Apex reviewed water reporting practices of 58 publicly listed companies that underwent independent assurance of their water data in Reporting Year (RY) 2024–2025. Our analysis shows that corporate water disclosures overwhelmingly emphasize quantity metrics and rely heavily on internal company protocols as reporting criteria.

For years, carbon has dominated ESG conversations—shaping regulations, driving investor scrutiny, and capturing headlines. But as populations grow and water scarcity intensifies, water is emerging as the next material frontier. From supply chain disruptions to reputational risk, water is no longer peripheral; it is a strategic imperative. Companies that fail to address water risks holistically risk falling behind in an evolving resource management landscape.

Investor demand for reliable, verifiable, decision-useful water data is accelerating. CDP investor signatories requesting water disclosures grew from 520 in 2019 to 746 in 2023, representing $135 trillion in combined assets. CDP reports a 100% increase in water disclosure over the same period.

Despite this surge in reporting demand, the quality and scope of corporate water disclosures remain highly uneven. Compared to climate, water still lags. In 2024, CDP scored 22,700+ companies on transparency and action. Of these, 22,400 received a climate score, while only 6,500 received a water score.

Current State of Water Disclosure

• Our analysis reveals a fragmented picture: Total Water Withdrawal and Total Water Consumption appear in over 70% of reports.
• 13.6% of companies report only one metric—Total Water Withdrawal.
• Nuanced metrics (e.g., discharge quality, water-stressed area mapping, stewardship commitments) are far less common.
• Only 5% of the companies report some metrics that monitor water quality.

Sectoral Patterns

• Industrial & Manufacturing leads with an average of 4–5 water KPIs per company.
• Food, Beverage & Agribusiness shows strong engagement, often including water-stress data and stewardship goals.
• Financial Services and Technology lag significantly, typically reporting only basic withdrawal figures.

Average Water KPI Count by Industry

Industry	Avg KPI Count
Industrial & Manufacturing	4.8
Food, Beverage, & AgriBusiness	4.2
Life Sciences & Healthcare	3.5
Financial Services	2.0
Technology & Electronics	2.3

(Source: Apex analysis of 58 companies across sectors)

Reporting Standards and Assurance

Science Based Targets Network (SBTN) identifies four key frameworks for water disclosure: Alliance for Water Stewardship (AWS) Standard, CDP, Net Positive Water Impact (NPWI), and the Task Force on Nature-Related Financial Disclosures (TNFD).

Of the companies Apex worked with, CDP’s Water Security Questionnaire is most widely used, followed by GRI. Few companies reference AWS; none used NPWI or TNFD as formal reporting criteria for assurance.

• Internal company protocols dominate: 44 of 58 companies use them as primary criteria; 18 rely exclusively on internal standards.
• CDP (19 companies) and GRI (9 companies) are the most common external frameworks; ICMM (2), SASB (1), and AWS (1) appear rarely.

Unlike climate, CDP does not require assurance of water data to achieve an A score; while assurance is encouraged, it remains optional. To date, investors and broader stakeholder pressure to include water-related KPIs among environmental metrics requiring assurance has been relatively limited, particularly compared to climate. This, combined with the greater methodological and data maturity of GHG accounting relative to water metrics, has contributed to lower uptake of assurance for water-related KPIs. In our analysis, all companies that sought water data assurance opted for limited assurance, reflecting current market practice and data readiness rather than a preference for higher assurance levels.

• 56 of 58 companies used ISAE 3000 (Revised); 2 used AA1000.
• ISAE 3000 provides third-party assurance for non-financial disclosures, including water footprint.

Key Gaps

• Our findings align with the 2025 Valuing Water Finance Initiative Benchmark: reporting on water quality, supply chain and contextual water reporting and target setting remains far behind reporting on quantity.
• Even among highly engaged companies only 41% set time-bound water quality targets vs. 83% for quantity.
• CDP’s 2023 Global Water Report shows 1 in 5 companies report supply chain water risks with potential financial impacts exceeding $77 billion, yet only 4% set supply chain water targets and 5% incentivize suppliers; none of the companies we assessed reported supplier-level water metrics.
• Even though water impacts and materiality are context-based, only 8 companies (13.8%) report withdrawals in high-stress regions, all in Agribusiness and Industrial sectors.

