Check out this week’s issue of the Wal-Mart Watch Weekly Update for Elected Officials – a compilation of Wal-Mart news from across the country and beyond.
This week’s issue begins with a Bloomberg report of Wal-Mart being placed on a list of most controversial companies. Also named - the company responsible for producing melamine-tainted milk in China. The list includes companies criticized for producing negative impacts on communities, health, and the environment, and was based on a study by RepRisk, a consulting firm that analyzes companies’ exposure to controversial issues and news.
You’ll also find stories from BusinessWeek and the Financial Times on how corporate giants like Wal-Mart are gearing up to battle potential pro-labor legislation in 2009. With President-Elect Barack Obama and the Democrats taking over next year, retailers are bracing to fight the Employee Free Choice Act – or EFCA – which could make it easier to organize unions in the workplace.
In addition to EFCA, you’ll find stories on Wal-Mart and the economy. And from the legal front, read about a $19 million discrimination lawsuit filed against Wal-Mart and Pepsi in West Virginia. Plus, in the world of product safety, read more about questions raised by the controversial chemical BPA, as well how Wal-Mart has been selling lead-tainted face paint for kids…a no-no anytime, and especially around Halloween.
And finally, check out our “Stateside” and “Wal-Mart International” sections to find out what’s going on with Wal-Mart around the country and across the globe. Chicago city aldermen have a wish list for an Obama presidency; the fight continues over whether Wal-Mart can build near a Civil War battlefield in Virginia; and towns in California and Nevada deny Wal-Mart the ability to sell alcohol on its store shelves.
Wal-Mart Watch Weekly Update for Elected Officials [November 12, 2008]
Posted by Corey Himrod | Permalink
According to The Christian Science Monitor: “In Britain, carbon footprinting – used initially to broadly measure environmental impact across a company’s entire operations – is morphing into an eco-labeling tool.” This after a British group reported that 80% of a product’s carbon footprint is laid before the consumer actually drives out and buys or uses it.
Unfortunately, carbon-labeling appears to be a tool Wal-Mart believes the American consumer isn’t ready for.
As for carbon-labeling, Wal-Mart’s senior vice president of sustainability, Matt Kistler, says that he doubted existing methodologies and the Wal-Mart customer’s ability to relate carbon with consumer merchandise. “I’m not sure the consumer will ever make a purchase based on the carbon footprint,” he says, “especially the mass consumer.”
Possible. But I think Mr. Kistler underestimates the public’s knowledge on the issue. Sure, many consumers may not know what exactly a carbon-footprint is, but the majority have probably at least heard the term and know it relates in some way to the environment. Carbon-labeling may not affect the buying habits of the majority, yet even if a small percentage of Wal-Mart shoppers were to see the labels and be moved to research the issue further, that can’t be a bad thing, right?
Those making efforts to examine their carbon footprints often do so without transparency – essential to generating both customer support and supply-chain innovation.
At Wal-Mart, consumer transparency is largely tied in to its corporate press releases, a growing assortment of eco-labeled products, and in-store awareness campaigns. A more robust effort is the company’s “Love, Earth” jewelry, which enables customers to use the Internet to map where the jewelry’s gold and silver were mined and manufactured, including information on how the mines manage cyanide and waste dumps.
Are you ready to go on a carbon diet? [The Christian Science Monitor]
Read the rest of this story ...
Posted by Corey Himrod | Permalink
Remember back in August when we wrote about Wal-Mart’s lobbying effort against carbon offset guidelines? It got picked up on a handful of blogs, and started a lively internet discussion about Wal-Mart, the “green” image the company so strongly lusts after, and the (real) global fight to reduce carbon output.
The discussion continues.
The Christian Science Monitor (who blogged about the carbon-offsets issue) today tells us how Wal-Mart is firmly opposed to any sort of required carbon footprint labeling. Here’s the spin Wal-Mart peddled to CSM:
“As for carbon-labeling, Wal-Mart’s senior vice president of sustainability, Matt Kistler, says that he doubted existing methodologies and the Wal-Mart customer’s ability to relate carbon with consumer merchandise.
