Saving Water while Doing Business: Corporate Agenda-Setting and Water Sustainability

Abstract

Organic and fair trade campaigns bring water sustainability onto public agendas, such as for example in the cotton/textile sector. Armedangels, a German company, advertises its t-shirts by arguing that their production requires only 1/10th of the water required in conventional production. This article studies the ambitions of such corporate agenda-setters. Methodologically, we develop a framework that contains six criteria and nine indicators, which allow us to code and assess the certification standards. In addition, we conducted semi-structured interviews, group discussions, and participatory observations in order to better understand whose agendas certification is promulgating. The criteria encompass the social and environmental dimensions of water sustainability. Our cases include Naturland (a private organic standard), the European Union (EU) Organic Regulation (a public organic standard), the Fairtrade Labeling Organization (FLO) (a fair trade initiative), and the Fair for Life (FFL) standard (an organic and fair trade standard). Our study also looks at the Better Cotton Initiative (BCI) and Cotton made in Africa (CmiA), which are two multi-stakeholder initiatives that operate on the conventional market in cooperation with non-governmental organizations (NGOs). The findings demonstrate that organic and fair trade companies rightly present themselves as water policy entrepreneurs. However, crucial aspects of water sustainability remain hidden. In particular, there is a cleavage between the environmental agendas of organic movements and NGOs that are represented in certification and the urgent social water problems in the Global South.

Attention and Water Governance: An Agenda-Setting Perspective

“…Interestingly, this study finds that political parties have indeed reacted to the agenda-setting efforts of the promoters of the Right2Water initiative. Kemper and Partzsch [45] provide complementary insights as they focus on the reactions of companies to the placement of sustainability issues on the discussion agenda. In the future, this research line can be developed further by paying more attention to the interaction between public and private actors in response to agenda-setting processes.…”

“…For example, the German company Armedangels advertises its cotton textiles by arguing that their production requires only 10% of the water required in conventional production. Kemper and Partzsch [45] studied the ambitions of such corporate agenda-setters and assessed six international certification standards by focusing on the social and environmental dimensions of water sustainability, including Naturland, the European Union Organic Regulation, the Fairtrade Labeling Organization, the Fair for Life standard, the Better Cotton Initiative, and the Cotton made in Africa standard. The results indicate that the schemes have different aspects of water governance on their agendas.…”

Corporate Social Responsibility Influencing Sustainability within the Fashion Industry. A Systematic Review

“…In addition, focus was placed on building a framework for sustainability and developing a roadmap for the main elements of sustainability, i.e., environmental, social, and economic factors [124,[127][128][129][130][131]. Several studies focused on the production and the design process and aimed to conclude if certification related to responsible conduct results in improvements, or greater responsibility in selecting production methods that benefit ecosystems [132][133][134].…”

Impact of Scientific Scrutiny after the 2016 Braunsbach Flash Flood on Flood-Risk Management in the State of Baden-Württemberg, Germany

“…In summary, studies of post-disaster collaborations should pay attention to (1) the diversity of a group, (2) the deliberation within a group, (3) the balance of power in a group, (4) the polycentricity of the group, (5) the ground rules that guide the group, (6) the group's reliance on a facilitator, (7) the meeting formats used, (8) the group's commitment to finding a consensus, (9) whether the group has a history of collaboration, and (10) the nature of the risk [33].…”