In an interview Swart told WaterWideWeb, “Water is one of the main ingredients of beer, accounting for the vast majority of our beer’s overall volume. Crops we purchase from suppliers need water to grow, particularly in those geographical areas with low rainfall. Heineken is conscious of the fact that the company does not operate in isolation with respect to watershed use. Heineken acknowledges that sharing local water resources with other water users comes with responsibilities”.

Efficient use of water and reducing water consumption is essential to the company’s future. Heineken faces various obstacles in its water conservation commitments. The corporation institutes various programs to achieve its goal of becoming an even more sustainable brewer. Please read the complete interview with Swart on Heineken’s water conservation plan.

EAB: What are some of the challenges that Heineken encounters to its sustainability plan?

HS: Water is becoming more scarce globally and every indication is that it will become even more so in the future.  Scarcity is expected to worsen in many parts of the world as a result of increasing population, urbanization, increasing food production, industrialization and changing consumption patterns. At the current rate of urbanization and insufficient investments in water infrastructure, the accessibility to clean water is already critical in some developing countries. Climate change is likely to exacerbate water scarcity and water quality problems due to changing rainfall patterns, severe drought, flooding and sea-level rise.

EAB: How are you working on this?

HS: We will pay special attention to areas where problems of water scarcity and pollution are most critical. We will engage in strategic partnerships and are and will be transparent about measureable targets with respect to water footprint reduction. Exchanging information about water footprints of communities and businesses will help to understand how we can achieve a more sustainable and equitable use of fresh water.

EAB: Are there additional challenges that Heineken faces internally?

HS: Yes, perpetuating water consciousness and integrating water resource management thinking into more than 140 breweries that Heineken operates around the globe.

EAB:  What is the largest use of your water?

HS: In the beer value chain, agriculture is the largest water user. Also the gray water footprint of our facilities is not negligible. The grey water footprint is the volume of polluted water, quantified as the volume of water required to dilute pollutants to such an extent that the quality of the ambient water remains above agreed water quality standards. Clearly, the reduction of the grey water footprint of agriculture is of importance to the Food & Beverages industry.

EAB: How are you working on decreasing the water footprint?

HS: Heineken will create awareness amongst suppliers to reduce their water footprint also. We also distribute a Heineken Supplier Code which outlines our sustainability commitments and the role of suppliers in delivering on those commitments. This Code lists relevant requirements of suppliers in certain areas of the world.

EAB: How does Heineken treat industrial waste water treatment before it is returned back into the environment?

HS:

Wherever we operate, we aim to clean our waste water prior to discharging it back into the environment. We treat industrial waste water at our own waste water treatment plants or through those of the local authorities. In 2010, we began constructing four industrial waste water treatment plants, three in Congo and one in Nigeria.

EAB: How is Heineken responding to these challenges?

HS: Heineken is committed to being an integrated sustainable brewer. The company published its first environmental report in 2000. In April, we launched Brewing a Better Future, our new sustainability ambition for 2020. The Brewing a Better Future program defines six strategic initiatives supported by 23 programs implemented worldwide. Water is one of the key focus areas of this program. Our set target for water reduction is 25% for the next decade.

EAB: Does Heineken partner with other NGO’s and organization on water conservation?

HS: In March 2009 Heineken endorsed the United Nations CEO Water Mandate, a measure to enforce both our sustainability and water management commitment. Heineken is also a member of the Beverage Industry Environmental Roundtable (BIER).

EAB: Can you describe the work of BIER?

HS: BIER is a partnership of leading global beverage companies working together to advance the standing of the beverage industry in the realm of environmental stewardship. The BIER members have developed six leadership principles that compel companies to Act, Engage and Communicate and Influence on matters related to water stewardship. The principles and their respective elements are intended to serve as the sector standard by which all beverage companies can guide and measure their stewardship efforts. The partnership concentrates on benchmarking, best practice sharing on various water management topics and the development of water foot printing sector guidance.

EAB: Does Heineken enlist the support of employees in water conservation efforts?

HS: Sustainability is a company-wide concern. Heineken recognizes the important role employees can play in becoming a more sustainable company. In addition, employers also expect their employees to demonstrate responsible behavior in all facets.

Within the Brewing a Better Future program, engaging employees is one of the strategic initiatives and it is taken seriously. Best practices on water are shared via the Heineken intranet, internal magazines, in our Brewing a Better Future e-room, as a case in the Heineken NV Sustainability Report and through workshops.

