Walmart doesn't want to be a green company--so why are they trying?

Breaking news:  Walmart is in business to make money.  They will pursue green endeavors if it is good for their bottom line.  Selfish?  Yes.  Happy news for environmentalists?  Maybe.

"We make no claims of being a green company. And we're not saying we're better than other companies. But what we are saying is we're doing sustainability in a way that's real and right for Wal-Mart and is touching the lives of millions of people around the world," [Lee Scott, Walmart CEO] wrote.

He reiterated Wal-Mart's stated theory of two years ago that reducing its environmental impact is a smart business move because it saves money and produces better products.

Greedy corporate scum.  I've been doing some reading lately on Immanuel Kant's Categorical Imperative*:  oversimplified**, people are bound to certain duties out of moral obligation without regard for the end...in other words, do the right thing always; without exception.  By making reference to the profit motive, Walmart seems to be in violation--they're trying to do the right thing but not out of moral obligation.  Hmmmm...putting it that way, I think I disagree with Kant.  Outcomes matter. But do the ends justify the means?  Crap.

*Don't worry, I'm not getting all philosophical.  I have a student working on some social norm stuff and he made reference to a paper that invokes the Categorical Imperative.  I had to read up on it to figure out what the hell he was talking about.

**I'm sure I have butchered Kant's intentions.  Feel free to hammer me in the comments.

Comments

[robertdfeinman]

There are two issues. The one I think you are aiming at is what is the role of for-profit corporations. The answer is, whatever the government says it is. Our current government has said that the only goal is maximizing returns to investors. Firms in other countries (notably France and Germany) require their corporations to include other factors as well. Some of these have to do with treatment of employees and others have to do with ecological issues. Corporations are state created beings and there are no a priori principles that apply to them.

The second issue is about Walmart specifically. Walmart is the poster child for profit above all else. To achieve this goal they break the law, cheat their workers or treat them miserably and play local communities against each other to extract tax concessions and other benefits.

Their fundamental business model is based upon unsustainability. It requires cheap labor and raw materials from undeveloped countries, it requires low transportation costs and it requires a pool of customers who buy stuff that they don't really need to excess.

There are a couple of site that specialize in pointing out Walmart's hypocrisy. The more detailed one is WalmartWatch.com - they go into the report in detail.

The one I contribute to is TheWritingOnTheWal.net. We're just a handful of outraged populists who like to point out Walmart's failings, especially their continuing PR missteps.

[JohnnyGreen]

It is comments like this that undermine and run counter to the end result you supposedly seek.

For the past 30+ years environmental activists seem to believe that by shaming both companys and individuals into action it will bring about positive change to greener practices.

The more you shame the more reluctant people are to embrace the cause. One only has to raise a child to realize how counterproductive this really is.

I a not a Walmart shopper simply because I don't like shopping there, but thank god private enterprises like them are taking tangible steps in the right direction while also pulling the masses along through a better marketing message. This produces tangible results.

American consumerism is driven by aspirations, not submission. Let free enterpise take over the green message and you'll have your greener Walmart simply because the demand will be there.

This is what you ultimately want correct? Or would this render your current message obsolete and give you nothing to complain about?

[Mac]

Robert says, "and it requires a pool of customers who buy stuff that they don't really need to excess."

Who are you to say what a consumer needs? And isn't there a possibility that some people are made better off by shopping at WalMart?

Next time I need to buy something I'll call you up. You can tell me if I really need it.

[robertdfeinman]

Mac:
Thanks for presenting the libertarian position, we haven't seen it expressed so well since Bush told us that the best way to fight terrorism was to go shopping.

The US is about 4% of the world's population and consumes about 40% of the resources. The world as a whole is consuming at about 1.6 times the renewable amount. Savings in the US is now negative which means people are borrowing to sustain their spending.

I'm sure you fail to see the contradictions here, you just figure that everything you do has no consequences elsewhere. How is it that people in other advanced societies can get by with, say, one TV per family while those in the US need many?

Consumerism is leading us to grief, whether you want to acknowledge your share in this trend or not doesn't change the basic facts. Those who don't want to see any sacrifice promote the "rising tide lifts all boats" myth.

To get the poorest up to a modest standard of living will require that the world consume at twice the sustainable amount. Self righteous selfishness is the god that has led us astray. Wake up and smell the coffee.

[JohnnyGreen]

Consumerism is the economic engine that fuels not only product purchases but also funds the global development of new technologies, new skills and new wealth that help lift the despair of many have-not countries.

