eppur-si-muove:

Let’s face it.

Bottled water is a huge money maker for leading national (and global) beverage distributors. The most recent figures show that bottled water is a +$10 billion industry in the U.S. alone.

With the exploding demand for bottled waters over the last few years, several companies have realized opportunities for more efficient package designs. Ultimately, the benefits of investing research in this area yields stronger margins thanks to improved materials management- but more importantly, beverage companies see this as a huge opportunity to position their products as being “environmentally friendly.”

Indisputably, bottled water is one of those product categories that falls into gray area of social responsibility.

The Price We Pay

Although global consumption of bottled water reached 164.5 billion liters in 2005, the United States still represented the world’s largest consumer (28.7 billion liters). In most industrial countries, people drink bottled water for the “better taste”, convenience, or simply as a substitute for other beverages. Consumers in developing countries, on the other hand, use bottled water more out of necessity than anything else. Faced with water scarcity and municipal water contamination, developing countries don’t “enjoy” the luxury of having the options that we have.

Whether we choose to consume bottled water out of convenience or necessity, the price we pay for bottled water is staggering. A 2005 study indicated that bottled water can cost anywhere between 204 to 10,000 times as much as tap water for similar quality and volume. Not surprisingly, the consumer rarely pays much for the water itself, but rather for the costs of production, packaging, transportation, and marketing.

Again, not surprisingly, the health claims of bottled water manufacturers are sometimes quite misleading. Outside of brand-specific claims of water purity, a national study of 103 brands of bottled water (performed by the Natural Resources Defense Council) found that bottled water isn’t necessarily safer than tap water.

The NRDC study highlights one particular regulatory loophole that falls under the attention of microbial contaminants. For example, although the Environmental Protection Administration does not allow fecal coliforms in city tap water, the U.S. Food and Drug Admnistration does allow limited levels of fecal coliforms in bottled water. Furthermore, in the event that water contaminants are found to exceed FDA safety standards, bottled water may still be sold if labeled as “containing excessive chemical substances” or “excessive bacteria.”

As you might imagine, these violations aren’t always reported to the public- and if they are, reporting can occur up to 15 months after the original violation was discovered.

Environmentally Speaking…

Environmentally speaking, can we really say claim that polyethylene terephthalatea (PET) bottles are “environmentally friendly?”

One one hand, PET bottles yield less significant (negative) environmental impacts than either glass or aluminum. After all, PET technology is easier to recycle and remanufacture than the other options- likewise, PET does not release chlorine into the atmosphere when incinerated.

Oh the other hand, the National Association for PET Container Resources estimates that over 2 million tons of PET bottles end up in U.S. landfills each year.

The Environmental Claims

Last year, I had a discussion with a division manager from Nestlé Waters on the topic of package innovation and design. For some time, efficient packaging was an opportunity: Oil-based plastic consumption and cardboard usage were particularly troublesome.

In late 2007, Nestlé Waters launched a series of package innovations aimed at reducing package materials. To consumers, perhaps the most “visible” innovation was the “Eco-Shape” bottle, launched under Arrowhead and Ozarka branded water.

For Nestlé Water bottlers, this particular design used 30% less plastic than the current bottles available on the market, weighing only 12.5 grams (15% less than similar bottles). Nationally, this was estimated to reduce materials consumption by 65 million pounds of plastic each year.

PepsiCo is just now catching onto this opportunity.

PepsiCo’s new design for Aquafina bottles, paraded under the name “Eco-Fina”, claims to use 50% less plastic than its 2002 predecessor design, saving 75 million pounds of plastic materials consumption annually. In addition to this improvement, PepsiCo is also eliminating cardboard base pads from 24-packs, a strategy estimated to save 20 million pounds of corrugated material consumption by 2010.

(Interestingly, Nestle had also attempted to eliminate cardboard base pads from 24-packs years ago, but ultimately abandoned that strategy after experiencing significantly higher rates of damaged goods in distribution channels.)

Final Word?

As far as I can tell, PepsiCo’s “Eco-Fina” is already receiving mixed reviews from industry critics.

Particularly troublesome is the fact that “Eco-Fina” is being paraded around with such a strong (and familiar) public relations aftertaste. Dare we say greenwashing?

Word is that PR firms who were working on the launch sent “preview packs” to writers and bloggers - The overnight Fedex deliveries appear to be a gaudy PR showcase composed of a custom graphic box with three filled bottles of Aquafina (“Eco-Fina”) water.

Is that what they call sustainable??

Don’t get me wrong - Eco-Fina is a step in the right direction. Ultimately, is that all that really matters?