EAB: Sounds like you have a comprehensive water conservation strategy. Thank you for taking time to interview with WaterWideWeb.org

HS: You’re Welcome.

The photo above was provided by Heineken.

If you enjoyed this article, you might also enjoy:

Anheuser-Busch: Brewing a Beerable Future

Coca-Cola Company: Sustainable Communities

Are You More Socially Responsible than an 8th Grader?

Giving the Gift of Clean Water This Holiday Season

The future of Coca-Cola products could be compromised if water use isn’t carefully monitored by the corporation. Estimates indicate that two-thirds of the world population will live with moderate to severe water shortages by the year 2025.

How is the Coca-Cola Company controlling the water variable in their future profit equation? Are there sustainable development practices in place to ensure that Coca-Cola products will still line grocery shelves by the year 2025?

This week, Lisa Manley, Director of Environmental Communications for Coca-Cola, attended the United Nations Global Compact CEO Water Mandate Conference in Cape Town, South Africa. In a telephone interview Manley told WaterWideWeb, “At this past meeting in Cape town, we focused much of our conversation around public policy, the human right to water, and water disclosure”.

This week, the CEO Water Mandate released a Guide to Responsible Business Engagement with Water Policy. The CEO Water Mandate also shared a working document on Emerging Corporate Practice and Stakeholder Expectations with the Human Right to Water.

As an endorsee of the CEO Water Mandate, the Coca-Cola Company adheres to the six elements of the mandate with respect to corporate policy on water efficiency practices. The Mandate elements include direct operations, supply chain management, wastershed/catchment and community engagement, collective action, public policy advocacy and transparency.

The international partnerships coordinated by the CEO Water Mandate provide a forum where companies can share best practices and discuss the trials and triumphs each encountered with respect to the six elements of the CEO Water Mandate. “If the communities we serve are not sustainable, than we don’t have a sustainable business”, said Manley.

To meet rising challenges presented by water concerns, the Coca-Cola Company has established several guidelines to achieve the company’s global water stewardship goal.

Proper industrial waste water management practices are a chief commitment of the Coca-Cola Company. Currently, 97 percent of the company’s manufactured wastewater is treated before being released back in to the environment.

By the end of 2010, the Coca-Cola Company hopes to have 100 percent of their manufacturing waste water effectively treated before being discharged into the environment.

The current standard of 97 percent treated industrial wastewater discharge and the 100 percent goal of the Coca-Cola Company, contrasts sharply with the statistics of industrial wastewater discharge that occurs in the developing world. Shockingly, 70 percent of untreated industrial wastewater is released back into the environment in developing countries.

The Coca-Cola Company operates on a reduction, recycle, and replenishment framework with respect to corporate water use. Firstly, the company endeavors to reduce water use while increasing the water volume of beverages produced.

Secondly, the company works toward recycling water and carefully processing wastewater before it is discharged back into the environment.

Thirdly, the Coca-Cola Company replenishes water in local communities and the environment through maintenance of watersheds and community water programs. By 2012, the Coca-Cola Company hopes to improve their water use efficiency by 20 percent. To date, the company has witnessed an improvement in water efficency over the past seven consecutive years.

Thus far, Coca-Cola has invested in 250 water projects in 70 countries. These projects include watershed protection, rain water harvesting, and efficient use of agricultural water.

Later this month, the Coca-Cola Company will release their 2009 Sustainability Review. “Data provided in this review will be verified by a third party”, assured Manley. Through strategic partnerships with the World Wildlife Foundation, the Nature Conservancy, and the Global Environmental & Technology Foundation, the Coca-Cola Company has quantified the benefit of their replenishment efforts, and the Water Footprint of their production process.

Major corporations like the Coca-Cola Company are held accountable to a significant standard of corporate stewardship and social responsibility. Mass production of beverages and agricultural products should be carefully monitored to ensure that the entire manufacturing process from planting the sugarcane to pouring the first glass of Coca-Cola is sustainable.

In the case of the Coca-Cola Company, their cost-benefit analysis with respect to water management is moderated by the company’s global water stewardship. In a world where the population is growing and the natural resources are diminishing, the active participation of large corporations in water management is essential to securing an environmentally stable future for everyone.

