Advertisement

Corporations and the Shaping of the Global Water Agenda

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

Abstract

This chapter explores how a paradigm of CWS affects GWG. It presents the importance of understanding GWG as a constraining, as well as a constructed network. Recognising that those within the network generate the structure provides a powerful roadmap for producing change. However, the chapter also shows that within the context of GWG, the key factor that determines whether an actor has the capacity to influence the discussion is the amount of resource at the actor’s disposal. Companies’ often extensive resources place them at a considerable advantage and mean that the ‘playing field’ is by no means a level one. Thus, the key finding to emerge from this chapter is that with companies’ overriding capacities to convey their ‘story’, the direction of the global water discourse has been altered as a direct result of their inclusion into GWG. The argument is made by firstly revisiting the topic of GWG to show how actors come together to advance the ideas that constitute this structure. It then analyses specifically what ‘story’ companies tell about CWS, and assesses the extent to which this story has influenced the global water discourse. The analysis of companies’ ‘stories’ shows that their framing of market environmentalism – a doctrine resting on the possible alignment of environmental and economic objectives – as the solution to the water crisis perpetuates the use of particular strategies. This, in turn, legitimises particular approaches to water governance: the commercialisation of management, the economic valuation of water risk, and the liberalisation of governance.

References

  1. 2030 WRG. (2009). Charting our water future: economic frameworks to inform decision-making. [online] Available at https://www.mckinsey.com/~/media/mckinsey/dotcom/client_service/sustainability/pdfs/charting%20our%20water%20future/charting_our_water_future_full_report_.ashx. Accessed 7 Nov 2018.
  2. 2030 WRG. (2017). How we work. [online] Available at https://www.2030wrg.org/who-we-are/act/. Accessed 1 Oct 2017.
  3. Alcott, B. (2005). Jevons’ paradox. Ecological Economics, 54(1), 9–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Anglo American. (2015). Driving change, defining our future: Sustainable development report 2015. London: Anglo American plc.Google Scholar
  5. Bakker, K. (2005). Neoliberalizing nature? Market environmentalism in water supply in England and Wales. Annals of the Association of American Geographers, 95(3), 542–565.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bakker, K. (2014). The business of water: Market environmentalism in the water sector. The Annual Review of Environment and Resources, 39, 469–494.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Balmford, A., Bruner, A., Cooper, P., Costanza, R., Farber, S., Green, R. E., Jenkins, M., Jefferiss, P., Jessamy, V., Madden, J., Munro, K., Myers, N., Naeem, S., Paavola, J., Rayment, M., Rosendo, S., Roughgarden, J., Trumper, K., & Turner, R. K. (2002). Economic reasons for conserving wild nature. Science, 297(5583), 950–953.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Berbel, J., Gutiérrez-Martín, C., Rodríguez-Díaz, J. A., Camacho, E., & Montesinos, P. (2015). Literature review on rebound effect of water saving measures and analysis of a Spanish case study. Water Resources Management, 29(3), 663–678.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Biermann, F., Pattberg, P., Asselt, H., & Zelli, F. (2009). The fragmentation of global governance architectures: A framework for analysis. Global Environmental Politics, 9(4), 14–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Bodin, Ö., Ramirez-Sanchez, S., Ernston, H., & Prell, C. (2011). A social relational approach to natural resource governance. In Ö. Bodin & C. Prell (Eds.), Social networks and natural resource management: Uncovering the social fabric of environmental governance (pp. 3–28). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. CEO Water Mandate. (2015). Guide for managing integrity in water stewardship initiatives: A framework for improving effectiveness and transparency. Oakland: UNCG/Pacific Institute.Google Scholar
  12. Coca-Cola Company. (2011). The Coca-Cola 2011 annual review: Passionately refreshing a thirsty world. Atlanta: The Coca-Cola Company.Google Scholar
  13. Cooley, H., Ajami, N., Ha, M.-L., Srinivasan, V., Morrison, J., Donnelly, K., & Christian-Smith, J. (2014). Global water governance in the twenty-first century. In P. H. Gleick (Ed.), The world’s water volume 8: The biennial report on freshwater resources (pp. 1–18). Washington, DC: Island Press.Google Scholar
  14. Costanza, R., d’Arge, R., de Groot, R., Farber, S., Grasso, M., Hannon, B., Limburg, K., Naeem, S., O’Neill, R. V., Paruelo, J., Raskin, R. G., Sutton, P., & van den Belt, M. (1997). The value of the world’s ecosystem services and natural capital. Nature, 387, 253–260.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Diageo. (2015). Sustainability & responsibility performance addendum to the annual report 2015. London: Diageo.Google Scholar
  16. Dryzek, J. S. (2013). The politics of the earth (3rd ed.). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  17. Dumont, A., Mayor, B., & López-Gunn, E. (2013). Is the rebound effect or Jevons paradox a useful concept for better management of water resources? Insights from the irrigation modernisation process in Spain. Aquatic Procedia, 1, 64–76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Ecolab. (2018). Water risk monetizer. [online] Available at http://en-uk.ecolab.com/sustainability/water-risk-monetizer. Accessed 07 Nov 2018.
  19. Fischer, F. (2003). Reframing public policy: Discursive politics and deliberative practices. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 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
  21. Hajer, M., & Versteeg, W. (2005). Performing governance through networks. European Political Science, 3, 340–347.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Hargrove, E. C. (1992). Weak anthropocentric intrinsic value. The Monist, 75(2), 183–207.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Lankford, B. (2013). Resource efficiency complexity and the commons: The paracommons and paradoxes of natural resource losses, wastes and wastages. New York: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Mason, N. (2013). Uncertain frontiers: Mapping new corporate engagement in water security. London: ODI.Google Scholar
  25. McCauley, D. J. (2006). Selling out on nature. Nature, 443, 27–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Molle, F. (2008). Nirvana concepts, narratives and policy models: Insights from the water sector. Water Alternatives, 1(1), 131–156.Google Scholar
  27. 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.
  28. Nestlé. (2013). Nestlé in society: Creating shared value and meeting our commitments 2013. Vevey: Nestlé S.A.Google Scholar
  29. Nestlé. (2015). Nestlé in society: Creating shared value and meeting our commitments 2015. Vevey: Nestlé S.A.Google Scholar
  30. 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
  31. Rasche, A., & Gilbert, D. U. (2012). Institutionalizing global governance: The role of the United Nations Global Compact. Business Ethics: A European Review, 21(1), 100–114.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Roe, E. (1994). Narrative policy analysis: Theory and practice. Durham: Duke University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. SAB Miller. (2015). Sustainable development report 2015. London: SABMiller plc.Google Scholar
  34. 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
  35. UNGC. (2013). Corporate sustainability and the United Nations post-2015 development agenda: Perspectives from UN Global Compact participants on global priorities and how to engage business towards Sustainable Development Goals. Report to the United Nations Secretary-General, submitted by United Nations Global Compact 17 June 2013.Google Scholar
  36. Varady, R. G., Meehan, K., & McGovern, E. (2009). Charting the emergence of ‘global water initiatives’ in world water governance. Physics and Chemistry of the Earth, 34(3), 150–155.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Veolia. (2018). The true cost of water. [online]. Available at http://www.veoliawatertechnologies.com/en/sustainability/true-cost-water. Accessed 7 Nov 2018.
  38. Vos, J., & Hinojosa, L. (2016). Virtual water trade and the contestation of hydrosocial territories. Water Int, 41(1), 37–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. WEF. (2006). Global risks 2006. Geneva: World Economic Forum.Google Scholar
  40. WEF. (2015). Global risks 2015. Geneva: World Economic Forum.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