“I’m not sure the consumer will ever make a purchase based on the carbon footprint,” he says, “especially the mass consumer.”
To respond:
1. How then is Wal-Mart planning to measure the carbon footprint of its suppliers at all? Remember that Wal-Mart just spent weeks puffing out its chest about how it was going to force foreign suppliers to decrease their footprints. And furthermore, Wal-Mart has shown that it’s willing to squeeze its foreign supplier every chance it gets, whether its over RFID technology, sustainability - or just good old fashioned price. Does anyone really believe that carbon footprint can’t be measured, and that Wal-Mart couldn’t or wouldn’t mandate carbon labeling if it felt it would help the bottom line?
2. Customers won’t be able to understand? How about this: a lower number is better than a higher number. I think we can all agree that EVERY SINGLE Wal-Mart shopper could understand what that means, whether or not they are concerned by it. To insinuate otherwise is insulting to the 70% + of Americans who shop at Wal-Mart. According to CSM, “In Britain, carbon footprinting – used initially to broadly measure environmental impact across a company’s entire operations – is morphing into an eco-labeling tool.” Maybe Mr. Kistler just thinks that the British are smarter than Americans?
Five years ago this story wouldn’t have raised any eyebrows. But Wal-Mart’s PR team just got headlines in virtually every major American news outlet for holding a “sustainability summit” in China and supposedly telling its Asian suppliers to get green and get ethical. There was no mention anywhere (that we saw) of mandated carbon labeling on products, so kudos to the Christian Science Monitor for pressing Wal-Mart a little on the issue. Now it’s up to us and other enviro blogs to ring the bell a little louder.
Why doesn’t Wal-Mart want to mandate carbon labeling? Maybe because showing the real footprint of each store’s 100,000+ imported products would take a major dent out of the company’s effort to look soft, friendly and green. Wal-Mart doesn’t want to show you the energy that goes into, and the carbon that comes out of, every dollar it makes - because it’s not pretty. And until the company proves otherwise, we can assume those numbers are headed up - not down.
The heart of the sustainability problem with Wal-Mart’s supply chain is simple: it’s on the other side of the world.
It’s not that Wal-Mart is the only retailer that sources from Asia - far from it. It’s not that steps can’t be taken to make its foreign suppliers more sustainable - they can and should (and hopefully will). It’s that Wal-Mart is determined to earn a “green” image, while at the same time keeping the exact same business model: huge superstores on the highway that stock cheap foreign imports that were shipped on a tanker across the pacific, and then in a truck across the country.
The bottom line: shipping a 19 cent tube sock from Shanghai to Syracuse will never, ever, be “green” - despite what pretty logos are on the package, and whatever ethical or environmental improvements the factory might make.
Are you ready to go on a carbon diet? [Christian Science Monitor]:
In Britain, carbon footprinting – used initially to broadly measure environmental impact across a company’s entire operations – is morphing into an eco-labeling tool.
Earlier this year, the British supermarket chain Tesco began labeling some of its 70,000 products to reflect the carbon released in the their production, transport, and consumption. The 3,729 store behemoth, the world’s fourth-largest retailer, now has 20 carbon-labeled items on its shelves, core items such as orange juice and laundry detergent.
Read the rest of this story ...
Posted by Eric Bull | Permalink
So, every few months Wal-Mart holds a meeting to crack down its suppliers for one reason or another. What makes this one different enough to earn coverage in every major newspaper in the country? We’re not sure, but it definitely gave Lee Scott an international podium to further shift ethical responsibilty away from Wal-Mart and tell all of China to “do as I say, not as I do.”
Women’s Wear Daily gives what is definitely one of the most absurd quotes we’ve heard from Lee Scott in a long time (links added by me, but he might as well have put them in himself ):
“I firmly believe that a company that cheats on overtime and on the age of its labor, that dumps its scraps and chemicals in our rivers, that does not pay its taxes or honor its contracts — will ultimately cheat on the quality of its products,” said Scott. “And cheating on the quality of products is the same as cheating on customers. We will not tolerate that at Wal-Mart.”
