Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Companies and Water Sanitation and Hygiene

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Book cover Corporations as Custodians of the Public Good?

Part of the book series: Water Governance - Concepts, Methods, and Practice ((WGCMP))

  • 341 Accesses

Abstract

This chapter examines CWS in the context of WASH. It puts forth the argument that companies’ engagement in WASH differs from their engagement in water resources management because it is driven by utilisation of opportunities as well as risk mitigation. More specifically, although companies’ engagement is still in its infancy, the chapter shows that there are early signs that companies will engage when they can align engagement with alleviating a risk, utilising an opportunity, or reducing inefficiency. To make this argument, the chapter first revisits the ‘business-society relationship’, and assesses how a redefined role for companies as ‘development agents’ has allowed them to take action on issues like WASH. It then analyses the rationale for integrating WASH into the CWS agenda and assesses how various companies take action. Finally, it questions the assumption that companies’ engagements in WASH lead to win-win outcomes for business and society. Critically, the findings suggest that the evidence points to a need for caution in assuming mutual public and private benefits.

I think WASH has become much more sophisticated; it has become much more than just drilling a well. It has become…a systems approach: let’s grow the communities, let’s build healthy communities, because from a corporate perspective, they’re workers, they’re consumers.

Interview 43, 2016, unpublished.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 79.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 99.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    Among other things, this led to the privatisation of water services in some developing countries, which in many instances had detrimental effects on human livelihoods (see, for example, Grusky 2001; Goldman 2007).

  2. 2.

    This concept denotes the phenomenon where wealthy business people like Mark Zuckerberg (Facebook) and Bill Gates (Microsoft) set up their own philanthropic organisations in order to pursue their own causes.

  3. 3.

    The central idea here is that the poor are dependent on market systems for their livelihoods. But, due to a wide range of reasons (e.g. unstable regulatory environments, high corruption levels, or lack of infrastructure), many markets that are important to the poor do not function well, restricting choices and opportunities. Therefore, the idea is that by making those market systems work more effectively, the poor will improve their livelihoods and poverty will consequently be reduced.

  4. 4.

    A goal it claims to have achieved. RAIN has thus made an additional pledge to contribute US$35 million to support Pan-African safe water access programmes that will bring the total number of RAIN beneficiaries to six million through a total investment of US$65 million by 2020 (Mboya 2016).

  5. 5.

    In addition to working directly with local partners to implement change, WaterAid call on governments to provide solutions, as they believe that “it is only governments who can create an environment where public and private investments and civil society can all operate effectively” (WaterAid 2018).

  6. 6.

    The public authority transfers the responsibility of water services in a specific area, such as collection, treatment, or distribution, to the private sector. This can be done by granting full concession to the private company, implying the transfer of possession from the public to the private authority.

  7. 7.

    In a typical Build Operate Transfer (BOT) project, the public authority grants the right to a private company to develop and operate what would traditionally be a public-sector project. The project company obtains financing for the project, produces the design and constructions of the works, and operates the facility during the specific period in return for a revenue stream provided by sales of its services. At the end of the specified period, the facility is transferred back to the authority.

  8. 8.

    In the case of an existing utility, shares in the utility are divested to the private sector. In the case of a new build project, the project company will be established with a joint share ownership structure.

  9. 9.

    It is unclear what Unilever means by ‘reached.’ It is not explicitly stated whether this means people who have been part of the programme, the number of people who have demonstrated behaviour change, or people who have bought the product.

  10. 10.

    To attain sufficient health outcomes, it would, however, be necessary for a person to wash his/her hands more than once a day.

  11. 11.

    Based on an independent evaluation conducted in 2013, of 1485 households with children aged below 12 years.

References

  • Agnihotri, A. (2013). Doing good and doing business at the bottom of the pyramid. Business Horizons, 56(5), 591–599.

    Google Scholar 

  • Arnold, D. G., & Valentin, A. (2013). Corporate social responsibility at the base of the pyramid. Journal of Business Research, 66(10), 1904–1914.

    Google Scholar 

  • Banks, G., Scheyvens, R., McLennan, S., & Bebbington, A. (2016). Conceptualising corporate community development. Third World Quarterly, 37(2), 245–263.

    Google Scholar 

  • Banks, N., & Hulme, D. (2014). New development alternatives or business as usual with a new face? The transformative potential of new actors and alliances in development. Third World Quarterly, 35(1), 181–195.

