue that “taking full account of
water appropriated into product value chains creates awareness of the water intensive stages of
each product life cycle, and enables the identification of opportunities for water-use reduction
and the assessment of risks to operations and supply chains from future water shortages”.
While water footprints can help identify hot spots for potential water risk, these normative
suggestions are supply chain/product specific and as such the research is not generalisable and
does not help understanding of how specific organisations can engage with water footprinting.
Although improving awareness of water risks, normatively derived measurement standards for
water footprints are controversial and impractical for business where simplicity and uniformity
are favoured for decision making (Chapagain and Tickner, 2012). A Water Footprint
Assessment Tool provides a rough guide to the water riskiness of the areas in which suppliers
are situated. Yet, in the absence of real data, Gerbens-Leenes and Hoekstra (2008) use a
hypothetical beverage company to illustrate the footprint concept and benchmarking for
business units. Its use in practice remains to be demonstrated. In a word of warning, Chapagain
and Tickner (2012, p. 576) suggest organisations should be clear as to why they undertake a
water footprint and how they will use the results as “water footprint analysis for its own sake is
seldom useful”. The Water Footprint Network (WFN) produced a specific tool in 2011 with the
suggestion that direct use of water by products is dominated by indirect use in different parts of
the supply chain. The WFN’s Global Water Footprint Assessment Standard provides a means
for calculating such direct as well as indirect supply chain water footprints.
Life cycle analysis is a tool for assessing environmental impacts associated with all the stages
of a product's life from cradle to grave e.g. in manufacturing from the extraction of raw
materials through to processing, transport, use and disposal (Jefferies et al., 2012). Accounting
for water use using the life cycle tool has been examined for production of bovine meat in the
agricultural supply chain. Production of bovine meat is well known to be one of the most
highly intensive uses of water (Hoekstra and Mekonnen, 2012). Supply chain issues in the
Australian red meat industry have been examined by Peters et al. (2010). Their concern is with
refining the method for treating rain and analysis of water for the feed production process.
They point out differences in the water intensity of grains and fodder crops produced with
bores or reticulated supplies in dryland cropping locations in Australia with areas where
surface water supplies are more readily available such as parts of the USA. The importance of
water risk in the different locales highlights the potential for water accounting to make these
differences transparent in the supply chain for red meat, but implications for individual
agribusinesses are not the target. In a combined study of products Jefferies et al. (2012)
conducted and compared a water footprint and life cycle assessment for 50 g of tea and a tub of
margarine and identified differences in scope and focus of the methods. The results are full of
difficulties with calculation but may be of use for identifying hotspots.
The need for introducing simple tools to assist businesses to commence water accounting is the
focus of Joa et al.’s (2014) Regionalized Cumulative Water Intensity tool which requires little
effort and is suggested, using a case study as a practical corporate water accounting tool along
entire supply chains, to aid decision making which includes environmental and social issues in
the cotton textile industry.
8
Ceres and Sustainalytics (2014) examined 103 companies’ supply chain water management to
see whether progress was being made in relation to their roadmap towards sustainability which
commenced with its recommendations in 2012. In relation to supply chain water use data they
found that only one company, Nike, reported such information and acknowledged the
challenging nature of gathering information from suppliers given most suppliers do not track
their own water use and have little incentive to do so as water is currently provided for free in
most parts of the world. Ceres and Sustainalytics (2014) assert it is incumbent on companies to
educate their suppliers about water challenges and risks, demonstrate the business case for
collecting water usage data, and create incentives for doing so.
Some organisations appear to be using the Water Footprint Network's technique (International
Finance Corporation, 2013; Hewlett-Packard Development Company, 2014). Nonetheless,
these are mainly large multinationals and the purpose for such engagement is open to debate.
Thus in summary it is clear that though the number of supply chain water accounting
techniques is increasing, as is the literature analysing their use in action based settings, most
researchers are still framing their work in a normative and conceptual way. This is an important
step, but without moving beyond to position research within the business settings in which
supply chain water accounting is likely to be used the future will be unlikely to see use of these
techniques become the rule as opposed to the exception.
A summary of currently available water accounting tools is provided in Table 1. Section 4.2
now briefly considers the interplay between external reporting and management.
4.2.External versus internal use of water accounting
As with all accounting, environmental and financial, the literature on supply chain water
accounting appears to fall into two categories based on either external reporting and disclosure
or internal use by management. It could be argued this goes directly to the motive that
underpins corporate engagement with supply chain water management.
Many studies include conclusions based solely on the analysis of publicly available corporate
disclosures (Lambooy, 2011). Sources of data include annual reports, sustainability reports and
corporate websites. On the basis of this data reports from NGOs, academics and organisations
like the CDP conclude most organisations are failing to assess water-related risks in their
supply chains. However, these conclusions assume the information reported represents a true
and accurate account of all actions undertaken by the company. Money (2014) observes
companies are highly interdependent in their supply chains with regard to water and that this
interdependence creates vulnerability. “Exposing the level of water risk in the supply chain
without having the control necessary to reduce that risk could make this vulnerability even
more visible” (Money, 2014, p. 55). Thus organisations might be reluctant to disclose all their
water-related activities as it could draw attention to areas of poor performance.
In contrast there are reasons why companies may wish to report supply chain water information.
For example, recent years have seen an increase in shareholder resolutions on water matters
which might encourage a greater focus on disclosure and external reporting (Barton, 2010).
This then begs the question as to what extent investors can actually drive change in supply
chain water management. In a study of organisations in the consumer staples sector, Money
9
(2014) found that supply chain water disclosures were often limited to narrative information
with corresponding quantitative data generally lacking. Similarly, Barton (2010) found in a
study of 100 publicly traded companies across 8 sectors that although some organisations
report working with suppliers to manage water risk, such disclosure is commonly limited to a
few anecdotal examples with evidence of comprehensive programs to manage supply chain
water risk largely absent. This suggests, as observed by Nikolaou et al. (2014), that the
inclusion of water-related disclosure regarding the supply chain is primarily concerned with
financial returns to investors. Thus on its own external reporting is unlikely to lead to improved
supply chain water management unless guiding frameworks are followed with regard to
content.
Some authors draw a link between water accounting tools, like the water footprint, and both
management and external reporting. For example, Ridoutt et al. (2009, p. 1233) observe that
water footprint data can be used for both internal management purposes as well as for
supporting environmental declarations and statements in corporate sustainability reports.
However, in order to ensure water is managed efficiently and effectively in a way that limits
risk along the supply chain it can be argued organisations need to adopt an inside-out approach
that starts with improved management and data collection within the organisation, as suggested
by Christ (2014), which then filters through to external reporting activities. Nonetheless, in
what could be described as a paradoxical situation, investors could support this activity by
demanding quantifiable water data be included in external reports. If organisations have to
collect quantifiable information anyway it becomes a sunk cost and it can be expected they will
find ways to capitalise on the expenditure and use the information internally to improve their
environmental and economic performance.
4.3.What is known about current practice within organisations?
There is little evidence about what companies are actually doing with regard to water
accounting in their supply chains. Among the most comprehensive guides available to evaluate
water accounting practices in large organisations is the annual CDP Global Water Report. The
2014 report found that of 174 Global 500 companies only 38% conducted an annual
assessment of water risk in both direct operations and their supply chain. It also shows some
worrying trends. For example, in the Consumer Discretionary category it is noted there was an
“11% decline in the proportion of respondents requiring key suppliers to report water use, risks
and management”, yet 64% of respondents were found to be exposed to water risks in their
supply chains (CDP, 2014, p. 28). Likewise, in the Consumer Staples category which includes
beverages and food products only 52% required suppliers to report water use, risks and
management despite 77% reporting exposure to supply chain water risk (CDP, 2014, p. 30).
Hazelton (2014) also draws attention to Australian studies that highlight a lack of supply chain
water information and analysis in corporate water reporting and disclosure (e.g. Association of
Chartered Certified Accountants et al., 2010). When combined with the decline in supply chain
water accounting identified by the CDP this evidence is of concern.
Similar to the results reported above, Egan (2012) found that supply chain water accounting by
organisations in the food and beverage sector was at an early stage of development. Egan’s
results also revealed a difference in how organisations engage with supply chain water
accounting and management based on whether they work up or down the supply chain or both.
10
This decision depends on the amount of “power” an organisation has relative to those they deal
with. Interestingly Egan also found that large organisations like supermarket chains are
sometimes reluctant to engage with suppliers if the result is “another report for reports sake”.
Instead they want to ensure the process is “meaningful” (Egan, 2012, p. 148). This supports the
management focus emphasised by Christ (2014).
In her study of water management accounting in the Australian wine industry, Christ (2014)
used a combination of contingency theory and new institutional theory to evaluate the factors
associated with the heightened collection of physical and monetary information for assessing
long-term supply chain water risks. The results from a survey of winery managers revealed the
drivers of supply chain water accounting differed depending on whether the information was
physical or monetary. Organisational size, a proactive environmental strategy and regulatory
pressure were consistent drivers across the two types of data whereas the presence of a certified
environmental management system and involvement with industry associations were not.
Although these results are industry specific they present a starting point for identifying the type
of organisation engaging in supply chain water accounting. It is interesting this was the only
theoretically driven supply chain specific study located for the review, especially given it is
exactly this type of information that is required to develop engagement strategies for the future.
Lambooy (2011) reports on the practices of 20 Dutch companies and finds that although most
have supply chain environmental practices in place, very few include specific measures
addressing water use. Heineken is highlighted as an exemplar with its supply chain ‘Aware of
Water’ programme which incorporates a knowledge management system with exchange of best
practice. No detail is provided, however, as to what this means or how it is achieved. Similarly,
Nestlé (2012), in its submission in response to the CDP’s 2012 information request, also shows
a commitment to working with suppliers and communities in different stages of its supply
chain providing a breakdown of the company’s operations in different countries. However,
specific details of the actual water accounting processes used to support these initiatives are not
elaborated. In contrast, Kamp-Roelands (2013) discusses the case of PUMA who, in 2011,
conducted an analysis to place a value on the environmental impact of both its direct operations
and that of its supply chain. It is noted that with regard to water abstraction 6% of the data used
in the analysis was quantifiable whereas the remaining 94% was generated using models. It is
possible difficulty obtaining quantifiable data is the reason many examples from the literature
