Going Green Is Strictly Business. Just Ask Wal-Mart
by John Laumer, Philadelphia 
on 03.15.08
This is the second guest post by Wood Turner, Project Director, Climate Counts. His first effort - "Green Electronics: Only Half of the Story"? - was a perfect introduction to this one.
One of the great false debates about the global warming issue is whether or not going green is in conflict with making money. Consider some business groups' radical alignment with those still arguing that a hoax is afoot and that business will suffer from climate-conscious operational strategies. Nothing is further from the truth as Gary Hirshberg showed in example after example in his new book, "Stirring It Up."
One of the companies the book discusses is Wal-Mart, and to the surprise of many, Wal-Mart is doing as much as any company in America to change its practices to be more forward-thinking and more consistent with a less wasteful economy -- call it going green, if you must -- and here at Climate Counts, we applaud their efforts and the efforts of many other large companies to lead. (I'm lucky, by the way, to have Gary as the chair of the Climate Counts board.)
As the director of a non-profit working hard to push the world's largest companies toward ever more substantive climate action, what I'm about to say may seem blasphemous. But I happen to think Wal-Mart CEO Lee Scott's comments are a breath of fresh air. Our society and our marketplace need to hear less from companies that are just riding the green wave of the moment, using marketing buzz words and ad campaigns in an attempt to establish green cred.
We need to hear more from straight-talking CEOs who bear witness to the idea that wasting energy and resources while at the same time relying on unsustainable sources for that energy and those resources is, plain and simple, a terrible way to do business. That's the heart of the matter. When did waste become a viable business strategy? Our unfortunate complacency as consumers is what's allowed business as usual to go on for as long as it has. In truth, we shouldn't be focused on creating a "green" economy; we should be focused, as Lee Smith seems to be, on managing our existing economy MUCH, MUCH more intelligently. In the end, it will be better for everybody -- and the planet as well.
Watch our short film and then stop by Climate Counts and see what other companies are up to. We're updating our scores of the companies we've looked at so far and plan to release them next month.
Follow @TreeHugger on Twitter & get our headlines with @TH_rss!
Thirsty for more? Check out these related articles:
- 5 Reuses for Altoid Tins
- Is School Food Harming Kids? Enlist a Labor Day Eat-In To Promote Fresh, Healthy Food
- Reduce Your Carbon Footprint by Half in Three Steps
- 5 Reuses for: Watermelon
- Meet Green Business Consultant Tyler Moorehead, of GreenUnlimited
- Green Your Bikini Waxing Routine with Soy, Pine Sap and Organic Bikini Wax
"Wal-Mart is doing as much as any company in America to change its practices to be more forward-thinking and more consistent with a less wasteful economy -- call it going green, if you must -- and here at Climate Counts, we applaud their efforts and the efforts of many other large companies to lead."
I think this gives a conscious consumer a false sense of security. Wal-Mart is not being driven by some moral compass, they are not intending to be forward-thinking or contribute less to wastefulness - they are only in it for the money and will turn their back on "going green" in a heartbeat if economics change. They follow no moral compass, just the yellow-brick road to a pile of green bills. Yes, I appreciated the CEO's frankness, but his point was just the one I made. It's all about making money. Let's start talking about smaller businesses instead of trying to justify large chains that monopolize, market disposable items, and have only their interests in mind.
Wal-Mart will not be green until it stops building giant parking lots in front of its stores and starts making them accessible to people walking, biking or taking transit.
>>I think this gives a conscious consumer a false sense of security. Wal-Mart is not being driven by some moral compass, they are not intending to be forward-thinking or contribute less to wastefulness - they are only in it for the money and will turn their back on "going green" in a heartbeat if economics change.>>
I think that's exactly the point. We can't sit around waiting for corporations to have big moral turnarounds and religious awakenings about their debt to the planet. The only way to get big business to change is by enticing their profit motive and regardless of what will happen when sustainability ceases to be profitable, the fact is that at the moment it IS profitable and will be for some time. Saving packaging will always be cheaper than using more, etc. etc.
I'd rather see a company like Wal-Mart do the right thing for the wrong reasons than the wrong thing for the right ones.
The main goal of all corporations should be to make the world a safer, cleaner and better place for people and animals. Yes, they need to make money but doing business the old way is over. Take Exxon Mobil for example. Yes we need energy but can Exxon Mobil do more to help the planet. Yes, it can. It can buy land and donate it to the World Wildlife Fund. It can remove trash form the oceans, it can make water cleaner. All companies can do more. If we all work to make the world a better place everybody wins.
From recycling to cutting energy consumption by using energy-efficient lighting and equipment in stores, retailers have long sought to minimize their environmental footprints.
Will it ever be a sum zero enterprise for retailers? From the square-footage of big-box retailers to the C0-2 released by autos traveling on their way to the mass merchandisers, can retailers ever hope to diminish the size of their carbon footprints?
http://industry.bnet.com/energy/2008/05/15/kohls-paints-the-northeast-green/
My Best,
David J Phillips
Contributing Energy Analyst
CNET/BNET