The real measure of my embracing of sustainability is been in my behavior changes. Two years ago, as my awareness was raised around the amount of garbage I was sending to the landfill, I decided to compost. This has led to a greater degree of recycling and hence much less garbage leaving my home. More recently, this past summer I purchased a Prius to replace my dying Volvo. Soon, my awareness of my gas consumption heightened. Not only was I more conscious of the frequency for filling my tank, but ultimately, it made me much more mindful how often I was driving, and how and when I could reduce those patterns – carpooling, walking (I live in a Neighborhood where everything I need is within a mile), or just staying at home.
Beginning in the late sixties, the conversation of land pollution became topical and we demanded our corporations stop dumping waste in landfills. We also demanded they stop dumping waste in oceans, rivers and lakes. Over the past few years, companies have been pushed to report the Carbon position. If a company has not developed a statement regarding their carbon footprint and divulge a set of goals for reduction, they are truly behind the mark for being a strong corporate citizen and for being a viable and competitive corporation in this modern ago of the 4 R’s of sustainability (renew, reduce, reuse, recycle).
And then there’s the issue of water. When I first saw the documentary film Water at the Gaiam film festival in Boulder last summer, I thought, “Great, one more thing to think about. Other films have entered the market, such as Flow (http://www.flowthefilm.com/) which addresses the huge environmental impact of corporations on our world-wide water supply. This is a MUST see for those wishing to learn more about this issue.
I look at my own company, Mohawk Industries and the tremendous efforts it takes to reduce the amount of water it takes to make a square foot of carpet. In fact, Mohawk succeeded in doing so by 50 percent between 1995 – 2003. During the severe water drought in Georgia last year, Mohawk made an even more conscious effort to create better ways to reuse the water and not draw from local reserves.
It’s our responsibility to take a stronger position with water that’s not just about water pollution (that position should be table stakes to any corporation in business in the world today), but more about ready and available sources. It’s about a desire to reduce our TAKE from the total supply; our responsibility to not draw water from sources which cannot be replenished or taken from communities who have no other source of clean available water and turn around and sell it back to them.
This week in the Wall Street Journal, Alexandra Alter wrote an excellent article about looking at your “Water Footprint.” http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123483638138996305.html#. Like carbon and electricity reduction, water reduction measures can save companies big dollars. Among other case examples, the article spotlights the $26 million annual savings Unilever PLC was able to realize as a result of their water reduction measures from 2001 to 2007.Next week, a consortium of consumer goods manufacturers are meeting in Miami to discuss water tracking and reduction issues.
I’m looking forward to what might result from this “meeting of the minds” and I will continue to write on the topic of Water as it is one that is vital for human – and now, business – survival. In fact, in April of this year, I am hosting an event at the downtown Atlanta W Hotel along with Disney and Brita to address and educate patrons about Water concerns. Meet me there.
Email
Digg
StumbleUpon
Facebook
Buzz Up!
LinkedIn
Recent Comments | 5 Total
March 20, 2009 at 9:56pm by Yassaf Fossa
I think you might want to revisit your water statements concerning the carpet industry. The carpet industry actually had a huge increases in raw materials and energy as their business grew to record levels.
Understanding that water is a huge component in the yarn and carpet dyeing processes, any reduction to the level of 50% would more than likely have been the result of yarn changes. There is no way you could have cut those dyeing processes by 50%. DuPont (Invista today) would probably argue that the increase in solution dyed yarns would have a had a greater impact on the reduction of water at the mill level.
A bigger question is does the manufacturing of solution dyed nylon, from an outside source, use excessive amounts of water that you are not using in your calculations? Considering that both Shaw and Mohawk extrude their own solution dyed nylons, you should be able to find that information.
Go look at your third to last paragraph and especially your last long sentence. That sounds more like a political utopia statement than an environmental one. Especially the issue of "sell it back to them." Since when does the carpet industry sell water back to the municipal water authorities?
The Director of Sustainability for such a large corporation should really have more up-to-date data. There have been a lot of changes in your industry in the past six years.