    Google Scholar 

  • Blowfield, M. (2007). Reasons to be cheerful? What we know about CSR’s impact. Third World Quarterly, 28(4), 683–695.

    Google Scholar 

  • Blowfield, M. (2012). Business and development: Making sense of business as a development agent. Corporate Governance, 12(4), 414–426.

    Google Scholar 

  • Blowfield, M., & Dolan, C. S. (2014). Business as a development agent: Evidence of possibility and improbability. Third World Quarterly, 35(1), 22–42.

    Google Scholar 

  • CEO Water Mandate. (2011). The CEO Water Mandate: An initiative by business leaders in partnership with the international community. New York: UNGC.

    Google Scholar 

  • CEO Water Mandate. (2014a). Exploring the business case for corporate action on sanitation (White Paper). Oakland: Pacific Institute.

    Google Scholar 

  • CEO Water Mandate. (2014b). The CEO water mandate fourteenth working conference meeting summary September 1–3, 2014 Stockholm, Sweden. Oakland: Pacific Institute.

    Google Scholar 

  • CEO Water Mandate. (2015). Guidance for companies on respecting the human rights to water and sanitation: Bringing a human rights lens to corporate water stewardship. Oakland: Pacific Institute.

    Google Scholar 

  • Clarke, J. S. (2015). Child labour on Nestlé farms: Chocolate giant’s problems continue. The Guardian, [online]. Available at https://www.theguardian.com/global-development-professionals-network/2015/sep/02/child-labour-on-nestle-farms-chocolate-giants-problems-continue. Accessed 24 Oct 2018.

  • Coca-Cola Company. (2009). Live positively: 2008/2009 sustainability review. Atlanta: The Coca-Cola Company.

    Google Scholar 

  • Coca-Cola Company. (2011). The Coca-Cola 2011 annual review: Passionately refreshing a thirsty world. Atlanta: The Coca-Cola Company.

    Google Scholar 

  • Coca-Cola Company. (2012). The water stewardship and replenishment report. Atlanta: The Coca-Cola Company.

    Google Scholar 

  • Coca-Cola Company. (2018). Our approach to water stewardship. [online] Available at http://www.coca-colacompany.com/stories/about-water-stewardship. Accessed 24 Oct 2018.

  • Coleman, D. (2003). The United Nations and transnational corporations: From an inter-nation to a “beyond-state” model of engagement. Global Society, 17(4), 339–357.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cross, J., & Street, A. (2009). Anthropology at the bottom of the pyramid. Anthropology Today, 25(4), 4–9.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dolan, C., & Roll, K. (2013). Capital’s new frontier: From “unusable” economies to bottom-of-the-pyramid markets in Africa. African Studies Review, 56(3), 123–146.

    Google Scholar 

  • Friedman, M. (1970). The social responsibility of business is to increase its profits. The New York Times Magazine, September 13, 1970. Available at http://umich.edu/~thecore/doc/Friedman.pdf. Accessed 24 Oct 2018.

  • Gehani, R. R. (2016). Corporate brand value shifting from identity to innovation capability: From Coca-Cola to Apple. Journal of Technology Management & Innovation, 11(3), 11–20.

    Google Scholar 

  • Goldman, M. (2007). How “Water for All!” policy became hegemonic: The power of the World Bank and its transnational policy networks. Geoforum, 38(5), 786–800.

    Google Scholar 

  • Grusky, S. (2001). Privatization tidal wave: IMF/World Bank water policies and the price paid by the poor. Multinational Monitor, 22(9), 14–19.

    Google Scholar 

  • H&M. (2015). Conscious actions, sustainability report 2015. Stockholm: H&M.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hickman, M. (2010). 21 Workers die in fire at H&M factory. The Independent, [online]. Available at http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/fashion/news/21-workers-die-in-fire-at-hm-factory-1914292.html. Accessed 24 Oct 2018.

  • High-Level Panel of Eminent Persons on the post-2015 Development Agenda. (2013). A new global partnership: Eradicate poverty and transform economies through sustainable development. New York: UN.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hindustan Unilever. (2014). Lifebuoy reduces diarrhoea from 36% to 5% in Thesgora. [online] Available at https://www.hul.co.in/news/press-releases/2014/lifebuoy-reduces-diarrhoea-from-36-perc-to-5-perc-in-thesgora.html. Accessed 24 Oct 2018.

