This weekend’s guest post comes from one of the most passionate and socially-engaged CEOs in corporate America: Jeff Swartz of Timberland. I wrote a chapter about Jeff and Timberland in my 2004 book Faith and Fortune, and the company continues to push the envelope around voluntarism, sustainability and stakeholder engagement. Recently, for example, Timberland announced that it would take steps to ensure that its leather supply chain does not contribute to deforestation of the Amazon rainforest. (They also make cool boots.) Jeff kindly agreed to let me republish this post from Timberland’s Earthkeepers blog. It’s about what happened after he announced that he was banning bottled water from the company–and it’s about more than bottled water.
Two weeks ago, I announced here on Earthkeepers a new ban on bottled water at Timberland headquarters buildings globally. I was psyched about the announcement, even more excited about the action. You know what I’ve learned over the last 2 weeks? It’s really exhilarating to want to run a more sustainable business … but to actually do it is really freaking hard.
Get rid of the bottled water – simple ask, right? How hard could it be? Little did I know. First there’s a supply issue to contend with – our facilities team reports a 4-week supply of bottled water already in house and we don’t want to be wasteful, so can we continue to offer it until the supply runs out? Sure, okay … makes sense. Then the vending machine folks chime in, what about the plastic soda bottles in the vending machines? Are we getting rid of those, too? Wow. Okay, sure. No more plastic bottles in the vending machines. But hold on, says the guy in charge of our dining services – we don’t have nearly enough glasses and cups to accommodate the increased demand from people who would otherwise be drinking bottled water. We’re gonna have to add more dishwashers, or buy more glasses … yikes. All I wanted to do was get rid of the bottled water, now I’m buying new dishwashers? How come it’s never as easy as you think it will be to get something done?
That was the noise from our internal community – but we had a lot of valuable feedback from external folks, too. Many of you rightfully pointed out that the bottled water debate is a lot more complex than I indicated in my previous post, and that it does in fact serve a good purpose – critical, even – in many areas of the world. Chief among the arguments we heard:
- Tap water isn’t a completely “no cost, no effort” option – it costs money and energy to sufficiently treat public water so that it is safe to drink, and more money and energy to deliver it to people and businesses.
- In some instances – in crowded public places, on long trips, when you’re out in the middle of nowhere – it’s not realistic to expect clean, drinkable tap water will be readily available.
All this information made me realize that bottled water is about as hard to understand as it is to get out of our buildings … and also made me glad for the engagement with people who care enough about this issue to share their thoughts (even if their thoughts were, “Jeff you’re being stupid.”).
I have a better appreciation now for when and where bottled water is necessary, and I certainly believe that plastic has its place in the world, for all sorts of good uses. But I hold on to the notion that in the corporate world, where tap water is clean and reuseable containers are (soon to be) plentiful, we can do better than bottled water. And so we forge ahead with our plans to give the bottle the boot from our corporate offices, hopefully in the next few weeks. I’m excited to see idea translate into real impact – however small – despite the few good headaches we endured in the process.
I’m also excited about the real-life Earthkeeping dialogue this project produced; we shared a big idea, you were interested enough to want to talk about it, we came away smarter and more evolved in our thinking. That’s the power of engagement – bigger, better, smarter outcomes. I’m appreciative of the effort from those of you who joined in.
I realize getting rid of bottled water doesn’t negate our environmental footprint as a company (if only …), nor does it solve the climate crisis. But I’m of the mind that taking even one small step in the right direction is better than staying where you are … and that low-hanging fruit is there to be picked.
Now don’t go too far … my To Do list also includes removing all paper products from our headquarters cafeteria, save post-consumer paper napkins. This could get ugly.
Jeff Swartz
President & CEO, Timberland
{ 4 comments… read them below or add one }
Why do you not eliminate all beverages?
“Switching from other beverages to bottled water would yield much more environmental profit than switching from bottled water to tap water”
More importantly, all other beverages use vast amounts of water and energy to produce, while water – even bottled water – does not. It takes water to grow crops, and it takes energy to fertilize, harvest and transport them.
It takes 35 litres of water to produce one cup of tea, and 140 litres of water to produce one cup of coffee. When you add sugar in your coffee or tea, it gets even worse: every teaspoonful of sugar requires 50 cups of water to grow.
A glass of beer takes 75 litres of water to produce, while just one glass of wine asks 120 litres of water. One glass of fruit juice or milk requires 170 to 200 litres of water. A glass of brandy asks 2,400 litres of water.
Producing one litre of bottled water simply requires a litre of water, and no energy. Yes, producing and distributing the water bottles does use water and energy, but the same goes for other beverages.
This means that bottled water is a more ecological choice than all other bottled options: beer, wine, milk, fruit juice or soft drinks. Most likely, drinking bottled water is an even better choice than drinking coffee or tea made with tap water – coffee and tea might weigh less than water, but they are transported over much larger distances.
The only undisputable better choice than bottled water is tap water. Forcing bottled water drinkers to drink tap water would help the environment – but switching from other beverages (none of them essential to human health) to bottled water would yield much more environmental profit.”It is unfair to solely blame water even though it also happens to be distributed via pipes”
Environmental groups always have something to say about the huge (and growing) amounts of bottled water that are being sold, and the huge amount of energy that is needed to transport them. These figures might be accurate, but bottled water holds only a small share of the market for bottled drinks.
The energy needed to transport soft drinks and beer is far more impressive. The main problem here is not bottled water. The main problem is that most people don’t drink water, but prefer soft drinks, fruit juice, coffee, beer or energy drinks instead.
This message, however, is not so popular because most of us like to discuss the environmental problems of this planet over a couple of beers, or wines, or coffees.
Don’t get me wrong. This is not a plea for everyone to start drinking bottled water instead of tap water. Drinking tap water should be encouraged. But people who prefer to drink bottled water should not be treated as pariahs, because they are making a much more ecological choice than those of us who choose to consume other beverages.
Thanks for the article!
Here’s an article I wrote last week interviewing Stephanie Soechtig: ‘Tapped’ Documentary Director (features the bottled water industry)
http://www.gratitudegourmet.com/1/post/2009/08/interview-with-stephanie-soechtig-tapped-director.html
Thanks,
If you want to know how important something is – “Try changing it”.
To reduce paper waste in our cafe we changed over to washable dishes, cups and silverware (yes we had to hire a dishwasher) and we also setup composting where all paper napkins, food waste, and certain food packaging can be composted.
Initiating this change always reveals some previously unknown variables, or unintended consequences. I agree that taking the small steps is important, even if it appears insignificant, because of the effect it has on employees, and their willingness to engage.
I’m already looking forward to the next item on your to-do list, removing all paper products from the company cafeteria. As a 14 year veteran of the fine paper industry (not too much of our stuff is in cafeteria’s except for menus – so I’m not THAT biased), I’ll be interested to observe the science vs. conventional wisdom battle in your mandate. I’ll give one bit of advice – please avoid using outcomes like “We saved X many trees by switching to a non forest fiber product.” This is one of the most overused environmental “savings” that is calculated. Not to mention it isn’t true.
You’re smart to know that “this could get ugly” – because you haven’t even started the mandate and I’m already challenging the outcome. I need to get a life…
Lewis Fix
VP Brand Management and Sustainable Product Development
Domtar Corp