The production of protein is water intensive, due to its requirement at all stages of the meat
life cycle; from growing the feed for livestock to the running of facilities (Tyson Foods,
2017). Tyson Foods in particular have used 1.03 gallons of water per pound of product for
the last three years running (Tyson Foods, 2017). These are astounding figures which Tyson
Foods has not been able to reduce, making them subject to large amounts of criticism. The
animal product industry’s water footprint is an increasing global issue, making water
consumption a significant environmental impact of Tyson Foods (Gerbens-Leenes,
Mekonnen and Hoekstra, 2013). Globally, water is considered to be the most vital resource
(Vörösmarty et al., 2010). Yet is not treated as scarce and instead it is depleted unsustainably
and under-priced. Goldman Sachs have even predicted that it is ‘the petroleum for the next
century’ (The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc., 2008). Evidencing water’s current incorrect
valuation will not be the case in the future and that changes need to be made to limit water
usage. Tyson foods response to their water consumption was to become more transparent in
their practices and to reduce their water use intensity by 12% before 2020 (Tyson Foods,
2017). They have now publicised detail into what they are doing to minimise water including
conducting water risk assessments, plant assessments and working with the World Resources
Institute (Tyson Foods, 2017). By heavily focusing on their water use is deterring from their
disconcerting water pollution, which is a much greater issue that Tyson Foods is creating and
is hardly being rectified. Rumpler (2016) stated that water pollution is one of Tyson Food’s
most significant impacts on the environment. The greater implications of this issue, over
water use intensity, is evidence through the fact that nutrient pollution has human health
effects, as well as economic and environmental effects (US EPA, 2017). In addition to this, it
is not being appropriately addressed by companies such as Tyson Foods which poses an even
greater threat to the environment. Tyson Foods have previously been named the second
biggest water polluter in America (Furlong, 2016). This is as a result of polluting streams and
oceans with manure and toxic agricultural run-off containing nitrates that lead to algal bloom,
death of wildlife (dead zones) and contaminated drinking water (Furlong, 2016). Furthermore, agricultural run-off alone is the main cause of water pollution in America (von Reusner, 2017). Therefore, the significance of such issue is highlighted by Tyson Food’s being one of the largest water polluters and so, are highly responsible for the whole of America’s contribution to this.
Tyson Food’s contributions to water pollution has not gone unnoticed. ‘Clean it up, Tyson’ campaign was launched by The Mighty Earth and Green Corps to hold them responsible for polluting America’s waterways (Mighty Earth, 2017). Moreover, multiple reports have been published raising awareness on their unsustainable wastewater management. Tyson Foods responded to one report in particular by Environment America (EA) (Environment America, 2016). An official statement was released accusing EA of misinterpreting the data but also that Tyson Food’s will become more transparent and provide more information in their sustainability report (Furlong, 2016). Tyson Foods took measures to reassure the public that they will be more transparent, which they somewhat did in the release of their following sustainability report. One small improvement to note was their removal of nitrates and by-products from their line of Ball Park meat (Tyson Foods, 2017). However, water use intensity was the overriding topic addressed instead of water pollution. When Tyson Foods finally mentioned wastewater management practices, they still failed to report their pollution levels and so indicating that they are not figures they want sharing. Clearly, Tyson Foods have approached their malpractice in a way that shows their minimal efforts to rectify their water pollution, without admitting to how bad their impact is on the environment. This is a ‘reactive minimalist’ response, where they were forced to address the issues they are causing and only do so by using minimal resources (Benn, Dunphy and Griffiths, 2014). This is not substantial enough and by not reporting their water pollution to mask their reputation, only fuels the belief that they are still one of America’s worst polluters of waterways by hiding the real facts (Sridhar and Jones, 2012). Tyson Food’s appropriately responded to the accusations in their statement however they did not uphold their transparency proposal or take appropriate actions to address their water pollution.
There are two long-term approaches Tyson Food’s should take to improve their response on this issue; firstly, taking a stakeholder approach of inclusivity and secondly changes to their supply chain. By involving all stakeholders in your response makes sure everyone is on the same page and allows votes to be taken on the best measures to tackle the issue. Previously Tyson Foods have included shareholders in their decision making of new policy’s (EcoWatch, 2016), however shareholders are not the only stakeholders. Their employees, suppliers and customers should also be involved in their decision making and responses to water pollution. Involving stakeholders will widen Tyson Food’s awareness of potential solutions and insight on opinions (Gregory, 2000), that would in turn aid them in resolving the issue to as many stakeholders satisfaction. This is a viable solution since Tyson Foods are already becoming more transparent in their approach to their operations, so furthering this would come at ease. However, transparency can come at a cost if they do not utilise it correctly. For example, if decisions are made that don’t align with opinions provided by stakeholders (Gregory, 2000), will lead to damaging their reputation further. Secondly, Tyson Food’s need to improve the operations of their supply chain to reduce the amount of pollution into waterways. A key way to improve this, is by reducing the original pollutant use (Giakos, 2004). Tyson Food’s should work within their supply chain to come to agreement on nitrate fertiliser usage and manure disposal. Corporations working with their farmers to reduce the final pollutants released in waterways is already being done (Huntington, 2018), so is feasible for Tyson Food’s and will allow them to keep up with competitors. Specific ways to tackle this is to set a limit on nitrogen fertiliser usage a month and building manure storage that prevents it reaching waterways. Both solutions will greatly reduce pollutants released in waterways however be costly to implement and bring very little benefits to farmers (Haller et al., n.d.). therefore, by involving stakeholders and improving pollution at its source Tyson Food’s could better respond and address their pollution into America’s waterways.