Advertisement

The Rise of Corporate Water Stewardship

  • Thérèse Rudebeck
Chapter
Part of the Water Governance - Concepts, Methods, and Practice book series (WGCMP)

Abstract

This chapter explores the incentives for different types of actors to advocate corporate water stewardship, and provides an overview of how it has developed since its inception. It finds that there are potential tensions when different actors collaborate under the banner of ‘stewardship’ since different actors conceptualise water problems in distinctive ways. The chapter starts with presenting the corporate perspective and examines how companies conceptualise the water issue and what motivates them to engage. It finds that for companies, the water crisis constitutes a material business risk. However, the risk alone does not explain why companies engage; companies are also incentivised to act because of the business opportunity it can pose, the widening of what constitute as ‘water engagement’, and the pressure from stakeholders and investors to act. The latter part of the chapter turns to examine the water crisis from the perspective of NGOs and finds that for these actors, the water crisis constitutes an environmental or social risk. Despite having a fundamentally different starting point than that of companies, the evidence presented in this chapter suggests that NGOs collaborate with companies to obtain financial and political leverage. The last part of the chapter analyses the evolution of corporate water stewardship, and finds that the concept has been heavily promoted by NGOs, with the purpose of incentivising more companies to engage.

References

  1. 2030 WRG. (2012). The water resources group background, impact and the way forward. Washington, DC: 2030 WRG.Google Scholar
  2. Allan, J. A. (1998). Virtual water: A strategic resource –global solutions to regional deficits. Ground Water, 36(4), 545–546.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Allan, J. A. (2011). Virtual water: Tackling the threat to our planet’s most precious resource. New York: I. B. Tauris & Co. Ltd.Google Scholar
  4. Allan, J. A., Merrett, S., & Lant, C. (2003). Virtual water – The water, food, and trade nexus useful concept or misleading metaphor? Water International, 28(1), 4–11.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Anglo American. (2009). Delivering sustainable value: Report to society 2009. London: Anglo American plc.Google Scholar
  6. Baleta, H., & Winter, K. (2017). Towards a shared understanding of water security risks in the public and private sectors. International Journal of Water Resources Development, 33(2), 233–245.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Barrick Gold. (2007). Barrick responsibility report 2007. Toronto: Barrick Gold Corporation.Google Scholar
  8. Barton, B. (2010). Murky waters? Corporate reporting on water risk: A benchmarking study of 100 companies. Boston: Ceres.Google Scholar
  9. Brown, C., & Alexander, M. (2015). In conversation: Managing water through complex and fragmented supply chains. 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 7 Dec 2018.
  10. CDP. (2009). CDP water disclosure: the case for water disclosure. London: CDP.Google Scholar
  11. CDP. (2017). A Turning Tide: Tracking corporate action on water security (CDP Global Water Report 2017). London: CDP.Google Scholar
  12. CDP. (2018). About us. [online] Available at https://www.cdp.net/en/info/about-us. Accessed 18 Oct 2018.
  13. CEO Water Mandate. (2007). The CEO water mandate: An initiative by business leaders in partnership with the international community. New York: UN.Google Scholar
  14. CEO Water Mandate. (2010). Guide to responsible business engagement with water policy. Oakland: UNCG/Pacific Institute.Google Scholar
  15. CEO Water Mandate. (2013). Eleventh working conference meeting summary. March 4–7, 2013 Mumbai, India. Oakland: Pacific Institute.Google Scholar
  16. CEO Water Mandate. (2014a). Driving harmonization of water-related terminology (Discussion Paper). Oakland: Pacific Institute.Google Scholar