That sounds like someone I know, I just can’t put my finger on it…
A couple other interesting bits. The Financial Times quotes a grumbling supplier:
“It’s going to make things a lot worse,” said one manufacturer at the meeting, who asked not to be identified. Others were more relaxed. “If they don’t like it, they are not going to be doing business with Wal-Mart,” said one US-based Wal-Mart supplier who sources components from China.
The New York Times’ Dot Earth Blog asks what might be the fundamental question:
Wal-Mart has been working to improve its image and lighten its environmental impact for several years now. Of course, as some campaigners against over-consumption have pointed out, Wal-Mart is still selling consumerism even as it pledges to cut the social and environmental costs of making the stuff in its stores. Can we have it all? Can we have cheap shirts and disposable batteries in a world heading toward 9 billion people seeking a decent life? I guess we’ll find out one way or the other.
Posted by Eric Bull | Permalink
Well, my faithful blog readers, after two years of working on Wal-Mart issues and more than a year as the main editor of this blog, our Friday Blog Round-Up today will be my last post. I hope you all continue reading, commenting and working to challenge Wal-Mart’s business practices. Enjoy the writing of my Wal-Mart Watch colleagues and try to keep the infighting to a minimum. As for now - on to the week’s blogs!
BLOGGERS WEIGH IN ON “EMPLOYEES SPEAK OUT”
Real Voices, Some More Wild Stuff [Working Life]
Wal-Mart Watch has set up a website where you can actually hear and read about the actual workers who have to put up with the oppressive behavior of The Beast. This is part of the picture: the Great Robbery that we have all endured for a number of decades--wages not going up (even though productivity goes up), no health care, no pensions--plays out, day-to-day, in those aisles at Wal-Mart.
The voice of the workers (Part 1) [Writing on the Wal]
What you get there is a look behind Walmart’s PR curtain to see what employees are really thinking, but too afraid to tell their supervisors since they don’t have a union to protect them. Indeed, let’s start this series there, in the category that Wal-Mart Watch calls corporate culture.
After the jump, union-busting in Canada, bottle water, Nike’s suit against the Bentonville behemoth and Sarah Palin.
Read the rest of this story ...
Posted by Alex Goldschmidt | Permalink
An already contentious three-and-a-half year battle to stop Wal-Mart from building a Supercenter in Tarpon Springs just took a turn for the unexpected.
The St. Petersburg Times tells us today how the proposed site of a 205,000 square foot Supercenter has been compromised by two Bald Eagles who built a nest in a tree right smack dab in the middle of a plot intended to be a 1,000 car parking lot. Bald Eagles are no longer classified as endangered species, but the birds are protected under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act, whereby it is illegal to harm the birds, their nests or eggs in any way. A state wildlife official says that the nest would likely be classified a “category B project,” which would require Wal-Mart to apply for a special permit from the state before beginning any construction.
Wal-Mart has already been under fire for a whole host of problems that the Tarpon Springs project would bring, primarily the pollution and environmental problems that an oil & lube shop and thousands of cars a day would bring to the nearby Anclote River. The Friends of the Anclote River and literally hundreds of citizens have spoken out against this project for years, and the eagles’ nest might be what they need to finally kill the project.
And there was this very encouraging quote from the SP Times today:
Mayor Beverley Billiris said the agencies that protect the eagles will have to weigh in and advise the parties involved..."Maybe the eagle will settle the whole thing,” she said. “I think nature will be the one that will have the last say in it. That’s almost comical.”
That doesn’t seem to jive well with Wal-Mart Spokesman Quenta Vettel, who arrogantly says that Wal-Mart has been aware of the eagles’ nest since spring, and that the city shouldn’t have any say at all in what happens to the eagles:
“This isn’t part of the city’s purview,” she said. “Once we have site plan approval and all the permits that will be required to start clearing and construction, then you begin working with the appropriate agencies to make sure you protect the nest and the eagles.”
