To many of us in the United States, we see water as free, or nearly so.

Luckily, this misconception is being challenged by a growing number of articles in the general press as well as in “sustainability” circles. For example, three pieces of water news crossed my desk today. Each underscored the increasingly explicit relationship between water and money… and the possibility for us to either “get water right” or contribute to further global ecosystem devastation.

Awareness-raising is the main thrust of UNICEF’s dirty water vending machine. Got a buck? You can get a tasty bottle of water contaminated with typhoid, cholera, dysentery, or dengue!

Well no, not really. The CDC would certainly not approve… and yet those are some of the only water choices available to the more than 2 billion people who lack access to clean water.  Lots of investment in infrastructure and education (read: MONEY!!) will be necessary to move the needle towards greater availability of safe drinking water globally.

Arguably, that would be money well spent. The scheme of Alaska Resource Management to ship potable water from Alaska to India is, in contrast, eye-popping in its hubris. Perhaps it is human nature to try to make a buck from dire circumstances. But to me, disrupting natural ecosystem dynamics on such a grand scale is pure short-sightedness in contrast to taking the more complicated route of actually rooting out water waste and inefficiency. I guess the projected $90 million in revenues is tough to resist.

And finally… more profits on the horizon for companies in the water treatment business. Environmental Leader trumpets the potential for the US corporate water treatment market to increase from $1.5 billion to $2.5 billion from 2010 to 2015. With crumbling infrastructure fast becoming a fact of life in many US communities, and water scarcity in arid regions pointing to advanced treatment as a way to ease up on potable water supplies, this projection is not at all surprising.

And here’s a juicy stat: “It will take over $334.8 billion over the next twenty years to make the water system of the United States safe and reliable.” That’s a big chunk of change to ensure that we don’t end up selecting our drinks from the dirty water vending machine.

It’s high time the true costs of water became more apparent. What’s crucial is that the ecosystem impacts of water withdrawal, treatment, recycling, and reuse be properly accounted for… how’s that for a water challenge?

BAE Systems Corporate Responsibility Report 2009 PDF

If you’re a member of Net Impact—you’re in luck!

This Friday, April 23, 2010, join Framework:CR Principal Aleksandra Dobkowski-Joy as she presents a Net Impact Issues in Depth call focused on materiality analysis:

“From stakeholders to strategy: Using materiality analysis to guide sustainability strategy and communications”

Here’s the synopsis:

A thorough materiality analysis offers a unique opportunity to inform overall sustainability strategy and communications through consideration of diverse stakeholder perspectives and the drivers and potential inhibitors of a company’s growth and success. With this call, we’ll explore a basic materiality process and look at how companies such as Intel, Ford, and Holcim have benefited from their customized application of this analytic tool.

Hope you can join us!

Novo Nordisk 2009 Annual (Integrated) Report PDF

Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu’s 2009 Corporate Responsibility Report PDF

BSkyB’s Bigger Picture Review 2009 PDF

Following the news from the Copenhagen climate summit has nearly become a full time job. Observing the chaotic deliberations, I am reminded of Adam Kahane’s comments on solving complex sustainability problems via a stakeholder inclusive approach, delivered during this fall’s BSR conference.

What sticks in my head the most is how relevant each of the three “complexity parameters” are to the climate debates :

1) Systemic complexity, whereby cause and effect are far apart in space and time (the generational issue in climate change)

2) Social complexity, whereby each actor has a fundamentally different worldview and perspective (developed vs developing nations, anyone?) 

3) Generative complexity, whereby we are dealing with situations that have never occurred before (when was the last time we had to put together a truly global, multilateral, mutually acceptable, binding agreement on anything?)

Adam’s approach to his work as a facilitator rests on the thesis that to attain a successful outcome, you basically need two things: power and love. Love, defined as “regard for others”, and power, as defined by the “drive of all things living to realize themselves”.  To some degree, we are seeing both love and power demonstrated at the summit, which is good news.

What is not so good is that the premise of stakeholder directed problem solving requires sufficient time to address both the complexity of the problem and do it in a way that takes the power/love approach.

And time is indeed in short supply.

As alluded to in the BSR conference theme: “Reset Economy. Reset World.”, we’ve entered a brief period where business and society is re-examining core assumptions about how we live and work. There’s a realization that the concept of sustainability is vital and relevant, and that sustainability integration is a business imperative fundamental to innovation, profitability, and ultimate long-term survival.

But it’s not as easy as pressing a reset button (there is no sustainability CTRL-ALT-DELETE key sequence!) In a sense, what we’re talking about is systems redesign. Embedding sustainability is very difficult, not least because of the fundamental culture change that accompanies efforts to integrate and operationalize sustainable business practices. Join that with barriers to implementation ranging from existing political frameworks, lack of scale, and an entrenched system of investor valuation that excludes most social and environmental factors, and the true nature of the challenge becomes apparent.

The BSR conference reflected these hard truths, mirroring in the choice of conference topics what we as sustainability practitioners need to do to move forward. Namely, to

• engage in transparent and collaborative learning and problem-solving,
• create openness for new models and approaches, and
• incorporate a multitude of views, voices, and experiences along the way.

We’ve moved past the early stages where the “low-hanging fruit” in terms of sustainability theory and practice has been harvested. In large part, we know what has to be done—and we know that it will take sustained and considerable effort to achieve systems redesign. Perhaps Ben Verwaayen, CEO of Alcatel-Lucent said it best in his closing plenary (@ 4:09) : “CEO involvement is YOUR measure of success”.  Let’s make it happen.

The Business for Social Responsibility (BSR) conference in San Francisco is in full swing today, and the opening plenary yielded some early insights as to the shape of the event.

Aron Cramer, President and CEO of BSR, highlighted three areas critical for both business and planetary survival in a reset world:

• Innovation
• System redesign (with the first test of whether we can adequately reshape global systems to be determined in Copenhagen in just a few short weeks)
• Leveraging the power of networks

Ernst Ligteringen, Chief Executive of the Global Reporting Initiative, added his own thoughts on the challenge of reshaping systems and economies. He stated that creating a business case for action can be very difficult, as it requires that we justify a transition to a new economy based on current economic fundamentals… something akin to trying to explain quantum physics using Newtonian principles.

Finally, an audience member highlighted the fact that over the past several decades, we have been using what was abundant (natural resources) while trying to squeeze maximum productivity from sometimes limited manpower. With the world population exploding to 9 billion in this century, the equation is reversed, creating another opportunity for systemic change in how we approach resource use and the concept of gainful employment.

Social Media and Sustainability Oct 2009 Newsletter

Everywhere we turn, the term “social media” seems to dominate the sustainability conversation. This month, we take a deeper dive into this evolving world to find out whether those hours spent blogging, tweeting, responding to posts, virtual-networking, and otherwise sharing your company’s content and opinions with the world are time well spent.

Special thanks to our guest editor, Averill Doering, a brand and social media strategist specializing in sustainability communications and the Founder of Cause Communication Strategies, for her contributions to this newsletter!