Coursework Header Sheet

242876-54

Course BUSI1552: Sustainability in Business Course School/Level B/UG

Coursework Essay Assessment Weight 100.00%
Tutor A Piterou Submission Deadline 09/04/2020

Coursework is receipted on the understanding that it is the student's own work and that it has not,
in whole or part, been presented elsewhere for assessment. Where material has been used from
other sources it has been properly acknowledged in accordance with the University's Regulations
regarding Cheating and Plagiarism.

Tutor's comments

Grade Awarded___________ For Office Use Only__________ Final Grade_________

Moderation required: yes/no Tutor______________________ Date _______________

Word count 3,228

Contents

1. Introduction ..................................................................................................................................................... 2

2. Literature Review........................................................................................................................................... 3

3. Analysis of the Environmental Impacts of Bottled Water ............................................................................. 7

4. Mitigation of the Environmental Impacts of Bottled Water ........................................................................ 11

5. Conclusion ................................................................................................................................................... 14

References ........................................................................................................................................................ 15
1. Introduction

In the time it takes to read this sentence more than 100,000 litres of bottled water are consumed globally.
This is enough water for an average person to shower every single day in the next five years. The annual
total of bottled water consumption is nearly 400 billion litres or enough water to fill 150,000 Olympic
swimming pools (IBWA, 2018). Furthermore, bottled water is now widely perceived as a necessity for the
health-conscious consumer and a status symbol of wealth and prosperity.

The growing popularity of the market has stirred a lot of controversies and a strong opposition from the
Anti-Bottled Water Movement (ABWM). This is a term that is referring to an organised movement. The
commodification of nature and the conversion of a collective right into a consumer good may be explained
from a socio-cultural perspective but absurd from a sustainability viewpoint.

This essay is going to explore the existing literature on sustainability starting from its inception, proceeding
to explore the possibility of decoupling economic growth from its environmental impact, exploring the
important Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) trade-offs that organisations face, exploring its impact on
economies and businesses, finishing with its measurements, and leading into bottled water. Against this
background, the environmental impact of bottled water will be explored by relying on secondary data from
Life Cycle Assessments (LCAs). Relevant environmental metrics such as energy expenditure, raw materials
use, green house gas (GHG) emissions, and water use will be compared between single-use, multi-use
bottled, and tap water. A variety of remedial actions in the domains of regulation, technology innovation,
and consumer behaviour logically following these impacts would then be presented. The discussion will be
enriched with a thoughtful consideration of the intricacies of consumer perceptions with regards to bottled
water.

Keywords: Bottled Water, Environmental Impact, Sustainability, Recycling

2. Literature Review

Bergquist (2017) conducted a survey of business history revealing that the earliest theme exploring the
environmental impact of economic growth dates back to the late nineteenth century when industries were
looking for ways to be less polluting. The field then gained momentum in the 1960s establishing the
theoretical foundations of sustainability and its subsequent practical manifestations from the 1980s. Around
the same time, the concepts of sustainability and sustainable development (SD) became recognised in the
field of environmentalism (Adams, 2005). One influential definition of SD comes the Brundtland
Commission report Our Common Future (1987): “meeting the needs of the present without compromising
the ability of future generations to meet their own needs” (p.8). The elegance and significance of the concept
lie in its attempt to bridge the need for development with the limits to growth, however, Mitcham (1995)
warns against the risk of ‘sustainability’ becoming a meaningless cliché abused by ideologists.

A more practical question is whether economic growth (measured as Gross Domestic Product GDP)) can be
decoupled from its consequent environmental impact. Given that, ultimately, economic growth always
results in bigger resource use and/or pollution (Ward et al., 2016) it is worth exploring how these conflicting
priorities can be reconciled. Kuznets curve suggest that the development of the economy can lead to a
decline in the environment, nevertheless after a certain level of growth to the economy, there will be an
improvement with the relationship it has with the environment, furthermore, the levels of environmental
degradation reduces. This theory suggests that economic growth is beneficial towards the environment.
Though, it can be argued that there is no assurance that growth in the economy will lead to an improvement
towards the environment.