do not include information on the actual process of supply chain water accounting. Indeed, in a
study that sought to investigate water management in sustainable manufacturing in Malta,
Refalo and Zammit (2013) note they were unable to calculate the supply chain water footprint
for any of the case organisations as the companies did not have access to sufficient data to
allow them to do so.
In a further example of direct supplier engagement, Schulte et al. (2011) report on the Purple
Goes Green program undertaken by Cadbury. As part of this program Cadbury developed an
energy and water savings toolkit in collaboration with organisations like the World Wildlife
Fund (WWF). Although in the early stages of development it is argued this strategy has
provided a cost effective way for Cadbury to encourage sustainable water management across
its supply chain. McDonalds is similarly assessing water risk in its supply chain via assessment
of its corporate water footprint and exposure via different restaurants (Orr and Pegram, 2014).
Likewise, Woolworths has invested over $17 million to encourage water efficiency and build
11
supply chain resilience via its Fresh Food Futures Program which works with farming
communities in the locale of the organisation’s suppliers (CDP, 2012).
Other studies highlight how the collection of supply chain water information led to
identification of opportunities for innovation and change. Wu and Pagell (2011) observe that
Forest and Wood Products used supply chain information as a catalyst to redesign production
processes and engage with employees who saw benefits of improved water management within
the community’s water supply. Similarly, Besseling (2014) reports on the case of Eskom
Holdings SOC Limited, a South African electricity company that was able to save 8 million
cubic meters of freshwater per annum by reusing treated mine-water from its coal suppliers.
This arrangement was thus beneficial while limiting water risk for both supply chain partners.
Finally, Barilla, a pasta maker, was able to save 40 million cubic meters of blue water every
year after calculating the water footprint for its supply chain and changing from Alamo, a
variety of durum wheat grown in Arizona where water is scarce, to Aurea which is cultivated in
Italy and does not require irrigation (Antonelli and Ruini, 2015). This equates to 50 litres of
water saved per kilogram of wheat used.
Finally, the literature offers a number of examples of companies partnering with NGOs and
external non-supply chain partners to develop and promote supply chain water accounting
techniques (Antonelli and Ruini, 2015). One example is the Cadbury case presented earlier in
this section. Another is beer brewer SABMiller who partnered with the WWF to improve their
supply chain water accounting activities in both South Africa and the Czech Republic
(SABMiller plc and WWF - UK, 2009). SABMiller uses data on the aggregate amount of water
used throughout their value chain to identify risks and opportunity costs. These risks are then
evaluated in terms of future availability, issues with allocation and price. The latter highlights
the economic angle which often lacks explicit recognition in the literature on supply chain
water management. This information is then used proactively as a basis for stakeholder
engagement and establishing partnerships which address water risks in the brewer’s supply
chain (SABMiller plc and WWF - UK, 2009). Both organisations are advocates of the
“measure to manage” mantra often seen in business literature (SABMiller plc and WWF - UK,
2009, p. 24).
Another example of collaborative effort in this area is the South African Strategic Water Part-
ners Network. This initiative constitutes a water management partnership between government,
the private sector and civil society. In particular, the Network currently has a working group on
Agriculture and Supply Chain Water: Focus on Agricultural Supply Chain and Irrigated
Agriculture, led by Coca Cola (South Africa) (Besseling, 2014). Fogel and Palmer (2014) offer
further evidence concerning Coca Cola’s water management and accounting strategies. A
partnership of particular note was with the Water Footprint Network, The Nature Conservancy
and the WWF to develop three water footprint assessments relating to the company’s products.
This assessment showed 99% of the organisation’s water impact was associated with the
supply chain. As a result of this process Coca Cola implemented a set of system wide
sustainability standards which required manufacturing operations to take action to mitigate
water risk at the plant level. It was also reported that at the organisation’s 2009 Supplier
Sustainability Summit their suppliers were just as concerned about sustainability challenges as
they were. Thus this provides a potential catalyst for further engagement across the supply
chain (Fogel and Palmer, 2014). Other organisations that have partnered with the Water
12
Footprint Network to improve corporate approaches to supply chain water accounting include
PepsiCo, Nestlé and Unilever (Hall and Lobina, 2012).
As may be concluded from the discussion presented above, the practice of supply chain water
accounting is still in an emerging stage of development. However, by consolidating what is
currently known areas for potential research that will promote real world solutions can be
inferred. The following section will discuss potential directions for research and practice in
more detail.
5. The way forward – developing a research agenda
It was observed in Section 4.3 that theoretical research concerning supply chain water
accounting is largely absent. Indeed, to date research in this area has been primarily scientific
with emphasis given to the technical aspects (Tillotson et al., 2014). Yet in order to engage
with business it is useful to understand why organisations choose to implement different
practices and the conditions under which their choice is successful. This information is
required to develop guidelines to promote further take up of water accounting tools.
Theoretically driven future research can help in this regard. Theories that might be relevant
include contingency theory, institutional theory, legitimacy theory, stakeholder theory and
resource dependence theory. The list is not exclusive and other relevant theories could easily be
added2, with some perhaps being used in combination (Oliver, 1991). This is not to say there is
no place for more practical study, but rather it needs to be understood, as noted by Parker (2005,
p. 849) that theory and practice are “interrelated and arguably have the potential to be mutually
contributing”.
Ernst & Young (2012, p. 9) posit that mapping water risks across the whole supply chain is a
major challenge for business. To date, as seen above, much of the literature on supply chain
water accounting is based on raising awareness of the growing water crisis and the need to
account for water in the supply chain. Literature on tool development is also prominent as is
action based research. Thus there is now a need to move beyond normative and conceptual
arguments to engage with actual organisations to help them find and implement real world
solutions to water-related supply chain problems. For example, at the Water Footprint
Symposium organised by the University of Leeds, UK, in 2013, Professor Tony Allan (who
pioneered the virtual water concept) highlighted that farmers have an important role as water
managers given 90% of the water consumed by society is embedded in the food we eat – a fact
that affects many supply chains around the world. However, Allan also observed “water
scientists overly focus on water and do not recognise that farmers have to handle a complex
suite of inputs” (Tillotson et al., 2014, p. 1562). The complexity suggests a need for
pragmatism in developing an understanding of how best to engage with people in the field.
This then necessitates a research agenda that is practical and incorporates the business context
in which supply chain water accounting is to be undertaken, as well as develops underlying
theoretical frameworks. Based on the literature reviewed a number of potential research
questions are able to be identified. Higher order research questions and sub-questions are
identified and presented in Table 2. The following discussion will consider some of these areas
2
For other theories that might be relevant please see Gray et al. (2010).
13
in more detail with practical suggestions being made as to how progress in research might be
enhanced.
***INSERT TABLE 2 AROUND HERE***
To what extent are established water accounting tools used by corporations to support supply
chain management decisions? What type of supply chain water information is collected and
used by organisations? Section 4.3 suggests there are examples of innovative supply chain
water accounting and management. However, apart from the Water Footprint Network’s water
footprint technique many organisations appear to be developing their own methods and
strategies to address supply chain-oriented problems and are thus not reliant on the new tools
being developed by NGOs. The extent to which organisations are using established water
accounting tools is unknown. Likewise the type of organisation using these tools is unclear. In
order to develop a better understanding of how to develop supply chain water accounting
further there is a need to understand what tools are being used, why they are being used and/or
the type of water-related information currently being collected by organisations in practice.
Proactive organisations can then provide exemplars and evidence can be collected concerning
problems associated with the different techniques in practice and how they were overcome.
One area of interest is the role different functions, such as accounting, play in the collection of
data, overcoming the silo mentality associated with particular functional thinking, and possible
solutions through transdisciplinary teams. Such research will involve moving beyond the
external reporting/disclosure-based studies that dominate extant literature.
To what extent does supply chain water accounting information support internal decision-
making by the focal organisation? There may also be potential for existing environmental
management accounting techniques to assist with supply chain water management as noted by
Christ (2014). For example, Ercin et al. (2011, p. 740) suggest, in evaluating the water
footprint of a sugar-containing carbonated beverage, that “accurate material flow accounting
along the full supply chain of a product would simplify water footprint accounting”.
Schaltegger and Burritt (2014) also highlight the potential of material flow cost accounting as a
technique for sustainable supply chain management. This raises the question as to whether
material flow accounting methods need to be investigated in parallel to developing more
advanced water accounting and footprinting methods. It might also be that organisations with
prior experience with environmental accounting and management methods are better qualified
to consider supply chain water accounting engagement. For example, an article from the
magazine, Australia’s Paydirt (2011), suggests organisations that are most successful with
regard to water-related disclosure are those with prior experience of sustainability accounting.
It would be interesting to extend this idea to consider more generic management tools like
certified environmental management systems and also environmental cost accounting
techniques such as material flow cost accounting. If organisations can see they are already well
positioned to engage with supply chain water accounting the initial investment in such
programs may seem less daunting.
How can SMEs be further encouraged to engage with supply chain water accounting? Another
observation is that existing research has primarily been concerned with descriptive studies of
large multinational organisations. Yet, as noted by Kamp-Roelands (2013, p. 17), SMEs
generally make up “the largest part of the supply chain to larger organisations”. Thus additional
14
research is needed to investigate the best way to engage SMEs in supply chain water
accounting. This is especially important as many SME managers have been shown to exhibit
poor understanding of water risk in their supply chains. Furthermore, The Green Economy
Coalition (2014) observes it is probable SMEs would find it extremely difficult to engage with
supply chain water accounting. Thus many of the tools currently available are unlikely to be
appropriate in the SME context. Nikolaou et al. (2016) suggest that a way to overcome
resource disadvantages and a lack of knowledge in SMEs is to implement a collaborative or
eco-cluster approach to supply chain water accounting - a topic for future research. Similarly,
Schulte et al. (2011) argue that the ability to engage partners in supply chain water accounting
activities depends on the leverage over the organisations they work with which often relates to
organisational size and the nature of the market. In seeking to engage suppliers the authors note
many organisations may not know where to start. Hence they recommend disseminating “water
performance tool kits that outline good practice and helpful technologies” (Schulte et al., 2011,
p. 36). Although further research investigating this suggestion is needed it is possible the
recommendation could provide an effective way to engage with smaller organisations.
How successful is supply chain water accounting at limiting exposure to water risk in practice?
What is the role of external collaboration in supply chain water accounting (either with NGOs
or other organisations)? Another question to arise from the literature reviewed is whether there
should be a hierarchy of water accounting activities whereby progression can be gradually
