Mathieu Régnier
On the 30th May 2008, almost 10 months ago, colleague and good friend of mine decided to write to Alan G. Lafley, Chairman of Procter & Gamble.
My friend had just returned from Morocco where he had been shocked by the overwhelming presence of Tide washing products in most of the rural areas he had visited. He shared one observation that is rather common place in the Maghreb: many inhabitants wash clothing directly in the streams of the back country.
With Tide washing powder available everywhere in nearby markets, the obvious question that sprung to his mind was whether the products had been adapted to the local environment. In fact, Moroccans use the word "Tide" in a generic manner to describe a "detergent". This is telling of the product's importance the country.
Morocco suffers from water scarcity and overall poor water quality. The Government has a very informative website that depicts a comprehensive portrait of the country's water resources (in French and Arabic).
Yet, many Moroccans are using one of Procter & Gamble's leading brands: "Tide". They do so directly in the streams. An estimated 90 percent of wastewater in developing countries similar to Morocco is still discharged directly into rivers and streams without any waste treatment processing[1].
Many streams in Morocco show very little quantities of dissolved oxygen, especially when of industrial or agricultural origin. Authorities also report that water quality in many lakes, basins, and reservoirs show increasing signs of eutrophication. It is proven that this situation usually originates from inputs of nutrients such as nitrogen and phosphorus from human activities such as farming, washing, and industrial processes.
Among other factors, eutrophication occurs with the increase of phosphate levels in water. If agricultural production is likely to be one important contributor to water deterioration, it is reasonable to think that detergents may also contribute to the problem.
Procter & Gamble is one the largest companies in Morocco. It is also one of its most loyal investors. It happens to be one of the oldest western corporations to have settled in the Maghreb. They celebrated 50 years of establishment in the country last November (2008). 1958 was when Tide washing products were first introduced in the country. The company's local representatives are P&G North West Africa (100% subsidiary to Procter and Gamble), Industries Marocaines Modernes (IMM) and P&G Maroc (PGM).
In 2007, Procter & Gamble North West Africa announced an investment of DH 220M (US $25M) before 2012. Since 2001, the group invested around US $70M in the country. The bulk of the investment is supposed to go towards two factories: Aïn Sebaâ and Mohammédia. The factories will be able to upscale their detergent producing machinery. The company plans to extend production for exports in the Maghreb and especially to Algeria.
Sahel and Maghreb regions have water scarcity issues. Where water availability is limited, caring for the precious resource is everyone's concern. The health of millions of people is at stake, and the declining availability of fresh water also threatens Morocco's biodiversity. Moroccan authorities and the World Bank plan a water deficit by 2020. There are about 31 million inhabitants in the country. Around 45% live in rural areas. This is a rising trend. 10% of the population lived in rural areas in 1971.
That gives some background on the situation in Morocco and set's us up for my friend's letter, which questioned phosphorous content of Tide, selling practices in Morocco, and marketing tactics used to promote the product. In at least one observed case, a Tide ad was found prevalently on the walls of Aït Benhadou, a UNESCO World Heritage Site.
After a few months, he finally received an answer[2]. This is when he contacted some of his contacts in the French speaking press, and me, an environmental consultant. I was surprised at how well his letter was researched, and even more awed at the lack of substance to Procter & Gamble's reply. Surely they had some people in public relations or sustainable development departments that could take a few minutes to answer his letter. Surely there could have been a more substantial reply than what resembled the following:
"Thanks for contacting P&G. Your letter to Mr. Lafley was sent to me for handling since I am responsible for correspondence concerning Tide. We appreciate your taking the time to let us know how you feel. Please be assured I'm sharing all of your comments with our P&G Management Team. Thanks again for writing! [given name] Tide Team".
I was especially surprised at the lack of formality in this email when I realised the letter was copied to Morocco's ministry of the environment in Rabat (the Secrétariat Géneral du Département de l'Environnement) as well as to the local World Wide Fund for Nature's office.
Since my friend wants to keep his anonymity, there was very little I could do to help. Of course, I encouraged him to write back to express that he found the answer unsatisfactory. He did on the same day. It was the 14th August 2008. My only word to him was that such open-minded approaches were admirable (the letter simply asks for clarifications).
I had dinner last Saturday with my colleague, his wife, and two sons who had all been together in Morocco. I could sense the children's dismay when I asked if they had heard from the company. It was a "no"-- six months after the laconic reply. This is when I thought the story was worth relating. Many people whom I told the story to are in my field, some work for large corporations and answer such letters as part of their daily routine. The longest they take to reply is 2 or 3 months... in very touchy situations.
While there is no smoking gun-- that is, we do not know for sure the phosphate content of the Tide product use, nor formulation in general-- the general lack of response from P&G is concerning.
We could not find any information on any program undertaken by Procter & Gamble to curb the discharge of detergent in streams or to educate and inform consumers of the dangers of the direct spill of detergent in water.
After some research, I can confirm that relevant information is not easily accessible to the public. In fact, I could not find anything on that issue. Nothing tells us that the company does not have a program that they could disclose. If they do, they are not keen on sharing the information.
It is exactly for that reason that the letter was written. A simple quest for information, no accusation. The letter was written with an open mind, without any desire for confrontation. All in all, my friend partly wrote it as an exercise in citizenry for his older son.
The company's last sustainability report (2008) mentions that practical steps are taken to leverage sustainability across all its operations. It seems to be doing a good job according to the report's indicators. This should nevertheless also involve the consideration of most, if not all, end-of-life effects of products such as Tide.
The company's presence in the Dow Jones Sustainability Index usually supports this. Taking the life-cycle view should be a central strategy for a company evolving in the consumer products sector like Procter & Gamble. Production is one side of the coin, consumption another.