The City Commission is meeting next week to reevaluate Wal-Mart’s development certificate, which at least one commissioner says may have expired. Once Wal-Mart gets booted out of town, Ms. Vettel might regret telling residents they have no say what happens in their town.
Here’s betting that our supporters in Tarpon Springs will disagree.
TAKE ACTION NOW!
Email Mayor Beverly Billiris and the City Commission now, and urge them to deny Wal-Mart’s development certificate when they meet next week, and end this site fight now, once and for all.
Posted by Media Team | Permalink
How does Wal-Mart keep getting away with convincing reporters and environmentalists that it is serious about sustainability? It took Jack Neff, who writes for Advertising Age, to point out the hypocrisy of Wal-Mart¹s environmental policy. Of course, he did it quite subtly but the point is clear.
Neff pointed out in an October 12 piece that a Cincinnati-based executive search firm is circulating a job notice for a “Director - Portfolio Strategy, Private Brands, for Wal-Mart.” Ostensibly, it appears Wal-Mart is ramping up its marketing of its own brands. The position will report to Andy Ruben, who many will remember as the former head of Wal-Mart’s sustainability program. This is where it gets interesting.
There has been much written about how Wal-Mart is encouraging other companies to make their products more sustainable and promises to promote those that do just that. Much of that was initiated under Ruben’s watch. One might think that if Wal-Mart is serious about such initiatives it would make this a key part of any private label development. Not so. As Neff points out:
the new director position appears more squarely focused on growing sales, market share, cash flow and brand awareness—all of them included in the performance metrics of the job description, while sustainability metrics aren’t.
Once again, Wal-Mart says one thing and does another. Of course, no one is suggesting that Wal-Mart should not be focused on making money, just that its executives should not lie about their motives.
In Shift, Wal-Mart Puts Focus Back on Private-Label Growth [Advertising Age]
Posted by David Nassar, Executive Director | Permalink
The latest in a long, impressive history of environmental violations:
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) today announced a settlement with Wal-Mart to resolve alleged violations of the Clean Air Act (CAA), which prohibits the sale or distribution in interstate commerce of non-essential products containing substances commonly known as Ozone Depleting Substances (ODS). According to the terms of the settlement, Wal-Mart will pay a total civil penalty of $199,000. Wal-Mart has taken action to investigate the causes of the violation, to come into compliance, and to ensure that the violation does not recur.
Maybe they forgot to run “Glow In The Dark Looney String” through the Live Better Index?
Agreement Reached Wtih Wal-Mart in Bentonville, AR on Clean Air Act Violations [EPA Press Release]
Posted by Eric Bull | Permalink
This story from the Arkansas Democrat-Gazette exposes how difficult it can be to separate fact from fiction with Wal-Mart’s green campaign. The retailer invited dozens of environmentally-friendly companies down to Bentonville, but doesn’t actually buy supplies from any of them. It was merely a chance for Wal-Mart buyers to see what an eco product looks like. Rand Waddoups’ quote further down in the story doesn’t really address Wal-Mart’s environmental problems, but it sure does sound good in a newspaper story!
Wal-Mart welcomes makers of products easy on environment [Arkansas Democrat-Gazette]
Inside the Lights of America company’s booth on the top floor of the Bentonville Plaza office building Tuesday, dozens of LED — lightemitting diode — lights for various applications glowed from a mere 350 watts of power.
The Walnut, Calif.-based company displayed vanity globes, accent lighting, track lights and other applications, with 1. 5-watt bulbs providing light equivalent to a 40-watt incandescent bulb.
Despite the obvious energy savings, Brian Halliwell, vice president of sales and marketing for Lights of America, doesn’t see LED bulbs replacing general-purpose light bulbs anytime soon. For now, he said, the miserly lights are likely to remain in the realm of accent lighting in the home.
Lights of America was among 80 vendor companies that set up booths as Wal-Mart Stores Inc. hosted its first “closed-loop networking showcase” near the company’s headquarters. The event brought together buyers for Wal-Mart stores and Sam’s Club warehouse outlets with companies featuring environmentally friendly products for sale at retail or for use in store construction.
