Wal-Mart vs. Brooklyn Industries

Today’s Women’s Wear Daily (subscription required) has an interesting article examining the “green” efforts of two companies--Wal-Mart and boutique designer/retailer Brooklyn Industries.  Yet questions remain unanswered.  While “Brooklyn Industries got its start designing products out of recycled materials,” why has Wal-Mart has made only promises to be “zero-waste?” What is the comparison between a small local business and a company that has a huge global environmental impact?

“We can’t do everything we want, mainly because we can’t afford it,” Funk said. “A lot of the environmental tactics and certification processes are very time and capital intensive, neither of which a small retailer has. But we want to engage where we can.”

Diametrically opposed to Brooklyn Industries on the fashion, retailing, financial, philosophical and cultural spectrum is Wal-Mart Stores. The world’s biggest retailer and the country’s largest corporate electricity user maintains more than 7,000 stores worldwide, just one of which dwarfs the entire portfolio of Brooklyn Industries. None of Wal-Mart’s traditional stores are particularly well known for their architectural detail or support of local artisans and small vendors.

Wal-Mart is also in diametric opposition to Brooklyn Industries in terms of its overall impact.  By its own estimate, Wal-Mart is responsible for over 200 million metric tons of greenhouse gases each year--a number which the company concedes is growing despite its environmental sustainability initiatives. 

The article is correct in stating that both companies have green initiatives.  However, a closer examination will indicate differences in intensity and results.  Brooklyn Industries has adopted such innovative solutions as “selling messenger bags made out of recycled billboards.”

The checkout register in its Chelsea store was made from scraps from the company’s own wood shop by Scrap Pile, another Brooklyn-based design company, while the wall units and merchandising system were built entirely using scraps and leftover wood from renewable forests in Finland. The floors were made from wood by a lumber company being certified as sustainable by the Forest Stewardship Council, and are roughly 30 percent more expensive than a traditional flooring system.

Brooklyn Industries has commendably done everything it can to be an environmentally sustainable company with the financial abilities it possesses, sticking with “the company’s current four-R philosophy of recycle, reuse, repair and reduce.” We marvel at the positive impact Wal-Mart could have if they were to make the same commitment and achieve the same results for all of their stores.

Posted by Enviro. Team on Tuesday, November 28 | 0 comments | Permalink

Organic Food and Wal-Mart

Today many of our citizens are turning to organic food. Why? Because they feel that it is healthier and they want to contribute to the local economic stability of our nation. Many people are making choices that are not only healthier, but more sustainable for local farmers. As a nation, we do care what we do and how our buying power affects our neighbor. In Luke 10:25-37 the question is asked, “Who is your neighbor.” This query is asked since it is how we interact with one another that makes a difference.

Pastor Greg Nance of Signal Mountain Church of Christ in Tennessee, in a sermon entitled “What’s a neighbor?”, states there are nine features of a Real Neighbor: A real neighbor sees the need, feels compassion, takes immediate action, is willing to incur risk, set aside their own comforts, adjust their plans, invest their time, invest their money and plans a follow up.

If Wal-Mart is willing to be a good neighbor then they too must see that we can’t sacrifice our local farmers, family and community to make a buck. Wal-Mart must feel the compassion for communities. Like the rest of America, farmers are trying to make a living, provide for their families and follow the American dream. It is a risk to back our farmers when so many of your competitors are willing to take the short cut. But it is a risk worth taking. It is a short term risk for a long term gain. Wal-Mart must be willing to adjust their plans for the good of the nation, and invest time in our local farming community. Why? Because this investment will pay off. Why? Because our farmers, our local communities, have suffered enough damage by the sending all our money and resources overseas.

Mark A. Kastel of Cornucopia Institute, in a letter to Lee Scott (CEO of Wal-Mart), brought to light Wal-Mart’s unfair practices in organic food and fiber. I was disappointed to hear how Wal-Mart would seek to undercut our local farmers, and then use companies that are under investigation by the USDA for not complying with federal organic regulations. The whole concept of organic food is to have a healthier product to serve to your family. Why taint this with inferior products?

Be a good neighbor and stop trying to undercut our local economy. Farming communities struggle to provide for their families. Take the risk that by doing right by them you become a better neighbor to the rest of us.

Posted by Rev. Jarvis Johnson on Thursday, November 16 | 4 comments | Permalink

“Greening” of Wal-Mart?

The Los Angeles Times examines Wal-Mart’s implementation of environmental improvements at its Aurora, CO test store...and visits the questions environmentalists are still asking about the company’s reluctance to address wages, benefits and health care as a part of the larger definition of sustainability.