If you liked this article, you should also read:

The Starbucks Venti Plan for Saving Water

The Diplomacy of Water: The U.S & The Water for the Poor Act

The Politics of Water in Australia

Tour Responsibly: Expanding Profits and Protecting Coral Reefs

Colombia and Waste Water Management

On their official website, the company portrays the activity of growing orange trees similar to the one of taking care of wine vineyards where every plant is treated with particular attention and extra care. It seems that the orange trees are planted by hand, as members of the staff carefully pick the seedlings to plan in a particular soil mixture that includes coconuts. When the young plan is ready, it gets moved to the orange grove. According to various production steps described on the website, after being harvested the oranges are pressed within 24 hours in order to guarantee a total freshness.

As part of their commitment towards the environment, the famous brand reminds us that the cartons containers for their juice are recyclable since there are mostly made out of cardboard. In order to keep the juice fresh while preventing leak during the distribution, the cartons are reinforced by a low-density polyethylene, called EVOH that can easily be separated during the recycling process. In addition, according to their website, the cardboards are “cutt-off bits of trees that have been forested for timber and would otherwise go to waste” (Source: http://www.tropicana.co.uk/). Despite rendering a green attitude easy to put into action, the brand realizes that there is still a serious problem when it comes to actually recycling their juice cartons.  On their website, Tropicana explains that “ in the UK, only around 1% of beverage cartons are currently recycled, compared to around 305 in Europe. “ (Source: http://www.tropicana.co.uk/). These deceiving statistics are largely due to the lack of recycling facilities. Consequently, the company collaborates with their carton manufacturers and the Alliance for Beverage Cartons and the Environment UK in order to augment the number of recycling facilities available for consumers.

In addition to this initiative, Tropicana decided to get involved in order to preserve the rainforest in partnership with Cool Earth, a charity that works with local communities to fight against the severe consequences of climate change. Specially marked packages of Tropicana products will have a special code to be entered online at www.tropicanaforest.com and “for each code entered 100 square feet of rainforest will be saved” (Source: http://www.csrwire.com/press_releases/13529-Tropicana-Teams-Up-With-Cool-Earth-for-Rescue-The-Rainforest-Campaign). In collaboration with Google Maps, customers that become a part of the initiative can watch the area of rainforest that is being saved thanks to Cool Earth. Its staff is directly involve working hands with the local communities in order to make them understand why it is so important for them to become guardians of this important resource.  Even more, Cool Earth is trying to make the communities the legal custodians of this coveted land. Through the use of satellites the rainforest is monitored in order to be safeguarded and controlled from any illegal intruders.

Rainforest are the home to a vast quantity of animal species and plants that risk to become endangered as the rainforest is rapidly getting butchered. In addition to preserving the equilibrium of these various ecosystems, the rainforest is also a precious source of oxygen for our earth. Tropicana is famous for marketing a fresh and pure orange juice while it also trying to make the world know about its social initiatives. Saving the rainforest is just a small step towards a greater change.

Plastic bottles are made from oil, a nonrenewable source and in most cases these bottles are not recycled and are vulgarly thrown in landfill where they can take more than two hundred years to decompose.  Alternative technologies such as bioplastics like Polylactic acid (PLA), a or polyhydroxyalkanoates (PHA), yet the problem is that these new technologies are too costly and are often too slow to decompose. Martin Myerscough, an English inventor and engineer, has come up with a much greener and efficient solution in order to replace milk plastic bottles: a milk bottle that is made from paper, also known as the GreenBottle. “The outer shell is made from paper which can then be recycled, or if left it will just decompose within a matter of weeks. The inner liner, which takes up less than 0.5% of the space of a plastic bottle if dumped in a landfill, prevents liquid from contaminating the paper outer” (Source: http://www.greenbottle.com/about-us/ ). Myersough claims to have had this brilliant idea after his son came home from school one day with a papier-mâché  balloon. He constructed the milk bottle with on outer shell made of recycled paper and implemented a plastic bag to hold the milk. The plastic bag is meant to be recycled and in case it isn’t it still has less plastic than your average plastic bottle, in addition to also holding up less space. The outer shell made out of recycled paper can be recycled once again. The plastic bag needs to be seperated from the bottled in order to be recycled properly. “The manufacturers claim that it has a carbon footprint 48 per cent lower than that of a plastic milk jug” (Source: http://www.greenbottle.com/documents/news/the_times.pdf). This is a simple alternative that every citizen should put into practice to lower their daily water footprint. Retailers and businesses all over Europe have been pressured by the European Union and the Department for Environment, food and rural affairs in order to diminish packaging and therefore the quantity of waste that is produced.  The first 50 bottles put on the shelves of a Lowestoft store where sold in one hour on their first day in the store.  Customers all over the world have an increased awareness to environmental issues and the numerous damages caused by plastic bottles. The GreenBottle alternative works because it is a simple alternative that isn’t forcing customers to comply with many compromises or switching costs. Indeed, after having reached an agreement with Asda (british supermarket chain retailer), for Lowestoft stores, to sell the milk paper bottles at the same price as conventional bottles. Even the cardboard bottles cost “around 30% more to produce than plastic bottles, Mr Myerscough believes the price will even out when they get to higher production runs” (Source: http://www.greenbottle.com/documents/news/independent.pdf ). If this new paper milk bottle is as popular as they hope, Asda is hoping to launch them nationwide “in an attempt to cut the three-million tons of plastic that is thrown away in the UK annually” (Source: http://www.greenbottle.com/documents/news/independent.pdf).