Prevailing win-win paradigms suggest that it is possible to align the needs of people (society) and the planet
(environment) with the drive for profit (economy) resulting in the idea of the ‘triple bottom line’ (TBL)
(Elkington, 1994). The conceiver of the concept likens it to seven interrelated revolutions that would enable
our species to negotiate the complex transition to sustainable capitalism (Figure 1).

Figure 1 – Seven sustainability revolutions (Elkington, 2013)

Hahn et al. (2010), however, question the likelihood of achieving all three goals at once and argue that
conflicts and trade-offs in corporate sustainability (CS) are the norm rather than the exception. Furthermore,
they warn against the risk of ignoring such conflicts and propose a framework with different dimensions for
a structured analysis of the trade-offs (Figure 2).
Figure 2 – Analytical framework for trade-offs in corporate sustainability (Hahn et al., 2010, pp. 217–
229)

Beyond demonstrating the complexity of CSR trade-offs, the framework integrates the TBL concept in its
outcome dimension, highlights the conflicts between short- and long-term orientation and emphasises the
role of processes. The only thing that can be articulated better is the complex interaction leading to trade-
offs between dimensions and levels.

With a sober recognition of the important trade-offs that sustainable development poses, research efforts
have focused on identifying practical ways of making economies and businesses more environmentally
friendly. Worthington (2012) highlights the importance of corporate environmental policy, pollution
prevention measures, sustainable product development, strategic environmental alliances, and establishing
Environmental Management Systems (EMSs) from a business perspective. However, it is worth
emphasising that an integrated approach reaching to the very core of a business, its mission statement, is
often necessary for these initiatives to be effective.

On a larger, economic scale, some of the suggested measures include limiting throughput in line with
Earth’s carrying capacity, prioritising efficiency-increasing over output-increasing technological innovation,
enforcing harvesting rates lower than regeneration rates for renewable resources, limiting waste emissions to
the assimilative capacity of the environment, keeping non-renewables depletion rates below renewables
creation rates, setting usage thresholds according to the Environmental Utilisation Space concept,
‘dematerialisation’ of economies, ecotaxation, and ecological tax reform (ETR) (Dresner, 2008). The
behaviour of individuals and societies can also be guided toward sustainability. Low carbon initiatives,
sustainable mobility policies, low-carbon housing, smart grids, extending the lives of domestic goods,
strategically positioned behavioural nudges are all examples of effective social practices and interventions
(Strengers and Maller, 2014). Ultimately, the big challenge of behavioural change lies in the inability of
being sufficiently invested in outcomes beyond an individual’s lifetime.

With the implementation of such initiatives, it is important to have the tools to measure their effectiveness.
Starting from the Earth level, Rockström et al. (2009) propose a comprehensive planetary boundaries model
setting the safe limits within which humanity can operate and warning about the consequences of
transgressions (Figure 3).

Figure 3 – Categories of planetary boundaries (Rockström et al., 2009)

On a corporate level, Young and Tilley (2006) emphasise the importance of broadening the CS debate
beyond eco- and socio-efficiency to include eco-effectiveness, socio-effectiveness, sufficiency and
ecological equity for a total of six criteria that need to be satisfied by a sustainable business. The TBL
framework (Figure 4), is an attempt to quantify a broader and more environmentally-conscious definition of
business value creation.
 Figure 4 – Economic, Environmental and Social dimensions of performance (Elkington, 1994)
Expanding on the three core themes of TBL, Ekins, Dresner and Dahlström (2008) propose a four-capital
model for evaluating regional sustainable development, which recognises the fundamental role of the human
factor (Figure 5).

Figure 5 – The four-capital model of evaluating sustainable development – adapted from Ekins,
Dresner and Dahlström (2008).

While all these proposed measures have a degree of usefulness, the complexities of assessing the planetary
impact mean that none of them is perfect. Nonetheless, an imperfect measure, as long as it is consistent, can
still be used to gauge progress.

Against the backdrop of global efforts toward sustainability an industry has evolved, which has stirred
several controversies. The bottled water industry is blamed for its commodification of nature (Opel, 1999;
Wilk, 2006), questionable health and safety status (Raj, 2005; Doria, 2006; Ward et al., 2009) and irrational
popularity (Gleick, 2010; Brei and Tadajewski, 2015; Brei, 2018).