Wind turbines, rows of tall windows, a 200-foot-long dimpled-metal wall and shiny rooftop solar panels are just hints of what’s to come.

Here, next to a busy freeway in suburban Denver, is tomorrow’s Wal-Mart today. And it’s getting a lot of attention.

For the last year, this experimental Wal-Mart Supercenter has been testing ways to be more environmentally sensitive in everything it does.

What works here won’t stay in Aurora. The world’s largest retailer wants ideas it can use in all of its more than 6,600 stores around the globe.

“The goal has never been to build demonstration stores,” said Andy Ruben, who heads the company’s environmental efforts. “The experimental stores are successful when the learnings get applied to all stores.”

Wal-Mart has been promoting its two experimental stores for years, and while we are hopeful that the company will build more environmentally sustainable stores to help meet its recent promises, we have yet to see actual results.

Likewise, prominent environmentalists are as yet unconvinced of Wal-Mart’s overall sustainability initiatives.

Carl Pope, executive director of the Sierra Club, declined to work with Wal-Mart on environmental matters because the company wouldn’t agree also to talk about labor, healthcare and other issues.

Nonetheless, Pope said that after examining Wal-Mart’s initiatives, he was convinced the company was making a sincere and significant commitment, even if he was skeptical that some goals could be reached.

“None of this is ‘greenstanding,’” said Pope, who also serves on Wal-Mart Watch’s board. “Their metrics are impressive; they’re not modest.

“They deserve the chance to show that their business model is compatible with high standards, not just low prices.”

Friends of the Earth, another environmental group that isn’t working with Wal-Mart, is more circumspect.

“There is a broader picture that needs to be considered,” said the group’s international director, David Waskow.

Part of the problem is that Wal-Mart donates money to politicians whom activists call anti-environment, the group said. It also questions whether the company is taking enough responsibility for its polluting suppliers.

Posted by Laura Jack on Tuesday, November 14 | 10 comments | Permalink

Environmental Group Reacts To Wal-Mart’s Safer Chemicals Announcement

Lois Gibbs, Executive Director of the Center for Health, Environment and Justice issued the following statement in response to Wal-Mart’s new safer chemicals initiative outlining a set of preferred chemical characteristics for product ingredients:

“We welcome Wal-Mart’s efforts to phase out highly hazardous chemicals in consumer products, however urge Wal-Mart to expand the list of priority chemicals to include PVC, set concrete timeframes and benchmarks, and recognize that sustainability must include workers’ benefits and wages both domestically and throughout the supply chain. Without concrete benchmarks, any initiative is toothless.  Through this effort, Wal-Mart should phase out PVC, the poison plastic, and switch to readily-available, safe alternatives, as other retailers and companies have done.  PVC products sold by Wal-Mart, such as shower curtains and children’s toys, are dangerous to our health and environment releasing dangerous chemicals that can cause cancer, birth defects, and immune system disorders.  PVC plastic meets virtually all of the criteria of Wal-Mart’s new “Preferred Chemicals Principles”, releasing chemicals that have been identified as known, likely, or probable human carcinogens, reproductive toxicants, and persistent bioaccumulative toxic chemicals (PBTs). 

Wal-Mart has already begun to phase out PVC in packaging and children’s lunchboxes.  Last October, in response to health and environmental concerns, Wal-Mart announced plans to phase out PVC plastic in private label packaging over the next 2 years.  This summer, Wal-Mart announced plans to stop selling PVC lined lunchboxes.  We need further action from Wal-Mart to phase out the poison plastic to insure that our children are growing up healthy and free from exposure to dangerous toxic chemicals.”

  • Click here for more information about PVC hazards.

Posted by Laura Jack on Tuesday, October 31 | 31 comments | Permalink

‘Giving Wal-Mart environmental award is obscene’

From the Seattle Post-Intelligencer:

Has the world gone mad? In New York last week, the supermarket chain Wal-Mart received an award for its “contribution to the environment” from the Hollywood filmmakers Bob and Harvey Weinstein. It is true that a year ago Wal-Mart reacted to criticism that focused on a range of issues, from their employees’ pay and conditions to the devastating effect they have had on town centers across America, by announcing a raft of environmentally themed initiatives.

Wal-Mart announced they’d reduce energy use in their stores by 30 percent over three years, use more fuel-efficient trucks, cut down on packaging and recycle carrier bags. But hold on a minute!

Read the rest of this story ...

