Water is attracting the attention of the media, the public, and politicians as the front line of escalating climatic instability. Water as the front line of escalating climate change is capturing the attention of the media, the public, and policymakers. From the aridification of the Southwest United States to the proliferation of floods across Europe and Asia to the staggering 84% decline in freshwater biodiversity globally, water —as the front line of growing climate instability —is capturing the attention of the media, the public, and policymakers.
Against this context, more firms have begun to analyze how water as a crucial resource affects business continuity and brand value during the last decade. They’ve also thought about how it stifles growth. They join a lengthy list of businesses and financial institutions that have long recognized the impact of water concerns on their value chains, production operations, and reputations.
The increased interest in water as a key resource has prompted many businesses to treat water in the same manner, they have approached the climate problem. The issue is that net-zero tactics (and objectives) that work in the context of the Paris agreement do not transition well to water.
Water is not a fungible substance. With scientific rigour, you cannot replace the water in one site with water from another location or water at one time with water from another time without causing ecological and societal repercussions. Water’s spatial and temporal dynamics imply that water does not look the same from one site to the next, unlike a shared, global carbon pool.
“Net” volumetric objectives constrain our common ambition, which is crucial when dealing with water as a shared resource. Companies that strive for “net-zero water” usually achieve these goals through their own (direct) activities ). Given its comparatively low water usage, achieving net-zero within direct operations is generally a low bar to cross. It often represents only a percentage of a company’s water footprint.
Even if a corporation achieves “net-zero” water use, it will not address the health of a watershed and the basin-related risk to supply chains. A “net” perspective on the issue limits our desire to address complicated basin water concerns fundamentally and, as a result, create corporate, ecological, and social benefits.
Net-zero is a goal-setting and reporting idea, not a company model. The origins of a net-zero aim may be traced back to public relations and reporting ESG targets. It is not based on what businesses require to generate long-term value through sustainable, resilient, and flourishing value chains. Water strategies must emerge from the generation of commercial value that also provides value for society and nature rather than through reporting, rating, or ranking criteria. Water is significantly different from carbon as a critical environmental, social, and economic resource.
We need to shift away from target-driven techniques like “net-zero water” and toward approaches based on strategy and impact.
Despite water routinely rating as one of the world’s most significant economic hazards and a commensurate increase in water target-setting, on-the-ground progress and effective action have been gradual. The low cost of water (“noise on a profit and loss statement”), a lack of understanding of the actual business value of water, a lack of transparency and a standard metric for measuring water scarcity, and, ultimately, many people’s decision to frame water as a CSR and ESG reporting issue rather than a corporate strategy issue are all contributing to this lack of urgency.
We feel that it is now and urgently necessary to constructively question the rising use of net-zero as a means to formulate water policy. Given the urgency of climate change’s effects, the growing concerns of social injustice in access to clean drinking water, sanitation, and hygiene, and the freshwater ecosystem collapse we’re seeing, increasing ambition in the correct direction is vital at this time.
Continuing to promote “net zero” as a water strategy diverts attention away from the more substantial and essential structural changes in governance that are required to change our collective water usage trajectory. Businesses will continue to destroy the infrastructure they need to live, much alone prosper, unless we alter course and generate more significant benefits at the basin level –often assessed via the biological integrity of freshwater systems.
Despite water routinely rating as one of the world’s most significant economic hazards and a commensurate increase in water target-setting, on-the-ground progress and effective action have been gradual. This lack of urgency stems from many factors, including the low cost of water (“On a profit and loss statement, there’s a lot of noise.”), a lack of understanding of the actual business value of water, a lack of transparency and a standard metric for measuring water scarcity, and, ultimately, many people’s decision to frame water as a CSR and ESG reporting issue rather than a corporate strategy issue.
We feel that it is now and urgently necessary to constructively question the rising use of net-zero as a means to formulate water policy. Instead of net-zero water plans, we push businesses to adopt water strategies that provide value for businesses, economies, society, and ecosystems. Such policies must be accompanied by transparent monitoring to measure business performance and particular objectives and overall basin status, which includes environmental, ecological, and social consequences.
If we are serious about preserving our freshwater ecosystems, we must rethink our strategy and beyond net-zero promises. While well-intended, the emphasis on net-zero water is not the best path to water resilience and, eventually, water security. The fate of our planet’s freshwater systems may rely on getting this right, so let’s move on from net-zero water to something more significant and influential.