Read the rest of this story ...
Posted by Enviro. Team | Permalink
Wal-Mart has already acknowledged (PDF) the fact that illegal logging goes on in its wood supply chain. A new investigation by The New Yorker follows lumber from the forests of Russia to the toilet seat aisle of Wal-Mart stores.
Taking six years to eliminate illegal logging from its supply seems like a long time for a company that can get Procter and Gamble to sell concentrated laundry detergent in a matter of months, don’t you think?
Posted by Enviro. Team | Permalink
Can one word be the difference between a Wal-Mart and no Wal-Mart? In Estero, FL, that might be the case.
For years, Wal-Mart has had a loosely planned project in Estero on U.S. 41 and Estero Parkway. The project, however, has always been tied to the long-planned widening of U.S. 41 to 6 lanes. Wal-Mart is fighting hard to reclassify the project to a “super-concurrency” from just a “concurrency” - which currently prevents Wal-Mart from breaking ground until until the road project begins.
Al Norman at Battlemart runs down the laundry list of reasons locals are opposing the project, which would be detrimental to all of Estero’s long-held smart-growth plans
From the sounds of the city planners, moving up the Wal-Mart might jeopardize the timeline of the much-needed widening project. This on top of the serious traffic concerns of a putting in a Wal-Mart before the road is widened (Wal-Mart is planning to commission a new study which “changes the parameters” and magically reverses the conclusion that this would be a traffic nightmare.)
The road project already requires the city to donate several acres of a historic estate, and the proposed Wal-Mart site is only about 1000 feet away from the Koreshan Park Historic Site, which is a preserved unique 19th-century colony.
Like almost anywhere else in Florida - there is no shortage of Wal-Mart stores around Estero, with 8 in the Fort Myers area, and another 6 around Naples. Estero doesn’t need another one - all the signs are pointing to no for this new Wal-Mart.
TAKE ACTION NOW!
Email all five members of the Lee County Commission and tell them to say no Wal-Mart once and for all.
Posted by Eric Bull | Permalink
In case you hadn’t noticed, Wal-Mart has received some criticism for its business practices over the last few years. Condemnations of low wages, discrimination, environmental damage, damage to local economies and sweatshop sourcing have come at Wal-Mart from all angles. At some point, someone at the company realized these attacks might be bad for business.
So the company went on the offensive. Charles Fishman, author of The Wal-Mart Effect, explained to a conference of editorial writers this week that in recent months, Wal-Mart has made a massive effort to improve its image. Whereas the retailer once focused on lowering prices regardless of the cost, attacks on the company’s ethics made Wal-Mart realize the high price of behaving badly.
Fishman is certainly right on this point: after years of criticism, it seems Wal-Mart’s leadership finally recognized the value of a good reputation. Since its revelation, Wal-Mart has worked to highlight not only its low prices but its good deeds too, spending millions to publicize its environmental efforts and charitable giving. A new ad campaign, a new slogan and numerous public appearances by company executives drive home Wal-Mart’s new message: We’re not all bad, really.
Wal-Mart’s work to become a socially responsible company, however, is far from done. The company’s labor problems remain completely unresolved: wages and benefits for hourly workers are still paltry, allegations of union-busting remain rampant, and the company’s discriminatory practices have resulted in dozens of lawsuits in the last year alone. Labor issues are the most expensive to resolve, but a recent study (PDF) shows that shoppers take a company’s labor practices into consideration above all other social responsibility issues. The company cannot and will not succeed with its image overhaul until these issues are addressed.
Even Wal-Mart’s highly-touted environmental campaign has problems. While the company cites reduced packaging and organic cotton among its crowning achievements, Wal-Mart’s massive energy consumption, unsustainable land use, and unethical sourcing practices negate any positive impact the company might have. Poor product quality contributes to environmental problems too, and several recalls over the last year and a half reveal the high price of cutting costs. The company’s relationship with local communities continues to be a problem as well.
