“Keep using your towels – for the sake of the environment”. Everyone knows it. Many hotels display this notice. I saw it this summer at the Baltic Sea. Of course, every wash cycle requires water and we should use water sparingly.

However, the menu in the hotel restaurant was very promising: fried cod with lemon foam, dry-aged rump steak with grilled vegetables, Wiener schnitzel with fried potatoes and much more. Of course, there were also delicious vegetarian options such as avocado tartare, lentil dahl and papardelle with chanterelles.

As there was no mention of the water consumption on the menu, I’ll provide it here:

• 3,000 litres for 150g of beef
• 3,000 litres for 200g Wiener schnitzel
• 250 litres for an avocado
• 120 litres for 200g pasta
• 100 litres for a wild-caught fish
• 20 litres for 200g of fresh potatoes
• 2 litres for washing a towel

So should I not wash my towel for 1,500 days or four years so that I can eat 150g of beef? Of course not. Even if we humans like to get a clear conscience in one place so that we can make a decision in another, it is appropriate to consider each decision on its own merits. Do I use the towel – as I do at home – for a few days longer or not? Do I eat beef, avocado, fish or potatoes? These are separate decisions that cannot be offset against each other.

However, the question remains as to why the menu doesn’t recommend the summery potato and apple salad – for the sake of the environment? In addition to culinary preferences, perceived freedom and the longed-for holiday feeling, another aspect could play a role: the economy.

The lower water consumption when cleaning the towels has a direct impact on the hotel’s water and electricity costs. The longer the towels are in use, the lower the costs. And that’s a good thing, especially because a hotel doesn’t just have one towel to wash. Economic efficiency and environmental protection go hand in hand here.
Lower water consumption for food has the opposite effect. Most of the water is used in production and therefore cannot be controlled by the restaurant. The food price is a transitory item that is passed on directly to the customer via the menu price. The water-intensive foods are often the more expensive ones, so that a higher margin can be expected here. Who would then recommend the cheaper and more water-efficient spaghetti? Foods that use less water generate less profit for the restaurant and hotel.
So there we have it: resource-saving behaviour is not always economical behaviour. Even helpful transparency towards the customer cannot prevent this. If the regulation then provides transparent information on the environmental impact, there is resentment about additional costs and reduced margins.

Where is the way out? One question may be what ‘product result’ is actually being sold. Is it about a variety of flavours, convivial get-togethers and a full stomach? This can also be achieved with water-saving ingredients at high prices, as vegetarian restaurants with a Michelin star prove (e.g. Cookies Cream). Admittedly, not every guest likes it and it doesn’t suit every restaurant.
But the question of the ‘product result’ remains valid in other industries as well. Do I sell my products and lose access to the materials used or are there ways to rent out the products or get them back via take-back programs? Is this one material necessary or are there cheaper raw materials, possibly even renewable ones?
In the office, it’s sometimes like on the plate: our own habits rather than factual necessities get in the way. Many habits are useful. But man-made climate change and competition require us to adapt. Fortunately, the summer holidays are over. Because in autumn, nature helps us: the beach towels stay in the wardrobe and mushrooms enrich the menu.