  17. CEO Water Mandate. (2014b). Understanding ‘sufficiency’ in water-related collective action (Discussion Paper). Oakland: Pacific Institute.Google Scholar
  18. CEO Water Mandate. (2014c). Exploring the business case for corporate action on sanitation (White Paper). Oakland: Pacific Institute.Google Scholar
  19. CEO Water Mandate. (2018). What we do. [online] Available at http://ceowatermandate.org/what-we-do/mission-governance/. Accessed 18 Oct 2018.
  20. CEO Water Mandate & WWF. (2014). Shared water challenges and interests: The case for private sector engagement in water policy and management (pp. 19–33). Discussion Paper, adapted from a chapter featured in The World’s Water Volume 8. Washington, DC: Island Press.Google Scholar
  21. Chilkoti, A. (2014). Water shortage shuts Coca-Cola plant in India: Ambitious plans of multinationals under threat. Financial Times [online]. Available at https://www.ft.com/content/16d888d4-f790-11e3-b2cf-00144feabdc0. Accessed 21 Sept 2016.
  22. Clark, P. (2014). A world without water. Financial Times [online]. Available at http://www.ft.com/cms/s/2/8e42bdc8-0838-11e4-9afc-00144feab7de.html#slide0. Accessed 21 Apr 2016.
  23. Coca-Cola Company. (2004). 2004 environmental report. Atlanta: The Coca-Cola Company.Google Scholar
  24. Coca-Cola Company. (2012). The water stewardship and replenishment report. Atlanta: The Coca-Cola Company.Google Scholar
  25. Cramwinckel, J., & Lindström, A. (2013). Water resources and the private sector. In A. Jägerskog, T. J. Clausen, K. Lexén, & T. Holmgren (Eds.), Cooperation for a water wise world: Partnerships for sustainable development (pp. 21–26). Stockholm: SIWI.Google Scholar
  26. Edelman. (2009). 2009 Edelman trust barometer executive summary. [online] Available at http://edelman.edelman1.netdna-cdn.com/assets/uploads/2014/01/2009-Trust-Barometer-Executive-Summary.pdf. Accessed 21 Sept 2016.
  27. Guan, D., & Hubacek, K. (2007). Assessment of regional trade and virtual water flows in China. Ecological Economics, 61, 159–170.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. H&M. (2008). Sustainability report 2008. Stockholm: H&M.Google Scholar
  29. Hajer, M. A. (1993). Discourse coalitions and the institutionalisation of practice: The case of acid rain in Britain. In F. Fischer & J. Forester (Eds.), The argumentative turn in policy analysis and planning (pp. 43–76). Durham: Duke University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Hajer, M. (2003). Policy without polity? Policy analysis and the institutional void. Policy Sciences, 36, 175–195.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Hepworth, N. (2012). Open for business or opening Pandora’s box? A constructive critique of corporate engagement in water policy: An introduction. Water Alternatives, 5(3), 543–562.Google Scholar
  32. Hepworth, N. D., & Orr, S. (2013). Corporate water stewardship: New paradigms in private sector water engagement. In B. A. Lankford, K. Bakker, M. Zeitoun, & D. Conway (Eds.), Water security: Principles, perspectives and practices (pp. 220–238). London: Earthscan.Google Scholar
  33. Hills, J., & Welford, R. (2005). Case study: Coca-Cola and water in India. Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, 12(3), 168–177.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Hoekstra, A. Y. (2003). Virtual water: An introduction. In A. Y. Hoekstra (Ed.), Virtual water trade: Proceedings of the international expert meeting on virtual water trade (Research report series no. 12) (pp. 13–23). Delft: IHE.Google Scholar
  35. Hoekstra, A. Y., & Hung, P. Q. (2005). Globalisation of water resources: International virtual water flows in relation to crop trade. Global Environmental Change, 15(1), 45–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. IPIECA. (2013). The IPIECA water management framework for onshore oil and gas activities. London: IPIECA.Google Scholar