Like Mr. Fishman, we are also interested to know the impact of Wal-Mart’s environmental footprint - both good and bad. But any examination of Wal-Mart’s sustainability efforts should take into account the company as a whole - with all its problems, from factory to shopping cart - not just the side Wal-Mart wants us to see.
Two say Wal-Mart image on mend [Arkansas Democrat-Gazette]
Posted by Alex Goldschmidt | Permalink
Check out this week’s issue of the Wal-Mart Watch Weekly Update for Elected Officials – a compilation of Wal-Mart news from across the country and beyond.
This week’s issue begins with reports from two states that Wal-Mart is undercutting high school activity and athletic fundraising by selling merchandise bearing the logos of local high schools. In both cases, the schools in question were never contacted by Wal-Mart about whether sales of the items would hurt the school’s efforts to raise funds.
In addition, you’ll find Time and The New York Times delving into the topic of Wal-Mart moms, and the role they’ll play in the November election. Plus, check out our section on Wal-Mart and the environment to find out more about the unethical behavior of Wal-Mart’s sustainable mining supplier, and from California read about how the retail giant fought (unsuccessfully) a port-truck plan that would require tougher environmental and security standards.
And finally, check out our “Stateside” and “Wal-Mart International” sections to find out what’s going on with Wal-Mart around the country and across the globe.
Wal-Mart Watch Weekly Update for Elected Officials
Posted by Corey Himrod | Permalink
Sep16
Cleveland Walmart Fiasco
In August 2006, everything was good at the City View Mall in Garfield Heights, Ohio. Wal-Mart built a supposedly first-of-its-kind store on top of a landfill. It made headlines for supposedly attracting 6,000 applicants for just 200 positions.
Two years later, things are a little different. It turns out that building on giant pile of garbage might not have been a good idea after all. The Ohio EPA has long been investigating the site, and has found significant soil erosion, polluted water seeping into storm sewers, and - most notably - combustible methane gas seeping into the store. The independent investigation by Wal-Mart indicated raw sewage backwash present in the store, a dangerous shift in the foundation of the store and confirmed the methane problems.
And just for a little more scandal (we know you wanted it): Mayor Thomas Longo, one of the chief architects of the landfill project, is saying publicly that he thinks methane is not the reason Wal-Mart is pulling out: “It’s a business decision...It’s a dollars-and-cents issue with these people.”
His claim sounds a little dubious, but for now - Wal-Mart is the only store to pull out of the complex.
Wal-Mart closes at City View on methane fears [Cleveland Plain-Dealer (Ohio)]:
Wal-Mart closed its store at City View Center on Monday, saying explosive gas at the site, built atop two toxic dumps, poses a danger to customers and employees.
The announcement comes less than two weeks after the Ohio Environmental Protection Agency threatened to shut down the big-box plaza off Interstate 480 if the owners did not step up efforts to monitor and vent the methane from underground sewer lines.
Read the rest of this story ...
Posted by Media Team | Permalink
Wal-Mart markets its new “Love, Earth” jewelry line as “fashion jewelry that honors, cherishes and protects our planet.” Targeted at shoppers concerned with the environmental and human rights problems associated with gold mining, shoppers can trace their “Love, Earth” jewelry from “mine to market,” assured that it is sourced “from mines that maintain leading environmental and social standards.”
Just one day after Norway slammed Wal-Mart’s “sustainable” gold supplier for massive environmental damages, the environmental group Global Response has publicly condemned Wal-Mart for its gold greenwashing campaign. While the company makes overtures to environmentalism - using pictures of green fields and butterflies on the “Love, Earth” website - it relies on vague terminology, few enforceable standards and biased monitoring in calling the jewelry line “sustainable.” From Global Response:
Wal-Mart’s criteria look good on paper. They include “Safe disposal and management of waste and hazardous materials ...Protection of ecological functioning, ecosystem services and important biodiversity...Respect for the rights of individuals, indigenous peoples and communities [and] Contribution to the sustainable development of communities affected by operations.” But who is monitoring Newmont’s performance? Newmont and Wal-Mart.