The GreenBottle is a long-term sustainable green alternative that will hopefully spread all over Europe and eventually in the United States. This is a simple alternative in order to large quantity of un-recycled plastic bottles. The bottle has been designed in a simple way in order to be torn apart so that you can easily and quickly separate the paper to be recycled and quickly place it in the bin. This environmental friendly milk bottle is compostable and biodegradable and the hope for the future is that such similar invention should be applied to water bottles and all other sorts of plastic containers.

Since 2004, Coca-Cola’s bottling plant in Plachimada, India, remains closed down as a consequence of a community protest campaign organized in order to denounce the company’s abuse of water resources.  A High Power Committee put in place by the state government of Kerala, India, has “recommended” on march 22, 2010, that Coca-Cola should be held responsible for the damages caused and liable for 48 million US$ “for damages caused as a result of the company’s bottling operations in Plachimada” (Source: http://www.indiaresource.org/news/2010/1003.html ). Activist groups and environmentalists that have always tried to challenge and denounce Coca-Cola’s actions in that region were pleased about the recommendations. According to the Committee, the company is responsible for a series of damages and that they must pay compensations for “the agricultural losses, health problems, loss of wages, loss of education opportunities and the pollution caused to the water resources” (Source: http://www.indiaresource.org/news/2010/1003.html ).  The official report explains that HCBPL (Hindustan Coca-Cola Beverages Private Limited), a subsidiary of the Atlanta based Coca-Cola firm has created serious depletion of the local water resources contaminating the water and soil of the region.  The report declares that Coke should be hold criminally responsible for its “reckless actions” in the region. It is yet too early to be able to tell if an actual legal initiative against the soft drink giant. Paradoxically, while Coca-Cola is indirectly responsible for polluting water in India; according to the firm’s website, Coca-Cola declares its commitment to give back to the community the amount of potable water equivalent to what they spent on their production plants. While they are trying to apply principles of corporate social responsibility on one side, the company seems to neglected ethical values drastically in other conditions. Perhaps, the situation in Plachimada was a mere incident, or perhaps the company’s corporate social responsibility is a witty marketing strategy. While it is hard to judge a firm based on a single case, the accident in India is not a one-time isolated event, and it is plausible to think that the previous episodes were not simple “accidents”.  Another controversy around the Coca-Cola brand and its bottling plant in India occurred on June the 27^th, 2010 where three workers were killed after the explosion of a boiler.

The Indian controversy surrounding Coca-Cola continues with the death of three workers and five other injured that were working at a Coca-Cola bottling plant in Khurda. The individuals were doing regular cleaning activities when the boiler exploded. Once again, just as in the previous case, the bottling plan is operated by HCBPL a substitute of the Atlanta based Coca-Cola Company. According to local media and groups, “the boiler was “old” and a new boiler was undergoing tests before it was to replace the boiler” (Source: http://www.indiaresource.org/news/2010/1033.html ).  The three people that died were not permanent employees of the soft drink giant industry; they were working under temporary contract, working for the summer period. It appears that this explosion could have been avoided and indeed, the police arrested three individuals from the bottling plant who were responsible of the maintenance operations. The contract workers that tragically lost their lives in the incident were paid minimum wage, a salary that ranks between $ 1.90 and $ 2.75. The police arrested the supervisors of the plant and the state has initiated a process of investigations.