Posted by Russ Fagaly on Tuesday, October 31 | 0 comments | Permalink

The Awards Come After The Accomplishments

Wal-Mart’s hometown paper, the Arkansas Democrat-Gazette, reports that Wal-Mart has been given an award for its “plan to reduce by 20 percent the amount of energy used in existing stores.” While Wal-Mart has received a lot of recognition for its promises, it has yet to deliver verifiable results.

The Alliance to Save Energy’s 2006 Chairman’s Award was given Sept. 12 to Wal-Mart Stores Inc. The award was selected by U. S. Sen. Mark Pryor, D-Ark., the Alliance’s chairman, in recognition of Wal-Mart’s plan to reduce by 20 percent the amount of energy used in existing stores.

Wal-Mart has committed to designing and opening a viable prototype store within four years that is 25 percent to 30 percent more energy-efficient and will reduce greenhouse gas emissions by up to 30 percent.

It is therefore curious that an award would be given to a company for its plans rather than its actual accomplishments. Wal-Mart has done an exceptional job of maximizing PR for its environmental sustainability initiatives, but how much credit can the company reasonably receive for statements and not actions?

While we encourage Wal-Mart to make good on its promises, we are hesitant to heap praise on the company without seeing any results. Awards and praise are typically given to those who produce the greatest accomplishments—not to those who produce the greatest PR.

Posted by Enviro. Team on Tuesday, October 17 | 2 comments | Permalink

Environmental Changes at your local Wal-Mart

The Galesburg Register-Mail in Illinois ran a story Monday about how local Wal-Marts are being impacted by the company’s sustainability strategy.  We are very interested in seeing how environmental sustainability changes and promises are being implemented at the store level, and are providing resources for activists to help.

“This year, we’re looking to recycle 95 percent of our paper,” Wal-Mart manager Travis Wilhite said of the Galesburg store. “All of our shrink wrap and plastic, we put in bale form and a company comes and picks it up.”

In order for Wal-Mart to be a truly responsible environmental company, it must meet all of its environmental promises, outline public goals and timetables for all its initiatives, submit its processes to independent third-party validation and broaden its definition of sustainability to include worker’s health and wages.

Wal-Mart Watch is providing ways for activists to help check on what Wal-Mart is doing, and the company will notice.

“I think what’s important to note is there are a lot of things already being done without being publicized,” he said. “Our customers are probably our biggest critics. ... Actions speak louder than words. For example, we had the paint recycling and it was appreciated by the customers and it was appreciated by the city. That’s a small example.”

Posted by Enviro. Team on Tuesday, October 10 | 0 comments | Permalink

Wal-Mart’s Impact on Organic Standards

Two articles today--one entitled “The Organic Myth” in BusinessWeek and another in the Baltimore Sun--examine the impact of Wal-Mart and other big businesses on standards for organic foods. 

“The Organic Myth” examines the pressure companies like Wal-Mart are placing on organic suppliers to sell at lower costs and questions whether this pressure is leading to lower standards.

Now companies from Wal-Mart to General Mills to Kellogg are wading into the organic game, attracted by fat margins that old-fashioned food purveyors can only dream of. What was once a cottage industry of family farms has become Big Business, with all that that implies, including pressure from Wall Street to scale up and boost profits.

The article further examines the question of companies sourcing organic products from overseas as opposed to the local sourcing organic consumers have come to expect.

As food companies scramble to find enough organically grown ingredients, they are inevitably forsaking the pastoral ethos that has defined the organic lifestyle. For some companies, it means keeping thousands of organic cows on industrial-scale feedlots. For others, the scarcity of organic ingredients means looking as far afield as China, Sierra Leone, and Brazil—places where standards may be hard to enforce, workers’ wages and living conditions are a worry, and, say critics, increased farmland sometimes comes at a cost to the environment.

Wal-Mart’s organic offensive has recently come into question in a report by the Cornucopia Institute which concludes:

Ultimately, the real risk is to the value of the organic label. Will consumers continue to hold organic products in high esteem and be willing to pay premium prices for them? If corporations recklessly concentrate just on the bottom line, at the expense of organic integrity, all players in the industry, regardless of scale, will likely lose.

It is vital that Wal-Mart source organics in a sustainable manner that is consistent with the both the letter and spirit of organic standards, including sourcing from local farmers and paying a fair price for high-quality organic goods. 

Posted by Enviro. Team on Friday, October 06 | 3 comments | Permalink

Page 31 of 35 pages « First  <  29 30 31 32 33 >  Last »