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

While more and more companies see assurance as something
of a magic bullet that lends credibility to disclosures of environmental, social and governance (ESG) performance, the assurance business is ill-equipped
to meet the growing demand for its services. Is assurance
really worth the effort?

Read the article (PDF), published in the December issue of Ethical Corporation magazine.

I went to my bank on Christmas Eve to make a deposit and attempted to make some typical holiday small talk with Max, my favorite teller. “Are you ready for the holiday?” I asked (careful not to say “Christmas” lest I offend). She shrugged and said that it would be quiet, then she told me how a friend who has stage-four breast cancer, and who seemed near death in the spring, was up and about and feeling much better. “I’m just going to celebrate the fact that she’s alive right now,” she said, “and I don’t feel at all bad about not getting out there and shopping.”

Amen to that. There seems to have been an intense focus on how much “consumers” (a consumer somehow being a different species of human being; more on that later) are spending this holiday season. As though what comes out of our thinner-these-days wallets will save our economy and, thus, our world. Meanwhile, there is much moaning about how the healthcare bill that the Senate passed on Christmas Eve simply doesn’t cut it, that’s it’s so watered down as to be a certain failure. And there is much griping about how Copenhagen failed to meet expectations—as though it were even remotely possible to get 190 or so countries to sit down and, in the space of two weeks, agree to global, binding, verifiable targets to reduce GHG emissions.

Can we just celebrate that the United States, whose government only a year ago refused to even sit at the climate-change table, is now pushing itself and governments around the world to address the issue? Can we celebrate that we now have at least a foundation for moving toward meaningful action? And can we celebrate that a sizeable chunk of the US population is one step closer to having meaningful access to health care?

Yes, we have a tremendous amount of work to do. That includes creating jobs and pushing the global economy into meaningful (seems to be my favorite word today) recovery whilst reducing our environmental impacts. It certainly won’t happen by shopping alone. Nor will it happen if we just sit at home and moan. If we celebrate small steps, maybe we can summon the will and the wherewithal to take bigger steps.

Maybe 2010 will be a year of meaningful, positive change. But then, I’ve always been a bit of an optimist.

Happy New Year.

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.

I typically count myself among the last-minute shoppers—rushing frantically from store to store; arranging next-day shipping to expedite my online orders; and, finally, wrapping gifts in newspaper late into the night on Christmas Eve.

But, not this year.

No, I’m stopping the madness and buying all of my gifts from the Zingerman’s website. FYI, Zingerman’s is a family of small food-related companies based in Ann Arbor, Michigan.

Sorry, Mom, if I ruined the surprise, but if it’s any consolation, here are a few things you can feel good about:

• Michigan needs us: The unemployment rate—15.1 percent as of October 2009—is higher in Michigan than in any other state. The auto industry is still struggling, despite a massive bailout and recent some signs of life. And Detroit’s Pistons (currently four games behind .500) and Red Wings (also running with the middle of the pack) aren’t lifting many spirits either. Supporting Michigan’s business community seems like the least we can do to help.
• Small business is the backbone of America: while Zingerman’s is hardly a small business anymore, it still feels like and operates like one, serving as a reminder that small, independent businesses need help too to survive in this economic climate.
• Enough with the “green” gifts: there are a number of gift guides on the web touting “green” products this holiday season (see examples here, here, and here). While I appreciate the focus and enthusiasm, I can’t help but think that my family and friends have their essential needs met already. Will more clothing or toys or gadgets make them any happier? Not nearly as much as good chocolate or cheese will!
• Last but not least, an eye toward sustainability: Zingerman’s strategic vision for 2020 focuses on sustainability as it pertains to customers, employees, and the planet at large. What’s not to like? 

That said, the holidays will have come and gone before we all know it, so let me take this fleeting opportunity to wish you a happy and festive holiday season! Oh… and happy shopping!