While the company promises its commitment towards clean water sources and the respect of the local environment, communities in India are organizing fervent campaigns in order to denounce the fact that Coca-Cola has “destroyed their water resources through over extraction of water and pollution” (Source: http://www.indiaresource.org/news/2010/1003.html). Consumers need to keep their eyes open and try to behave in a responsible manner, by trying to be objectively informed on the positive and negative aspects of a company. One cannot be blissfully blinded by a green and social-friendly campaign done by giant corporations without truly looking more deeply into the matter. Assuming that any long-term sustainable initiative, if truely serious, over time should be celebrated and supported. The critical attitude toward a firm should take into account the overall level of impact from all possible points of view.

In addition to Pepsi’s corporate initiative, the firm has launched an innovative marketing strategy entitled “The Dream Machine”. “This machine is not a simple recycling bin but a dream machine”, says the company, because it do not only recycle but also try to improve the life of individuals  (Source: http://www.facebook.com/dreammachine). In partnership with Waste Management Inc.,this giant corporation has launched dream machine kiosks in various parts of America that work on a reward system that gives consumers the opportunity to collect points for their recycling activities.”The program also intends to provide funding to the Entrepreneurship Bootcamp for Veterans with Disabilities (EBV), a national program offering free, experiential training in entrepreneurship and small business management to post-9/11 veterans with disabilities” (Source:http://pepsico.presslift.com/the-pepsico-dream-machine). The more American citizens recycle the more Pepsi will directly contributed to the Bootcamp for Veterans with Disabilities. Recycling takes a turn and becomes not only saving the plant but helping out people who need it. The intiative is also promoted on You Tube.

The long term sustainable Pepsi Refresh Project gives the possibility to all American citizens to propose a development idea online that can range into a different set of categories: health, arts and culture, food and shelter, the planet, neighborhoods and finally, education. Pepsi accepts the submission of a thousand ideas eve months and 32 potential Pepsi grants are awarded to the most voted ideas. The winner projects have the opportunity to receive a grant that ranges from $5k up to $250k. Various projects all across America have already been approved and funded like the “Enrich the lives of individuals with disabilities through the arts”, a project that was granted $50k or the “Save animals from euthanasia in Midland Michigan” project that was award $5k. Each winner project has a follow up on the Pepsi website with a section reserved to how the grant is being spent. It is a shame that this initiative is reserved only to American citizens because it is obvious that a lot of other country of the world would have a lot of valid and much-needed projects to propose.  The website has recently created a special section called “Do Good for the Gulf” (Source: http://gulf.refresheverything.com/) where people can send their ideas or contributed to raise money in order to help the clean-up procedures and the safeguarding of all the water animals. According to the firm, a small change like implementing the cultural habit of recycling all cans, could implement a considerable change on the national scale.

On the water front, PepsiCo has dedicated a special section to water recycling in its annual environmental report. The company has three main goals in terms of water conservation:” improve their water use efficiency by 20 percent per unit of production by 2015, strive for positive water balance in our operations in water-distressed areas and finally provide access to safe water to three million people in developing countries by 2015″ ( Source: http://pepsico.com/annual09/environmental_sustainability.html). This corporate sustainability strategy is a wise marketing strategy in order to increase the brand equity and could perhaps also be a way to cover the various controversies that have been around PepsiCo and its many brands like its bottled water brand Aquafina. This article present you a general overview of the controversy in order to inform you in the most objective manner all the facets of this world-know brand.

