Home
Archive
Newsletters
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

Advertisement
Advertisement

Wal-Mart’s New Greenwashing Report

By Sarah Anderson, AlterNet. Posted November 20, 2007.


The big-box company's new glossy environmental report can't hide that its fundamental problem is its business model.

Share and save this post:

      

      

Share on Facebook       

AlterNet Social Networks:
follow us on twitter
find us on Facebook

More stories by Sarah Anderson

Advertisement
Upcoming AlterNet stories on Digg

Two years ago, Wal-Mart CEO H. Lee Scott announced a bold initiative to turn the world's largest corporation green. After numerous delays, the company has finally released its first progress report.

So how much greener are they? To find out, you first need to wade through 40 pages of data on other various and sundry issues. For example, the report boasts that company employees enrolled in a personal sustainability project lost a combined total of 184,315 pounds in 2006 (1.3 pounds per enrollee).

There's also a glowing review of health benefits, even though less than half of employees buy into a company plan that many have criticized as unaffordable on a Wal-Mart paycheck. (The company pays full-time employees an average of $10.76 per hour and refuses to disclose part-time pay).

The company brags about its charitable giving, highlighting that it has handed out over half a million dollars in one Chicago neighborhood selected as its first Jobs and Opportunity Zone. (The report doesn't mention that Chicago is a hotbed of opposition. Activists have blocked one Supercenter, and in 2006 the mayor had to use veto power to kill a measure that would've required all big-box retailers to pay decent wages and benefits.)

But what about the much-hyped environmental goals? For two years, Scott has received laudatory press for his pledge that Wal-Mart will some day be supplied entirely by renewable energy, create zero waste and sell sustainable products.

The centerpiece of Scott's green initiative has been his promise to reduce global warming pollution from existing stores by 20 percent by the year 2012. A look at the results so far reveals why these indicators are buried in the back of the report. On page 47, we learn that the company's carbon emissions actually increased by nine percent in 2006. On the goal of producing zero waste, the report merely states that a "measurement tool is in development."

To his credit, Scott admits in the report that there is "work ahead of us." However, what he is likely never to admit is that even if he achieved all of his stated goals, Wal-Mart's business model is inherently unsustainable.

The Big Box Collaborative, a loose network of groups committed to transforming the "Wal-Mart Economy," released a damning critique of the company's sustainability initiative in September. With contributions from 23 organizations, the report blasts many of Wal-Mart's efforts to provide "sustainable" products as greenwashing. Food and Water Watch, for example, charges that the seafood certification program, the Marine Stewardship Council, has a record of accrediting fisheries with poor environmental records and questions whether seafood could ever be sourced sustainably on the massive scale Wal-Mart requires.

The bulk of the report argues that Wal-Mart will never be a sustainable company as long as it is a major contributor to sprawl, relies on sourcing products from the other side of the globe, and pursues a business model based on slashing costs to the bone.


Digg!    Share on facebook   submit to reddit    Bookmark on Delicious   Stumble This  

See more stories tagged with: wal-mart, green-washing

Sarah Anderson directs the Global Economy Project at the Institute for Policy Studies and edited the Big Box Collaborative report "Wal-Mart's Sustainability Initiative: A Civil Society Critique," available at: http://www.laborrights.org/projects/corporate/walmart/CounterSustainability.pdf

Liked this story? Get top stories in your inbox each week from AlterNet! Sign up now »

Advertisement
Advertisement

 

Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
Why just Walmart
Posted by: ArtemInox on Nov 20, 2007 12:42 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Every retail industry sucks ass and is a horrible place to work in. Why is Walmart being singled out as the villain, when if you were really thinking about it, or had any clue, you'd immediately think of other retailers doing the same or worse.

www.addictedtoaggravation.com

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Why just Walmart Posted by: Thresher
Ask Hillary Clinton
Posted by: NoPCZone on Nov 20, 2007 6:42 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
She was a Wal-Mart Director for years while Bill was Governor. Why does she get a pass on this toxic corporation?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Boycott Wal-Mart and you Boycott Red China..!
Posted by: TJ-stars4peace on Nov 20, 2007 9:55 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Simple as that...!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

AND they just doubled prices
Posted by: AsteroidMiner on Nov 20, 2007 12:47 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Equate brand extra strength nose drops are no longer available.
Only the "regular" brand at twice the price is available.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Walmart
Posted by: Knot_Rich on Nov 20, 2007 3:03 PM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I think Sarah makes a gross misjudgement in her assumptions, that being since Walmart builds on the outskirts (usually the only place something that size can fing enough contiguous land) people "have" to drive out there to do their shopping. Wrong, no one "has" to drive to Walmart to shop. Does she live in a one store town? Probably in 99% of the cases there are alternatives. I can't say I never shop Walmart, it happens on occasion. But not often, because there are other options. I prefer to give my support to the local family merchants, and I don't mind paying a couple bucks more for a better quality longer lasting product or thinking of my community neighbor. I hear people whine, oh, Walmart drives out the local merchants. Bullshit, Walmart didn't drive out the local merchants, you did by not patronizing them, you sold them out for a few more coins in your own greedy pocket. That's the bottom line folks, piss and moan all you want, it's your car in the Walmart parking lot.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

It's ONLY about $$$, the "Green Stuff" thing is Just PR for the Rubes
Posted by: sofla100 on Nov 20, 2007 3:10 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Wal-Mart has been posting some pretty good profits lately, so people need to realize this "green stuff" is just good MBA marketing. Hey, everyone likes to think they are being green and helping the environment, yada, yada, yada. But, when you are America's number one corporation, and you are in the mega bucks, why would you want to change anyway? Wal-Mart makes a lot of money because of how it operates, outsourcing to the slave labor countries, keeping its workers paid low, and firing dissenters and unionizers. Yea, perhaps the workers could be paid a little better and the company use less slave labor, but then what would happen to the bottom line. When you are use to making billions, millions would be nothing.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

No Such Thing ...
Posted by: Jeff Hoffman on Nov 23, 2007 12:19 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
as a "green" Wal-Mart or any other large retailer. First and foremost, "green" means consuming as little as possible and consuming locally produced, environmentally friendly products when you do consume. Wal-Mart, K-Mart, and the rest of these would have to put themselves out of business in order to be green.

Second, building on the outskirts of communities not only causes all the usual environmental harms from driving -- destruction of ecosystems for drilling oil, oil spills from transporting it, pollution and ecosystem destruction from refining it, and air & water pollution from burning it, including global warming -- it causes direct harm to the land by destroying the formerly open space that will now be used for the stores and their parking lots. This is called urban sprawl, and Wal-Mart is a major contributor.

Author Sarah Anderson is incorrect that Wal-Mart could be green if it were to "completely overhaul its business model," because there is no business model for anything like Wal-Mart that approaches being green. The only way that Wal-Mart could be green would be to completely remove itself from our planet.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]