Market Signals and Imperatives

Water disclosure is shifting from a “nice-to-have” to a business-critical requirement. Beyond regulatory compliance, proactive water management delivers tangible benefits: operational efficiency, supply chain resilience, and reputational strength. While portfolio-level water risks remain under-prioritized, investment trends tell a different story; total spending on nature-based solutions (NbS) for water security has doubled over the past decade, reaching USD 49 billion across more than 880 watershed programs in 2023.

Despite market demand for better, clearer data, there is still room for clearer guidance from standard setters that standardizes terminology, boundaries, and assessment This would lower reporting friction, make comparison possible, and improve transparency.

Water remains undervalued, underreported, and under-managed, but that is changing fast. As regulations tighten and investor scrutiny deepens, water will become a defining metric of corporate sustainability and business risk management.

Apex and Water Stewardship

Water demands systems thinking. It moves through cities, industries, and ecosystems as one connected story. Apex works across that full system, understanding that water data lives in many places and only becomes powerful when brought together with intention. We deliver end to end solutions across groundwater, stormwater, wastewater, and water supply, blending hydrogeologic depth with transparent, modern sustainability reporting. Our teams turn scattered measurements into meaningful signals, applying modeling, permitting, and engineered design to challenges like wellfield development, aquifer storage, saline intrusion, watershed health, and corporate water risk.

If you’re ready to sharpen your water strategy and lead with confidence, we’re here to walk that path with you. The time to act is now, because water rarely waits.

To learn more about Apex’s water capabilities, please reach out.

With the CDP 2025 disclosure season fast approaching, businesses must be ready to meet the increasing expectations around transparency and environmental impact reporting. The CDP portal opens June 16, 2025, launching a critical window for organizations to collect, analyze, and disclose their environmental data.

In this latest Industry Alert, “CDP 2025: Navigating Environmental Disclosure and Submission Preparedness,” Apex Companies outlines what companies need to know about CDP reporting, from its growing global importance to best practices for submission success.

As an accredited CDP solutions provider, Apex offers expert guidance through every step of the process, including data analysis, gap assessments, submission drafting, and post-season strategy support. Whether you’re a first-time responder or a seasoned participant, Apex delivers tailored solutions to help you strengthen your environmental reporting and stay ahead of evolving sustainability standards.

Download the full Industry Alert to learn how to make your 2025 CDP submission a success.

Apex Can Support Your Business

Preparing for CDP submission can be a daunting task, but with the right support, it becomes an opportunity to showcase your commitment to sustainability and drive positive change. As an accredited solutions provider to CDP, Apex is dedicated to empowering our clients to navigate the
complexities of CDP and achieve their sustainability goals.

If you have any questions about the CDP service offering, contact us!

About Apex

Established in 1988, Apex provides award-winning consulting and engineering services with a robust portfolio of capabilities in water, environmental, ESG, health and safety, construction management, transportation, compliance and assurance, and infrastructure. Clients turn to us for our technical expertise, innovative approaches, quick response time, and unparalleled performance.

Understanding risks and opportunities is vital for the long-term success of any organization. As such, double materiality assessments (DMA) are crucial for gaining a comprehensive understanding of stakeholder perspectives on an organization’s risks and opportunities within the environmental, social, and governance (ESG) framework and the overall business.

Unlike traditional assessments that focus solely on financial impacts, double materiality dives deeper, evaluating both how sustainability issues affect the company and how the company’s actions impact the environment and society. The non‑financial impacts on the environment and society can ultimately affect the company’s bottom line and shareholder value by leading to regulatory fines, increased operational costs, operational disruptions, and reputational damage. Hence, double materiality’s dual approach ensures a thorough understanding of an organization’s sustainability footprint.

Strategically, DMAs help companies identify and prioritize the most relevant environmental, social, and governance issues, aligning their strategies to mitigate risks and seize opportunities. This alignment fosters long‑term sustainability and enhances business and operational resilience. By recognizing and capitalizing on opportunities, companies can innovate and create new value streams, driving competitive advantage. From a risk management perspective, double materiality provides a detailed view of potential risks, including regulatory, reputational, and operational challenges, enabling companies to develop robust mitigation strategies.

