Water is fast becoming the next big sustainability topic for outdoor brands. But as Katy Stevens of the European Outdoor Group argues, it cannot be managed like carbon.

“Water, water everywhere, but not a drop to drink” once poetically described the predicament of a stranded sailor. Today, it feels uncomfortably close to a summary of our looming global water crisis. It feels like every brand I talk to at the moment understands that “water” needs to be the next big topic on their sustainability strategy, but many don’t fully understand the complexity of the problem, or where/how to start addressing it.

The temptation is to treat water as the next carbon: calculate a global footprint, set a reduction target and watch the numbers fall. Unfortunately, water refuses to be quite so cooperative. A liter used in a water-abundant region is not equivalent to a liter taken from a drought-stricken river basin. Its impact depends on where it came from, when it was withdrawn, what condition it was returned in and who, or what, also needed it.

Climate change is making that picture still more complicated. Higher temperatures increase evaporation, rainfall is becoming less predictable and droughts and floods are placing greater pressure on already stretched systems. At the same time, established demands from communities, agriculture and manufacturing are being joined by newer, rapidly growing users. Even the supposedly weightless digital economy needs physical infrastructure, energy and cooling. As our industry embraces AI for everything from product development to consumer engagement, it is worth remembering that every prompt has a physical footprint. The “cloud,” it turns out, can be surprisingly thirsty.

For the outdoor industry, water has an obvious emotional pull. Rivers, lakes, snow and healthy landscapes are where our consumers paddle, swim, ski, hike and play. But our industry’s other relationship with water is less photogenic. It sits upstream in fiber cultivation, dyehouses, laundries and finishing facilities, where water is withdrawn, heated, mixed with chemicals and eventually discharged.

This does not mean that textile production is single-handedly draining the world’s water supplies. Agriculture remains by far the largest user globally, and the balance between agriculture, industry and households differs enormously by region. But textile facilities can have a significant local impact, particularly when they share an already stressed or polluted water source with communities, farms, ecosystems and other industries.

So where should a brand begin? Not with a grand global reduction pledge, but with a map. Identify where key fibers are produced and where water-intensive processing takes place. Understand the condition of those particular river basins and aquifers. Then work with suppliers, other brands and local stakeholders to address the places where the risks and impacts are greatest.

Everyone may be talking about water. The next step is to become much more specific about which water, where, and shared with whom.

Photo: Luis Tosta/Unsplash