Claiming You’re “Water Neutral” Can Damage Your Brand
The problem with claiming that your company is (or aspires to be) carbon or water neutral is that it’s impossible to be either. No company can fully eliminate its carbon or water footprint. Sure, it can improve its resource use, reduce emissions, and then buy offsets. But offsets have come under increased scrutiny and criticism, and several companies have backed away from using them. The danger, then, with claiming carbon or water neutrality is that it’s misleading, and risks violating consumers’ (or other stakeholders’) trust. The issues around carbon neutrality claims are well understood, but they apply as well to water.
Consider The Coca-Cola Company’s experience. While Coca-Cola has made progress in reducing its global water use this has been overshadowed by its controversial claim that it’s striving to achieve water neutrality. How, consumers reasonably ask, can a company whose products are mostly water ever become “water neutral”?
Part of the consumer confusion comes from misunderstanding what the company means by “water-neutral.” The problem lies within the water-neutral definition and framework as adopted by six organizations in 2007; Twente University, World Wildlife Fund, The Coco-Cola Company, World Business Council for Sustainable Development, Water Neutral/Emvelo Group and UNESCO-IHE. Under that definition, achieving water neutrality requires:
- Defining, measuring, and reporting one’s “water footprint;”
- Taking all action that is “reasonably possible” to reduce the existing operational water footprint;
- Reconciling the residual water footprint (the amount remaining after a company does as much as possible to reduce footprint) by making a “reasonable investment” in establishing or supporting projects that focus on the sustainable and equitable use of water.”
That last point amounts to a version of water offsetting — something akin to the controversial practice of carbon offsetting. But water is not carbon and the concept of offsets doesn’t translate well to water.
Why? Under the framework of water offsetting, a manufacturing operation can withdraw water in one water basin and replenish it in another. Clearly this isn’t water neutral for the basin that’s tapped, a critical point for people who depend on the basin.
While the definition and framework is a useful tool for companies to think about water, claiming water neutrality according to this definition only confuses consumers and is likely to generate skepticism, not support. They don’t care about (or really understand) a definition agreed upon by a group of non-governmental organizations (NGOs) and companies. If a company claims water neutrality, they expect to see just that — a gallon of fresh water returned to the source from which it is taken. And that’s unlikely to happen.
Don’t get me wrong — companies that are trying to reduce their water use and invest in water basin conservation projects have the right goals. But don’t run the risk of distracting from real progress in reducing your water footprint by stating goals that are difficult to understand and impossible to accomplish. Rather, you should reduce water use, invest in local, community-based watershed projects, and tout those accomplishments. That way, you can take credit for credible actions.
William Sarni is founder and CEO of DOMANI and has 30 years of experience in providing sustainability and environmental consulting services to private and public sector enterprises.
0 Comments