The following sections will explore its environmental impact and propose strategies for mitigating it.
3. Analysis of the Environmental Impacts of Bottled Water

According to the latest IBWA(2018) statistics, bottled water producers’ revenues hit $18.5 billion in 2017,
in the US alone. This section will explore whether the undeniable commercial viability of the product is
supported by corresponding environmental sustainability.

Concerns about bottled water consumption revolve around its impact on the environment and, just as
importantly, on human health. By far the most popular and effective method for analysing the implications
of the product for the environment has been the LCA. It is recognised as a useful tool for policy decision-
making input since it is the only method that explores products across their entire life and covers all areas of
impact (Finnveden, 2000). At the same time, it also suffers from variations in its application that can lead to
divergent results, modelling that misses important impact indicators, and inappropriate scoping (Curran,
2014). With this in mind, three potential strategies for overcoming these limitations include the spatial and
temporal expansion of LCA with the inclusion of social dimensions, the development of a toolbox to
complement or replace LCA, and a hybrid approach that uses LCA as a base and strategically enriches it
with appropriate tools (de Haes et al., 2004). The following LCA assessments of bottled water and plastic
bottles have been selected among many because of their scientific rigour and methodological robustness.

One of the most comprehensive studies conducted a comparative LCA of bottled vs tap water. Furthermore,
Dettore (2009) differentiated between single-use (~500ml) (Figure 6) and home and office delivery (HOD)
(~19liters) (Figure 7) bottled water as there are important differences in their LCs.

Figure 6 – Single-use bottled water LC (Dettore, 2009)

Figure 7 – HOD bottled water LC (Dettore, 2009)

The advantages of this comparative LCA methodology is that it results in a clear ranking of options and
offers a helpful context for comparing environmental impact. The author evaluates the three options against
four criteria, namely, energy use, solid waste production, greenhouse gases (GHG), and water use.

Throughout the presented figures Bs refer to single-use variants, Hs to HOD variants, and Ts to tap water
options.

Figure 8 – LC energy use comparison between single-use, HOD and tap water (Dettore, 2009)

Figure 8 demonstrates that compared to tap water, single-use bottled water uses 11-31 times more energy.
Compared to HOD systems, tap water is 45-65% more efficient. Still, HOD systems are preferable to single-
use bottles as they require 82-92% less energy. However, an important distinction exists between the
primary factor driving energy use depending on the distribution distance. Gleick and Cooley (2009) explain
that the wide range in the energy required for transportation means that long-distance distribution can
require as much if not more, energy than the manufacturing process (Figure 9).

Figure 9 – Total energy requirements for producing bottled water (Gleick and Cooley, 2009)

Figure 10 – LC solid waste comparison between single-use, HOD and tap water (Dettore, 2009)
Figure 10 reveals that single-use bottled systems generate 6-21 times more waste than tap water. HOD
systems, on the other hand, generate ‘only’ 19-58% more waste compared to tap water. In this metric, HOD
systems again outperform single-use bottles generating 73-91% less waste.

Figure 11 – LC GHG emissions comparison between single-use, HOD and tap water (Dettore, 2009)

Figure 11 shows that tap water generated 6-32 times less GHG emissions compared to single-use bottled
water. Tap water also outperformed HOD systems generating 43-65% less GHG emissions. HOD systems
once again outperformed single-use bottled water generating 69-92% less GHG emissions.

Figure 12 – LC water use comparison between single-use, HOD and tap water (Dettore, 2009)

Finally, with regards to water use throughout the LC (Figure 12), the differences are not as significant but
tap water still outperforms HOD systems, while single-use bottles are the least efficient.

This study provides robust and reliable data indicating the significantly greater environmental burden
resulting from single-use bottled water. However, as it studies variants rather than individual companies, it
doesn’t differentiate between the environmental impact of different brands.

The findings of this study are consistent with the work of Jungbluth (2006) who studied the impact of
different water delivery systems in Switzerland using LCA. The analysis of Van Hoof and Schowanek
(2002) and the work of Gleick and Cooley (2009) also revealed greater environmental impact resulting from
bottled water use.
In a more recent study of water consumption in Spain using LCA, Garfí et al. (2016) demonstrated that tap
water was the most sustainable choice, while bottled had significantly greater energy and raw materials
requirements and higher financial cost for consumers. Treenate, Limphitakphong and Chavalparit (2017)
used LCA to demonstrate the significantly greater environmental impact of disposal through incineration vs
recycling of high-density polyethylene (HDPE) plastic bottles.

