Welcome to Scribd, the world's digital library. Read, publish, and share books and documents. See more
Standard view
Full view
of .
Look up keyword
Like this
0 of .
Results for:
No results containing your search query
P. 1
Bluewashing Fact Sheet: Why the Bottled Water Industry’s EcoFriendly Claims Don’t Hold Water

Bluewashing Fact Sheet: Why the Bottled Water Industry’s EcoFriendly Claims Don’t Hold Water

Ratings: (0)|Views: 1,523 |Likes:
Corporations have a financial incentive to hide the environmental impacts of their industries from an American public that is increasingly concerned with buying environmentally friendly products. As consumers are looking for ways to “go green,” many companies have been accused of “greenwashing” — promoting products as environmentally friendly when they actually damage the environment.
Corporations have a financial incentive to hide the environmental impacts of their industries from an American public that is increasingly concerned with buying environmentally friendly products. As consumers are looking for ways to “go green,” many companies have been accused of “greenwashing” — promoting products as environmentally friendly when they actually damage the environment.

More info:

Published by: Food and Water Watch on Mar 19, 2010
Copyright:Attribution Non-commercial


Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.
download as PDF or read online from Scribd
See more
See less



Why the Bottled Water Industry’s EcoFriendly ClaimsDon’t Hold Water
The bottled water industry is a prime example of a corpo-rate sector threatened by this new consumer environmentalconsciousness that is using misleading marketing tactics.
Bottled Water Sales Are Declining
When bottled water sales dropped in 2008, mediaand industry analysts said the fall was partially dueto an overall economic downturn.
For cash-strappedconsumers, it makes more sense to pay $0.002 to $0.003per gallon for tap water than hundreds to thousands morefor water in a bottle.
 But this was not the whole story — The WashingtonPost, National Public Radio and Beverage MarketingCorporation all reported that the drop was likely also dueto a growing awareness of the environmental impacts of the product.
This is probably why the industry’s largestplayers are now trying hard to present themselves asenvironmentally friendly, despite the detrimental effects of their product.
Bluewashing the Bottled WaterIndustry 
Today, the bottled water industry appears to be selling itself as a good water steward to distract from its impacts on theworld’s water. While the United Nations established March22 as World Water Day to bring international attention tothe world water crisis, bottled water companies use it toadvertise their donations to water charities or efforts to re-
orporations have a nancial incentive to hide the environmental impactsof their industries from an American public that is increasingly concernedwith buying environmentally friendly products. As consumers are looking forways to “go green,” many companies have been accused of “greenwashing” —promoting products as environmentally friendly when they actually damage theenvironment. Today, as the global media has brought heightened attention toglobal water scarcity, blue is the new green — and corporations appear to beusing similar “bluewashing” tactics to obscure their effect on the world’s water.
duce the amount of water they use in their manufacturing.
 These messages distract from the water problems associ-ated with the product.Bottled water is inherently water-intensive. The 8.7 billiongallons of water sold in 2008
were taken from the envi-ronment, packaged in plastic and often shipped long dis-tances. Spring water is a special concern because it oftencomes from groundwater sources that are environmentallysensitive.
In general, groundwater pumping is a concernbecause groundwater connects to surface water,
and whenit is pulled out of the ground faster than it is naturallyreplenished, water levels decline both underground andin surrounding rivers, lakes and wetlands.
Communitygroups in California, New Hampshire and Michigan haveopposed bottling plants in their communities due to con-cerns about the effects on the local water.
In addition, bottled water manufacturing uses more waterthan just the water that goes in the bottle. The Pacic Insti-tute estimates that for every liter of water in a PET bottle,two liters of water are used to make the plastic and bottlethe water.
Given that the industry sold 8.7 billion gallonsin the United States in 2008, water bottlers used about 26billion gallons of additional water in the production andbottling of the product that year.
Coca-Cola, Nestlé Waters North America and PepsiCo allparticipated in the Corporate Water Footprinting Confer-ence in 2009 to discuss how they are “leading the wayin freshwater management and reduction.”
Yet as longas these companies prot from the water itself, they willnever have incentive to use less overall water. For ex-ample, Nestlé says that in 2007 it reduced the amount of water used in its manufacturing process by 1.3 percent,but it increased production by 10 percent.
This meansthe overall amount of water used actually increased by363 million gallons.
 Similarly, Coca-Cola claims that it is going to go “waterneutral.” Water neutrality was dened by Coca-Cola andseveral academic partners as measuring its water footprint,taking steps to reduce it, and making up for the water ituses in one location by sponsoring water improvements
Donations to Water Charities
The biggest bottling companies are eager to boost theirwater-friendly image by advertising the amount of money they give to water charities. There is great needto address the world’s water problems, as 2.6 billionpeople live in households without proper sanitation, 1.1billion people do not have access to improved drinkingwater and the World Health Organization estimates thatit would take $11.3 billion per year to achieve the mostbasic of the United Nations’ Millennium DevelopmentGoals.
 But the amounts of money that the companies donatepale in comparison to the amount they use for the rest of their operations. Nestlé Waters North America advertisesits contributions to the Red Cross and support for ProjectWET,
but the company’s total giving of $2.6
isonly 0.07 percent of its total revenues of $3.8
 Pepsi’s donations of $15