The bottle’s logo is composed of a blue label with a mountain scenery and the slogan: “Pure Refreshment”. This image marketed by Acquafina gives somewhat the wrong impression to many busy customers who are convinced they are buying “pure” water that is sourced from the mountain spring. In 2007, Pepsi-Cola had to publicly announce that the labels of the Aquafina bottles will be changed in order to clearly indicate that their water does not come from a mountain source but is instead purified and treated tap water. This news cause a lot of stir amongst customers and environmentalist groups that are already anti-plastic water bottles. The bottles were labeled : “Bottled at the source P.W.S  and only last year Americans have spent about $2.17 billion on Aquafina” (Source: http://money.cnn.com/2007/07/27/news/companies/pepsi_coke/). Spending such a considerable amount of money to drink tap water and waste a ridiculous quantity of water could have been avoided by a major transparency politics on the side of Acquafina. According to NaturalNews.com, “PepsiCo only agreed to tell the truth on their bottled water labels after being pressured by Corporate Accountability International (CAI), a non-profit organization that helps protect consumers from cooperate abuse” (Source: http://www.naturalnews.com/021962.html). The CAI gathered and instigated customers from all over the world in order to voice their complains directly to PepsiCo that later decided to add the phrase : “public water source” to the label. For many, this is still not clear and explicative enough since it could imply that Acquafina in itself is a public water source. This controversy helped to shade the light on other giant cooperation that were doing exactly the same thing. “Coca-Cola does not have plans to change the labeling on its Dasani brand bottled water, despite the fact the water also comes from a public water supply” (Souce: http://money.cnn.com/2007/07/27/news/companies/pepsi_coke/).

Despite all, Aquafina and Pepsi both are fervent believers in cooperate social responsibility based on the eco-green attitude they promote on their website. Aquafina’s link A refreshed commitment gives simple tips to costumers on how to conserve water while publicizing their new plastic water bottle that uses 35% less plastic than the one from 8 years ago. (Source: http://www.aquafina.com/). Any giant cooperation has a greener side and a darker side that is more business oriented. Giant firms are not charities and are obviously not expected to work for the good of the world.  The fact that they are under the constant scrutiny of public opinion and the media, it forces them to adopt more long- term sustainable behaviors.

The successful campaign seems to have conquered even coffee’s number one admirer and toughest critique: Italy. Perhaps, it is the company’s innovative marketing strategy with a special addition of an independent sustainable and environmental initiative that has the difference.

In 2009, the Rainforest Alliance, an agency that works to provide socially responsible alternatives to businesses and consumers, announced a new collaboration with Nestle Nespresso that they called “Ecolaboratrion”. This project has managed to consolidate and gave added value to Nespresso’s platform for sustainable development  (Portal: http://www.ecolaboration.com/#/aaa/en). According to their website, the Rainforest Alliance “promotes standards for sustainability that conserve wildlife and lands and ensure the well-being of workers and their communities” (Source: http://www.rainforest-alliance.org/about.cfm?id=mission). The farms that meet Rainforest Alliance’s set of criteria are given the right to use the Rainforest Alliance Certified seal in order to give their products an additional value on the market. Richard Girardot, CEO of the Nestlé has declared that the company wants “ to share value with farmers who grow these highly prized coffees. Their quality of life, environmental quality and quality in the cup are equally interlined” (Source: http://blog.natureair.com/index.php/tag/nespresso/). From a business perspective  this strategy is clever insofar it enhances the reputation and value of the brand. Yet, it is in inevitable to wonder if this sustainable development project remains only a one way project.  When looking at Nespresso’s website, the Ecolaboration project seems to be  mostly written   from a “western coporate perspective”: there is no way to find out based on what criterias, Nespresso has established its agenda setting for sustainable projects. In order to be successful and long-term oriented, Sustainability program need to be developed from the perspective of the target and promoted in the local language. From the Nespresso website, the point of view of local population in South America or Africa are lacking; in good faith we hope it is just a problem of major transparency on their website.

This partnership between Nespresso and the Rainforest Alliance is an attempt at uniting environmental commitment to cooperate interests in order to achieve long-term sustainable results. According to Michael Porter, member of the Nestlé Creating Shared Value Advisory Board, ” Nespresso’s innovative program, which helps farmers achieve higher prices, better yields, and greater environmental performance and sustainability, is not driven by charity but by creating value” (Source: http://www.creatingsharedvalue.org/post/2009/11/20/Nespresso-shares-new-insights-on-coffee-farm-economics.aspx).