The group goes on to criticize Wal-Mart’s mining partner, the Newmont Mining Corporation, for mining on land owned by the Western Shoshone tribe of Nevada. The Western Shoshone Defense Project has been fighting Newmont for years over the corporation’s environmentally-damaging practices.
Wal-Mart’s other partner in the “Love, Earth” line is Rio Tinto, a mining company recently blacklisted by Norway’s pension fund for its environmental damage in Indonesia. Norway has categorically refused to invest in irresponsible corporations: Wal-Mart itself was dropped from the fund in 2006.
Wal-Mart wants customers to see it as an environmentally-progressive corporation, but the company is trying to do it on the cheap. Rather than improve its sourcing practices or demand change from its suppliers, Wal-Mart has repeatedly focused on marketing instead. This not only fails to protect the environment, it actually tricks shoppers into supporting unsustainable practices.
What you can do: Join Wal-Mart Watch and Global Response in calling on Wal-Mart to stop greenwashing its gold. Click here to write a letter to the retailer, or send a complaint to the Federal Trade Commission for false advertising. With your help, we can spread the word about Wal-Mart’s greenwashed gold.
Posted by Enviro. Team | Permalink
Norwegians have dealt another ethical blow to Wal-Mart.
The Norwegian Government Pension Fund, known as the oil fund, has long since dropped all shares of Wal-Mart stock. But today it was announced that the fund dropped its entire $853 million stake in major mining company Rio Tinto for “grossly unethical conduct” resulting in massive environmental damage. This is the same Rio Tinto that Wal-Mart selected to supply it with “sustainable” jewelry.
The fund specifically cited the company’s mining practices in Indonesia, where it, among other things, “discharges about 230,000 tonnes of waste product – known as tailings – per day into a local river.” Rio Tinto is currently being blamed for thousands of deaths in Papua New Guinea, and good rundown of Rio Tinto’s history of labor and environmental abuses can be found here.
And remember, Rio Tinto is just supplying the “sustainable" 10% of Wal-Mart’s jewelry…
Ethical investors attack Rio Tinto [The Independent (U.K.)]:
The Norwegian government has launched an unprecedented attack on the UK mining giant Rio Tinto, selling a £500m holding in the company after accusing it of “grossly unethical conduct” relating to environmental damage.
The Norwegian Ministry of Finance released a statement yesterday saying it had “decided to exclude the company Rio Tinto from the Government Pension Fund – Global, due to a risk of contributing to severe environmental damage”.
Read the rest of this story ...
Posted by Eric Bull | Permalink
We missed Rainforest Action Network’s “Greenwash of the Week” back in April when they did an amazing job explaining the problems with Wal-Mart’s green efforts. The core of their argument: Wal-Mart’s low prices don’t reflect the true environmental cost of its products. RAN vloggers Bria and Robin break it down:
Does this mean that Wal-Mart really cares about being a green company and changing the way they do business to protect our future and the environment? Not exactly.
One reason Wal-Mart’s prices are so cheap is that they don’t pay all the environmental and human costs of all their products. They’re subsidized by environmental and human exploitation.
It’s called “externalizing the cost of production.”
Posted by Alex Goldschmidt | Permalink
We’ll be extremely busy this weekend relaxing and celebrating the valiant efforts of American workers, so in the meantime - a brief round up of the week’s Wal-Mart blogs.
DEADLY BASSINETS SOLD AT WAL-MART
Wal-Mart Still Selling Dangerous Cribs [WakeUpWal-Mart.com Blog]
Wal-Mart has long been plagued with recalls of dangerous products, and it has often been implicated in taking too little action about such products. Now it seems Wal-Mart is still selling a dangerous crib that is responsible for two deaths.
Here is the story yesterday at Consumeraffairs.com. I hope Wal-Mart (mentioned in this story) and other retailers have stopped selling these products, since being notified of the imminent hazard warning. And I assure readers, if SFCA’s defense somehow prevails in court, that the Congress will be quick with a technical correction to the new law.