planned and extended to implementation in the supply chain to help reduce water risk. For
example, Barton (2010, p. 20) notes that although many companies seem willing to collect and
disclose water data relating to their own facilities this is only a first step, albeit a natural one.
The challenge is finding ways to encourage extension beyond this initial engagement. It is
likely organisations need to be shown the collection and sharing of supply chain water data is
in their best interests. As noted by Wallace (2011), who reports on an interview with a water
specialist from consultancy firm ERM, collaboration will be an important step in resolving
industrial water risk. Indeed, it was believed “a collective of businesses would have [a] greater
ability to manage [water] risk and develop management plans, particularly as traditional
sustainability reporting frameworks can’t always be effectively applied to water” (Wallace,
2011, p. 22). Thus there is a need to understand how collaborative water accounting
arrangements work in practice moving from questions focused on what organisations are doing
to consider why they are doing it and how they are doing it. How successful are supply chain
water accounting collaborations? What problems are encountered? Is it a truly inclusive
arrangement or one where one or more parties feel coerced and thus not completely committed?
Are there issues in practice with measurement and information sharing? How were these
resolved? Answers to these questions will bring about a greater understanding of supply chain
water accounting and it is only from this base that recommendations and guidelines will
ultimately be developed that will improve practice in this area.
It can also be observed that most developments in the area of corporate level supply chain
water accounting have been driven by NGOs and external organisations. Yet, as noted in a
report from SustainAbility (2014) the private sector can also play an important role in
developing and rolling out water accounting tools, including those aimed at supply chain
management. The extent to which organisations are developing their own tools, the type of
information they include and the extent to which they are successful are likely to be important
areas for future research. In particular, it would be interesting to obtain opinions from suppliers
15
as to how the focal organisations downstream in their supply chains are supporting them with
their water accounting and management activities. This should include an analysis of how
water information is communicated and its collection encouraged. Numerous research methods
could be useful in this regard including case studies in which the researcher is an observer,
interview based projects or even surveys if designed appropriately. When combined with
research concerning the take up of externally developed water accounting tools this may lead
researchers to question whether there is in fact one best way to account for water use and
impact in the supply chain or whether the process is industry or supply chain specific. This
might also lead to recommendations as to how best to encourage further engagement with
supply chain water accounting by the corporate sector.
What role, if any, is regulation going to play in supply chain water accounting? Water
accounting is predominantly a voluntary activity, but industry associations and governments
can support take-up if they see this is in the interests of their members or society and external
reporting standards have already been suggested (Chalmers et al., 2012b).
Who is/ should be responsible for the collection and management of supply chain water
accounting information? Existing literature does not elaborate on the functional roles necessary
to build and manage effective water accounting initiatives within supply chains. Nonetheless, it
can be argued further development of supply chain water accounting should build upon
knowledge obtained from several relevant disciplines – for example, environmental
engineering, meteorology, logistics/transportation, and accounting. On their own none of these
disciplines has full understanding of the information that needs to be collected suggesting
transdisciplinary teams may be an appropriate way to build responsibility in a company with
further research required to understand this potential.
What is the role of monetary information within supply chain water accounting? With regard to
the monetary impact of supply chain water accounting activities several areas in need of
investigation become apparent. First, to what extent do organisations incorporate monetary
information into supply chain water accounting activities? It has been observed that water has
traditionally been priced well below its true value to society. Nonetheless, with increasing
demand coupled with insufficient supply it is predicted the cost of water is going to increase
(Barton, 2010; Schulte et al., 2011). Indeed, this is already happening via direct price increases
passed on by water utilities, as a result of water trading schemes and the extra treatment of poor
quality water required before it can be considered fit for business purposes. It has been
observed that contemporary water accounting tools often lack a financial element (Christ, 2014;
Larson et al., 2012). This is interesting given it is often the financial bottom line that drives
business. Finding ways to incorporate monetary information into corporate supply chain water
accounting might be a way to sell the benefits to reluctant participants (but see Coulson et al.,
2015 for an alternative view in relation to reporting). However, this area requires further
research and development.
With regard to each of the higher order research questions discussed above and also displayed
in Table 2 there are a number of research methods that would be appropriate to improve extant
knowledge of corporate supply chain water accounting. Given the contemporary nature of the
topic it is likely that qualitative methods involving interviews and case studies will be
necessary towards the beginning of a research agenda as this would allow a rich and detailed
16
understanding of the current situation in a limited number of organisations to be ascertained.
The information gleaned from this process could then be used to develop instruments for use in
survey based projects the purpose being to reveal a generalizable understanding of the current
situation from which recommendations for businesses, industry organisations and policy
makers can be made.
The following section will now conclude the paper.
6. Conclusion
There are increasing problems for organisations in relation to their management of and
accounting for water in times of greater variability of supply and demand. Water accounting is
a tool introduced to help companies measure and account for the quantity of water in storage,
water quality and the impact of water use. It supports risk assessment and efficiency in water
use. While direct operations are one source of corporate concern over water, evidence suggests
that indirect water use through the supply chain can be more important hence the paper
addresses two research questions - (RQ1) What is the current state of knowledge concerning
corporate supply chain water accounting? and (RQ2) How can academic research be used to
further knowledge and the take up of corporate supply chain water accounting in practice?
Founded on an integrative literature review the paper examines both the current state of play
and prospects for future research in relation to supply chain water accounting.
Examination of the evidence about the current state of knowledge on supply chain water
accounting leads to two main observations. First, supply chain considerations are being
included more and more in the increasing number of water accounting tools being developed
and promoted. The growing interest is accompanied by normative suggestions concerning the
way to implement corporate supply chain water accounting in practice. However, there is very
little information available about the results from applying these tools, in part because of the
newness of initiatives and the short time available for their rollout. This means that the
business decision settings in which supply chain water accounting could be used are largely
under researched. Second, there is considerable emphasis on external reporting about a
company’s supply chain water accounting activities, and far less emphasis on management and
the type of accounting information that is useful for good management.
A consequence of these two findings is that what companies are doing in relation to supply
chain water accounting, and why they are doing it, is largely a black box in need of
investigation. Given the growing urgency of the water crisis there is a need for: relevant actual
data rather than estimates as a foundation for decision making; obtaining information to
support direct engagement with suppliers to reduce water risk; the gathering of water
accounting information as the basis for development of creative and innovative investment
solutions to water issues arising with supply chains; and, finally, engagement with extra-
organisational bodies such as NGOs whose expertise in water issues can bring a
multidisciplinary focus to supply chain water solutions.
In conclusion, and in response to Research Question 2, a set of critical actions faces the supply
chain water accounting research community. Initially, there is the need to discover through
case fieldwork what information companies actually find useful to help them adapt to potential
17
constraints posed by restricted access to water. Then there is the need for information to be of
relevance to specific decisions whether short or long term, regular for operations or ad hoc for
investments, monetary for financial decisions or physical for environmental management. Also
a sound theoretical foundation is needed upon which to build action in practice and move
beyond the current normative emphasis divorced from the outcomes supply chain water
accounting can provide for improved management of water by business.
The recommendations made herein also come with one caveat. It is acknowledged the study
was primarily concerned with furthering knowledge aimed at fostering the take up of corporate
supply chain water accounting in practice. Thus the focus was not on the technical aspects of
supply chain water accounting per se. For those who are interested, there are many articles
available that debate the relative merits of existing methods, such as the water footprint. The
decision was instead made to take an organisation centric, management approach. This is not to
undermine the efforts of those researchers whose work is solely conceptual as this is an
important undertaking, however, unless effort is also devoted to understanding the managerial
aspects of supply chain water accounting a situation could arise where the business sector is
ineffective at this time of crisis. The academic sector can play a vital role with regard to this
topic and it is hoped the agenda outlined here will encourage other researchers to engage with
this area of global economic, environmental and social significance.
References
Allan, J.A. (2003), “Virtual water-the water, food, and trade nexus. Useful concept or
misleading metaphor?”, Water International, Vol. 28 No. 1, pp. 106-113.
Allan, T., Colman, T. and Keulertz, M. (2015), “The complexity and urgency of water: Time
for the accountancy profession to step up”, Global Knowledge Gateway, International
Federation of Accountants (IFAC), 7 April 2015, available at: www.ifac.org/global-
knowledge-gateway/viewpoints/complexity-and-urgency-water-time-accountancy-profession-
step (accessed 21 December 2015).
Antonelli, M. and Ruini, L.F. (2015), “Business engagement with sustainable water resource
management through water footprint accounting: The case of the Barilla Company”,
Sustainability, Vol. 7 No. 6, pp. 6742-6758.
ACCA (Association of Chartered Certified Accountants), the Net Balance Foundation and the
Sustainable Investment Research Institute. (2010), Disclosures on water, ACCA.
Australia’s Paydirt. (2011), “Forgetting the most precious resource of all”, December 2010 –
January 2011, pp. 18.
AWS (Alliance for Water Stewardship) (2014), The AWS International Water Stewardship
Standard, available at: http://allianceforwaterstewardship.org/aws-standard-system.html#aws-
standard (accessed 8 December 2015).
Barton, B. (2010), Murky waters? Corporate reporting on water risk. Ceres, Boston, MA.
18
Beske-Janssen, P., Johnson, M. P., and Schaltegger, S. (2015), “20 years of performance
measurement in sustainable supply chain management–what has been achieved?” Supply Chain
Management: An International Journal, Vol. 20 No. 6, pp. 664-680.
Besseling, D. (2014), “Balancing the business of energy and water: water and energy”, Water
Wheel, Vol. 13 No. 1, pp. 36-38.
Braun, V. and Clarke, V. (2006), “Using thematic analysis in psychology” Qualitative research
in psychology, Vol. 3 No. 2, pp. 77-101.
Burritt, R. and Schaltegger, S. (2014), “Accounting for sustainability in production and supply
chains” The British Accounting Review, Vol. 46 No. 4, pp. 323-326.
CDP (Carbon Disclosure Project) (2012), Collective responses to rising water challenges. CDP
Global Water Report 2012: On behalf of 470 investors with assets of US$ 50 trillion, Carbon
Disclosure Project, London.
CDP. (2014), From water risk to value creation. CDP Global Water Report 2014. CDP,
London, United Kingdom.
Ceres and Sustainalytics. (2014), “Gaining ground: corporate progress on the Ceres roadmap
for sustainability”, available at: www.ceres.org/roadmap-assessment/progress-
report/performance-by-expectation/supply-chain/performance-supply-chain-gaining-ground
(accessed 8 December 2015).
Chalmers, K. Godfrey, J. and Potter, B. (2012a), “Discipline-informed approaches to water