  • Hutton, G., & Haller, L. (2004). Evaluation of the costs and benefits of water and sanitation improvements at the global level. Geneva: WHO.

    Google Scholar 

  • IFC (2014) Shared prosperity through inclusive business: How successful companies reach the base of the pyramid. Washington, DC: IFC.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kalmijn, T. (2010). PepsiCo’s Dan Bena on water stewardship and strategy. Sustainable Brands, [online]. Available at http://www.sustainablebrands.com/news_and_views/articles/pepsicos-dan-bena-water-stewardship-and-strategy. Accessed 7 Dec 2018.

  • Kinsley, M. (2008). Creative capitalism: A conversation with Bill Gates, Warren Buffett, and other economic leaders. New York: Simon and Schuster.

    Google Scholar 

  • London, T., Anupindi, R., & Sheth, S. (2010). Creating mutual value: Lessons learned from ventures serving base of the pyramid producers. Journal of Business Research, 63(6), 582–594.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mawdsley, E., Savage, L., & Kim, S. (2014). A ‘post-aid world’? Paradigm shift in foreign aid and development cooperation at the 2011 Busan High Level Forum. The Geographical Journal, 180(1), 27–38.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mboya, S. (2016). Let it RAIN – Taking our replenish Africa initiative to the next level. [online] Available at http://www.coca-colacompany.com/coca-cola-unbottled/let-it-rain-taking-our-replenish-africa-initiative-to-the-next-level. Accessed 24 Oct 2018.

  • Nestlé. (2006). The Nestlé concept of corporate social responsibility as implemented in Latin America. Vevey: Nestlé S.A.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nestlé. (2016). Nestlé in society: Creating Shared Value and meeting our commitments 2016. Vevey: Nestlé S.A.

    Google Scholar 

  • Newborne, P., & Dalton, J. (2016). Water management and stewardship: Taking stock of corporate water behaviour. Gland/London: IUCN/ODI.

    Google Scholar 

  • ODI. (2012). Private sector investment in water management (Briefing Paper 78). London: ODI.

    Google Scholar 

  • Owen, D. P. (2006). Beyond corporate social responsibility: The scope for corporate investment in community driven development. Washington: World Bank.

    Google Scholar 

  • PepsiCo. (2012). PepsiCo 2011/2012 GRI report. New York: PepsiCo.

    Google Scholar 

  • PepsiCo. (2014). Delivering access to safe water through partnerships. Purchase: PepsiCo.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pingeot, L. (2014). Corporate influence in the Post-2015 process (Working Paper). Aachen/Berlin/Bonn/New York: Misereor/GPF/Brot für die Welt.

    Google Scholar 

  • Prahalad, C. K., & Hammond, A. (2002). Serving the world’s poor, profitably. Harvard Business Review, 80(9), 48–57.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Prahalad, C. K., & Hart, S. L. (2002). The fortune at the bottom of the pyramid. Strategy + Business, 6, 1–14.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rangan, K. Chase, L.A., & Karim, S. (2012). Why every company needs a CSR strategy and how to build it (Working Paper 12-088). Cambridge, MA: Harvard Business School.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rasche, A., Waddock, S., & McIntosh, M. (2012). The United Nations global compact: Retrospect and prospect. Business & Society, 52(1), 6–30.

    Google Scholar 

  • SAB Miller. (2013). Sustainable development summary report 2013: The value of local growth. London: SABMiller plc.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sarni, W. (2013). Getting Ahead of the “Ripple Effect”: A framework for a water stewardship strategy. Deloitte Review, 12, 84–97.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sarni, W., & Grant, D. (2018). Water stewardship and business value: Creating abundance from scarcity. New York: Earthscan.

    Google Scholar 

  • SDSN. (2014). An action agenda for sustainable development: Report for the UN Secretary-General. 6 June 2013. New York: UNSDSL.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shared Value Initiative. (2018). Unilever s lifebuoy improves hygiene in rural India. [online] Available at https://sharedvalue.org/examples/lifebuoy-swasthya-chetna-soap-and-public-health-education. Accessed 24 Oct 2018.

  • Swaithes, A. (2015). Water, prosperity, and the new global goals for sustainable development. The new bottom line: Collaborative solutions for growth, FT Water Summit 2015, October 27th, London. [online] Available at https://live.ft.com/Events/2015/FT-Water-Summit. Accessed 23 Oct 2018.