After the jump, Wal-Mart’s local food, more on the company’s mandatory meetings and the new Marketside stores.
Read the rest of this story ...
Posted by Alex Goldschmidt | Permalink
Lodi, California, is probably known by most people for its Zinfandel and a Creedence Clearwater Revival song. But its quickly earning a reputation for one of the nation’s longest Wal-Mart site fights. After six years of back-and-forth debate and on-and-off plans, Wal-Mart is pushing forward again in Lodi.
From the Stockton Record:
Aaron Rios, a spokesman for the retailer, said the worsening economy forced executives to re-evaluate the Lodi project. “After conducting a careful and thorough review we believe that this is a financially viable project and we are looking forward to obtaining the necessary approvals from the city’s Planning Commission and City Council,” Rios said in a statement.
Lodi already has a Wal-Mart, which the company has said is doing fine. The Record also tells us that there are already 20 Wal-Marts within 44 miles of downtown Stockton, which is several miles south of Lodi. Residents are fighting to keep the 21st out of downtown Lodi.
Outside of the normal concerns that Wal-Mart will force out local businesses and bring only low-wage, low-benefit jobs, one of the primary concerns, just like it has been elsewhere in Central California - is environmental. Residents have been extremely concerned with the amount of noise, crime, traffic and air and water pollution that a new Wal-Mart supercenter will bring.
Al Norman tells how the Lodi city government has not yet made public its draft of the environmental report, and is asking readers to email the Mayor and urge that it be released immediately so that citizens can review it and have their voices heard before the planning commission make its final decision next month.
(Al Norman also has a great archive of posts on the Lodi site fight, going back to 2004.)
TAKE ACTION NOW!
Email the Lodi Mayor, City Council and Planning Commission - and urge them to release the draft of the environmental report, and to end the Wal-Mart debate once and for all with a “no” vote next month.
Posted by Eric Bull | Permalink
Wal-Mart Canada has faced some big labor problems lately. A 2005 lawsuit against the company’s anti-union labor practices made it to the Canadian Supreme Court this month, and at almost the same time workers in a Wal-Mart garage in Gatineau, Quebec managed to unionze, much to the company’s chagrin. So the company’s PR department did what it does best: divert attention.
David Cheesewright, CEO of Wal-Mart Canada, announced today that all of the company’s new Canadian stores will be “energy efficient.” The retailer has yet to meet any independent guidelines for energy efficiency, so its environmental claims are somewhat unclear, but the announcement comes at a time when Wal-Mart Canada could use some serious public relations karma.
Cheesewright insisted that the efficiency improvements were simply cost-saving measures, and said “environmental sustainability and business sustainability—it’s the same thing.” However, the company has yet to announce any such measures for its U.S. stores - or its stores in any other country, for that matter. The number of “energy efficient” Wal-Mart stores remains a pitifully small percentage of the company’s total operations. So if Cheesewright’s statements are true, Wal-Mart is missing out on a lot of cost savings - and we all know Wal-Mart wouldn’t do a thing like that. Perhaps the retailer is actually just looking for some free PR among our neighbors to the north.
Wal-Mart aims for ‘greenest stores on the block’ [Financial Post (Canada)]
Wal-Mart Canada Corp. pushed its green agenda ahead Tuesday by pledging that all new stores will be built to be markedly more energy efficient, and existing stores will be retrofitted to make them more environmentally friendly.
“Wal-Mart Canada (WMT/NYSE) has been intensely dedicated to environmental sustainability over the past three years,” Wal-Mart Canada CEO David Cheesewright said at the annual meeting of the Association of Municipalities of Ontario on Tuesday. “Perhaps no change has been as significant as those made to the way we build and operate our buildings. And the changes are progressing. We are confident that Wal-Mart stores will be among the greenest on the block.”
Read the rest of this story ...
Posted by Alex Goldschmidt | Permalink
View Wal-Mart Watch's videos on YouTube