March 23, 2009 at 4:57pm by Lewis Perkins
Dear Mr. Fossa,
Thank you for your candid response. I always welcome the opportunity to do the deep dive and make sure my information is accurate and not something I have merely repeated from any Industry in a "green washing" manner. Authenticity and honesty are very important to me as a person and what I strive to do with this blog.
Following your comments, I contacted both Mohawk's internal VP of Environmental Services as well as our partners at the Carpet & Rug Institute. http://www.carpet-rug.org/
Both sources confirmed that my statements are accurate. One point of clarity is that the water reductions from 1995 - 2003 are based on total water demand and not intensity. I have also provided you with a link here to the 2008 CRI Sustainability Report. I hope this report can provide some insight.
http://www.carpet-rug.org/carpet-and-rug-industry/sustainability/index.c...
The Industry is certainly not perfect, but we are collectively making improvements daily which move the needle toward lower overall environmental impact.
Additionally, my comments regarding selling back water to municipalities was not in reference to the Carpet Industry but to practices in other industries. You may enjoy watching the documentary FLOW to learn more about this practice. http://www.flowthefilm.com/
Again, thank you for allowing me to reconfirm my statements.
Lewis Perkins
March 23, 2009 at 4:57pm by Lewis Perkins
Dear Mr. Fossa,
Thank you for your candid response. I always welcome the opportunity to do the deep dive and make sure my information is accurate and not something I have merely repeated from any Industry in a "green washing" manner. Authenticity and honesty are very important to me as a person and what I strive to do with this blog.
Following your comments, I contacted both Mohawk's internal VP of Environmental Services as well as our partners at the Carpet & Rug Institute. http://www.carpet-rug.org/
Both sources confirmed that my statements are accurate. One point of clarity is that the water reductions from 1995 - 2003 are based on total water demand and not intensity. I have also provided you with a link here to the 2008 CRI Sustainability Report. I hope this report can provide some insight.
http://www.carpet-rug.org/carpet-and-rug-industry/sustainability/index.c...
The Industry is certainly not perfect, but we are collectively making improvements daily which move the needle toward lower overall environmental impact.
Additionally, my comments regarding selling back water to municipalities was not in reference to the Carpet Industry but to practices in other industries. You may enjoy watching the documentary FLOW to learn more about this practice. http://www.flowthefilm.com/
Again, thank you for allowing me to reconfirm my statements.
Lewis Perkins
March 23, 2009 at 5:00pm by Lewis Perkins
P.S. According to the CRI Sustainability Report, Water Usage from 2005 - 2007 by the Carpet Industry declined by nearly 30%, so you are right, there have been a lot of changes in recent years.
March 29, 2009 at 12:17pm by Yassaf Fossa
Lewis - "Green washing" comes in many forms in your industry. The link to the CRI as well as the statement concerning a 30% decline in water usage between 2005 - 2007, are great examples.
I want to know why your company and industry had such a massive reduction in water? Was it because of new and wonderful technological enhancements, conservations programs, or was it because the number of units (in your case yards) decreased. Go look at that report you mentioned. Did you notice that the actual usage of water per unit has increase in 2007?
Not to change the subject, but the renewable energy claims from your industry would be good material for the local comedy club.
If you really want to do a "deep dive", go find out how the water usage numbers are calculated. Where is the data coming from and more importantly, are you getting all the information? (There are many private companies in your industry.) Are all the companies in your industry looking at the data the same way? What about the imports? Is your industry using the yardage numbers but not the manufacturing statistics? (Good luck getting the data from India and China.) Both Mohawk and Shaw import a lot of rugs from Asia. Are these numbers in the calculations? I would guess the yardage is, but I seriously doubt the environmental impact numbers are.
I am sure your company and others are attempting to make significant environmental strides. It would be financially irresponsible not to look for ways to reduce your cost. While many environmentalist like to claim capitalism is the greatest evil of the world, the reality is only a financially sustainable company can fund sustainable environmental initiatives.
As a passionate environmentalist, I share in you quest to do the right thing. I just want to make sure that what we are doing is the right thing to do. As I stated earlier, "Green Washing" comes in many forms.