Under you mantra Russia, Eastern Europe, India and SE Asia would still be languishing as 3rd world, suppressed societies. Still room for improvement but much better than 10-20 years ago.

JohnnyGreen

[robertdfeinman]

This essay on Walmart's efforts states things better than I can. You can also argue with the author on the site, if you wish.

link

[joshua corning]

Thanks for presenting the libertarian position

What!?!?

I am a libertarian and that is not the libertarian position...here i will spell it out for you.

Walmart is EVOL!
I am EVOL!
The more EVOL! there is the better off I am.

See?

[joshua corning]

The more you shame the more reluctant people are to embrace the cause. One only has to raise a child to realize how counterproductive this really is.

You have a child!!!

You are EVOL!
Welcome to the Libertarian party.

[Cervus]

So tell me, Robert, what is your alternative to "consumerism". I'm eager to hear it. I have yet to hear one from any critics.

How do you prevent people from buying what they don't need without intrusive, totalitarian methods? Will I have to fill out a government form to buy that second TV? Will I be allowed to get one that's more than 20"? How long do I have to wait before the Citizen Needs Bureau will approve my request for an iPod?

[Environmental Profiteer]

Robert, my company tries very hard to improve first time quality on the assembly line. This improves our profit many ways. Being efficient saves money AND is helpful to the environment. We use less utilities making one good part instead of several bad parts. The bad part is trucked to a scrap yard to be melted down. We lose the oil, grease, plastic and whatever else is on that part. To top it off if my company makes a lot of bad parts we will work all weekend consuming more utilities.
We are capturing our quality improvement data and using it to help meet our aggressive environmental goals. If this disgusts you then don't buy a car.

[robertdfeinman]

Cervus:
I have at least a half dozen essays on my web site about how to create a steady-state economy. I don't have "the" solution and I've been asking for others to contribute their expertise to the problem.

There are a small group of economists who seem to understand that there is a problem. I think our hosts belong to this group. Another group calls themselves "ecological economists" and the father of that subset is Herman Daly. You can find several of his white papers on the web as well.

I take if from your tone that you really aren't interested in a serious discussion, but prefer to try to slander me as some sort of totalitarian who is in favor of central planning, but I believe just the opposite. The only way to solve large scale problems is from the bottom up, not from the top down. Those at the top can provide leadership and inspiration, but dictated solutions don't work.

I do believe that the US and the rest of the industrialized countries will have to get by with less in the future. How this is to be accomplished and what sacrifices will need to be made is where there is a need for some honest discussion. This is lacking, only capitalism/consumerism is under consideration.

The only difference between the camps is to what their ideas are on how best to achieve the growth that will solve all the problems. I understand politicians spouting such nonsense, but I had hopes that economists would be willing to investigate alternatives. I'm still waiting.

[Cervus]

Robert:

Your web site is a curious mix of philosophies. You reject Marxism, but want the government to provide a minimum standard of living, which is inherently socialist. Essay titles like "Let's Abolish Philanthropy" and "After Capitalism, What?", and "Abolishing Private Ownership" do not encourage me.

Your preoccupation with wealth inequality is prevalent. In your "After Capitalism" essay you propose doing away with private property. And you acknowledge that your steady state society is more or less completely static, with no mechanisms for rewarding individuals for entrepreneurship, or financial instruments to fund them anyway. For all your rejection of Marx, the ideas you present are so close to Socialism that there is little practical difference.

[robertdfeinman]

Cervus:
I reject your labels.
To me capitalism/socialism/marxism are all concerned with who owns the means of production. Any one of them can do a good job or a terrible job, it's not the ownership that's the issue it's how it is implemented in practice.

I'm concerned with governance. Gross income inequality leads to gross political power inequality. Such power inequality leads to undemocratic governance.

I support democracy. That certain societies have defects with their governance is a sign of imperfection, not a sign that the system is bad.

If we had a real democratic society and it decided to abolish private property then I'd have no problem with that. If they, instead decided to install a monarch I'd have no problem with that, although I'd have my doubts about the workability of the idea.

The people should be allowed to make their own choices (or mistakes, if you prefer), as long as it's democratic.

Our present system of governance is not a functional democracy, the majority has no voice in policy. A person can be elected promising to do something and then do the opposite (or nothing) and there is no remedy. Since 96% of legislators get re-elected if they run again, the ballot is not even effective. The upcoming election may demonstrate that what I have said has limits. If the populace gets sufficiently upset with the status quo then they really can force change.

