WWF wrestles with business world in push for greener practices

BusinessGreen.com (BG): Does WWF risk being used as a "greenwash" tool when working with big brands, especially when they pay the organisation for its help?

Dax Lovegrove (DL): Our partnership with Coca-Cola was quite controversial. [In 2007 Coca-Cola paid WWF $20m as part of an agreement to tackle its water footprint]

The way to avoid being used as a kite mark is to publicly commit with a firm to really good targets that make the partnership greenwash proof. Coca-Cola pledged to improve water efficiency 20 per cent by 2012, wants to be water neutral, and is also looking at its sugar sourcing policies. As a result, Pepsi followed suit, setting a target to reduce water consumption by 20 per cent by 2015.

We also work with HSBC on its investment practices, as part of its climate partnership and we benefit from its funds in return, but the programme has a number of significant targets.

BG: You mentioned water targets. There is growing concern about businesses' "water footprint", but how practically can an organisation like WWF help?

DL: Water is a big issue for WWF. We are working on this with the UN CEO mandate [a public-private initiative designed to assist companies in the development of water sustainability policies] and we have set up a water footprinting network group.

India, Pakistan and China are all heavily affected and we have field schools in all these countries which are helping to educate people on the ground. We have managed to save 30 per cent on water use in some areas in these countries with a bit of education and more efficient water irrigation techniques, as well as reducing fertilizer and pesticide use.

Sourcing from water-stressed areas is really bad for that particular environment and you can do a lot less damage running the same operations in water-rich areas. We are lobbying firms now to look at where they locate op erations and focus on how they can avoid contributing to water stress.

BG: But how can you change behaviour, both in terms of water use and more generally?

DL: We really want to see retailers engage more with their supply chains. We are talking to the top 500 retailers globally, the Olams and Carrefours of this world, and they have huge purchasing power and leverage. They have the capacity to change consumer and supplier behaviour.

Rather than trying to change the behaviour of hundreds of thousands of suppliers and millions of consumers, it is much easier to work with a smaller number of more influential players.

A lot of retailers are still focussing solely on their own operations, but we want them to look further up their supply chain: for example at fertiliser use and the management of methane emissions from livestock. There is a strong business case for them to do so, because if they don't understand water risks then they will suffer in the long run. But more and more of them see that the writing is on the wall and they're getting more responsive and collaborative on supply chain issues.

We'd also like to see them focus more on engaging consumers. Retailers are big consumer facing brands and you can not underestimate the consumer leverage they have on environmental issues. Marks & Spencer were on to a good idea with their Plan A, but they hadn't looked at water footprinting, so we encouraged them to do that and they took it on board.

BG: WWF has also been heavily involved in the push for more sustainable forestry, how are you working with businesses to promote sustainable timber?

DL: Timber is a big issue and deforestation accounts for 20 per cent of all carbon emissions. We're encouraging firms to carry the FSC [Forestry Stewardship Council] accreditation, and in places like B&Q you actually get to see the FSC stamp in shops much more, which will help influence consumer behaviour. We're also working with interim producers to help them get FSC certification.

BG: WWF has also been critical of the oil industry recently. How do you marry that with supporting energy firms?

DL: As a result of the recession, many companies have retreated from being "Energy" companies back to being "Oil" companies, in particular Shell has retrenched to just doing liquid fuel.

We want oil companies to move away from this and to work with the power sector and the automotive sector to come up with a joint converged strategy on CCS and electric vehicles and to redeploy skills to connecting offshore wind power.

You have to make the case that this in their long-term interests and also make it clear that government's have a big role to play through legislation.

If you look at the Canadian oil sands projects, for example, they are three times more carbon intensive than conventional oil sites to extract from, while shale oil sites and coal to liquid are eight times more intensive. But we believe the price of oil will settle at around $80 a barrel, so it will still be worth their while financially to do these things, despite the environmental impact.

We need to make it clear that in the long term the business case will change. California has shut down its borders to fuel from oil sands and the EU are looking at doing the same thing. So markets are already closing down for them, and electrification of vehicles is a major threat to their market, which they should embrace rather than ignore.

If we've got a chance of keeping below a two-degree temperature rise we've got to transform our infrastructure. The energy sector are listening to us, but their response is sticking to what they know in times of high financial risk.

BG: You mentioned the role of government. What other policies would you like to see introduced to encourage greener businesses?

DL: Money off hybrids could be more useful than a general scrappage scheme. And we need to encourage innovation with the UK equivalent of a clean tech Silicon Valley, as well as moving towards Thomas Friedman's vision of a smart energy grid – at the moment we've still got huge and inefficient power stations.

In the UK and Europe, we shouldn't rely on the emissions trading scheme - at the moment it seems to pay the polluters. We need tighter caps and 100 per cent auctions, with auction revenues ringfenced for investment in clean tech, which is something we called for with the CBI.

We also need more pressure on companies from government to disclose their carbon emissions.