So, it looks like Wal-Mart's green turn has some meat on its bones (to mix metaphors). As we noted in DG, CEO H. Lee Scott Jr. announced some fairly specific programs the other day around energy-efficient stores, greenhouse-gas reductions, truck fleet fuel efficiency, packaging reductions, and pressure on overseas suppliers to follow suit.
It remains to be seen whether the company will release specific targets and timetables, regularly report its progress, and generally go about this in a transparent way. But it certainly looks, at least at this early stage, like this is a serious company-wide effort.
On the other hand, Scott also announced a new employee healthcare plan, only to have a fateful memo leak days later -- a memo that revealed the frighteningly cold calculations behind the company's healthcare policies. Clay Risen has an excellent piece on the memo and related matters at TNR, saying "the thrust of the plan, then, is to slash benefits but make superficial changes to mask the impact of those cuts."
Pretty nasty stuff.
Now, my question is: How should environmentalists and environmental groups react to all this?
For some folks, that's an easy question to answer: Wal-Mart is a Big Evil Corporation, staffed and run by black-hearted, greedy earthfuckers, and can do no good. To offer it anything other than full-throated condemnation is to be played a fool. And so on.
But for me and many others, it's an open and difficult question. Here are some considerations, in no particular order:
- Much has been made lately about coalition-building among progressive groups. Even though greens are getting thrown a bone, workers are getting screwed, so maybe greens should stand with workers on the healthcare issue. A stand-or-fall-together kind of thing.
- But then again, as Kevin and Ezra both argue, Wal-Mart is doing what a large company inevitably does under this country's deeply fucked-up healthcare system: Maneuvering to employ the healthiest people and pay the fewest benefits. Big American car companies, staggering under health and pension costs, are doing the same. This has to do not with the moral failings of executives at those companies, but systemic incentives. Until we finally get healthcare out of the hands of the private sector -- until we get universal healthcare in this country -- every company will be making these same calculations.
- Wal-Mart's very existence is an environmental nightmare. The idea is to build very large stores (with very large parking lots) to sell cheap goods transported from very far away. That business model carries intrinsic environmental costs that could never, no matter what kind of green building done or sustainable products sold, be acceptable.
- But then, Wal-Mart exists. It isn't going to vanish. If the one and only acceptable activist stance toward the company is "dissolve thyself!" -- well, activists will just be ignored. Given Wal-Mart's fairly inevitable continued existence and growth, somebody needs to partner with them to push them in a sustainable direction. They won't partner with people who loudly proclaim them evil.
- The "real" motivations behind the company's moves are irrelevant. Really. It's pointless to personalize this. Wal-Mart is huge. The slightest move they make in the direction of sustainability -- even if it's "only" to improve their public image -- makes more concrete, practical difference than 10,000 little organic-sock stores on the internet. And isn't that what environmentalists are ultimately pursuing --concrete, practical difference? Or is it moral virtue? Being right?
- What does "only" doing it for PR purposes mean, anyway? A positive public image is an asset for a company. It's worth money. If it does something positive on sustainability to enhance its public image, the best possible outcome would be that it enhances its public image. That way, the lesson it learns is: Sustainability initiatives enhance our public image. Let's do more! On the other hand, if this kind of thing is met with contempt and denunciation by high-minded activists, they learn the opposite lesson.
I don't have any grand conclusions. My antipathy for Wal-Mart -- its business model, its HR practices, its environmental impact, its aesthetic, its cultural associations -- runs pretty deep. But it's just not clear to me that environmentalists ought to exclude themselves from this discussion. And that's what they're doing if they make it clear that nothing Wal-Mart does will meet with their approbation under any circumstances.
Wal-Mart is big, and a big deal. Its move in the direction of sustainability is potentially historic. Seems like we ought to encourage it.
Update [2005-10-27 22:38:52 by David Roberts]: I'll say this: A quick read through Alternet's Wal-Mart coverage does not inspire many warm fuzzies for the retailer.
Wal-Mart disses coal
Comments
View as Flat
Michelle Parker Posted 11:36 am
27 Oct 2005
Getting the green ball rolling...
