Wal-Mart CEO announces new energy-focused sustainability initiative
First Prince Charles jets across the Atlantic just to accept an eco-award, and now he's hanging out with the likes of Wal-Mart chief Lee Scott. Is there anything His Royal Highness won't do to piss off self-righteous greens? Has he considered biting the head off an endangered salamander? While we await his next move, we applaud the latest: inviting Scott to speak to some 400 execs at a London conference on greening business. It gave Scott the chance to unveil "Sustainability 360," a new initiative that will involve employees, customers, and communities in the chain's trumpeted efforts to prove that discount shopping and eco-consciousness mix. The plan will focus on cutting nonrenewable energy from the store's products and from its customers' lives. Yes, we'll insert the requisite comment here about the company's notoriously poor labor standards. But Scott says the new green focus has helped with employee recruitment and retention, so maybe he's doing something right. Bite of salamander, anyone?
straight to the source: The Telegraph, Caroline Davies, 02 Feb 2007
straight to the source: Reuters, Rachel Sanderson, 01 Feb 2007
straight to the source: USA Today, Jayne O’Donnell, 01 Feb 2007
see also, in Grist: Businesses move ahead of D.C. on climate threat
see also, in Gristmill: Wal-Mart overdoes it
Obama headed to Copenhagen, sets the bar for success
‘Copenhagen Diagnosis’ offers a grim update to the IPCC’s climate science
Comments
View as Flat
Paul Pelican Posted 10:01 am
02 Feb 2007
drive to Walmart, leading to traffic, congestion and the release of greenhouse gasses. And then there is the issue that the world really doesn't need the majority of stuff that these places sells, and that much of it winds up in landfills.
Maybe this is self righteous, but how far do we go to compromise?
Permalink
djackson Posted 3:12 am
04 Feb 2007
Wal-mart knows various progressive forces in the country are starting to focus their attention on it, and that their image hinders them in expansion outside the US.
So pick the folks whose values are easiest to integrate into their corporate strategy, mollify and impress them, and break them away from other opponents.
Wal-mart may take on some green intiatives (which so far sound more like PR and market capture than anything really susbtantial) but certain things in their business model are not going to change.
*They're going to keep destroying local business and wrecking local economies, leading to ever greater dependence on fuel-intensive global trade. That isn't actually green. If you slap a few solar cells on your roof but make an economy dependence on global transport of bulk cheap commodities, you're just putting on a mask, itisn't even a bandaid.
*They're going to keep underpaying workers, smashing unions, and relying upon immoral and/or illegal management techniques to keep those profits high. In fact this year they're slated to adopt a new technique, a shift system that calls in employees when there are rushes and sends them home when there aren't. Meaning they're going to make it even harder for employees to earn enough to actually survive, while keeping them constantly on call.
I know environmentalists often enough care little about labor conditions, but I honestly don't think you can separate the two. They're just different ways of externalizing market irregularity to guarantee greater and greater control of a market, and the top brass of Wal-mart will pick whichever works most effectively for them. If the firm parasites off of exploited labor it's similar in kind to parasitizing off exploited resources. This might be a personal philosophial position, but I think it holds in general.
*Wal-mart is still going to rely upon global commodity chains rooted in countries like China whose governments artificially depress labor costs.
We're so concerned now with CO2 and global warming, and we focus so much on automobiles that we forget the cause of most CO2 in the atmosphere since the beginning of industrialization was manufacturing. This is still a major issue, in terms of power generation tied to manufacturing.
Think for a moment about those sources of cheap goods Wal-mart sells, those sweatshops and manufacturies in China. Think for a moment about how China is dramatically increasing its outut of greenhouse gases. Think about how Chinese power relies upon dirty coal burning, and how the total absence of worker rights in that country prevents environmental justice movements from dealing with air quality.
Wal-mart might green up their image a little, they might offer (apparently fake) organic food to capture that market, they might but solar cells on their stores, they might sing and dance about rainbows and four-leaf clovers for all it matters.
At the base of it, their entire business model is based in increasing global transportation of cheap commodities, and insuring that those commodities are produced in the least regulated and least responsible business climates possible on earth, business climates that will not worry about pollution any more than they worry about basic human rights and basic labor rights.
Permalink
JudyK Posted 7:16 pm
04 Feb 2007
Secondly, I wish people would lay off poor ol' Charlie - he's a figure of global leadership, for goodness' sake. If Al Gore wins the Nobel Peace Prize, is anyone going to try to prevent him from flying to Oslo to receive it?
Permalink
Delay And Deny Posted 2:12 am
05 Feb 2007
Why all the sudden interest in "Global Warming" and green systems?
Because manufacturers have realized that people aren't buying new stuff any more.
But, wait, throw a little Green Magic on it and suddenly people are willing to buy a $22,000 "smart" car with two seats and a 75 mile range instead of a Chevy Cobalt "Dumb" car with 4 seats and a 300 mile range for $12,000.
Permalink