Direct and indirect water footprint: what is the difference?

When a company reports its water performance, the figure is usually summarised as a single aggregate number. Beneath it sit two distinct realities: the direct water footprint, which the company controls within its own facilities, and the indirect water footprint, which travels hidden in the raw materials, energy and services it buys.

Separating these two dimensions avoids double-counting in the calculation of the water footprint and, above all, shows where the real reduction opportunities are concentrated. This article explains the difference between the direct and indirect footprint and how each one affects water consumption.

What is the direct water footprint?

The direct water footprint is the volume of water that the organisation withdraws, consumes and discharges within its operational boundary. It includes the water used in process lines, cleaning, climate control and sanitary services.

Its great advantage is that the company measures and controls it directly: with meters and monitoring systems, it can act immediately by installing more efficient equipment, detecting leaks or reusing cleaning water within the process itself.

What is the indirect water footprint?

The indirect water footprint corresponds to the virtual water embedded in everything the company buys: agricultural raw materials, components, energy and services. In sectors such as food it is usually, by far, the largest part of the total footprint, because the water used to grow the raw materials (green and blue footprint) weighs much more than the water consumed in the factory.

Although the company does not physically handle that resource, it is responsible for its impact and must account for it if it aims to produce a complete and credible report.

Operational comparison: direct versus indirect footprint

From a control standpoint, the direct footprint offers an almost absolute degree of governance: it depends on having measurement systems and on investing in water-saving technologies.

The indirect footprint, by contrast, requires a sustainable procurement approach: working with suppliers that can demonstrate good water practices, contracting renewable energy, and moving towards ecodesign of products and packaging that reduces the water embedded in raw materials. In many industrial sectors, the indirect water associated with growing raw materials and manufacturing packaging far exceeds the direct water used at the plant, so that is where the greatest room for improvement lies.

How the direct and indirect water footprint is calculated

The process starts with an inventory of direct consumption using meters and plant control systems. In parallel, the water embedded in each purchased raw material and service is estimated by applying virtual-water factors, such as those published by the Water Footprint Network. The direct and indirect flows are calculated separately and added together to obtain the total footprint.

To give the result credibility, the assessment can be aligned with the ISO 14046 standard, which sets out the principles and requirements for the water footprint with an impact-oriented approach and allows the traceability of the data to be verified before clients and investors.

If you want to explore the calculation method in depth, we invite you to read our article on how to calculate the water footprint of a product or activity.

Why does it matter to distinguish them?

Sustainability rating agencies look more favourably on companies that explicitly distinguish between the direct and indirect footprint and that, above all, present concrete plans for the latter, where the greatest savings potential usually hides. The CDP Water Disclosure, for example, asks companies to report on their relationship with water across the value chain.

In addition, in a scenario of recurring droughts, companies that know and manage their virtual water are better able to secure the supply of raw materials and reduce their exposure to price volatility.

A metric to guide investment

Separating the water footprint into direct and indirect is not a methodological whim: it is the compass that guides investment towards the point of greatest return. Reductions achieved in the indirect part translate into supply security, lower reputational risk and better access to sustainability-linked finance and incentives.

To place this distinction in the context of the wider topic, you can read our introduction to what the water footprint is and how it impacts the environment.

Frequently asked questions about the direct and indirect water footprint

Can the indirect footprint represent almost the entire total footprint?

Yes. In sectors such as software or services, the direct footprint is very small, so the indirect footprint (associated mainly with the electricity consumption of servers and with contracted services) accounts for practically the whole indicator.

How is the indirect footprint reduced?

The most effective route is to work with suppliers that can demonstrate good water practices, replace fossil-based energy with renewables, and redesign products and packaging to reduce the embedded water.

Which standard is used to assess a company's water footprint?

The international reference is ISO 14046, which defines how to assess the water footprint with an impact-oriented approach across the life cycle.

To measure your direct and indirect water footprint with traceable data, you can rely on Manglai's water footprint solution.