over three years are littlecompared to the 43
dollars the company tookin overall in 2008.
Pepsi’s Aquana brand alone tookin $1.3 billion in revenues in 2008.
Starbucks adver-tises the 5 cents per bottle it donates to a water fund forevery bottle of Ethos Water it sells for $1.80 per bottle,but does not mention the $360 million it would take inby the time it reaches its goal of raising $10 million forwater projects.
More importantly, these donations donothing to address the specic impacts that the bottledwater industry has on local water resources.
Yet water neutrality is a fundamentally prob-lematic concept because the value of water is not the samein all contexts, and water is a local resource.
Reduc-ing the quantity of water taken from another watershedwill do nothing to compensate for the loss to the originalwatershed. And, the denition of water neutrality that sixorganizations came up with is not actually reducing thenet impact to zero, but rather doing everything “reasonablypossible” to reduce its footprint and make up the differ-ence.
As long as “reasonable” is up to Coca-Cola’s owninterpretation, its claims of going water neutral are unlikelyto signicantly change its overall water use.
Greenwashing the Bottled WaterIndustry 
Water use is not the only environmental problem theindustry has incentive to cover up. The industry has beencriticized for its environmental damage due to its high en-ergy use and production of plastic waste. The Pacic Insti-tute estimates that bottled water in the United States usedthe energy equivalent of 32 to 54 million barrels of oil in2007 — enough to fuel about 1.5 million cars for a year.
 The manufacture of polyethylene terephthalate (PET) bot-tles, water extraction, bottling and distribution amounted toup to 2,000 times the energy cost of producing tap water.
 Moreover, only one out of every four of the tens of billionsof plastic bottles used in the United States in 2006 wererecycled.
At that rate, millions of tons of empty plasticbottles end up in landlls. In a recent report, the U.S. Gov-ernment Accountability Ofce quoted waste industry ex-perts who claimed that for the purpose of landll man-agement, these bottles will “never decompose.”
In order to present a greener image, the industry is pro-claiming its commitment to recycling through pressreleases on America Recycles Day,
and advertising newlighter bottles
or bottles made out of plants.
Nestlé evencommissioned a peer-reviewed study which concludedthat bottled water has the lightest environmental footprintamong packaged drink alternatives.
Yet these efforts donot make bottled water environmentally friendly. Even if plastic bottles are thinner, they are still likely to end up inthe trash. Coca-Cola’s new “PlantBottles” are not as greenas they sound — they are still PET plastic, although oneof the components of the plastic is made from sugar canerather than petroleum. Nestlé’s press release about its studydistracts from its own nding: that tap water has the small-est water and carbon footprint of all.
 Attack on the Tap
As long as water is sold in plastic bottles and shippedaround the world, the industry will continue to use water,consume energy and generate waste. The best way toavoid these impacts is to drink tap water, which has alower water footprint than bottled water, a lower carbonfootprint than bottled water and does not use plastic pack-aging at all.Yet the bottled water industry’s attempts to sell packagedwater appear to have had negative effects on the country’sdrinking water supplies as well. Messages that bottledwater is the ideal source of water likely contributed to adecline in consumer condence in tap water, which meansless support for public drinking water. As bottled watersales steadily increased in the last 10 years, the federalfunding for water infrastructure systematically declined,contributing to poorly funded water systems that can fur-ther compromise public condence in drinking water.
Many American consumers are seeing through the indus-try’s marketing tactics and joining a nationwide movementto Take Back the Tap. College campuses, municipalities,event planners and restaurants around the country have jumped on board to stop drinking or selling bottled water.
 But as more and more people are turning back to the tap, itis not enough to simply stop buying bottled water. The pub-lic must also invest in public water infrastructure so thattap water remains a safe, affordable source of environmen-tally friendly drinking water. A federal Clean Water TrustFund would accomplish this goal by providing a dedicatedsource of funding for public water infrastructure.
CEO Water Mandate
Coca-Cola, PepsiCo and Nestlé have all signed on to theCEO Water Mandate — a part of the United Nations’Global Compact program in which multinational corpo-rations commit to working to address the global watercrisis.
The CEO Water Mandate, as well the UN GlobalCompact, has been criticized as a lot of talk and littleaction; because it is not binding, companies can sign onwithout actually changing their behavior.
In 2010, theCEO Water Mandate received a greenwashing award fromthe organizers of the Public Eye Awards, an annual eventorganized to coincide with the World Economic Forum toshame corporate players for their environmentally damag-ing practices.
Selling Water to Kids
The bottled water industry is also using the childhood obe-sity epidemic to paint a more positive picture of itself. Theindustry is selling itself as a healthy alternative to soda. Forexample, Nestlé is funding research into the health ben-ets of water, and even selling water to kids using packag-ing specically designed for children, such as in Nestlé’s“Aquapod” bottle.
Yet teaching kids to drink bottledwater is teaching them to make a less environmentallyfriendly choice. Tap water has the same health benets asbottled water without the impacts. A recent article in theNew York Times reported that school water fountains canlower a child’s risk for becoming overweight.

Activity (11)

You've already reviewed this. Edit your review.
1 thousand reads
1 hundred reads
Hanky Kim liked this
richa24 liked this
fayhuang liked this
wahkeena liked this
GreenHipHop liked this

You're Reading a Free Preview

/*********** DO NOT ALTER ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE ! ************/ var s_code=s.t();if(s_code)document.write(s_code)//-->