The issue is will those elected to replace them be any more representative of the wishes of the citizens?

Marx was wrong because he thought that workers could never get a fair share from capitalists. Organized labor showed that they could, even if it required decades of armed conflict to achieve. Once again it's not who owns the means of production, but who has the power.

[JB]

Cervus,

Robert is expressing his opinions on what is necessary to achieve sustainability. The discussion is heated, but you go for the cheap-shot and attack his essays? You are clearly offended by his opinions, but come on!

So what is it? Do you reject that there’s a problem? Do you have complete faith in the “market” to sort everything out? Either of those arguments would be better than what you offer.

[Cervus]

JB:

Robert directed me to his site and his essays on his "steady state economy" in his earlier response. I thought it was a good idea to go and read several of them in order to have a clearer idea of where he was coming from. Is that considered a "cheap shot"?

I do not reject that there is a problem. I do reject that we need the kind of controls the he is arguing for. And I read this blog precisely because I am concerned. I am quasi-libertarian, and social mobility concerns me more than income inequality.

But I am confident that we'll get through this crisis, one way or another.

[Eric H]

I reject your labels.

Robert rejects your labels, not his own. In his world, libertarians and neocons are the same because he says they are. Never mind the fact that many libertarians would do away with corporations while Robert and the Neocons like to keep them because they're ... useful (they're easily taxed and controlled, and they in turn control great swathes of the population and national wealth). When confronted with this evidence, Robert prefers to claim not to be interested in the minutiae of various flavors of libertarianism (but that doesn't stop him from painting them as neocons while grasping for the mantle of Serious Progressive Thinker).

Wal-Mart is an easy target when you're making easy arguments. The real Wal-Mart is a little more complex. For example, Wal-Mart has a policy of paying its suppliers on time. Given that, they make it easier for small apparel manufacturers than their competitors like Sears (how? that's a longer story, but it involves credit-extending "factors"); and remember that Sears in its day was decried by department stores like Marshall Field's for destroying local commerce. Nothing new under the sun. Wal-Mart's contribution to insustainability is also a mixed bag, given the high economies of scale of shopping in one location as opposed to everyone driving to many stores to buy their goods (which have to be delivered in smaller lots). On balance, I'd rather not have Wal-Mart for reasons best summarized by saying, "go read Kevin Carson's Mutualist blog," but I recognize that the arguments aren't as one-sided as the WalMartWatchers of the World would have you think (or not think, as the case may be).

Robert, you have it backwards: gross political inequality leads to gross wealth inequality (which is different from income inequality, a concept that confuses people who are really worrying about wealth effects). Who do you think favors the size of the government? The poor? Beyond a few safety net issues, they could not care less. You really, really need to pick up a copy of Gabriel Kolko's Triumph of Conservatism, and then extrapolate from it. Or learn the _Baptists and Bootleggers_ or regulatory capture concepts. It's the capitalists who want large government. It's the free marketeers (read: libertarians) who are against the resulting state capitalism. "The people" do not control the state; when they have, the results were sometimes frightening (unless you're okay with the democratic machinations in France, 1794). If the problem stems from the state-corporate nexus, there are two possible solutions: abolish the state, or abolish the corporations. If you abolish the state, the corporations go with it; if you abolish the corporations and leave the state apparatus, well, we've seen what that looks like.

I'd like to know in what sense you think labor got a "fair share" of anything? Because that darn sure was not the result of the FLSA. Again, I'd recommend this as a starting point:

http://mutualist.blogspot.com/2005/06/end-to-labors-long-retreat.html

[reason]

My God what radicals we have here.

A few points
1. Sustainability is neither promoted nor excluded by Capitalism AS SUCH.
2. Individual efforts are fairly pointless, since the sacrifice of one individual can be offset by the greed of another. Me scrimping and saving just lowers the price for a glutton.
3. In order to promote sustainability we need to internalise in the market the costs of non-sustainability. Even to expect anybody to be able to calculate the total life cycle energy costs of a single product (let alone the millions in existing) is asking a lot. Raise the price of energy and the price system will calculate it.
4. Increasing returns are common. The joint stock company owes its existance to them, not so much to state (or other) promotion. Some libertarian fantasy of a state and corporation free corner of the world won't change their prevelance in the world as a whole. We need to (metaphorically) grab the beast by the horns and control it.
5. Credit is a problem. The level of indebtedness in the world is what makes high growth imperitive, not free enterprise and consumerism. It is important to see things at a whole system level.