Dunmade (2017) expanded the scope of bottled water assessment to include a social dimension for a more
holistic social LCA (sLCA). His study revealed workers’ health and safety and child labour issues as areas
that require urgent attention. Although these may not seem like strictly environmental impacts, in reality, it
is not possible to decouple the wellbeing of the planet from the wellbeing of people or vice versa.

Independent research is largely unanimous on the negative environmental impact of plastic-bottled water.
Themes emerging across all studies reveal the importance of the material composition of bottles, the end-of-
life treatment and the distribution distance and method. These insights would form the basis for investigating
potential remedial actions in the next section.

“Consumer demand for bottled water looks likely to remain strong in the years ahead. Increases in per capita
consumption indicate enthusiasm for a product that consumers regard as a healthful alternative to other
beverages,” said Michael Bellas, BMC chairman and CEO. “Americans increased their annual consumption
by more than 11 gallons, from 25.4 gallons per person in 2005 to 36.5 gallons a decade later. During the
same period, per capita consumption of carbonated soft drinks dropped by 12.4 gallons. Per capita
consumption of other major beverage categories, like milk and fruit beverages, also fell” (IBWA,2018).
4. Mitigation of the Environmental Impacts of Bottled Water

In evaluating the options for mitigating the environmental impact of bottled water, it is important to
recognise the factors that led to the establishment and growth of the market and the way it has been framed
and positioned before introducing practical remedial steps (Figure 13). This essential background would
enable recognition of the complexity of the market and the difficulties in reforming it.

Figure 13 – Thematic evolution of the section

According to some researchers, the bottled water market was ‘crafted’ thanks to its positioning as pure,
natural and healthy by influential institutions contrasting these qualities to the impurity and risks of tapped
water (Brei and Tadajewski, 2015). Health practitioners and celebrities then promoted these ideas, which led
to permanent shifts in consumer preferences and behaviour. While the health benefits of bottled vs regular
drinking water are debatable, a case can be made that bottled water fills an important gap in regions where
tap water is not fit for human consumption (Bullers, 2002). Furthermore, homefillers couldachieve the same
aim in some cases. However, the sheer proliferation of luxury and artisan brands and the heavy investment
in marketing and advertising suggests that bottled water has gained significance and meaning beyond its
thirst-quenching capacity. The result is a socio-cultural narrative, which seems logical and a simultaneous
environmental and behavioural absurdity (Wilk, 2006).

Plastic bottled water is marketed as a fast-moving consumer good (FMCG) imbued with health-promoting
qualities versus a collective good distributed through established networks (Hawkins, 2017). Important here
is the subtle way in which such positioning can interfere with the public and political health values of tap
water. Illuminating in this domain is the view of plastic water bottles as objects with distinct roles far
exceeding their utilitarian value (Hawkins, 2009) and politically and ethically potent artefacts that beyond
their environmental impact shape markets and create meaning (Hawkins, 2011). Most significant in this
regard is the establishment of bottled water consumption as a symbol of economic power and social status
despite its negative effect on landfills, aquifers and the environment in general (Hawkins, Potter and Race,
2015). Consistent cause-related marketing efforts from leading manufacturers and insistent messaging from
the newly-developed hydration science perpetuate the commercial packaging of what is fundamentally a
human right.

Moving from theory to practice, a variety of mitigation strategies loosely grouped as ‘’regulation’,
‘‘tecnology innovation’ and ‘‘consumer behaviour’ will be proposed and investigated.