Moreover, double materiality is becoming a regulatory necessity. With mandates like the European Union’s Corporate Sustainability Reporting Directive (CSRD), companies are required to report on both financial and non-financial impacts. This push for transparency and accountability drives companies to adopt sustainable practices, ensuring they stay ahead of the curve.

In essence, the double materiality assessment is a comprehensive approach that ensures companies are well‑prepared to navigate the evolving sustainability landscape and stakeholder interests, securing their long‑term success.

Apex Can Support Your Business

Our team is equipped to conduct single, double, and CSRD‑aligned double materiality assessments. Regardless of the materiality assessment your company may need, our service offers a data-driven, collaborative approach to help businesses gain a deep understanding of their environmental, social, and governance risks and opportunities. By tailoring the materiality assessment to your specific industry and regulatory needs, we provide detailed insights into your stakeholders’ perspectives and interests. With our expert guidance, you’ll be able to prioritize risks, understand your resiliency, and discover growth opportunities.

If you have questions about the materiality assessment, its benefits and implications, or want to understand how it is conducted, contact us!

About Apex

Established in 1988, Apex provides award-winning consulting and engineering services with a robust portfolio of capabilities in water, environmental, ESG, health and safety, construction management, transportation, compliance and assurance, and infrastructure. Clients turn to us for our technical expertise, innovative approaches, quick response time, and unparalleled performance.

With emerging global and federal regulations increasing environmental accountability and requiring reductions in greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, companies must be prepared to report and verify their emissions. Verifying a company’s GHG data inventory through a third-party assurer is essential to ensure data accuracy, regulatory compliance, and credibility with stakeholders. Apex provides comprehensive third-party verification, ensuring that emissions data meets current standards while enhancing stakeholder trust.

With a deep understanding of the environmental, social, and governance (ESG) landscape and the latest regulatory frameworks, Apex helps organizations navigate the complexities of sustainability assurance and compliance. Our tailored approach ensures that each client’s sustainability strategies meet regulatory requirements while driving stakeholder value. Furthermore, our nationally recognized sustainability and assurance offerings provide clients with the next step beyond compliance to achieving their most ambitious ESG goals.

What to Expect During a GHG Verification Engagement?

Project Management

Aligning administrative processes and expectations is crucial for a successful engagement, especially during verification. With large volumes of data and resources exchanged throughout the process, clear project coordination ensures efficiency and accuracy.

Apex will collaborate with the client to establish a data collection protocol, including access to data collection platforms as needed.

Contextualize

A comprehensive discussion will take place between the client and Apex, reviewing the GHG inventory and data collection process, while also outlining the methodologies for data collection.

Verify

Review of Information: Apex will perform an initial review of the GHG data provided by the client within the desired shared folder. This includes a thorough review of the GHG Inventory; Inventory Management Plan (IMP); any internal data, GHG collection, and management methodology documents (if applicable); as well as the source data for Scope 1, 2, and 3 (if applicable) GHG data.

Prepare a Sampling Plan: Sampling plans are crucial to understanding the robustness of data collection systems, identifying risks or discrepancies, and evaluating the significance of the data in the context of the total emissions or consumption. They also consider consumption volume and geographic location. As such, Apex will request source documentation for a selected number of sites per emissions source and scope. Examples of data and information we may ask for include utility invoices, bills provided by the property owner, spend data reports, and data tracking spreadsheets.

Ensure Accuracy: Apex will conduct interviews with data owners and applicable stakeholders to understand the client’s data management system and reporting accuracy. We will also examine the competencies of those who are responsible for managing and executing the processes that result in sustainability data reporting. Depending on the type of organization and level of verification required, site visits may be necessary to verify a company’s GHG inventory. If applicable, the Apex team will travel to sites to conduct a site tour, review site-level data collection and reporting processes, and review inventory data and source documentation with on-site subject matter experts (SMEs).

Assess the Data: Apex will review the documentation provided by the client to confirm alignment between the source documentation and the client’s GHG inventory.

Finalize

Address Findings: Throughout the verification process, both the client and the Apex team will use an Issue Log file to track and address questions and concerns. This provides centralized documentation of issues that were raised by Apex and addressed by the client.

