Water Footprinting versus Water Life Cycle Analysis

Water is the new environmental issue being discussed by businesses.

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.

Water stewardship surfaces as a top concern among sustainability professionals

Responsible water management has emerged as a leading concern among sustainability managers. 52% of sustainability professionals surveyed already list water stewardship as one of their company’s top 5 responsible business issues, while 99% believe that water concerns will become more of a priority for businesses in the next 5-10 years.

Ethical Corporation’s brand new report, Unlocking the Profit in Water Savings, 2nd Edition, explores how big companies manage water risk – and the business opportunities in doing so.

Many companies have made significant progress in their water management strategies. Since the first edition of this report in 2008, mainly more clear lessons and twice as many solid case studies have surfaced.

Several companies interviewed, such as Rio Tinto, now have ten years of experience to draw from.

Like carbon, the initial approach to water stewardship focuses on reduction. Efficiency and simple monitoring technologies provide quick wins, often realising a return on investment within one year.



Unlike carbon, corporate water management engulfs a host of direct social, economic and environmental risks. Degradation of community access, treatment and sanitation, ecosystems, scarcity and licenses to operate have become realities for many of the sustainability managers interviewed and surveyed.

A company’s water strategy depends on the specific risks and local issues confronting its operations, and determines where to focus its activities.



For more information:

Read about water management strategies from Whitbread, M&S, Unilever, Shell, SAB Miller, Coca-Cola, Molson Coors, Intel, Rio Tinto, and many more. Visit the report web page.

Listen to a podcast on one of our case studies. Toby Webb interviews Andrew Wales about water management at SAB Miller.