  37. Isdell, N. (2010). Connected capitalism: How business can tackle twenty-first- century challenges. Thunderbird International Business Review, 52(1), 5–12.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. IUCN. (2015). IUCN freshwater fish specialist group: Major threats. [online] Available at http://www.iucnffsg.org/freshwater-fishes/major-threats/. Accessed 7 Dec 2018.
  39. IUCN. (2018a). Water: Our work. [online] Available at https://www.iucn.org/theme/water/our-work. Accessed 18 Oct 2018.
  40. IUCN. (2018b). Water: Resources. [online] Available at https://www.iucn.org/theme/water/resources. Accessed 18 Oct 2018.
  41. IWaSP. (2018). Who we are. [online] Available at http://www.iwasp.org/who-we-are/international-water-stewardship-programme-iwasp. Accessed 18 Oct 2018.
  42. Levi Strauss. (2013). CEO water mandate communication on progress 2013. San Francisco: Levi Strauss & Co..Google Scholar
  43. Morgan, A., & Orr, S. (2015). The value of water: A framework for understanding water valuation, risk and stewardship. [online] Available at http://commdev.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/05/The-Value-of-Water-Discussion-Draft-Final-August-2015.pdf. Accessed 21 Nov 2018.
  44. Nestlé. (2014). Nestlé in society: Creating shared value and meeting our commitments 2014. Vevey: Nestlé S.A.Google Scholar
  45. Newmont. (2016). Form 10-K. [online] Available at https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1164727/000155837016003258/nem-20151231x10k.htm. Accessed 7 July 2017.
  46. OECD. (2016). Development aid rises again in 2015, spending on refugees doubles. [online] Available at http://www.oecd.org/development/development-aid-rises-again-in-2015-spending-on-refugees-doubles.htm. Accessed 18 Oct 2018.
  47. Olam. (2015). Annual report. Singapore: Olam International Limited.Google Scholar
  48. Orr, S., & Cartwright, A. (2010). Water scarcity risks: Experience of the private sector. In L. Martinez-Cortina, A. Garrido, & E. Lopez-Gunn (Eds.), Re-thinking water and food security: Fourth Botin foundation water workshop (pp. 181–189). Boca Raton: CRS Press/Taylor & Francis Group.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Orr, S., & Pegram, G. (2014). Business strategy for water challenges: From risk to opportunity. Oxford: Dō Sustainability.Google Scholar
  50. Orr, S., Cartwright, A., & Tickner, D. (2009). Understanding water risks a primer on the consequences of water scarcity for government and businesses (WWF water security series 4). Surrey: WWF-UK.Google Scholar
  51. Pahl-Wostl, C., Gupta, J., & Petry, D. (2008). Governance and the global water system: A theoretical exploration. Global Governance, 14(4), 419–435.Google Scholar
  52. Pegram, G., Orr, S., & Williams, C. E. (2009). Investigating shared risks in water: Corporate engagement with the public policy process. Woking: WWF-UK.Google Scholar
  53. PepsiCo. (2012). PepsiCo 2011/2012 GRI report. New York: PepsiCo.Google Scholar
  54. Prno, J., & Slocombe, D. S. (2012). Exploring the origins of ‘social license to operate’ in the mining sector: Perspectives from governance and sustainability theories. Resources Policy, 37(3), 346–357.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Sarni, W. (2013). Getting ahead of the “Ripple Effect”: A framework for a water stewardship strategy. Deloitte Review, 12, 84–97.Google Scholar
  56. Schmidt, V. A. (2010). Taking ideas and discourse seriously: Explaining change through discursive institutionalism as the fourth ‘new institutionalism’. European Political Science Review, 2(1), 1–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. SDC. (2018). Statistical tables. [online] Available at https://www.eda.admin.ch/deza/en/home/activities-projects/figures-statistics/statistische-tabellen.html. Accessed 18 Oct 2018.
  58. Seekell, D. A. (2011). Does the global trade of virtual water reduce inequality in freshwater resource allocation? Society and Natural Resources, 24, 1205–1211.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. SIDA. (2016). Deductions for in-country refugee costs lead to redistribution of Swedish foreign aid. [online] Available at http://www.sida.se/English/press/current-topics-archive/2016/deductions-for-in-country-refugee-costs-lead-to-redistribution-of-swedish-foreign-aid/. Accessed 18 Oct 2018.