Technical Review: After the initial level of verification, including confirmation that each scope and category is below ± 5% materiality threshold of error, a final technical review will be conducted. After the initial verification, which confirms that each scope and category is within the ± 5% materiality threshold of error, a final technical review will be conducted. This technical review serves as the final layer of oversight and provides an independent evaluation of the verification process, ensuring the data is accurate before it is published.

Prepare a Verification Opinion: Apex will prepare and issue a signed GHG Verification Opinion for public disclosure. The Verification Opinion will confirm that the data reviewed is accurate, thoroughly assessed, and compliant with relevant standards.

How Can Companies Prepare for GHG Verification?

Prepare an IMP: An Inventory Management Plan (IMP) is a documented resource describing an organization’s process for completing GHG emissions inventory. The plan provides information on emissions calculation methodologies, activity data estimation approaches (if applicable), the selected control approach (operational, financial, or equity share), the emission boundaries (organizational or operational) in place, data collection and management processes, any exclusions to the inventory, contact information, and more. This comprehensive information document supports Apex in the verification process. For further guidance on preparing an IMP, please refer to the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) IMP Guidance.

Gather Source Documentation: All data reported in the GHG Inventory must be supported by source documentation. Examples include invoices, estimation calculations, property owner documentation, market-based certificates, financial data, and account tracking spreadsheets. Ensuring this documentation is available and organized before the verification will facilitate a timely audit and demonstrate accuracy in the inventory.

Finalize GHG Inventory: An important criterion for an accurate and complete GHG inventory should include the final reported carbon dioxide equivalent (CO₂e) totals by scope and category. To facilitate a timely verification engagement, we recommend the GHG inventory also have clear traceability and visibility into the GHG formulas and inputs within calculations, provide cell-referenced calculations, visible and accurate units of measurement, emission factors and their sources (i.e., database, year, volume), and activity and emissions data broken down by site level and ideally broken out by month. This level of transparency allows Apex to verify the accuracy of the inventory data and to confirm the methodology set forth by the client.

While the above-outlined preparations are helpful in facilitating the verification process and ensuring a timely verification engagement, we recognize that not all clients have the resources or experience to manage this on their own. We are happy to work with you, meet you where you are, and support the verification process.

If you have questions about the GHG verification, its benefits and implications, or want additional information, contact us!

About Apex

Established in 1988, Apex provides award-winning consulting and engineering services with a robust portfolio of capabilities in water, environmental, ESG, health and safety, construction management, transportation, compliance and assurance, and infrastructure. Clients turn to us for our technical expertise, innovative approaches, quick response time, and unparalleled performance.

In April 2023, Washington State enacted regulations related to strains and sprains, also known as work-related musculoskeletal disorders (WMSDs). The new regulation allows Labor and Industries (L&I) to adopt a rulemaking change for an industry or risk class¹ each year starting in July 2026. The rulemaking will focus on industries or risk classes with at least twice the statewide rate of WMSDs.

Strains, sprains, and other WMSDs account for at least one-third of all workers’ compensation claims that result in time loss. They are also more severe than the average nonfatal injury or illness and are a common cause of long-term disability. Apex’s ergonomics services can help your business prevent WMSDs and perform above industry standard so you are prepared for the more stringent rulemaking expected from this regulation.

Which industries are affected?

Legislation requires L&I to publish a list of industries and risk classes selected for rulemaking every year. They must also provide a “high-priority list” of industries or risk classes most likely to be selected in future years. L&I expects to select an industry or risk class for initial rulemaking in mid-2024. Following the selection, the department will establish an advisory committee of business and labor stakeholders to assist in developing rule language.

Rulemaking Action Items and Timeline
Action Item	Date
Initial Eligible Industry and Risk Class List Report	November 30, 2023
Annual Eligible Industry and Risk Class Report Posted	By November each year
Select First Industry or Risk Class for Rulemaking	Anticipated Spring 2024
File CR-101	Anticipated Spring 2024
Assemble Industry or Risk Class Advisory Committee as Required by RCW 49.17.520(6)	Anticipated Summer 2024
Develop Rule Language	Starting Summer 2024
Rule Adoption	To be determined (TBD)
Effective Date	TBD, at least 120 days after adoption, not earlier than July 1, 2026

Currently, the high-priority list includes the following five industries, of which one will be chosen for rulemaking.