accounting”. Australian Accounting Review, Vol. 22 No. 62, pp. 275-285.
Chalmers, K., Godfrey, J. and Lynch, B. (2012b), “Regulatory theory insights into the past,
present and future of general purpose water accounting and standard setting”, Accounting,
Auditing and Accountability Journal, Vol. 25 No. 6, pp. 1001-1024.
Chapagain, A.K. and Tickner, D. (2012), “Water footprint: Help or hindrance?”, Water
Alternatives, Vol. 5 No. 3, pp. 563-581.
Christ, K.L. (2014), “Water management accounting and the wine supply chain: Empirical
evidence from Australia”, The British Accounting Review, Vol. 46 No. 4, pp. 379-396.
Coulson, A.B., Adams, C.A., Nugent, M.N. and Haynes, K. (2015), “Exploring metaphors of
capitals and the framing of multiple capitals: Challenges and opportunities for < IR>”,
Sustainability Accounting, Management and Policy Journal, Vol. 6 No. 3, pp. 290-314.
Egan, M. (2012), Water management and accounting change: a study of food and beverage
producing organisations. Unpublished PhD thesis, University of Sydney.
Ercin, A.E., Aldaya, M.M. and Hoekstra, A.Y. (2011), “Corporate water footprint accounting
and impact assessment: the case of the water footprint of a sugar-containing carbonated
beverage”, Water Resources Management, Vol. 25 No. 2, pp. 721-741.
19
Ernst and Young. (2012), Preparing for water scarcity: raising business awareness on water
issues. Ernst and Young Global Limited, London.
Fogel, D.S. and Palmer, J.E. (2014), “Water as a corporate resource”, Journal of Global
Responsibility, Vol. 5 No. 1, pp. 104-125.
GEMI (2015), “Connecting the drops towards creative water strategies, a water sustainability
tool”, available at: http://gemi.org/water/overview.htm (accessed 6 December 2015).
Gerbens-Leenes, P.W. and Hoekstra, A.Y. (2008), Business water footprint accounting. A tool
to assess how production of goods and services impacts on freshwater resources worldwide.
Value of Water Research Report Series No, 27. Delft, UNESCO Institute for Water Education,
The Netherlands.
Gray, R., Owen, D., and Adams, C. (2010), “Some theories for social accounting?: A review
essay and a tentative pedagogic categorisation of theorisations around social accounting”,
Sustainability, in Freedman, M., & Jaggi, B. (2010). Advances in Environmental Accounting
and Management. Sustainability, Environmental Performance and Disclosures (Vol. 4),
Emerald Group Publishing, pp. 1-54.
GRI (Global Reporting Initiative) (2013), G4 Guidelines–Reporting principles and standard

