Wal-Mart's Sustainability Summit: Greenwash it was Not
by Sami Grover, Carrboro, NC, USA on 10.11.07
Apologies for the lack of images of the event itself, cameras were not permitted in the conference hall.
When we solicited our reader's views on the Wal-Mart Live Better Sustainability Summit yesterday, and on the company’s eco-efforts in general, the majority of responses could best be described as cautiously positive. A few detractors did question whether a chain the size of Wal-Mart can ever be truly green, but others pointed out that it is Wal-Mart’s sheer size that makes it such a potential driver for sustainability across the business world. There was no clearer indication of this possibility than wandering the isles of the summit yesterday.
Representatives of suppliers to Wal-Mart mingled with company associates perusing information on efficient manufacturing, renewable energy, organics, certified forestry, and change management for sustainability. They asked questions on how they could green their packaging, how they in turn can influence their own suppliers, and what can they do to cut their carbon footprint. It really was palpable that these companies are taking sustainability very, very seriously now that Wal-Mart is doing the same. We spotted CEOs, VPs and other senior executives of major corporations including BBC International. Sony, 3M, SC Johnson and others. This was a major event, with serious green content way beyond PR fluff.
We will be reporting more on the details of the summit over the next few days, as this post is being written from the airport as the author travels back home, but in brief the day consisted of a well appointed resource fair, with exhibitors including WWF, FSC, BP Solar, TransFair, Organic Exchange, McDonough Braungart Design Chemistry, the Biomimicry Guild, Act Now and many, many more.
The main event was a speech by CEO Lee Scott in which he stated in no uncertain terms that Wal-Mart is in this for the long haul, and expects its suppliers to be in it for the long haul too. Scott pointed out that while his company is aiming for zero waste and 100% renewable energy, this still only accounts for 8% of its footprint, and that Wal-Mart must green its supply chain if it has any chance of becoming sustainable (Scott was also at pains to point out that the company is not, and does not claim to be, a green organization – it is just starting to move in that direction). We will bring you a separate post on the details of what was said, but Scott announced a number of milestones that have been reached, including already passing their goal of selling 100 million compact fluorescent light bulbs this year, and then described how suppliers can do their part to reduce packaging, eliminate toxins, and green their energy use.
We left the event in no doubt that Wal-Mart has set itself firmly in the spotlight by making a strong, unequivocal statement on it’s goal of sustainability, and any u-turn would be tough indeed. The motivation for these moves is, as many of our readers have pointed out, not a question of philanthropy – Wal-Mart sees clear business opportunities and intends to seize them. In the end this is perhaps the most encouraging sign of all – putting any moral imperetive aside, businesses are seeing that green just makes sense.
Having said all of the above, a huge question still remains – can a company that is based on selling as much stuff as possible, as cheaply as possible, ever be green? If they use half as much energy to produce a T-short, but sell four times as many, the environment will still suffer. This is a conundrum that goes to the very heart of the sustainability debate, and one that Wal-Mart does not have the answer to (to be fair, they don’t claim to either). Ultimately, so much of being green on an individual level is about buying less crap, and using what we have better. This author is unlikely to be shopping at Wal-Mart any time soon, and tends to avoid shopping as much as possible anyway. Nevertheless, we don’t see a collapse of our capitalist system coming any time soon (and we’re not sure we’d welcome it when it came), so we see any efforts by a company as large as Wal-Mart to make things better, greener and and with better conditions for its workers and those of its suppliers as a very, very good thing. ::Wal-Mart Live Better Sustainability Summit:: Via personal invite::
Disclaimer: Sami Grover is also Director of Sustainability at The Change, a company that was invited to exhibit at the event.
Let's face it. It all revolves around doing more with less. The less net consumption, the better for everyone.
Even Gordon Gekko would agree.
Build it here. Build it using less materials and energy. Build it to last. ... or to be totally recycled.
Good Luck.
vsk
When they say "suppliiers", do they mean the factories in China making all of their stuff? Do they mean helping to point out that we need to REDUCE BUYING STUFF because the environment can't withstand endless manufcture of virgin goods?
----------
Author's comment:
When they say "suppliiers", do they mean the factories in China making all of their stuff?
Yes.
Do they mean helping to point out that we need to REDUCE BUYING STUFF because the environment can't withstand endless manufcture of virgin goods?
Probably not.
I've never seen such a sly greenwashing campaign. Did you guys know that Wal-Mart stores take up 18,800 acres nationwide? How is that environmentally conscience?
Check out this nice graphic here: http://awesome.goodmagazine.com/transparency/007/trans007storespace.html
I am very disappointed that so far, nothing has been mentioned regarding transportation costs. Perhaps Wal-Mart will sell energy efficient light bulbs and increase their alternative energy use, but let's look at the largest CO2 prodocer - transportation. They ship the majority of their items from overseas which must produce an obscene amount of C02 and they build massive stores on "cheap" land far outside of the city limits which can only be reached by a vehicle. Maybe Wal-Mart will reduce their CO2 by a few percentage points, and that's something, but they will have to completely change their business model to become truly sustainable and have an impact on curbing global warming. I'm still seeing greenwash and I'm not buying it.
--------------
Author's Comment:
Thanks for the thoughts Amanda. I agree with you that there are huge issues surrounding WM's core business model, and big question marks over whether or not they can ever be truly sustainable.