NAICS#	NAICS Description
2103	Fulfillment centers
6108	Nursing and convalescent homes
42441	General line grocery merchant wholesalers
6802	Scheduled airlines (ground crew)
6407	Wholesale stores, NOC including, wholesale/retail combination

Why Apex?

Our approach is rooted in current guidance and regulations, and our staff have over 50 years combined experience mitigating ergonomic risks. Apex personnel have conducted ergonomic assessments across the country and have a long history of working in Washington State at industrial plants, warehouses, manufacturers, and more.

How Apex can help you!

The Apex team assists business leaders in understanding rules affecting their operations. We collaborate to identify risks and recommend actions to help our clients comply with current and future WMSD regulation. Our clients choose us for any number of cost-efficient methods such as analyzing incident rates (OSHA 300 logs), policy and program review, on-site risk assessments, solution development, and return on investment analysis against KPIs for solutions.

We are known for services not only in ergonomic assessments but also in environmental assessment and remediation, hazardous building materials (lead, asbestos, and mold), industrial hygiene, compliance/audits/assurance, and worker safety.

We can help you:

• Identify your risks
• Mitigate each risk so it is fit-for-purpose, well-understood, effectively solved, and continuously monitored
• Prevention of strains and sprains
• Investigate incidents
• Manage change

¹ “Risk classification” means any classification defined in chapter 296-17A WAC classification for Washington workers’ compensation insurance.

Reminder to take action to comply with enhanced vapor recovery equipment requirements before December 23, 2024.

On December 23, 2017, the New Jersey Air Pollution Control rules (N.J.A.C. 7:27-16.3) were amended to include Enhanced Vapor Recovery (EVR) standards, established by California Air Resources Board (CARB). Phase I standards, which primarily involve the tanks, piping, and fill ports, require that affected equipment be “CARB EVR-certified” on or before the deadline of December 23, 2024.

Who is affected by this advisory?

Owners and operators of any gasoline dispensing facility (GDF) constructed in New Jersey before November 9, 2017. A GDF is any stationary facility that dispenses gasoline into the fuel tank of a motor vehicle, which makes it subject to New Jersey Air Pollution Control rules for gasoline transfer operations.

Why is Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) issuing this advisory?

On December 23, 2017, the New Jersey Air Pollution Control Rules (N.J.A.C. 7:27-16.3) were amended to include Enhanced Vapor Recovery (EVR) standards, established by CARB, which aim to improve the effectiveness of gas pump vapor recovery systems, reduce vapor leaks from underground storage tanks, reduce evaporation from hoses and nozzles between use, redesign of nozzles to reduce drips, enhanced diagnostics to alert attendants when vapor recovery equipment malfunctions and improve the long-term reliability of vapor recovery equipment.

What equipment or sources are affected?

GDF equipment that does not meet the CARB EVR-certified Phase I system standards, examples may include:

• Rotatable fill adaptors (dual point systems only)
• Rotatable vapor adaptors (dual point systems only)
• Drop tube and overfill prevention devices (if used by site as overfill prevention equipment)
• Spill bucket and drain/plug valve
• Dust caps (ATG, fill and dry break)
• Tank gauge port components
• Face seal adaptor
• Pressure/vacuum valves

What do you need to do?

GDF owners and operators must determine and maintain documentation that all Phase I equipment has been CARB EVR-certified. Equipment that has not been certified must be replaced with a CARB EVR-certified option by a licensed underground storage tank contractor.

Newly installed EVR equipment must be tested at the time of installation, and annually thereafter. If your facility maintains Phase II equipment, a wet/dry blockage test must also be conducted at least every three years. Prior to any vapor recovery testing, including EVR upgrade testing, email notification must be sent to 14dayustnotice@dep.nj.gov at least 14 days in advance. Required tests include:

• Static pressure performance
• Pressure/vacuum vent valves
• Torque test

What is DEP doing?

DEP inspections conducted at GDF’s will evaluate the vapor recovery system(s) to ensure any Phase II decommissioning activity was properly performed or non-decommissioned systems are being maintained, and the Phase I systems are CARB EVR-certified. Owners and operators who fail to comply with the requirements may be subject to enforcement action and potential penalty.