Regulation

The “3 R’s” of sustainability are a reminder to reduce, reuse and recycle. Government policies aimed at
reduction can introduce production limits to address the issue effectively at source or consumption limits,
which can be more difficult to implement. Nonetheless, in the US there has been a ban on purchasing and
using bottled water across state agencies (Dettore, 2009). US colleges (D’Altrui, 2017) and UK universities
(Ward et al., 2009) have introduced bans or campaigns aimed at reducing bottled water use (Choate, Davis
and Verrecchia, 2018) among students with positive results. Practices such as the bottle-bills in the US that
require a small deposit from consumers upon purchasing certain beverage containers have been
implemented successfully in other countries as well. The Deposit Return Scheme (DRS), as it is known in
the UK (GOV.UK, 2019), led to the recycling of over 300,000 bottles in less than a year (Smithers, 2019).
Technology innovation

According to Dettore (2009), significant GHG and energy reductions can be achieved by incorporating
recycled polyethylene terephthalate (rPET) into the production of bottled water containers. An essential
requirement for this is the recycling of bottles at the end of their useful life, which is also going to affect
multiple additional environmental dimensions (Figure 14). This issue is important in the domains of
regulation and consumer behaviour as well. By replacing PET and rPET bottles with poly-lactic acid (PLA)
bottles, further reductions in GHG emissions and energy are possible.

Figure 14 - Tornado diagram portraying the per cent change in each impact category depending on
recycled/new material proportions against a 30% recycled 70% new baseline (Horowitz, Frago and
Mu, 2018, p. 20)

As a significant contributor to overall energy expenditure, transportation can be a fruitful intervention. By

focusing on regional production and distribution and eliminating national and international transportation,
there can be a significant improvement in energy expenditure and GHG emissions.

Although water use is an environmental impact shared across all means of water distribution, some bottled
water companies have taken strategic mitigating Water Resource Management (WRM) actions covering
exploration, monitoring, equipment, and sustainability (Le Fanic, 2009).

Finally, tehnology innovation in the end-of-life treatment can also significantly reduce the environmental
impact when recycling is chosen over incineration (Figure 15).
Figure 15 – Environmental impact assessment in fifteen impact categories (Treenate, Limphitakphong
and Chavalparit, 2017)
People

Research indicates that there is a growing concern about plastic water bottles’ environmental impact among
consumers and their willingness to pay (WTP) a premium for more sustainable options can be influenced
through information and appropriate messaging (Orset, Barret and Lemaire, 2016). Furthermore, such
concerns have given rise to the ABWM, which is the de-facto opposition of the bottled water industry.
Embracing a framing perspective, Schuhmann (2016) explored how the two opposing forces use a variety of
rhetorical tactics describing the anti-neoliberal and human rights frames used by the ABWM.

The main difficulty in effective behavioural change on the consumer level lies primarily in the rigidity of
perceptions seeing bottled water as healthy and as a status symbol. Still, demand, as well as people’s WTP a
premium for sustainability, can be altered with visually impactful and educational information (Figure 16).

Figure 16 – Bottled water facts – did you know…? Adapted from Montgomery Schools (2018)

Alternative use and reuse are other options for individual-level mitigation strategies. In some household,
single-use plastic bottles are used as water storage containers long-term or cut and re-purposed into mini
flower pots.

The ultimate success of these interventions will depend on their joint implementation while the biggest
challenge is not going to be the complexity of the measures but the difficulty of changing consumer
perceptions.
5. Conclusion

Governments and industries around the world have been steadily moving toward sustainability.
Simultaneously, the bottled water market has established a prominent position in the minds and hearts of
consumers around the world as evidenced by its consistent annual growth since the 1990s., despite all the
controversies surrounding it. This has led to growing opposition from the ABWM and increasing scrutiny
regarding its environmental impact.

Research has been largely unanimous in concluding that bottled water, especially when single-use packaged,
has a significantly greater detrimental impact on the environment compared with tap water. According to
detailed LCAs, single-use bottled water uses 11-31 times more energy than tap water and 5-10 times more
than HOD bottled water. It also creates 6-20 times more waste than tap and 4-10 times more than HOD
variants. With regards to GHG emissions, single-use bottled water generates 6-32 more than tap and 3-10
times more than HOD bottled water. The differences with regards to water use are smaller but not
insignificant.