Procter & Gamble's Environmental Quality Policy states:
"It is Procter & Gamble's policy to: Reduce, or prevent, the environmental impact of our products and packaging in their design, manufacture, distribution, use and disposal whenever possible" (and) "Provide our consumers, customers, employees, communities, public interest groups and others with relevant and appropriate factual information about the environmental quality of P&G products, packaging and operations. We seek to establish and nurture open, honest and timely communications and strive to be responsive to concerns."
A former Chairman of Procter & Gamble, Ed Artzt is supposed to have said: "If we don't do it early on globally, someone else will". It was in 1997[3]. 12 years ago.
What could have been highlighted by the company in a reply letter is one of the group's most celebrated sustainability initiative; the "Children's Safe Drinking Water". Another rightly applauded initiative is described as "PuR". Its aim is to "create safe drinking water through the removal of pathogens and the use of disinfectants in turbid waters" (WBCSD, 2006).
However, if use of some of the Tide detergents is partly responsible for the country's water resource ills in the first place, maybe these programmes would be like parking the ambulance at the bottom of the hill.
In comparison to those active in sustainability circles, I believe ordinary citizens should have the loudest voice on issues of such importance. The socially aware are more than a growing niche in the marketplace; they are worried citizens. Some live thousands miles away. My hope is that one day my friend's sons will write letters as well. Maybe such letters will one day make a difference.
One of the first things a company should do to address sustainability challenges on the ground is to truly acknowledge the importance played by environmental awareness. One way to do this is by sharing information in a transparent manner, by laying down the hard-facts, by taking the time to reply to letters. P&G's latent, lacklustre response only serves to paint them in a questionable light.
Related Reading:
Terracycle and the Lessons of Eco Capitalism
Blue is the New Green: Blue Thinking, the Gen 2 Sustainability Strategy
Notes:
[1] Carmen Revenga and Greg Mock, (2000) "Dirty Water: Pollution Problems Persist" World Resources Institute, 6p. Available from: http://earthtrends.wri.org/pdf_library/feature/wat_fea_dirty.pdf
[1] The story of this unanswered letter is slowly taking media coverage in the French online press. For example on the Mediaterre.org web portal. The portal is managed by the Institut de l'énergie et de l'environnement de la Francophonie (IEPF) a subsidiary body of the Organisation internationale de la Francophonie. The portal attracts 8500 visitors from 108 countries every day.
[1] Carmen Revenga and Greg Mock, (2000) "Dirty Water: Pollution Problems Persist" World Resources Institute, 6p. Available from: http://earthtrends.wri.org/pdf_library/feature/wat_fea_dirty.pdf
[2] The story of this unanswered letter is slowly taking media coverage in the French online press. For example on the Mediaterre.org web portal. The portal is managed by the Institut de l'énergie et de l'environnement de la Francophonie (IEPF) a subsidiary body of the Organisation internationale de la Francophonie. The portal attracts 8500 visitors from 108 countries every day.
[3] Prahalad, C.K. (1997) « Strategies for Growth », in R. Gibson (ed.) Rethinking the Future, London, Nicholas Brealey Publishing, p. 73.
DOWN THE DRAIN
A few days following submission of this piece, my friend called me. He finally received a letter from the company.
I thought I would add this comment to Celsias to set things straight. Contrarily to what I wrote half-jokingly, Procter & Gamble does have competent people in sustainability and public relations departments.
Procter & Gamble wrote back with apologies for taking such a long time to reply. The letter got misplaced in the large corporation. These things happen to the most diligent of them.
The 3 pages letter is sent my Procter & Gamble’s subsidiary in Morocco, “Industries Maroccaines Modernes” and covers most points that were addressed in my friend’s letter. Most points but not all issues…
What certainly counts is that the company replied fittingly. The letter was shown and explained to my friend’s older son.
His fatherly exercise in citizenry is a relative success.
Yet, Procter & Gamble remains evasive on many points and certainly doesn’t address important issues.
The company replied with the usual CSR mantra – which is commendable. They also added some interesting information on their environmental impact assessment tools: "Predicted exposure concentration" (PEC), "Impact zone concept", "ecotoxicity hazard", "predicted no effect concentrations" (PNEC), etc.
Procter & Gamble also mentions that Tide ingredients’ “risk quotient” is of "less than 1" and thus of no adverse effect... The use of these concepts should prove that Tide would not harm the natural environment in an irreversible manner when used in streams or in situations where no adequate wastewater treatment is available. It certainly proves that I will have to get back to my schoolbooks!
I certainly will… It is unclear to me whether any of these monitoring tools cover a watershed wide environmental impact assessment. Can ingredients deemed to be “environmentally compatible” still provoke eutrophication at high levels?
The title of the section answering environmental concerns leaves perplexed: "All ingredients used in Tide (Morocco) are safe for the environment when discarded down the drain after use in the wash".
This is good to know and was expected. The main issue here is that Moroccans use the product in streams of the backcountry where there are no drains! Of course the company mentions that they try to discourage the local habit of washing clothes in rivers with Tide. They add that changing consumer habit is difficult and especially in situations where resources are limited.
I fact, the original letter was asking for clarifications on what the company did to raise the awareness of Moroccan citizens on fresh water resources rarefaction. It would be interesting to know how the company really try to discourage the use of Tide in areas with no drains. Are there any programs? Information displayed in local souks? Warnings detergent boxes? Is the company working with authorities or NGOs on this?
All in all, this boils down to a structural problem. Procter & Gamble writes black on white: habits are hard to change!
Written in April 2009