Apex is ready to assist!

For over 30 years, Apex has helped countless clients manage underground/aboveground storage tanks (USTs/ASTs) risk with adherence to safety, security, environmental, and regulatory guidelines.

Whether you need help planning and installing new tank systems or the repair, replacement, or upgrade of existing ones, our team of credentialed professionals can help.

On December 13, 2023, Seattle became the latest city to enact a policy aimed at improving energy efficiency and reducing climate impacts in existing buildings.

Seattle’s BEPS Policy mandates the gradual elimination of fossil fuels and other greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions from large commercial and residential buildings. It applies to existing commercial and multifamily buildings larger than 20,000 square feet and is projected to reduce building emissions 27 percent by 2050.

The first milestone for building owner/operators arrives October 1, 2027, and requires benchmarking verification and reporting against targets (Greenhouse Gas Intensity Targets, GHGIT, expressed in kgCO2e/sf/year). By 2031 the buildings must meet the GHGITs. The city has taken a phased approach starting with the largest buildings.

Despite the flexibility in the reporting and verification requirements, BEPS is backed by penalties for noncompliance. Building owners/operators can who fail to report, inaccurately report, or fail to achieve GHGIT targets will incur fines ranging form $15,000 up to $10 per square foot.

What Are the Seattle BEPS Deadlines?
By October 1 of year Listed	Verify and Report	Verify, Report, and Meet GHGI Target
>220,001 SF	2027	2031
90,001 to 220,000 SF	2027	2031
50,001 to 90,000 SF	2028	2033
30,001 to 50,000 SF	2029	2034
20,001 to 30,000 SF	2030	2034

The GHGIT for each building is determined by the building type activity. Currently, legislation sets required targets only for the 2031–2035 interval. As building stock, technology, and impact from other legislative regulations such as the Climate Commitment Act (CCA) and Clean Energy Transformation Act (CETA) become clearer, the new intensity targets will be set.

BEPS requires a qualified person, working on behalf of the building owner, to create an energy benchmarking verification report, calculate the greenhouse gas intensity (GHGI), and document the action completed to meet set GHGITs for a covered building. Qualified persons must have specified certification and knowledge about energy audits and GHG verification. Besides calculation and documentation, qualified people can also help with the reporting process and consult on alternative compliance approaches. For instance, where there are extenuating circumstances that make complying with the schedule or meeting the GHGITs a significant hardship for an individual building owner, a qualified persons can develop a decarbonization compliance plan for achieving net‑zero GHG emissions or an approved low emissions GHGIT by 2041–2050.

Why Apex?

Our approach is rooted in current guidance/regulations and our teams have over 25+ years conducting energy audits and GHG assessment. Apex personnel have conducted environmental and GHG assessments in all 50 states and have a long history of working in the Seattle area with commercial offices, residential properties, industrial plants, shopping centers, automobile dealerships, warehouses and industrial manufactures.

How Apex can help.

The Apex team is known for services not only in GHG assessments but also environmental assessment and remediation, hazardous building materials (lead, asbestos, and mold), industrial hygiene, and worker safety.

• Energy Audits
• GHG Audits
• Energy Reduction Strategies
• Water Use Reduction Strategies
• Renewable Energy Feasibility Assessments
• Resource Reduction and Re‑use strategies
• Sustainability Return On Investment Calculations

What is the European Corporate Sustainability Reporting Directive (CSRD)?

The CSRD, which aligns with The European Green Deal, is a law implemented by the European Union (EU) that went into effect on January 5, 2023. The CSRD strengthens rules pertaining to the reporting of environmental and social information by companies. This will begin with companies currently subject to the Non-Financial Reporting Directive (NFRD) who will have to report data from FY2024 in 2025. Going forward, approximately 50,000 companies will now be required to report more detailed sustainability information focusing on sustainability matters affecting development, performance, and position. Furthermore, the CSRD is projected to impact at least 10,000 companies outside of the EU. This directive will provide stakeholders such as investors access to information necessary for the effective analysis of investment risks and opportunities associated with a company. Additionally, under the European Sustainability Reporting Standards (ESRS), companies will be required to report certain sustainability information. The ESRS works in conjunction with the CSRD as it provides a framework and methodology for reporting on sustainability matters.