  • UNDP. (2008). Creating value for all: Strategies for doing business with the poor. New York: UNDP.

    Google Scholar 

  • UNGC. (2010). Coming of age: UN-private sector collaboration since 2000. New York: UNGC.

    Google Scholar 

  • UNGC. (2015). Impact: Transforming business, changing the world. New York: DNV GLAS.

    Google Scholar 

  • UNGC. (2018). The ten principles of the UN global compact. [online] Available at https://www.unglobalcompact.org/what-is-gc/mission/principles. Accessed 24 Oct 2018.

  • UNGC & WBCSD. (2013). Joint report to the high-level panel of the post-2015 UN development agenda. [online] Available at www.unglobalcompact.org/docs/issues_doc/development/Joint_Report_HLP.pdf. Accessed 24 Oct 2018.

  • UNHRC. (2008). Protect, respect and remedy: A framework for business and human rights. Report of the Special Representative of the Secretary-General on the issue of human rights and transnational corporations and other business enterprises, John Ruggie. A/HRC/8/5, submitted 7 April 2008.

    Google Scholar 

  • UNHRC. (2011). Human rights and transnational corporations and other business enterprises. A/HRC/RES/17/4.

    Google Scholar 

  • Unilever. (2005). Unilever environmental and social report. Merseyside: Unilever PLC.

    Google Scholar 

  • Unilever. (2008). Sustainable development 2008: An overview. Merseyside: Unilever PLC.

    Google Scholar 

  • Unilever. (2014). Unilever sustainable living plan: Scaling for impact. Merseyside: Unilever PLC.

    Google Scholar 

  • Unilever. (2015). Unilever sustainable living plan: Mobilising collective action. Merseyside: Unilever PLC.

    Google Scholar 

  • UN News Centre. (2013). Deputy UN chief calls for urgent action to tackle global sanitation crisis. [online] Available at http://www.un.org/apps/news/story.asp?NewsID=44452#.WDxgn2Mwzdk. Accessed 24 Oct 2018.

  • UN-Water. (2008). Sanitation is an investment with high economic returns. Factsheet. International Year of Sanitation 2008. [online] Available at https://esa.un.org/iys/docs/2%20fact-sheet_economic%20benefits.pdf. Accessed 25 Oct 2018.

  • UN-Water. (2016). Water and sanitation interlinkages across the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development. Geneva: UN-Water.

    Google Scholar 

  • UN-Water. (2018). A dedicated water goal. [online] Available at http://www.unwater.org/sdgs/a-dedicated-water-goal/en/. Accessed 24 Oct 2018.

  • Warhurst, A. (2005). Future roles of business in society: The expanding boundaries of corporate responsibility and a compelling case for partnership. Futures, 37(2–3), 151–168.

    Google Scholar 

  • Water Action Hub. (2018). WASH4Work. [online] Available at https://wateractionhub.org/wash4work/. Accessed 24 Oct 2018.

  • WaterAid. (2018). Our approach. [online] Available at http://www.wateraid.org/uk/what-we-do/our-approach#/delivering-services. Accessed 24 Oct 2018.

  • WaterAid, The CEO Water Mandate, & WBCSD. (2016). Scaling corporate action on access to water, sanitation and hygiene in supply chains. White Paper (Draft) August, 2016.

    Google Scholar 

  • WBCSD. (2004). Doing business with the poor, a field guide: Learning journeys of leading companies on the road to sustainable livelihoods business. Conches-Geneva: WBCSD.

    Google Scholar 

  • WBCSD. (2018). Business action for safe water, sanitation and hygiene. [online] Available at http://www.wbcsd.org/washatworkplace.aspx. Accessed 24 Oct 2018.

  • Wulfson, M. (2001). The ethics of corporate social responsibility and philanthropic ventures. Journal of Business Ethics, 29(1/2), 135–145.

    Google Scholar 

  • WWF. (2009). Investigating shared risk in water: Corporate engagement with the public policy process. Surrey: WWF-UK.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. School of Geography & Sustainable Development, University of St Andrews, St Andrews, UK

    Thérèse Rudebeck

Authors
  1. Thérèse Rudebeck
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2019 Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Rudebeck, T. (2019). Companies and Water Sanitation and Hygiene. In: Corporations as Custodians of the Public Good?. Water Governance - Concepts, Methods, and Practice. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-13225-5_5

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation