Fiji Water: So Good, Yet So Bad, part 2

Something weird has happened since I started this blog. A lot of people find it by searching for Fiji Water. Specifically, “fiji water bad,” and “fiji water good.”

I think these people are looking for an answer to a question like this; “If Fiji keeps claiming to be green (“carbon negative” in fact), how can it still have a controversial reputation?”

Here’s my hunch, presented humbly to you in a completely non-scientific graph.


The Fiji Water source is limited, and they’re taking so much of it as to throw the local ecosystem out of whack. Add to that the transportation impact of their water, and you’ve got a product with a pretty big enviro-impact. (Ironically, many local Fijiians have trouble finding clean drinking water, and Fiji Water has a history of unhelpfulness. So add bad karma.)

To fight that reputation, they’ve decided to buy their way out with carbon offsets. Not that it’s a bad practice, but offsets are no substitute for corporate responsibility. Their impact is still massive, and so their offset expenses are as well (a fact reflected in the price per bottle, perhaps).

By contrast, one of the most eco-friendly bottled waters is Icelandic Glacial. Like Fiji Water, it’s imported from a unique source. But since Iceland has to import most of its goods (other than fish), there are a lot of empty ships leaving the country. Icelandic Glacial can export its water on ships that would otherwise return empty. They’re not adding traffic. Their shipping is creating zero NEW emissions; their shipping impact is happening whether they export their pure water or not.

Further, the Icelandic Source is a gigantic under-island glacial “river.” A source so massive, the company’s annual output is about 1% of what flows through the source in a single day. So the water they take doesn’t impact the local environs in the least. But here’s the best part. The country of Iceland derives most of its energy not from oil, but from water. Steam. That’s right, Icelandic Glacial’s bottling plant is powered by – (wait for it) – water.

Yes, Icelandic Glacial still buys carbon offsets to account for its small impact on the earth. And that helped make it the world’s first carbon neutral product.

Fiji Water claims to have caught up, now being “carbon negative” thanks to its egregious greenwashing. Icelandic Glacial is carbon neutral, and is truly a greener product.

I just like to imagine the ad campaign they could run.

(See the earlier posts that are getting this site so much traffic, HERE.)

(PS – another fun fact about Icelandic Glacial is the mineral makeup of the water itself. It’s so pure, it’s the only water that freezes perfectly clear. Neat-o.)

Being Good vs. Doing Good

I was looking at a company called Innocent today. They make fruit smoothies, and other foodstuffs. The products are all-natural, and their corporate ethics are squeaky clean. They’re doing “good” simply by being good.

It’s an interesting distinction. Some companies operationally ARE good (i.e. have a conscience), and then there are companies that go out and DO good.

Companies that ARE good: Tom’s of Maine, Innocent (drinks), Method (soap), Icelandic Glacial water, Starbucks fair trade coffees, Kashi and other organic foods, etc. A Hybrid car may fall into this category. They make internal decisions about how they run their business with one eye on profits, the other on impacting the world. The sustainability movement pushes for this sort of thing, and it’s a huge part of “good” marketing. Their customers are fans because of the way they do business.

Then there are companies that DO good. Many of those are featured in this blog. Pedigree helping shelter dogs, Quaker feeding the hungry, Diet Coke advocating heart health, Tropicana saving the rainforest, etc. These companies aren’t necessarily “green” or operationally “good” at all. But they see the value in helping society – not just for the world, but for their brand.

Ideally a company will do both. They’ll BE good, and they’ll DO good as well. But heck, I’ll settle for either.
They’re both very real reasons to choose one brand over another, especially in a parity category. (“Would you like to buy the soda that’s two cents cheaper, or the one that saves babies, ma’am?”)

So while WalMart keeps tweaking it’s operations to become more “green” (thanks in part to the efforts of SaatchiS), shoppers will be looking for ways that part of their consumer buck can go toward making the world a better place in the regular course of buying dog food.

Hey, lazy people can save the world too.