How does this affect American companies?

The CSRD establishes further sustainability and “Environmental, Social, and Governance (ESG)” reporting requirements for US-based companies that have at least one subsidiary or branch in the EU and have a net turnover of more than €150 million euros ($168 million) in two consecutive years.

A requirement of this directive is the need for a double materiality disclosure which consists of recognizing a company’s impact on people and the environment as well as how sustainability-related developments affect them. Additionally, an accredited independent third-party auditor must verify sustainability reporting information. There will be further sector-specific standards published over the coming years. US-based companies that meet the above criteria will have to comply with the CSRD for fiscal years starting on or after January 1, 2028.

How will this benefit American companies?

The intention of the CSRD is to enhance the transparency of reporting. Additionally, the CSRD will generate a reduction in costs associated with sustainability and ESG reporting over the mid- to long-term as information will already be readily available. This directive may also yield a short-term benefit considering that the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) is in the process of proposing rule changes for climate-related disclosures. The current proposed rule changes by the SEC would require the disclosure of the following types of information:

1. Regarding a company’s governance on climate-related risks;
2. How these risks have had or are likely to result in a material impact on the business and its consolidated financial statements;
3. How these climate-related risks affected or may affect their strategy, and;
4. How climate-related events and transition actions impact line items of the company’s consolidated financial statements and estimates.

Through the utilization of the CSRD, US companies are likely to be better aligned with the SEC regulations once they are finalized and implemented. Both sustainability and ESG reporting provide a net benefit for companies as accountability, transparency, and clarity are all increasingly important for understanding a company’s bottom line. As interconnectedness has become an inherent aspect of globalization, risk management and strategy play a pivotal role in the sustained success of companies regardless of their size. Sustainability and ESG reporting have gained traction as they address the potential opportunities and risks in an ever-changing world.

Apex is an expert on reporting frameworks and methodologies and can help you navigate these changes, whether you have global locations and will be required to comply with the CSRD, or if you simply want to ensure that you are being proactive and are using the CSRD to prepare for future US reporting requirements. To discuss your needs with one of our experts, please contact us today. And make sure to subscribe to our blog and newsletter for more updates like this.

The lesser prairie-chicken,¹ a bird species that is native to the Great Plains region of the United States, has been classified as threatened or endangered under the Endangered Species Act (ESA) by the US Fish and Wildlife Service.² Lesser prairie-chickens require a significant range to live and to breed in the native short grass prairie, which is rapidly disappearing due to development and agricultural practices.

According to the Audubon Society, populations of the lesser prairie-chicken have declined 97 percent across their range since the 1960s. This steep decline also signals an overall degradation of habitat health, which is a troubling sign for other species that dwell in the grasslands, and a signal that our prairie lands are on a downturn. This is why the lesser prairie-chicken may be referred to as an umbrella species, as its protection ultimately helps other imperiled species that also live within its habitat.

The ESA provides legal protection to endangered and threatened species, which includes restrictions on activities that can harm the species or their habitat. Land developers must adhere to these regulations when planning and conducting development activities in areas inhabited by the lesser prairie-chicken.

The states covered under the ESA regulations for the lesser prairie-chicken include Texas, Oklahoma, Kansas, Colorado, and New Mexico. Developers in these states must obtain permits and follow strict guidelines before conducting any activities that may affect the habitat of the lesser prairie-chicken. The two subspecies of lesser prairie-chicken protected under the ESA are the Tympanuchus pallidicinctus and the Tympanuchus cupido attwateri.

Before beginning any development projects in areas inhabited by the lesser prairie-chicken, developers must conduct a habitat assessment and impact study to determine the potential effects of their activities on the species and their habitat. These studies must analyze the potential impact on the built environment and the species’ food supply, nesting areas, and breeding sites called leks. Lek identification surveys must be conducted during the period of mid-March into early May by certified biologists with documented experience in bird counting studies.

If the study determines that the new, or planned, development activities may negatively impact the species, the developer may be required to make changes to their plans or provide mitigation measures to minimize the harm to the lesser prairie-chicken and their habitat.

