Latest Headlines
Chicago alderman pleads for a Wal-Mart -07.01.09 | [Chicago Tribune]
Wal-Mart Backs Drive to Make Companies Pay for Health Coverage -07.01.09 | [Wall Street Journal]
Key hearing set on Wal-Mart near Va battlefield -07.01.09 | [WMDT-TV (Va.)]
Fact Sheets
The Employee Free Choice Act Legislation that will truly make a difference for Wal-Mart workers
Wage & Hour Issues Read how Wal-Mart continually fails to pay every worker for every hour worked
Health Care Wal-Mart's still insures barely over half its employees on the company plan
Always Low Wages Poverty-level wages make life extremely difficult for Wal-Mart's 1.4 million workers
The Environment How Wal-Mart's business model is detrimental for our planet
Wal-Mart Earns Failing Grade For Seafood Sustainability
A great new seafood sustainability report was released today by Greenpeace. Titled “Carting Away The Oceans: How Grocery Stores Are Emptying The Seas,” the report comprehensively profiles and grades 20 American grocery chains on their seafood buying and selling practices. Surprisingly, Wal-Mart came in 5th in the rankings - but nonetheless earned a failing grade.
Seafood has been an area where Wal-Mart has made considerable efforts to appear sustainable - or at least heading in that direction. The company announced recently that within the next few years it would work towards 100 percent sustainable seafood in partnership with Conservation International, World Wildlife Fund (WWF), and the Marine Stewardship Council (MSC). In 2006 Wal-Mart began selling MSC certified seafood, and currently offers 22 MSC certified products.
But Wal-Mart’s got a long way to go. Greenpeace finds that the company still sells 14 unsustainable “Red List” species: Alaskan pollock, Atlantic cod, Atlantic halibut, Atlantic salmon, Atlantic sea scallops, Chilean sea bass, grouper, hoki, red snapper, redfish, orange roughy, South Atlantic albacore tuna, tropical shrimp and yellowfin tuna. And it’s been less than two months since we were all reminded that sustainability goes far beyond just the environment , when “virtual slavery” among workers was exposed at Wal-Mart’s shrimp suppliers in Thailand and Bangladesh.
Wal-Mart’s efforts to sell sustainable seafood should applauded, but it is entirely within the company’s power to stop buying unsustainable seafood sooner rather than later.
Posted by Eric Bull on Wednesday, June 18, 2008
Click Here for a Printer-Friendly Version
SEARCH WAL-MART WATCH
Most Popular Tags
battlefield benefits brookins chicago city council competition competitors daily clips debate development doctor employees expansion government health care healthcare hearing influence insurance jobs mandate new politics residents senate target wall street journal wildernessMAKE A DIFFERENCE
Top Posts
- Happy 4th of July, From Your Friends at Wal-Mart Watch
- Today’s Final Word on Health Care
- Wall Street Journal Takes Wal-Mart to the Woodshed
- Wal-Mart: Sticks and Stones May Break Our Bones, But Health Care Could Kill Our Rivals
- Ald. Brookins Won’t Give Up on Second Wal-Mart Store, Ups Pressure on City Council
- Final Hearing Date Set in Wilderness Standoff
- Wal-Mart Watch Daily Clips- July 1st 2009
- Wal-Mart, U.S. Chamber Oppose Labor Rules in Pakistan and Afghanistan
- Workers Speak Out: Despite Calls for Reform, Wal-Mart Still Shortchanging Workers on Health Care
- Wal-Mart Says: ‘Hasta La Vista’ Union Supporters
Archive
Subscribe to this blog
Subscribe to the Wal-Mart Watch RSS Feed
View Wal-Mart Watch's videos on YouTube
Contact Us
Have a tip? Contact us.
COMMENTS
Adidas to sue Wal-Mart for alleged copying
Handelsblatt predicted the damages in the current case could run to $326 million.
I wonder how many poor snook Wal-Mart customers thought they were buying Adidas? I’ll bet kids were particularly vulnerable.
Today’s Oxymoron: Business ethics.
Ken V in Texas
Thursday, June 19 at 10:58 AM
I wonder how many poor snook Wal-Mart customers thought they were buying Adidas?
I would suspect “none” since the Wal-Mart branded shoe in question was Athletic Works, not Adidas.
Thanks to Alex G. for clearing that up in a more current posting…
bbrd in
Thursday, June 19 at 01:30 PM
Thanks to Alex G. for clearing that up in a more current posting…
Huh?
A shopper, “when faced with aisles and aisles of footwear at a Wal-Mart store, is more likely to be attracted to the Adidas knockoff after seeing the stripes because of that mark’s familiarity,’’ Adidas claimed in court filings.
Not only did Wal-Mart rip off the logo but the quality was so shoddy the shoes flew to pieces if the wearer tried to run.
**Note to bbrd: I’m glad to see I’m not the only one you misread. Why bother to read at all? Just pontificate about what you want an article to say rather than what’s really there.
Dr. Ken V’s diagnosis: Delusional! :o)
Ken V in Texas
Thursday, June 19 at 02:25 PM
Ahem.
Have you seen the court filings, Dr. Delusional?
Have you ever seen branded shoes such as Adidas (knock-offs, or not) at WM, or any discount store, for that matter?
Kenbo, all it takes is a few steps out of the cave (and into the real world), and you’ll find the answers…
bbrd in
Thursday, June 19 at 02:34 PM
One more thing…
...last time I checked, a few stripes on a shoe (unlike the Nike “swoosh"), doesn’t make for a registered trademark.
Weak.
bbrd in
Thursday, June 19 at 02:38 PM
Weak.
That’s for the courts to decide, but I’m sure there were those that thought Adidas’ case was ‘weak’ last time also.
Handelsblatt reported Adidas had won a recent copyright case in Portland against shoe retailer Payless Shoesource, after Payless began selling shoes with two, alternatively four, stripes. The court awarded Adidas $305 million in damages.
Ken V in Texas
Friday, June 20 at 07:45 AM
Comment Policy
WalmartWatch.com reserves the right, in its sole discretion, to remove or refuse to post blog comments.