This does not mean that we can manage it in the same way we manage carbon emissions. Why? Well, because water is also a social and political issue.
So, how should companies measure water use, and use the findings to inform business strategy?
One camp supports the adaptation of Life Cycle Assessments (LCAs) to water
LCAs now have a standardised approach to measuring greenhouse gas emissions at the product level.
Advocates of LCA purport that we should not reinvent the wheel, and simply adapt this widely-accepted method to water.
Additional benefits of LCA for water include:
1. Quantifies impact and results in an absolute volume-based figure for which the method is more robust and incontestable
2. Allows stakeholders to benchmark competitors, and compare products irrespective of their industry or location
3. Focuses on direct impact only
4. Benefit from globally accepted method used for carbon that has clear timelines and budget estimates
In the other corner is water footprinting
Proponents for footprinting include organisations such as WWF and the Water Footprint Network.
Benefits of the water footprinting methodology include:
1. More inclusive as it includes direct and indirect water use along the value chain
2. Captures the full impact picture including type of water use, location, timing, temporal and local scarcity dimensions of water
3. Provides basis for local impact assessment and formulation of sustainable water use strategy
Here is an overview of the results of a recent water footprinting exercise, presented by WWF UK's Director of Corporate Partnerships at the 2010 Climate Change Summit.
These methodologies are not mutually exclusive. Hypothetically, a company could measure it's water LCA, and follow-up with a longer-term footprinting in order to place the findings into context, looking throughout the entire supply chain.
Read more about corporate water strategies at www.ethicalcorp.com/water.
No comments:
Post a Comment