Due to powerful marketing and skilful rhetorics bottled water has developed prominence beyond its thirst-
quenching properties and has become a health and status symbol with economic and political power. This
complicates the introduction of steps aimed at managing its consumption. Still, policies aimed at reducing
use such as bottle bills in the US and DRS in the UK as well as direct use bans across some government and
educational institutions have been successful. Increasing the proportion of recycled materials in packaging,
reducing transportation distance, and effective WRM are methods for improving the sustainability of the
production process. Information sharing interventions and personal commitment to the environment are
fruitful interventions on an individual level. The ultimate challenge is to implement mitigating actions
jointly and work toward a perceptual shift among consumers.
References

Adams, W. M. (2005) ‘The Origins of Sustainable Development’, Sustainability: Critical Concepts in the
Social Sciences, 2, pp. 69–100.

Bergquist, A.-K. (2017) ‘Business and sustainability: new business history perspectives’, Harvard Business
School General Management Unit Working Paper, (18–034).

Brei, V. A. (2018) ‘How is a bottled water market created?’, Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Water. Wiley
Online Library, 5(1), p. e1220.

Brei, V. and Tadajewski, M. (2015) ‘Crafting the market for bottled water: a social praxeology approach’,
European Journal of Marketing. Emerald Group Publishing Limited.

Brundtland, G. H. (1987) ‘Our common future—Call for action’, Environmental Conservation. Cambridge
University Press, 14(4), pp. 291–294.

Choate, B., Davis, B. Y. and Verrecchia, J. (2018) ‘Campus bottled water bans, not always the solution’,
International Journal of Sustainability in Higher Education. Emerald Publishing Limited.

Curran, M. A. (2014) ‘Strengths and limitations of life cycle assessment’, in Background and future
prospects in Life Cycle Assessment. Springer, pp. 189–206.

D’Altrui, E. M. (2017) ‘Bottle Water Bans: How can we curb the thirst for bottled water?’, Elements, 13(1).

Dettore, C. G. (2009) ‘Comparative life-cycle assessment of bottled vs. tap water systems’, Ann Arbor.

Doria, M. F. (2006) ‘Bottled water versus tap water: understanding consumers’ preferences’, Journal of
water and health. IWA Publishing, 4(2), pp. 271–276.

Dresner, S. (2008) The principles of sustainability. Earthscan.

Dunmade, I. S. (2017) ‘Socioeconomic impacts of bottled water production and consumption system in a
developing economy: A Lifecycle Approach’, International Journal of Business and Management Studies,
6(02), pp. 471–484.

Ekins, P., Dresner, S. and Dahlström, K. (2008) ‘The four‐capital method of sustainable development
evaluation’, European Environment. Wiley Online Library, 18(2), pp. 63–80.

Elkington, J. (1994) ‘Triple bottom line revolution: reporting for the third millennium’.

Elkington, J. (2013) ‘Enter the triple bottom line’, in The triple bottom line. Routledge, pp. 23–38.

Finnveden, G. (2000) ‘On the limitations of life cycle assessment and environmental systems analysis tools
in general’, The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment. Springer, 5(4), p. 229.

Garfí, M. et al. (2016) ‘Life cycle assessment of drinking water: comparing conventional water treatment,
reverse osmosis and mineral water in glass and plastic bottles’, Journal of cleaner production. Elsevier, 137,
pp. 997–1003.

Gleick, P. H. (2010) Bottled and sold: The story behind our obsession with bottled water. Island Press.

Gleick, P. H. and Cooley, H. S. (2009) ‘Energy implications of bottled water’, Environmental Research
Letters. IOP Publishing, 4(1), p. 014009.
GOV.UK (2019) Introducing a Deposit Return Scheme (DRS) for drinks containers (bottles and cans),
GOV.UK. Available at: https://www.gov.uk/government/consultations/introducing-a-deposit-return-scheme-
drs-for-drinks-containers-bottles-and-cans (Accessed: 22 March 2020).

de Haes, H. A. U. et al. (2004) ‘Three strategies to overcome the limitations of life‐cycle assessment’,
Journal of industrial ecology. Wiley Online Library, 8(3), pp. 19–32.

Hahn, T. et al. (2010) ‘Trade‐offs in corporate sustainability: You can’t have your cake and eat it’, Business
strategy and the environment. Wiley Online Library, 19(4), pp. 217–229.

Hawkins, G. (2009) ‘The politics of bottled water: Assembling bottled water as brand, waste and oil’,
Journal of Cultural Economy. Taylor & Francis, 2(1–2), pp. 183–195.