disclosures. GRI, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Green Economy Coalition. (2014), “Water: Accounting for shared priorities”, available at:
http://measurewhatmatters.info/wp-content/uploads/2014/09/MWM-Water-Discussion-Paper-
September-20142.pdf (accessed 4 December 2015).
Hall, D. and Lobina, E. (2012), “Conflicts, companies, human rights and water - A critical
review of local corporate practices and global corporate initiatives”, University of Greenwich:
Public Services International Research Unit, available at: www.psiru.org/reports/conflicts-
companies-human-rightsand-water-critical-review-local-corporatepractices-and-glo (accessed 8
December 2015).
Hazelton, J. (2014), “Corporate water accountability – the role of water labels given non-
fungible extractions”, Pacific Accounting Review, Vol. 26 No. 1/2, pp. 8-27.
Hewlett-Packard Development Company. (2014), “Water accounting manual for the

calculation of HP’s water footprint”, available at:
http://waterfootprint.org/media/downloads/HP_water_footprint.pdf (accessed 4 December
2015).
International Finance Corporation. (2013), “Water footprint assessment - Tata Chemicals, Tata
Motors, Tata Power, Tata Steel. Results & learning”, available at:
http://waterfootprint.org/media/downloads/WFN_2013.Tata_Industrial_Water_Footprint_Asse
ssment.pdf (accessed 4 December 2015).
Hoekstra, A.Y. and Mekonnen, M.M. (2012), “The water footprint of humanity”, Proceedings
of the National Academy of Sciences, Vol. 109 No. 9, pp. 3232-3237.
20
Hoekstra A.Y., Chapagain A.K., Aldaya M.M. and Mekonnen M.M. (2011), The WF
Assessment Manual: Setting the Global Standard. Earthscan, London, UK.
Jefferies, D., Muñoz, I., Hodges, J., King, V.J., Aldaya, M., Ercin, A.E., Milà i Canals, L. and
Hoekstra, A.Y. (2012), “Water footprint and lifecycle assessment as approaches to assess
potential impacts of products on water consumption. Key learning points from pilot studies on
tea and margarine”, Journal of Cleaner Production, Vol. 33, pp. 155-166.
Joa, B., Hottenroth, H., Jungmichel, N. and Schmidt, M. (2014), “Introduction of a feasible
performance indicator for corporate water accounting–a case study on the cotton textile chain”,
Journal of Cleaner Production, Vol. 82, pp. 143-153.
Kamp-Roelands, N. (2013), Private sector initiatives on measuring and reporting on green