At a time when global warming simply cannot be ignored, cooperation’s financial interest becomes automatically dependent of its relationship towards environmental issues. Nespresso isn’t trying to fool anyone by pretending it is a charity; for the firm, investing time and resources for environmental-friendly social development is a long-term asset that provides an added value to the company. When choosing between two similar concurring products, it appears that customers often resolve the dilemma by prefering the company with a green and eco-friendly mindset. Harvard Business School Professor Michael Porter confirms that “there is a long-term synergy between social and economic practices, a concept he calls shared value” (Source: http://www.rainforest-alliance.org/blog/entry.cfm?number=91). According to him, sustainability becomes a win-win situation for both the foreign company and the local population. As the living quality of the local population improves, their attitude towards “the colonial western company” improves and which directly impacts on the quality of their work. When Nespresso initially launched, environmentalists “criticized the system as they argued the aluminium coffee capsules generated too much waste” (Source: http://www.swissinfo.ch/eng/business/Nespresso_drinks_to_20_years.html?cid=5583848 ). Since then, it seems that the company paid attention to its critiques and started recycling their capsules. Indeed, Nespresso launched a brand new initiative in order to market and sell recyclable capsules. Based on the data, by 2013 Nespresso will have put systems in place to triple their capacity to recycle used capsules to 75%. In order to find out the closest colleting point near go on the official website of their ecological portal” (Source: http://www.ecolaboration.com/#/aaa/en/capsules/recycling).

Nespresso’s partnership with the Rainforest Alliance is a clever alliance that is benefiting both the world-know corporation and the environmentalist friendly group. By working closely together the two actors acquire a better understanding of the other’s perspective. The name of the portal “Ecolaboration” is self-explanatory insofar it highlights the importance of a collaboration, a two way strand communication in order to be able to successfully adopt a plan that is profitable both from a business perspective and from an environmental long-term conservative view. Based on their website, Nespresso is a strong believer that on the long run, environmental development and conservation, are an must-have extra asset for a successful corporation.

Through the Coca-Cola Africa Foundation (Source: http://www.thecoca-colacompany.com/citizenship/foundation_local.html), Coca Cola is working with existing charities to help address Africa’s water situation. “Coca-Cola’s RAIN (Replenish Africa Initiative) project has committed US$30million (£19.5million) to provide schools and communities throughout Africa with safe drinking water. So far, the project has reached 300,000 people in 19 different countries, and over the next six years we expect to give a total of at least two million people access to clean water.” (Source: http://www.coca-cola.co.uk/community/replenishing-africa-during-the-world-cup.html).

For the  2010 FIFA World Cup™,  Coca-Cola is using the occasion to raise funds for RAIN’s

“Water for Schools”  project, including a pledge to donate money every time a player scores a goal. The “Water for Schools” is aimed at providing access to clean water for African Communities.

Coca-Cola has also joined forces with Thames21, London’s leading waterways charity (source: http://www.thames21.org.uk/) to mark the World Water Day 2010 and give employees a chance to improve local environment and community. “A loophole in London’s city regulations means that local councils are not responsible for rubbish on the Thames shoreline, so Thames21 was set up to motivate people to get together and muck in to clean up the riverside. Coca-Cola has been involved with the charity since 2008, helping to preserve the natural beauty of the landscape and create new habitats for wildlife at various sessions during the year.” (Source: http://www.coca-cola.co.uk/environment/thames-21-river-clean-up.html)

According to its website, Coca-Cola is improving its social commitment by helping to improve the communities they serve. Working with  charitable associations gives an added value to the Company and makes consumers  aware that it sees itself beyond just selling beverages worldwide. The London charity works with over 8,000 volunteers each year to remove more than three million liters of litter from London’s waterways. “This is the equivalent of more than 27,000 wheelie bins full of litter” says the river program manager at Thames21. Yet, a smart and realistic consumer that doesn’t live in wonderland, will probably be able to hint at the fact that corporate social responsibility has become a “must” for any company’s marketing strategy.

The Company wants to improve its transparency by providing a tool on the website to see where the can or bottle we drink from is made. (Source: http://www.coca-cola.co.uk/environment/carbon-footprint-calculator-coca-cola.html)

Coca-Cola’s environmental commitments are focused on  areas like water stewardship, sustainable packaging, energy management and climate protection. On  May  14, 2009, it  unveiled a new plastic bottle made partially from plants. “Our goal is to safely return to communities and nature an amount of water equivalent to what we use in all of our beverages and their production. Our goal is to advance a packaging framework in which our packaging is no longer seen as waste, but as a valuable resource for future use, introducing the next step in our sustainability journey”. The “PlantBottle™” is fully recyclable, has a lower reliance on non-renewable resources, and reduces carbon emissions, compared with petroleum-based PET plastic bottles. (Source:www.coca-cola.co.uk/…/live-positively-sustainability.html)

The Company publishes a report on its website to communicate its commitment to sustainability. According to the data from 2007-2008 report ” improvement on the Water Use Total of 4% related to 2006; the Company asserts that it is because of organic growth and acquisition. The water use ratio (efficiency) presents an improvement of 2% related to 2006″ (Source:http://www.thecoca-colacompany.com/citizenship/pdf/SR07_Enviro_33_46.pdf).

