IMHO we would best serve sustainability goals by applauding when an organization like Wal-Mart makes a move in the right direction. Sure, Wal-Mart could do a lot more but why not encourage progess instead of belittling it?
There's also this story out in the NY Times today about an internal Wal-Mart memo suggesting ways to cut employee benefit costs, and it ain't pretty.
Nope, no big conscience was grown in Walton-country anytime lately. Part of me thinks this "environmental push" is just a ploy to get folks like me and you shopping at the stores again. We are a big and growing group of people, and maybe the only group in this country that Wal-Mart doesn't make any money off of.
But there's a bigger chance of me becomming a Nascar fan than ever shopping at a Wal-Mart again.
I think we can do both -- applaud Wal-Mart's efforts in this direction, but make it clear that this is only one step forward. A triple-bottom line approach involves planet, people and profits, and Wal-Mart still has a lot of work to do on both planet and people. Ultimately (and this is where the "rubber meets the road"), companies like Wal-Mart have to look at their whole raison d'etre (isn't that impressive?). While adapting these environmental measures is a good thing, they're still done in the context of a company that 1) loves growth for the sake of growth, and 2)isn't worried about ruining local economies to achieve growth. Paul Hawken discussed the case of McDonalds, and noted that recycled paper and such are great, but their still making their profits by encouraging kids to develop unhealthy eating habits. Acting on the low-hanging fruit is good, but without a larger context shift, it does little to move us towards a more sustainable society.
I don't see myself shopping at Wal-Mart anytime soon either, because I believe you're right about their motivations, Ryan. At the same time, I'd love for Wal-Mart to prove us wrong.
Amen.
Commenting by HaloScan