growth. Paris: OECD.
Koehler, A. (2008), “Water use in LCA: managing the planet’s freshwater resources”,
International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment, Vol. 13 No. 6, pp. 451-455.
Lambooy, T. (2011), “Corporate social responsibility: sustainable water use”, Journal of

Cleaner Production, Vol. 19 No. 8, pp. 852-866.
Larson, W., Freedman, P., Passinsky, V., Grubb, E. and Adriaens, P. (2012), “Mitigating
corporate water risk: Financial market tools and supply management strategies”, Water
Alternatives, Vol. 5 No. 3, pp. 582-602.
Launiainen, S., Futter, M.N., Ellison, D., Clarke, N., Finér, L., Högbom, L., Laurén, A. and
Ring, E. (2014), “Is the water footprint an appropriate tool for forestry and forest products: The
Fennoscandian case”, Ambio, Vol. 43 No. 2, pp. 244-256.
Manning, K. (1997), “Authenticity in constructivist inquiry: Methodological considerations

without prescription”, Qualitative Inquiry, Vol. 3, pp. 93-115.
Martinez, F. (2015), “A three-dimensional conceptual framework of corporate water

responsibility”, Organization & Environment, Vol. 28 No. 2, pp. 137-159.
Mentzner, J.T., DeWitt, W., Keebler, J.S., Min, S., Nix, N.W., Smith, C.D. and Zacharia, Z.G.
(2001), “Defining supply chain management”, Journal of Business Logistics, Vol. 22 No. 2, pp.
1-25.
Money, A. (2014), “Corporate water risk: A critique of prevailing best practice”, Journal of
Management & Sustainability, Vol. 4 No. 1, pp. 42-59.
Morikawa, M., Morrison, J. and Gleick, P. (2007), Corporate reporting on water: A review of
eleven global industries, Pacific Institute, Oakland, California.
Morrison, J., Schulte, P. and Schenck, R. (2010), Corporate water accounting: An analysis of
methods and tools for measuring water use and its impacts, Pacific Institute, Oakland,
California.
21
Neuman, W.L. (2006), Social Research Methods: Qualitative and Quantitative Approaches,
sixth ed. Pearson Education, Boston.
Nestlé (2012), “CDP water disclosure 2012 information request”, available at:
www.nestle.com/asset-
library/Documents/Creating%20Shared%20Value/Performance/Nestl%C3%A9%20CDP%20
Water%20Disclosure%202012.pdf (accessed 3 December 2015).
Nikolaou, I.E., Kourouklaris, G. and Tsalis, T.A. (2014), “A framework to assist the financial
community in incorporating water risks into their investment decisions”, Journal of
Sustainable Finance & Investment, Vol. 4 No. 2, pp. 93-109.
Nikolaou, I.E. Nikolaidou, M.K. and Tsagarakis, K.P. (2016), “The response of small and
medium-sized enterprises to potential water risks: an eco-cluster approach”, Journal of Cleaner

Production, Vol. 112, pp. 4550-4557.
Oliver, C. (1991), “Strategic responses to institutional processes”, Academy of

Management Review, Vol. 16 No. 1, pp. 145-179.
Orr, S. and Pegram, G. (2014), Business strategy for water challenges: From risk to
opportunity. Do Sustainability, Oxford, UK.
Parker, L.D. (2005), “Social and environmental accountability research: a view from the
commentary box”, Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, Vol. 18 No. 6, pp. 842-960.
Perry, C. (2014), “Water footprints: Path to enlightenment, or false trail?”, Agricultural Water
Management, Vol. 134, pp. 119-125.
Peters, G.M., Rowley, H.V., Wiedemann, S., Tucker, R., Short, M.D. and Schulz, M. (2010),
“Red meat production in Australia: life cycle assessment and comparison with overseas
studies”, Environmental Science & Technology, Vol. 44 No. 4, pp. 1327-1332.
Refalo, P. and Zammit, M. (2013), Water management in sustainable manufacturing. 11th

Global Conference on Sustainable Manufacturing, Berlin, Germany, 23-25 September.
Ridoutt, B.G., Eady, S.J., Sellahewa, J., Simons, L. and Bektash, R. (2009), “Water
footprinting at the product brand level: case study and future challenges”, Journal of Cleaner
Production, Vol. 17 No. 13, pp. 1228-1235.
Russell, S. and Lewis, L. (2014), Accounting and accountability for freshwater, in Unerman, J.
Bebbington, J. and O’Dwyer (Eds.), Sustainability Accounting and Accountability. Routledge,
London and New York, pp. 213-229.
SABMiller Plc and WWF-UK (World Wildlife Fund) (2009), Water footprinting: Identifying
and addressing risks in the value chain, SABMiller Plc and WWF-UK, Surrey, UK.
22
Schaltegger, S. and Burritt, R. (2014), “Measuring and managing sustainability performance of
supply chains: Review and sustainability supply chain management framework”, Supply Chain
Management: An International Journal, Vol. 19 No. 3, pp. 232-241.
Schulte, P., Morrison, J. and Gleick, P. (2011), Corporate water management, in Gleick, P.
(Ed), The World’s Water. Island Press/Center for Resource Economics, pp. 23-43.
Signori, S. and Bodino, G.A. (2013), “Water management and accounting: Remarks and new
insights from an accountability perspective”, Studies in Managerial and Financial Accounting,
Vol. 26, pp. 115-161.
SustainAbility. (2014), Evaporating asset. Water scarcity and innovations for the future,
SustainAbility Inc., London.
Tate, W.L., Ellram, L.M., and Kirchoff, J.F. (2010), “Corporate social responsibility reports: a
thematic analysis related to supply chain management”, Journal of Supply Chain Management,
Vol. 46 No. 1, pp. 19-44.
Tillotson, M., Liu, J., Guan, D., Wu, P., Zhao, X., Zhang, G., Pfister, S. and Pahlow, M. (2014),
“Water Footprint Symposium: where next for water footprint and water assessment
methodology?”, The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment, Vol. 19 No. 8, pp. 1561-
1565.
Torraco, R.J. (2005), “Writing integrative literature reviews: Guidelines and examples”,
Human Resource Development Review, Vol. 4 No. 3, pp. 356-367.
Wallace, P. (2011), “Moving beyond metrics”, Waste Management and Environment, Vol. 22
No. 10, pp. 22.
Whittemore, R. and Knafl, K. (2005), “The integrative review: updated methodology”, Journal
of Advanced Nursing, Vol. 52 No. 5, pp. 546-553.
WBCSD (World Business Council for Sustainable Development) (2012), Water for business:
Initiatives guiding sustainable water management in the private sector, Version 3, WBCSD,
Switzerland.
WBCSD (World Business Council for Sustainable Development) (2015), “The WBCSD
Global Water Tool©”, available at: www.wbcsd.org/work-program/sector-
projects/water/global-water-tool.aspx (accessed 6 December 2015).
Wu, Z., & Pagell, M. (2011), “Balancing priorities: Decision-making in sustainable supply
chain management”, Journal of Operations Management, Vol. 29, pp. 577-590.
Yang, H., Pfister, S. and Bhaduri, A. (2013), “Accounting for a scarce resource: virtual water
and water footprint in the global water system”, Current Opinion in Environmental
Sustainability, Vol. 5 No. 6, pp. 599-606.
23
Yorks, L. (2008), “What we know, what we don't know, what we need to know—Integrative
literature reviews are research”, Human Resource Development Review, Vol. 7 No. 2, pp. 139-
141.
Zhu, Q., Sarkis, J., and Lai, K.H. (2013), “Institutional-based antecedents and performance
outcomes of internal and external green supply chain management practices”, Journal of
Purchasing and Supply Management, Vol. 19 No. 2, pp. 106-117.
24
Table 1: Corporate Supply Chain Water Accounting Tools