While business remains still business on the negative side, this world-know company has been accused of “leaving farms parched and land poisoned in India” ( Source: http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2003/jul/25/water.india). Mass media has accused the company of leaving farmers desperatly hanging after having drained the water that feeds their wells. Coca Cola’s huge demand for water has left the entire village with a situation of water scarcity. Moreover, according to this article, the company has been accused of dumping all its waste on the lands and poising the harvest and all agricultural soils. In response to this situation Coca Cola has declared that the drought his caused by the lack of rainfall and that complains were nourished and mostly presented by extremists protest groups.

The situation in India doesn’t take away any credit from the positive initiative Coca Cola has undertaken for Africa during the World Cup. Yet, it is important for all you readers to keep in mind that  corporations are not NGO’s or charities and their main interest is almost always to keep their profits and reputation high. This comment is not intended to discredit this project but is simply a way to provide a more complete view of the picture.

Coca Cola is making a very clear case for social consciousness. When a company of this stature takes a stand, it is safe to assume that at the end of the day, what is good for the planet can also become something positive for the company’s reputation and therefore for its business.

The way companies address their use of freshwater and their impact on water systems is one of the aspects of sustainable business performance. It is important to highlight that public pressure has been the most important reason motivating private initiatives for sustainable business performance and has become an important development in business over the last twenty years. Initially, regulatory compliance and fear of legal liability were the main reasons for defining sustainability principles; today, many multinationals recognize that proactive management contributes to their profitability and competitiveness in the market.

In general, large, high-profile companies are under considerable pressure to improve their performance. Notwithstanding, the need to be environmentally responsive is very clear as can be seen in the case of the  multinational oil companies. (ref: BP latest news –ex 20Billion set aside for Louisiana clean up) . ). The sustainability concept is usually determined by three components: social, economic, and environmental.

The efficient use of freshwater and control of pollution is often part of the sustainability issues needing to be addressed by businesses. In the last ten years, some initiatives included the creation of the World Business Council for Sustainable Development (WBCSD, 1997) and the Global Reporting Initiative (GRI, 2000), the development of standards for environmental management systems, such as ISO and EMAS standards (OECD, 2001), the development of Key Environmental Indicators (OECD, 2001) and the introduction of the Global Water Tool (WBCSD, 2007)

The American Marketing Association (AMA) and Fleishman‐Hillard conducted a survey in 2009 to better understand perceptions about corporate responsibility in issues of sustainability. The survey included interviewees primarily in marketing positions, as well as people who are working in public relations, advertising, sales, operations and administrative positions. More than half of those interviewed say that their organizations will maintain or increase their involvement in sustainability in the next 12 months. One‐fifth of those surveyed feel that their organizations had already put considerable effort and resources behind sustainable development, while 58% say that their organizations will place greater emphasis on sustainable initiatives in the next two to three years. Of those surveyed, only 33% cite little or no anticipated change or emphasis in their sustainability programs in the months ahead. Interviewees believe that their organizations’ commitments to sustainability are important not only to support the dynamic function of the natural world in positive ways, but also to create business success through increased cost and production efficiencies, enhanced brand image and relationships with stakeholders and competitive differentiation.

To support this expectation, and to communicate clearly and openly about sustainability, a globally shared framework of concepts, consistent language, and metrics is required. The Global Reporting Initiative (GRI), for example, provides a framework for sustainability reporting that can be used by organizations of any size, sector, or location. It is the practice of measuring, disclosing, and being accountable to internal and external stakeholders for organizational performance towards the goal of sustainable development; the sustainable report should provide a balanced and reasonable representation of the sustainability performance of a reporting organization – including both positive and negative contributions.

Business water accounting is often part of the sustainable corporate performance accounting of a company. Companies publish their sustainability report and social initiatives to communicate their engagement in social matters. In many instances, there is a section dedicated in their website to show the commitment to sustainable quality.