[robertdfeinman]

Either I'm a very unclear writer or some people don't pay attention to what I actually say.

There are two separate threads going on at once here.
The one I thought we were discussing had to do with being "green". I referred people to some of my essays which deal with (choose your term) "sustainable development" or "steady-state" economy. I offered one conjectural essay on the subject as a way to jump start a discussion and elicit new ideas. So far I haven't had much success, it is hard for people to think outside the box.

I should add that just because I write that we should do X does not mean that I "believe" we should do X. Sometimes the best way to get a discussion going is to play devil's advocate. Even if I "really" believe what I wrote then why should the discussion be about me and not about the ideas? Do people discuss Marx or Marxism?

The second thread is about my views on libertarianism. I'm always willing to discuss this (again), but this wasn't the point of this thread.

I recently posted a blog essay on this subject on several sites. The one which seems to have gotten the best discussion going is this one:
What is a Conservative?

If you want to discuss the issue go to the site, register (it only takes a moment) and add your 2 cents, I'll be happy to respond.

So I'll summarize my main point that is relevant to this thread again.
1. The US consumes more than it's "fair share" of the world's resources.
2. The world already consumes more than can be maintained of resources.
3. Additional growth in undeveloped countries will only make the gap larger.
4. Walmart's attempt at going "green" are mostly greenwashing because their business model is based upon an inherently unsustainable approach.
5. The gap between what the world can provide and what is being consumed will cause adjustments.
6. We can plan for these adjustments and try to minimize their impact or we can let them just happen.
7. In my opinion planning is the better approach.
8. My suggestion for a plan includes reducing consumption to a level that can be sustained. This applies mainly to the wealthier countries.
9. Consumerism is incompatible with #8.
10. Replacing consumerism will, in my opinion, require replacing or modifying capitalism so that it no longer focuses on growth. This will have profound effects on many things that people take for granted like compound interest.
11. I have no idea how to bring this about given the strength of vested interests and the unwillingness of people in the developed world to make any adjustments to their lifestyle. Several of the comments above illustrate this where they are of the form "you can't tell me how to spend my money".

I realize that my ideas are unconventional, perhaps that's why they are misunderstood, but there are an increasing number of people who now understand that we have a worldwide sustainability problem, it's just that their ideas of what to do about it are limited. I'm trying to stir the pot.

[odograph]

I think the biggest problem for the "Walmart is inherently unsustainable" argument is that container ships are so darned efficient.

There was some crazy new ship who's press release said that it could move goods from China to Britain with less energy than it took to move the goods 100 km by road, once they got there.

Combine that with the stats that some high percentage of the world's population actually live near ports, and what do you get?

(The mental image of goods shipped and then trucked to Kansas might be driving a lot of this ... but as a counter example, the nearest Walmart to me is only 15 miles from the Port of Los Angeles.)

[Justin Z]

I think, for the sake of this thread, we should look at HOW Walmart is becoming "sustainable".

Walmart realizes that people drive 20 miles or more, up to several times a week, They see no problem in this, nor are they interested in curbing consumer behavior. Obviously this is not sustainable.

Walmart however, is attempting to cut costs in operations.
He wants every truck in his fleet to fill up only at Walmarts on hydrogen fuel As an unpractical fuel, I think, "Why not biodiesel?" or something of that nature. Can you imagine semi trucks running on hydrogen? Neither can I and neither can Lee Scott; greenwash.
The REAL sustainable methods are nothing more than pushing compact fluorescents and using motion sensing lighting in some aisles. I think the biggest achievement has been getting suppliers to reduce packaging.
I think of it as cost-cutting. Apparently some genius in Marketing thought it as "sustainability".

I'm starting to get tired of that buzzword.

[odograph]

I think American society is evolving. It's always evolving. I think Walmart's moves are in line with a business-centered move to increased energy efficiency. Business is ahead of consumers on that one because business gets no benefit from "conspicuous consumption." If Walmart delivered all their goods in Hummers it would not make them more desirable.

I think consumers will have to follow too, just because energy prices are going up .. but it's an evolution, not a revolution, at this point.

It sounds like Justin wants a revolution ... which is fine ... but faulting Walmart for not leading as a revolutionary force seems a little over the top.