If you are looking to develop or expand your operations in a covered region, keep in mind that you will likely need to conduct impact studies to identify potential risks and potentially mitigate these risks. Apex can help you determine if you need to conduct impact studies, and if any other regulations may apply to your project. Contact us today for more information, or to connect with one of our subject matter experts!

¹ National Audubon Society. 2023. Audubon Guide to North American Birds, Lesser Prairie-Chicken. https://www.audubon.org/field-guide/bird/lesser-prairie-chicken
² United States Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS). November 2022. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Lists the Lesser Prairie-Chicken Under the Endangered Species Act. https://www.fws.gov/press-release/2022-11/lesser-prairie-chicken-listed-under-endangered-species-act

On May 25, 2023, the Supreme Court¹ delivered a decision limiting the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) jurisdiction to enforce the Clean Water Act (CWA) as it relates to wetlands in the United States. The specific case, Sackett v. EPA, involved a couple who were fined for filling in a wetland without a permit on a residential property they purchased in 2003.

The Clean Water Act was amended in 1972 to safeguard the country’s waters, including wetlands, from pollution and degradation. These waters are commonly referred to as Waters of the United States or WOTUS. The Act’s stated objective was to “to restore and maintain the chemical, physical, and biological integrity of the nation’s waters.”² Wetlands, traditionally included in the definition of WOTUS, play a vital role in supporting the ecosystem and are home to a diverse range of plant and animal species, including migratory birds, fish, and amphibians. Additionally, they purify water and reduce the impact of floods and storms.

Wetlands are those environmental features that include the following elements:

• Wetlands contain saturated soils within their upper 12 inches, either permanently or seasonally.
• Hydric soils; these are soils that formed under conditions of saturation, flooding, or ponding long enough during the growing season to develop anaerobic conditions in the upper part.
• Plants that are adapted to saturated soils. These commonly include cattails, bulrushes, sedges, and many leafy herbaceous plants as well as trees tolerant of seasonally ponded or flooded conditions such as willows, red maples, and black gums.

In its most recent court decision, the Supreme Court adopted the plurality view in Rapanos v. United States, 547 U.S. 715, that wetlands are WOTUS only if they have “a continuous surface connection to bodies that are ‘waters of the United States’ in their own right, so that there is no clear demarcation between ‘waters’ and wetlands.” In other words, wetlands that are separated by an earthen berm or other feature from a WOTUS are no longer subject to protections under the CWA, even though their subsurface connections often ensure that they do have an impact on the “chemical, physical, and biological integrity” of nearby WOTUS lacking a “continuous surface connection.” Rapanos v. United States was a 2006 United States Supreme Court ruling on a case challenging federal jurisdiction to regulate isolated wetlands under the Clean Water Act.³

The Supreme Court’s May 2023 ruling on the CWA and WOTUS could significantly impact wetlands across the United States and have impacts on water quality standards, stormwater regulations, oil spill programs, and other activities that fall under the CWA.

Currently, property developers must still follow a detailed process to determine if their property contains a wetland. This entails conducting a wetland delineation study which includes a site visit by a qualified professional to determine the presence and extent of wetland features. The results must be submitted to the appropriate regulatory agency, typically the EPA or the US Army Corps of Engineers. If the study determines that the property includes a wetland, property developers must obtain a permit from the Army Corps of Engineers before conducting any activities that may impact the wetland. If you suspect that a site that you are developing contains a wetland, Apex can help. To learn more about our natural resources solutions, including wetland delineation, reach out to us today and we will connect you with a subject matter expert who can help with your specific needs.

¹ Supreme Court of the United States. May 2023. 21-454 Sackett ET UX. v. Environmental Protection Agency ET Al. https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/22pdf/21-454_4g15.pdf
² EPA (US Environmental Protection Agency). October 2016. EPA History: Water—The Challenge of the Environment: A Primer on EPA’s Statutory Authority. https://www.epa.gov/archive/epa/aboutepa/epa-history-water-challenge-environment-primer-epas-statutory-authority.html
³ EPA (US Environmental Protection Agency). May 2023. Rapanos v. United States & Carabell v. United States. https://www.epa.gov/wotus/rapanos-v-united-states-carabell-v-united-states