Maybe this expose on Wal-Mart's healthcare "benefits" could become a fortuitous opportunity for encouraging universal healthcare. If Wal-Mart could combine that altruistic idea with its other one -- that of raising the minimum wage -- then as a country, we'd really be getting somewhere!
Also, if Wal-Mart wants to have a green influence on its worldwide suppliers, as it says it does, that could mean its ears are open to hearing some good local / national ideas about becoming more sustainable here in its own country.
I think you have a good point Dave, about environmentalists becoming friends with this potential "Jolly Green Giant." Let's help it get that green ball rolling in a sustainable direction!
Permalink
rickeym Posted 11:30 pm
27 Oct 2005
Local Is Better
No matter what Wal-Mart does to improve their image, they are still a centrally controlled, totalitarian regime, mining profits from everywhere and sending them to their Arkansas headquarters.
The only viable construct for an authentic democracy is for local people to control their own local economy. Not necessarily exclusively, but certainly primarily. Wal-Mart is destructive of every community in which it is located. It, like all chains, is colonial in nature. And we all know how colonial empires treat the natives.
Don't fall for any of this. It's a distraction. Support your locally owned businesses. Buy food from local farmers. Support your neighbors.
Permalink
Jamie Posted 5:28 am
28 Oct 2005
Hmmmmm......
Interesting stuff, Dave. I completely agree that the "dissolve thyself" stance is unrealistic for any activist in regards to a company like Walmart, and can be counter-productive to genuine engagement towards anything positive. So, if we have to (ugh) accept the fact that Walmart exists, and will likely continue to exist for at least a while, what's the best way to deal with them?
To start, I'm not convinced that it has to be a zero-sum game. I don't see why an environmentalist or other activist can't praise Walmart for their efforts towards sustainability while still denouncing their cold-hearted labor practices. Why we can't acknowledge the importance of an enormous leader in American business moving towards green ideas, while still denouncing their role in urban sprawl and the Paving Of America. Why we can't applaud the way Walmart rushed badly needed supplies into the Gulf Coast (before the genuises at FEMA made it in), while still raising an outcry when they dig up an ancient burial ground in Hawaii so they can put up yet another store. And yes, I realize we have to accept their existence and growth, but we don't have to accept the pace and direction of that growth.
I've never thought that coming from a polarized, black-and-white view of the world was the best way to achieve anything. It's the best way to feel outraged and appalled, but it may not be the way to create positive change. Are we more interested in making the world a better place or sticking it to the man? The two are not mutually exclusive, but it takes more than sticking it to the man to move ahead. Words like "naive" and "sellout" raise their ugly heads in my mind when I even type the words "applaud" and "Walmart" in the same sentence, but I think I can deal with them.
One could do a lot worse than Walmart as a symbol for modern America, and I think it is important to engage them in a dialogue, whether it be about sustainability, labor practices, community planning or whatever. I realize that in some cases it will be ineffective, and may even be manipulated by Walmart for their own ends, but we have to try, and keep trying.
All the while, we should also be focusing our efforts on systemic changes - both in the halls of Washington D.C. and in the streets of America - that will eventually curtail our national obsession with "growth" and "progress," regardless of how unsustainable. We also should be sure to support our small family farms and internet-sock stores - they're important, too, Dave, if for nothing else than as symbols of how things can be done differently than the Walmart Way.
In my ideal future, Walmart would some day go away not because they were evil, but because they became irrelevant to American life. Dare to dream...
Permalink
swan Posted 8:49 am
30 Oct 2005
Wal Mart No More
The solution is simple - BOYCOTT. Just plain old boycott. The whole store. It is the most obvious, direct and effective thing to do. Everyone can understand it. Just buy your stuff somewhere else. They need US. If we refuse to buy from them, they will have to listen to us. This doesn't have to be complicated. Even a one day boycott would send them into a tizzy. There's enough anti-walmart energy right now to pull this off. Just a matter of putting the word out. Shall we?
Permalink
Michelle Parker Posted 11:30 am
30 Oct 2005
Speaking of the "jolly green giant"...
Here's an interesting article from ddi magazine posted on October 1, 2005:
"Jolly green giant: Wal-Mart debuts an environmentally-friendly store in McKinney, Texas"
Permalink