The problem of virtual water

Today we have a guest blog from Jane-Fiona Cumming, A Director at Article 13, on the emerging corporate responsibility issue of 'virtual water'.  

Is water the emerging big issue? It certainly should be, writes Jane-Fiona Cumming. Currently 25% of the world’s population is living in an area of water stress. The combined effects of population growth, increasing urbanisation, and the impact of climate change on upstream resources in areas across the globe will almost certainly ensure that the situation only gets worse.

And it is true that water is making its way up the sustainable development agenda. Millennium Development Goal Target 7.C calls for a commitment to ‘halve, by 2015, the proportion of the population without sustainable access to safe drinking water and basic sanitation’. Water is also one of the key issues for the UN’s upcoming Rio+20 conference.

Despite this, there remains a disconnect between attitudes and behaviours in water-rich areas and the problems in water-poor areas. (Although it should be said that a number of large multinationals whose operations straddle both types of region are taking their consolidated responsibilities seriously.)

One of the problems is that while there are parallels between carbon and water as sustainable development issues – the concept of water footprinting, for example, is gaining traction – there are significant differences. To put it bluntly, on a global scale, consuming less water in a ‘wet’ region does not add to the available resources in a ‘dry’ region.

However, while the big issues are on the agenda for debate, at Rio +20 for example, perhaps we should move our focus to what is called ‘virtual’ or ‘embedded’ water.  Examples of moving virtual water abound. Just take the case of tomatoes exported from a water-poor area to retail shelves in a water-rich area.

One behaviour change that could create a unity of purpose, from individuals through to multi-national companies, is to be aware of where products come from and to make active choices about how we use or value embedded water products from water-poor regions. A type of ‘fair water’ trade, in which products that use embedded water have higher prices that help to make contributions to the local community in addressing water issues (including sanitation) could link the issues together.

What is certain is that, at every level, there is a need for real transparency and joined-up innovative thinking in our management of a finite, collective resource that every human life depends on. Initiatives may be hosepipe bans or the mending of leaking mains pipes; charity-based water products and promotions that divert funds to water projects in drought-susceptible areas, or commercial initiatives that reduce the need for industrial and agricultural water extraction; the movement of virtual water or supra-national mediation aimed at the avoidance of potential ‘water wars’.

This means that the link between changing attitudes and changing behaviours is not a straightforward one.  Whether at an individual, organisational or governmental level, we need to be clear about what kind of behavioural change we want to effect. And that calls for some smart thinking, some honest debating and real transparency about the issue of embedded water.

This post originally appeared on the Radical Shift blog. Photo by David Cohen 

The Elephant in the Room

For the past two and half days I've felt a strange tension in this conference. It is about the thorny question of whether ethics pays. The business case for CSR. The harmony between economic, social and ecological sustainability.

Most of the time panellists and speakers were hammering it home that joining the UN Global Compact and implementing the principles just makes good business sense. I had a very lively conversation with Peter Solmssen, Executive VP of Siemens about this, who joined the company recently as part of the revamp of the board in the aftermath of the corruption scandals. He was fairly bullish that fighting corruption makes good business sense, 'we are more profitable now' he argued. He argued that in most countries big conglomerates like Siemens or General Electric are doing business with public purchasers who at the top level are not interested in corruption, and that companies who are known for not engaging in it, in fact have a competitive advantage. His view is that big players have indeed the chance of forming a 'cartel of the good' to collaborate on addressing ethical issues like corruption – and be the better off with it.

A similar take I got from talking to Gustavo Grobocopatel, President of Grupo Losgrobo from Argentina. His company works in agriculture and adjacent supplies and services, and he sees the particular value for his organization in engaging with the UN Global Compact in improved stakeholder relations. In particular his customers value this inclusive approach and for him CSR is very much about competitive advantage. His organization is particular interesting as it tries to keep more of the value chain of agricultural products in the country, rather than just exporting commodities and falling victim to what is commonly referred to as 'Dutch disease'.

In some ways then it was quite a little 'scratch' (I mentioned my Teflon-ized ears) to hear Klaus Leisinger (President and CEO of the Novartis Foundation for Sustainable Development) say on Friday morning that the talk of 'ethics pays' or 'ethics is just good business' is – in his words – just 'bullshit'. Why, he argued, would companies not do the right thing anyway if it were just good business? Instead he called for a commitment to basic values, brought forward in the 'Manifesto for Global Economic Ethics', by companies a priori, simply because it is morally right, as in some cases it might even cost money in the short term.

I tend to agree with this. Again, we can turn to the ten year old-metaphor: at this age, kids are at the 'conventional' level of moral development (in Kohlberg's theory): they do right and avoid wrong, because mommy and daddy say so and he tries to be a nice boy, and he tries to avoid the smack on the back or wants to get that ice cream as a reward. At least on the rhetorical level, the UN Global Compact members – by and large - seem to be not much beyond the conventional level. Which – don't get me wrong – is quite an achievement. Whole societies have survived on that, so that's fine for our birthday boy.

This apparent reluctance to think about the firm beyond the immediate business case became quite clear today in the sessions dealing with Development. I put the question to Jeffrey Sachs, Georg Kell and Chad Holliday in the final press briefing. Kell re-iterated that we are seeing an 'evolutionary transformation', a re-orientation from short- to long-term and a stronger focus on the (financial) risk which non-financial issues can cause. But 'the basic model remains intact', he said. In a similar vein Holliday, who hinted at further economic incentives to internalize sustainability issues, such as pricing carbon. It was then Sachs, who I think took up the question of whether it is time to move beyond the current framework. He said, that providing malaria medications to poor people 'is not a money making venture'. But still he argued that the business contribution to achieving the Millennium Development Goals is vital. So he pointed more at models of shared responsibility and sees business getting much more involved in public-private-partnerships. This was re-iterated by Robert Orr, Assistant Undersecretary General of the UN, who moderated the press briefing. For him the UN Global Compact is very much about becoming/being a player in global governance. He stressed there is hardly no issue on the global political agenda, where business is not part of any possibly thinkable solution. I liked that candour and agree.

Followers of this blog familiar with our writings will know that this is where I see the future of CSR going: Business as a political actor, intricately involved in societal governance. In Kohlberg's model of moral development, this would be the post-conventional level: understanding social contracts and universal moral principles – and doing the right thing based on understanding this. So let's wish our ten year old a healthy further development – there are new stages to discover!