Water
Organisation accounting Start Date Purpose/ Supply Chain Source
tool
Alliance for AWS 2014 Suggests a systematic approach to address identified water risks, and an http://www.allianceforwate
Water International auditing system that can verify risk reduction. Water stewardship is rstewardship.org/aws-
Stewardship Water conducted in collaboration with others in the catchment and including actions standard-system.html#aws-
(AWS) Stewardship in the supply chain and the catchment as a whole. standard
Standard.
Standard/ report/
mandate.
CDP Water 2009 and 2015 CDP encourages companies to measure and disclose their environmental https://www.cdp.net/en-
Disclosure information. CDP has integrated supply chain water risks and uses alongside US/Programmes/Pages/CD
Project – water risk in direct operations. In 2015 company-wide water accounting has P-Supply-Chain.aspx
Water been added to allow companies to demonstrate to investors that their risk
Questionnaire. https://www.cdp.net/CDP
assessments are well informed about water use. %20Questionaire%20Docu
Measurement/
disclosure tool. ments/CDP-water-
information-request-
2015.pdf
Ceres Ceres 2012 and 2015 A framework for assessing corporate management of sustainability in which Roadmap:
Roadmap for water risk and water stewardship is included. Ceres vision is that companies http://www.ceres.org/road
Sustainability. should require their suppliers to meet the same environmental and social map-
Standard/ report/ standards as the company has established for itself; establish sustainable assessment/about/roadmap
mandate. procurement criteria, catalyse improved supplier performance, and facilitate -expectations/performance-
disclosure of suppliers’ sustainability information. supply-chain
Gaining Ground:
http://www.ceres.org/road
map-assessment/progress-
report/performance-by-
expectation/supply-
chain/performance-supply-
chain-gaining-ground
Global GEMI Water 2002 The tool is designed to help individual companies build a business water http://gemi.org/water/over
Environmental Sustainability Connecting the strategy. It has been introduced to assist organizations to understand what view.htm
Management Tool™ Drops Towards emerging water issues might mean for them, given their operations, needs,
Initiative Measurement/ Creative Water
Water
tool
(GEMI) disclosure tool Strategies, a and circumstances. In order to help businesses consider upstream and
water downstream opportunities and risks related to water, the tool utilizes a five-
sustainability stage value chain (or material flow chain).
tool
Global GRI Water 2002 Includes recommendations for disclosing water withdrawal by source, water https://www.globalreportin
Reporting Performance sources significantly affected by withdrawal of water and % and total volume g.org/resourcelibrary/GRI-
Initiative (GRI) Indicators. of water recycled and reused. Separate supply chains information about G4-CDP-2016-Water-
Measurement/ environmental issues is recommended but bringing water and supply chain Linkage-Document.pdf
disclosure tool. together is left to the company.
International ISO 14046 2014 Specifies principles, requirements and guidelines related to water footprint http://www.iso.org/iso/cata
Organization for Water assessment of products, processes and organisations based on life cycle logue_detail?csnumber=43
Standardization footprint: assessment. Suggests management of water quantity and quality issues 263
(ISO) Requirements related to the performance of the company and its supply chain within the
and Guidelines
continuous improvement environmental management framework. Only
Standard/ report/
includes some air and soil emissions that impact water quality in the
mandate.
assessment. Provides elements for understanding how water use can be
improved by accounting for the volumes used and quantifying scarcity and
pollution, as well as other related impacts.
United Nations CEO Water Launched Strategic Plan 2016-2018. Supply chain management is one of six core http://ceowatermandate.org
Global Compact Mandate. 2007 (July); elements in the plan. The aim is to define a set of performance indicators, /files/CEO_Water_Mandat
Standard/ report/ 2015 aligned with the UN Sustainable Development Goal targets on water e_2016-
mandate. (October) management with recommendations on voluntary water disclosure guidelines 2018_Strategic_Plan-
Strategic Plan and “state of play” of emerging practice on corporate water accounting. FINAL.pdf
2016-2018 Suggested disclosures recognise the importance of supply chain disruption
caused by water issues. When possible, companies also report the proportion http://ceowatermandate.org
of key inputs or the percentage of procurement spending that comes from /files/Disclosure2014.pdf
water-scarce or water-stressed regions as a quantitative means of
demonstrating their exposure to supplier risk.
Water Footprint Global Water 2011 Businesses can reduce their operational water footprint by saving water in http://waterfootprint.org/en
Network (WFN) Footprint their own operations and bringing water pollution to zero. New guidance – /standard/global-water-
Assessment developed by the CEO Water Mandate and its Co-Secretariat, the Pacific footprint-standard/
Standard and Institute, in collaboration with CDP, Global Reporting Initiative,
Disclosure
PricewaterhouseCoopers, and World Resources Institute – aims to harmonise
Guidelines
reporting approaches, and minimise reporting burdens so companies spend
Standard/ report/
mandate. more time actively managing water.
Water
tool
World Business Global Water First launched A free, publicly available excel-based resource for identifying corporate http://www.wbcsd.org/wor
Council for Accounting in 2007, water risks and opportunities. It is designed to help inform decision making k-program/sector-
Sustainable Tool updated in in relation to local externalities (including supply chain, water consumption projects/water/global-
Development Measurement/ 2011 and 2015 and efficiency). The setting is a broader global analysis designed to identify water-tool.aspx
(WBCSD) disclosure tool strong supply chains and identification of where supply chain partners
operate in water poor areas and might interrupt operations.
World WRI Aqueduct 2010 In July 2012, global food service retailer McDonald’s added a question to the http://www.wri.org/our-
Resources Atlas. Environmental Scorecard it distributes to its top suppliers. 353 of work/top-outcome/353-
Institute (WRI) Measurement/ McDonald’s Top Supply Chain Facilities responded. The addition requested mcdonald%E2%80%99s-
disclosure tool. that suppliers determine the water stress associated with their facilities’ top-supply-chain-facilities-
locations. WRI provided the Aqueduct water risk mapping tool. report-water-risk-
exposure-using-wri
WWF Water Risk 2014 The Water Risk Filter is introduced to help assess water related risks for the http://waterriskfilter.panda.
International Filter. organisation’s own operations, suppliers or growth plans The Filter can org/
Measurement/ provide a company with awareness and an understanding of their water risks
disclosure tool and mitigation activities and be used to make strategic choices on the
organisation’s supply chain.
Table 2 - Potential Research Questions for Future Study