I am yet to write up the details of Lee Scott's presentation, and of some of the other announcements and initiatives, but transportation is most definitely also on their agenda. They have been workingm, for example, with Rocky Mountain Institute to improve their trucks fuel efficiency, a move which will impact on the whole commercial trucking industry, as WM has one of the largest fleets in the world.
The company is also putting a lot of energy into optimizing packaging to fit the maximum quantity of products into each shipment, something that has the potential to significantly improve transport efficiency.
Nevertheless, as you say, they are still reliant on shipping goods very long distances, and building stores in places that increase reliance on the car. Aside from which, as I've emphasised in my posts, they are also reliant on selling an awful lot of stuff - something that is hard to allign with sustainability.
The one thing I would say is that I strongly believe that WM is more aware than many major coporations about its overall impact from all aspects of their operations. They are clearly making efforts to make real changes, not just cosmetic greenwash. However, they have a HUGE way to go, and it's not at all clear that their business model ever can be truly sustainable. I'm glad to see them trying though...
We all agree anything that saves energy and reduces pollution is good. However, there are some very important issues that are not being addressed.
Since Wal-Mart is a major marketer of products made in China, they could have a significant impact on what's happening there. For example, Wal-Mart could put pressure on the factories in China to begin to clean up their polluting ways, implement safety standards instead of replacing people, and for China to stop supporting Genocide in Darfur.
If you don’t care about pollution, lack of humanity and what’s happening in Darfur, how about this: The American public is getting royally ripped off. As an employee of an American manufacturer, I boycott all products from China. When you start looking at labels, especially designer labels, Nordstom’s private label, etc., you’ll see product that was once made here that is now made in China and is selling for more than ever at a much higher profit.
So you don’t buy designer labels or shop at Nordstrom. You shop at Wal-Mart because it’s cheap. Have you ever stopped to consider the long term cost of a ‘cheap’ item? Here’s where the average American is getting ripped off buying ‘disposable’ product instead of quality that is much less expensive in the long term. Not to mention the waste.
Until China becomes conscientious about what’s happening in the world, the people at Wal-Mart should stop spending their time with smoke and mirrors and come up with solutions to help the Chinese to manufacture in ways that are cleaner and safer. Wal-Mart could make a real difference.
A recent article from the SF Chronicle:
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2007/09/28/EDLJSFFI1.DTL&hw=Pollution+in+China&sn=002&sc=495
And I didn’t even get to the poison toys, foods, medicines…
We all agree anything that saves energy and reduces pollution is good. However, there are some very important issues that are not being addressed.
Since Wal-Mart is a major marketer of products made in China, they could have a significant impact on what's happening there. For example, Wal-Mart could put pressure on the factories in China to begin to clean up their polluting ways, implement safety standards instead of replacing people, and for China to stop supporting Genocide in Darfur. http://www.dreamfordarfur.org/Portals/0/Uploads/Documents/TarnishingTheTorchFINAL.pdf
If you don’t care about pollution, lack of humanity and what’s happening in Darfur, how about this: The American public is getting royally ripped off. As an employee of an American manufacturer, I boycott all products from China. When you start looking at labels, especially designer labels, Nordstom’s private label, etc., you’ll see product that was once made here that is now made in China and is selling for more than ever, creating a much higher profit for the importer.
So you don’t buy designer labels or shop at Nordstrom. You shop at Wal-Mart because it’s cheap. Have you ever stopped to consider the long term cost of a ‘cheap’ item? Here’s where the average American is getting ripped off buying ‘disposable’ product instead of quality that is much less expensive in the long term. Not to mention the waste.
Until China becomes conscientious about what’s happening in the world, the people at Wal-Mart should stop spending their time with smoke and mirrors and come up with solutions to help the Chinese to manufacture in ways that are cleaner and safer. Wal-Mart could make a real difference.
A recent article from the SF Chronicle:
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2007/09/28/EDLJSFFI1.DTL&hw=Pollution+in+China&sn=002&sc=495
And I didn’t even get to the poison toys, foods, medicines…
Way to go Sami!
You have to tell it like it is. Wally world is a huge chain that will never be truly green, but if they made their company 50% greener just for their own marketing that's still better than what a smaller store being 100% green at a higher cost could do! It's still capitalism at its "green" best. I mean...i personally hate WM and all the things it’sdone and what it stands for, but I also live here in the US and that is a part of our society. If they reduce/save 50% on future stores then that's still better at the end of the day. I personal wish all large companies; universities and even cities would have to meet the new RPS standards we impose on utilities. That'll have to be part of the future if we want to slow down GW and put them all in check.
Cheers,
MH
I think packaging is a big deal and if anything positive comes from this it's that venders will rethink the way they package goods. It's drives me crazy to have to buy a small supply item and find it packaged in giant shrnk wrap or a box with unnecessary Styrofoam. Often extra packaging is simply to make shop lifting more difficult. If venders need to revise packaging for Wal-Mart it will have a ripple effect.
Having said that, the whole concept that is Walmart and cheap disposable consumerism is as harmful to the environment as a million meth labs. Not to mention the negative impact they have on a community as a whole. I can't imagine a change so great that would never allow me to darken their doors and frankly I'm not comfortable with sites like this giving them good PR.