India Inc’s Resilience in Water Stress Regions

Only 13 companies (10%) demonstrated broad-based improvements across all three groundwater resilience indicators, qualifying them under the Across Indicator Improvement category. In contrast, 22 companies (17%) exhibited deterioration across all three indicators, making Across Indicator Deterioration the largest identifiable category. A further 21 companies (16%) reduced groundwater dependence and groundwater withdrawal despite an increase in total water withdrawal, indicating improvements driven primarily through diversification of water sources rather than reductions in overall water demand. Overall, the distribution suggests that comprehensive improvements in groundwater resilience remain limited, with relatively few companies demonstrating simultaneous progress across all three dimensions[1].

Groundwater resilience challenges are not confined to traditionally water-intensive industries. While companies classified under Across Indicator Deterioration are concentrated in the Materials, Industrials and Consumer Discretionary sectors, the presence of companies from Healthcare, Consumer Staples and other sectors indicates that groundwater risk is becoming a cross-sector issue. This underscores the need for stronger groundwater stewardship across sectors, particularly for operations located in water-stressed regions.

[1] Positive categories include Across Indicator Improvement, Groundwater-Led Improvement and Shift Away from Groundwater, while negative categories include Across Indicator Deterioration, Rising Groundwater Dependence and Shift Toward Groundwater. Companies classified as Indeterminate are excluded from the figure.

While the groundwater resilience categories capture the direction of change, the magnitude of improvement differs substantially across categories. To facilitate meaningful comparison, category-level averages exclude seven companies exhibiting extreme percentage changes arising from low baseline values. These companies remain included in pathway classification and company counts but are excluded from average calculations to avoid distortion of aggregate trends.

Note: Green bars represent positive groundwater resilience Categories, while red/orange bars represent negative Categories. Blue markers indicate the number of companies in each Category. Negative values denote reductions in groundwater dependence and positive values denote increases. Average values exclude seven outlier companies.

Companies classified under Across Indicator Improvement and Groundwater-Led Improvement recorded the largest reductions in groundwater dependence, averaging 13 and 12 percentage points, respectively. This indicates that both categories substantially reduced reliance on groundwater, although only the former simultaneously reduced overall water demand. Companies in the Shift Away from Groundwater category reduced groundwater dependence by 8 percentage points, whereas the three deteriorating categories recorded increases of 4–7 percentage points, reflecting increasing reliance on groundwater.

Note: Solid bars represent the average change in groundwater withdrawal, while hatched bars represent the average change in total water withdrawal. Dots indicate the number of companies in each groundwater resilience pathway. Negative values indicate reductions in withdrawal, while positive values indicate increases. Average values exclude seven outlier companies.

1. Across-Indicator Improvement delivered the strongest groundwater resilience outcomes, reducing groundwater withdrawal by 44% and total water withdrawal by 26%, demonstrating simultaneous improvements in groundwater stewardship and water-use efficiency.

2. Groundwater-led improvement reduced groundwater withdrawal by 17% despite a 37% increase in total water withdrawal, indicating that improvements were driven primarily through diversification of water sources rather than lower overall water demand.

3. Shift Away from Groundwater recorded a 21% increase in groundwater withdrawal alongside a 60% increase in total water withdrawal. Although groundwater constituted a smaller share of the overall water mix, absolute groundwater extraction continued to rise, suggesting that improvements in dependence were driven by rapid growth in total water use rather than reductions in groundwater abstraction.

Taken together, the results indicate that reducing groundwater dependence alone does not necessarily translate into improved groundwater resilience. Only companies classified under Across Indicator Improvement simultaneously reduced groundwater dependence, groundwater extraction and overall water demand, highlighting the importance of evaluating all three indicators together.

The comparison of groundwater resilience outcomes across water-stressed and lower water stress areas indicates that groundwater management practices are often location-specific rather than organisation-wide. Only 4 companies achieved Across Indicator Improvement across both operating contexts, while only 1 company exhibited Across Indicator Deterioration in both. Most companies transitioned to different resilience categories across geographies, suggesting that groundwater performance varies significantly across operational locations.

1. Strong Performance Outside Stressed Areas Does Not Translate to High-Risk Locations
Among the 22 companies classified under Across Indicator Deterioration in water-stressed areas, 9 companies (41%) were classified under Across Indicator Improvement outside water-stressed areas, while only 1 company (5%) remained in the deterioration category across both operating contexts. This suggests that several companies already possess effective groundwater management capabilities but are not consistently applying them in locations facing the greatest groundwater-related risks.

2. Comprehensive Improvements Are Rarely Replicated Across Locations
Of the 13 companies classified under Across Indicator Improvement in water-stressed areas, only 4 (31%) maintained the same classification outside water-stressed areas. The remaining companies transitioned into other resilience pathways, including deterioration and indeterminate outcomes, indicating that successful groundwater interventions are often site-specific rather than embedded across an organisation’s operations.

3. Groundwater-Led Improvements Are More Easily Replicated
Companies classified under Groundwater-Led Improvement in water-stressed areas displayed comparatively greater consistency across operating locations. Four companies progressed to Across Indicator Improvement, two retained the same category, and one transitioned to Shift Away from Groundwater outside water-stressed areas. This suggests that reducing groundwater dependence through alternative water sourcing may be more readily replicated than achieving simultaneous reductions in groundwater extraction and overall water demand.

Overall, the analysis suggests that groundwater resilience strategies remain largely location-specific. While many companies demonstrate strong groundwater management practices in parts of their operations, these practices are not consistently implemented across all operating locations, particularly in water-stressed areas where groundwater-related risks are greatest. Scaling successful interventions across operational footprints represents a significant opportunity for strengthening corporate groundwater resilience.

Groundwater resilience was assessed using three complementary indicators in a sequential manner to evaluate different dimensions of groundwater stewardship.

1. Groundwater Dependence (Groundwater withdrawal as a percentage of total water withdrawal): This was used as the primary indicator because it reflects the extent to which a company’s operations rely on groundwater resources. Lower groundwater dependence indicates greater diversification of water sources and reduced exposure to groundwater-related risks, particularly in water-stressed regions. As a relative metric, it provides the first indication of whether a company is reducing its reliance on groundwater.

2. Absolute Groundwater Withdrawal: Since groundwater dependence does not indicate whether the actual volume of groundwater extracted has changed, absolute groundwater withdrawal was assessed next. This indicator measures whether companies are reducing the quantity of groundwater extracted and helps distinguish genuine reductions in groundwater use from apparent improvements arising solely from increased use of alternative water sources.

3. Absolute Total Water Withdrawal: Finally, total water withdrawal was assessed to determine whether improvements in groundwater performance were accompanied by reductions in overall water demand. This helps differentiate companies that are improving water-use efficiency from those that are primarily substituting groundwater with other water sources without reducing overall consumption.

Together, these indicators provide a holistic assessment of groundwater resilience by evaluating source dependence, groundwater extraction, and overall water demand. This approach enables the assessment to distinguish genuine improvements in water stewardship from changes driven primarily by source substitution, thereby evaluating whether companies are strengthening resilience through reduced dependence on groundwater, lower groundwater extraction, and improved water-use efficiency. Based on the direction of change in groundwater dependence, groundwater withdrawal, and total water withdrawal, companies were classified into a set of groundwater resilience Categories: