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

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

Commenting is not available in this content entry.