Hawkins, G. (2011) ‘Packaging water: plastic bottles as market and public devices’, Economy and Society.
Taylor & Francis, 40(4), pp. 534–552.

Hawkins, G. (2017) ‘The impacts of bottled water: an analysis of bottled water markets and their
interactions with tap water provision’, Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Water. Wiley Online Library, 4(3),
p. e1203.

Hawkins, G., Potter, E. and Race, K. (2015) Plastic water: The social and material life of bottled water.
MIT Press.

Horowitz, N., Frago, J. and Mu, D. (2018) ‘Life cycle assessment of bottled water: A case study of Green2O
products’, Waste Management (New York, N.Y.), 76, pp. 734–743. doi: 10.1016/j.wasman.2018.02.043.

IBWA (2018) ‘Bottled Water - 2017 Market Report Findings’. International Bottled Water Association.
Available at: https://www.bottledwater.org/public/BMC2017_BWR_StatsArticle.pdf (Accessed: 21 March
2020).

Jungbluth, N. (2006) ‘Comparison of the Environmental Impact of Drinking Water vs. Bottled Mineral
Water’, Manuscript for the SGWA information bulletin and GWA (Gas Water Sewage).

Le Fanic, R. (2009) ‘Water resources management in the bottled water business’, WIT Transactions on
Ecology and the Environment. WIT Press, 125, pp. 23–33.

Mitcham, C. (1995) ‘The concept of sustainable development: its origins and ambivalence’, Technology in
society. Elsevier, 17(3), pp. 311–326.

Montgomery Schools (2018) The Life Cycle of a Plastic Bottle. Available at:
https://www.montgomeryschoolsmd.org/uploadedFiles/curriculum/outdoored/programs/waterbottlefactpage
s.pdf (Accessed: 22 March 2020).

Opel, A. (1999) ‘Constructing purity: Bottled water and the commodification of nature’, The Journal of
American Culture. Blackwell Publishing Ltd., 22(4), p. 67.

Raj, S. D. (2005) ‘Bottled water: how safe is it?’, Water Environment Research. Wiley Online Library,
77(7), pp. 3013–3018.

Rockström, J. et al. (2009) ‘Planetary boundaries: exploring the safe operating space for humanity’, Ecology
and society. JSTOR, 14(2).

Smithers, R. (2019) ‘Plastic bottle deposit scheme in UK proving hit with shoppers’, The Guardian, 2
January. Available at: https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2019/jan/02/plastic-bottle-deposit-
scheme-in-uk-proving-a-hit-with-shoppers (Accessed: 22 March 2020).

Strengers, Y. and Maller, C. (2014) Social practices, intervention and sustainability: Beyond behaviour
change. Routledge.
Treenate, P., Limphitakphong, N. and Chavalparit, O. (2017) ‘A complete life cycle assessment of high
density polyethylene plastic bottle’, in IOP Conference series: materials science and engineering. IOP
Publishing, p. 012010.

Van Hoof, G. and Schowanek, D. (2002) ‘Comparative LCA of drinking water delivery systems: tap water,
PuR water filter and bottled water’, Abstract for the Society for Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry –
Europe, 2002 Annual Meeting. Available at:
http://abstracts.co.allenpress.com/pweb/setaceu2002/document/844 (Accessed: 21 March 2020).

Ward, J. D. et al. (2016) ‘Is decoupling GDP growth from environmental impact possible?’, PloS one.
Public Library of Science, 11(10).

Ward, L. A. et al. (2009) ‘Health beliefs about bottled water: a qualitative study’, BMC Public Health.
Springer, 9(1), p. 196.

Wilk, R. (2006) ‘Bottled water: the pure commodity in the age of branding’, journal of Consumer Culture.
Sage Publications London, Thousand Oaks, CA and New Delhi, 6(3), pp. 303–325.

Worthington, I. (2012) Greening Business: Research, Theory, and Practice. Oxford University Press.

Young, W. and Tilley, F. (2006) ‘Can businesses move beyond efficiency? The shift toward effectiveness
and equity in the corporate sustainability debate’, Business Strategy and the Environment. Wiley Online
Library, 15(6), pp. 402–415.