  60. SIDA. (2018). Sveriges bistånd till Världen via alla organisationer inom alla sektorer. [online] Available at http://openaid.se. Accessed 18 Oct 2018.
  61. Sojamo, S. (2015). Unlocking the “Prisoner’s Dilemma” of corporate water stewardship in South Africa – Exploring corporate power and legitimacy of engagement in water management and governance. Sustainability, 7(6), 6893–6918.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Tran, M. (2012). Mark Malloch-Brown: Developing the MDGs was a bit like nuclear fusion. The Guardian [online]. Available at https://www.theguardian.com/global-development/2012/nov/16/mark-malloch-brown-mdgs-nuclear. Accessed 16 Sept 2016.
  63. UN. (1999). Address of secretary-general Kofi Annan to the world economic forum in Davos, Switzerland, February 1, 1999. Press Release SG/SM/6881. [online] Available at http://www.un.org/press/en/1999/19990201.sgsm6881.html. Accessed 18 Oct 2018.
  64. UN. (2018). Sustainable development knowledge platform. [online] Available at https://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/index.html. Accessed 18 Oct 2018.
  65. UNGC. (2015). Impact: Transforming business, changing the world. New York: DNV GLAS.Google Scholar
  66. UNGC. (2018a). What is UN global compact? [online] Available at https://www.unglobalcompact.org/what-is-gc. Accessed 18 Oct 2018.
  67. UNGC. (2018b). About the UN global compact. [online] Available at https://www.unglobalcompact.org/about. Accessed 18 Oct 2018.
  68. UNIDO & UNGC. (2014). Engaging with the private sector in the post-2015 agenda. Consolidated report on 2014 consultations.Google Scholar
  69. UN-Water. (2010). Climate change adaptation: The pivotal role of water. Geneva: UN-Water.Google Scholar
  70. Walton, B.. (2016). Conga Mine in Peru halted by water concerns, civic opposition. Circle of blue [online] Available at http://www.circleofblue.org/2016/south-america/conga-mine-peru-halted-water-concerns-civic-opposition/. Accessed 12 Sept 2016.
  71. WaterAid. (2018). Why WaterAid? [online] Available at https://www.wateraid.org/uk/why-wateraid. Accessed 18 Oct 2018.
  72. WEF. (2011). Water security: The water-food-energy-climate nexus. Island Press [eBook].Google Scholar
  73. WEF. (2015). Global risks 2015. Geneva: World Economic Forum.Google Scholar
  74. WHO/UNICEF JMP. (2015). Key facts from JMP 2015 report. [online] Available at http://www.who.int/water_sanitation_health/publications/JMP-2015-keyfacts-en-rev.pdf?ua=1. Accessed 18 Oct 2018.
  75. WHO/UNICEF JMP. (2018a). Drinking water. [online] Available at https://washdata.org/monitoring/drinking-water. Accessed 18 Oct 2018.
  76. WHO/UNICEF JMP. (2018b). Sanitation. [online] Available at https://washdata.org/monitoring/sanitation. Accessed 18 Oct 2018.
  77. WWF. (2014). The imported risk: Germany’s water risks in times of globalisation. Berlin: WWF Germany.Google Scholar
  78. WWF. (2018). Freshwater. [online] Available at http://wwf.panda.org/what_we_do/how_we_work/our_global_goals/water/index.cfm. Accessed 3 July 2017.
  79. Yang, H., Wang, L., Abbaspour, K. C., & Zehnder, A. J. B. (2006). Virtual water trade: an assessment of water use efficiency in the international food trade. Hydrology and Earth System Sciences, 10(3), 443–454.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  80. Zimmer, D., & Renault, D. (2003). Virtual water in food production and global trade: Review of methodological issues and preliminary results. In A. Y. Hoekstra (Ed.), Virtual water trade: Proceedings of the international expert meeting on virtual water trade (Value of water research report series no. 12) (pp. 93–109). Delft: UNESCO-IHE.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Thérèse Rudebeck
    • 1
  1. 1.School of Geography & Sustainable DevelopmentUniversity of St AndrewsSt AndrewsUK

Personalised recommendations