The Public Values Water But Sees Challenges Differently Than Companies

Forbes - May 1st, 2025

A recent survey conducted by WWF and GlobeScan reveals stark differences in how the public and companies prioritize water-related challenges. The survey, which polled over 30,000 people across 31 countries, highlights that water pollution is perceived as the top environmental issue by the public, while companies tend to focus on reducing their own water usage. Public opinion strongly favors improving water quality and reducing pollution as the primary goals for environmentally responsible companies. However, most companies prioritize reducing water usage in their operations.

The report underscores the need for companies to engage in broader water stewardship efforts, such as collective action in river basins, to better align with public expectations. It also suggests integrating water management with other sustainability programs, moving towards holistic approaches that encompass climate and biodiversity. The findings point to the importance of clear communication, encouraging companies to adopt straightforward language that resonates with the public, focusing on terms like "protecting water" and "pollutant-free" rather than technical jargon. This shift could enhance public support and collaboration in addressing global water challenges.

Climate Change Water Scarcity Water Pollution Wwf Globe Scan Corporate Sustainability Freshwater Challenge Environmental Responsibility

Story submitted by Fairstory

RATING

7.6

Fair Story

Consider it well-founded

The article provides a comprehensive overview of the importance of water in environmental sustainability, backed by credible survey data from WWF and GlobeScan. It effectively highlights the gap between public expectations and corporate actions, offering insights into potential improvements in water stewardship. The article is timely and relevant, addressing critical issues that resonate with public interest. While it maintains a balanced perspective, it could benefit from including more diverse voices and providing additional transparency regarding the Freshwater Challenge. Overall, the article is well-written and informative, with the potential to influence both public opinion and corporate practices.

Accuracy

The article provides a well-supported narrative about the importance of water and corporate responsibility. The claim that WWF and GlobeScan conducted surveys involving over 30,000 people across 31 countries and 350 water experts is consistent with the information available from reliable sources. The public's prioritization of water pollution over climate change is corroborated by the survey results. However, the article's mention of the Freshwater Challenge and its specific goals requires further verification, as the details about the initiative's membership and objectives are not fully substantiated by the sources. Overall, the factual accuracy is high, but some claims need additional evidence for complete verification.

Balance

The article presents a balanced view by discussing both public perceptions and expert recommendations regarding water issues. It highlights the differences in priorities between the public and corporations, providing a multi-faceted perspective on water stewardship. However, the article could benefit from including more voices, such as those from corporations themselves, to provide a fuller picture of the challenges and motivations they face. While it does mention the corporate focus on water use reduction, it lacks direct quotes or insights from corporate representatives, which could add depth to the narrative.

Clarity

The article is well-structured and uses clear language to convey its message. It effectively breaks down complex issues into understandable segments, such as the public's and experts' differing priorities on water issues. The use of percentages and rankings helps to clarify the survey results. However, the article could benefit from a more explicit explanation of technical terms like 'water positive' to ensure that all readers fully understand the concepts discussed.

Source quality

The article relies on reputable sources such as WWF and GlobeScan, organizations known for their expertise in environmental issues. The use of survey data adds credibility, as these organizations are well-regarded for conducting extensive and reliable research. However, the article could enhance its source quality by referencing additional independent studies or expert opinions to validate the claims further. The reliance on a single report for much of the data, while credible, limits the diversity of perspectives.

Transparency

The article provides a clear explanation of the survey's scope and methodology, which enhances transparency. However, it could improve by disclosing more about the potential conflicts of interest or biases of the organizations involved in the survey. Additionally, while the article mentions the Freshwater Challenge, it does not provide detailed information about the methodology or the criteria for the initiative's goals, which would further enhance transparency.