Higher Order Research Questions Potential Sub-Questions
To what extent are established water What type of organisation is using these tools?
accounting tools used by corporations to Why are organisations engaging (or not engaging) with established supply chain water accounting tools?
support supply chain management decisions?
How successful have established water accounting tools been in reducing water risk in the supply chain?
What problems were encountered in the implementation of established water accounting tools for supply chain
management in practice?
When is it necessary to adapt established tools to suit supply chain specific circumstances?
How are water accounting supply chain tools integrated with other environmental accounting tools?
How does industry sector influence the take up of supply chain water accounting?
What arrangements are made for water accounting to be improved over time?
What type of supply chain water information Why do organisations engage (or not engage) with supply chain water accounting information?
is collected and used by organisations? In cases where organisations do not use established tools, but develop their own techniques, why did they make
this decision?
To what extent is monetary information incorporated into supply chain water accounting programs?
How do organisations collect supply chain water information? What resources are used? Does the information
rely on actual data or estimates?
To what extent does supply chain water Which parts of the supply chain collect water accounting information?
accounting information support internal How is supply chain water accounting information currently used within organisations?
decision-making by the focal organisation?
To what extent does the type of information collected for supply chain influence outputs and outcomes?
How does supply chain water information create value for the organisation?
What is the link between the collection and use of supply chain water accounting information for reporting and
disclosure purposes, and internal management purposes? How can the two areas be better aligned?
How can organisations be encouraged to use supply chain disclosure-based information for the purpose of
improved internal management?
How can SMEs be further encouraged to How does organisational size influence the take up of supply chain water accounting? (extending the work of
engage with supply chain water accounting? Nikolaou. Nikolaidou and Tsagarakis, 2016).
Why do SMEs engage (not engage) with supply chain water accounting?
What do SME managers see as the main barriers to engagement with supply chain water accounting and how

might these barriers be overcome?
What support do SMEs need to engage with supply chain water accounting?
What tools are most effective for engaging SMEs with supply chain water accounting?
How successful is supply chain water How is water information collected and communicated up and down the supply chain?
accounting at limiting exposure to water risk What role does the focal organisation have in determining the success of supply chain water accounting
in practice? initiatives?
To what extent does success of a supply chain water accounting program depend on organisational context?
To what extent are the benefits of reduced risk experienced by different supply chain members?
How does the organisation’s experience with previous environmental accounting and environmental
management practices influence the success of supply chain water accounting initiatives?
What is the role of external collaboration in Why do corporate organisations choose to collaborate with NGOs for the purpose of supply chain water
supply chain water accounting (either with accounting?
NGOs or other organisations)? How does collaboration influence supply chain water accounting initiatives in practice?
Which part of the supply chain takes the initiative to develop water accounting and what factors lead to its
adoption / implementation?
When is collaboration in supply chain water accounting needed?
What problems are encountered with regard to supply chain water accounting collaborations? How were these
problems overcome?
Where supply chain water accounting collaborations have been unsuccessful, why did they fail?
What role, if any, is regulation going to play How do industry associations influence the take up of supply chain water accounting?
in supply chain water accounting? What regulatory initiatives are needed to encourage voluntary take up by management and a de-emphasis on
reporting?
How can the regulatory mix of instruments and enforcements best be motivate awareness of companies about
water issues?
Who is/ should be responsible for the Given the emphasis on reporting and disclosure, what is the role for accountants in the collection and use of
collection and management of supply chain supply chain water accounting information?
water accounting information? How can the accounting function best support the implementation of supply chain water accounting?
To what extent does transdisciplinarity impact the outcomes of supply chain water accounting initiatives?
How are silos broken down in supply chain water accounting?

What is the role of monetary information To what extent do organisations incorporate monetary information into supply chain water accounting
within supply chain water accounting? activities?
How are monetary measures linked with physical measures of environmental performance in supply chain
water accounting?
What is the sensitivity of different operational efficiency and investment decisions by managers to changes in
water pricing?
How does the addition of monetary information about supply chain aspects of water affect the take up of
corporate supply chain water accounting?

Christ 2017

Загружено:

Сведения о документе

Авторское право

Доступные форматы

Поделиться этим документом

Поделиться или встроить документ

Параметры публикации

Этот документ был вам полезен?

Это неприемлемый материал?

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

Christ 2017

Загружено:

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

Sustainability Accounting, Management and Policy Journal

Supply chain-oriented corporate water accounting: a research agenda

*Related content and download information correct at time of download.

Keywords: Water accounting; Environmental accounting; Supply chain; Integrative literature

As with other forms of environmental accounting, corporate water accounting seeks to

2. The water crisis and water accounting

Notwithstanding the problems in developing a comparable system by which corporate water

4. Corporate supply chain water accounting – existing evidence

4.1. Normative versus practical

***INSERT TABLE 1 AROUND HERE***

The World Business Council for Sustainable Development developed a Sustainable

4.2.External versus internal use of water accounting

4.3.What is known about current practice within organisations?

5. The way forward – developing a research agenda

***INSERT TABLE 2 AROUND HERE***

The following section will now conclude the paper.

Chalmers, K. Godfrey, J. and Potter, B. (2012a), “Discipline-informed approaches to water

GRI (Global Reporting Initiative) (2013), G4 Guidelines–Reporting principles and standard

Hewlett-Packard Development Company. (2014), “Water accounting manual for the

Kamp-Roelands, N. (2013), Private sector initiatives on measuring and reporting on green

growth. Paris: OECD.

Lambooy, T. (2011), “Corporate social responsibility: sustainable water use”, Journal of

Manning, K. (1997), “Authenticity in constructivist inquiry: Methodological considerations

Martinez, F. (2015), “A three-dimensional conceptual framework of corporate water

medium-sized enterprises to potential water risks: an eco-cluster approach”, Journal of Cleaner

Oliver, C. (1991), “Strategic responses to institutional processes”, Academy of

Refalo, P. and Zammit, M. (2013), Water management in sustainable manufacturing. 11th

Table 1: Corporate Supply Chain Water Accounting Tools

Table 2 - Potential Research Questions for Future Study

Higher Order Research Questions Potential Sub-Questions

Higher Order Research Questions Potential Sub-Questions

Вам также может понравиться

INSERT TABLE 1 AROUND HERE

INSERT TABLE 2 AROUND HERE