[reason]

Robert D Feinman

Replacing consumerism will, in my opinion, require replacing or modifying capitalism so that it no longer focuses on growth.

I think you need to refine this idea. For instance, what do you mean by growth? If you mean producing better quality goods and services, and providing people with better quality life opportunities, then capitalism can be consistant with sustainability.

Capitalism doesn't necessarily focus on growth, but credit based capitalism does. It real interest rates are 2-3% and total debt = one years income, then the system is demanding turnover growth at > 2-3% in order to cover the debt. For sustainability, you need lower debt levels. Then people will have the choice to slow down if they want.

[robertdfeinman]

Reason:
One of the problems is that the terminology is ill suited to express the concepts. You understand the issue: there is a difference between more and better.

Some have tried saying we need qualitative growth not quantitative. The UN calls it "sustainable development" which I think is open to misinterpretation since most people equate development with things like clearing the forest for farm land or erecting new buildings.

I've tried "steady-state" which to me means living in harmony with the rest of the ecosystem. It would be great if someone could come up with a phrase that isn't burdened by unintended connotations. Any suggestions?

[odograph]

I'm on record as not liking fuzzy use of the word "growth."

I'd think "increasing sustainability" is a good enough goal. It works now, incrementally, without scaring people away. And if we ("pants-wearing monkeys" that we are) ever get there, it defines the end game ... we increase sustainability until everything is sustainable ... and then we increase it some more.

(It would be nice to go beyond sustainable, to regenerative, wouldn't it?)

[Eric H]

7. In my opinion planning is the better approach.
...
I realize that my ideas are unconventional, perhaps that's why they are misunderstood,

No, your ideas are perfectly conventional. The idea of planning the perfect society has been around arguably since Comte, and indisputably since Croly, Brandeis, Taylor and the Scientific Management movement (which is where Lenin got his ideas). You and Reason seem to believe that the theory is sound, but it hasn't been tried (what else can be meant by your #7 and his, "We need to (metaphorically) grab the beast by the horns and control it"?). Again, I'll reference Kolko in defense of the argument that it *has* been tried and we are *living* with the results. One of them is Wal-Mart.

Reason; Robert's use of capitalism echoes your concern about credit in the context he uses it. It does require growth as you both argue, but it would not exist without the state. The modern corporation is a long way from a Joint Stock company, where the owners knew each other, actively managed the business, and typically dissolved it upon the death of a partner. Originally, a corporation was chartered by the state with specific ends and limited means, while the modern corporation is literally a legal (juristic) person created by filing paperwork and a fee, in which the diluted owners may not have any real say, which exists long past the death of the incorporating officers, and which may change its structure at any time.

odograph is right about the efficiency of container ships; however, this only counts the private cost, not the public cost. Container ships require extensively modified waterways, port facilities, highways, railroads, and other infrastructure. Wal-Mart depends on a world where people are far removed from their food source, which is how that 100 km became an argument in their favor. The question is: how did it get this way? And how do we undo it?

I'd like to remind everyone of a debate several years ago regarding the extent to which Wal-Mart depends on the state for its existence. Glen Whitman was at the center of much of it, and you can follow the other links from there (Glen had the better part of the debate, I thought, but I also thought they tiptoed around the 800 pound gorilla arguments):

http://agoraphilia.blogspot.com/search/label/Wal-Mart

Although that doesn't specifically touch on Wal-Mart's current penchant for greenwashing, it is indirectly related: yes, the US (like France, Canada, the UK, Germany, and all of the Western democracies) uses more than our "fair" share of resources (i.e. per capita parity). This is a result of Chandler's Visible Hand, the intentional creation of an energy-intensive, large-scale system for moving goods from mines and fields through factories, wholesalers, and retailers (via roads, ports, and rails) into the hands of consumers (with money flowing in the other direction). But it could not operate on that scale without the other visible hand, the one of which Chandler makes only passing mention. National railroads (the Pennsylvania), interstate corporations (like Standard Oil), and other behemoths did not show up on the scene during the old partnership days of the early 19th century. There is no easy way to summarize it, but my understanding of the economic history of the US in the 19th and 20th centuries lead me to believe that the current unsustainable system is largely propped up by the state. The state is the mechanism by which costs are socialized and benefits privatized. For reference, I'd recommend Kolko (adding in his _Railroads and Regulation_), Berle and Means (much of which is outdated and debunked, but the history of corporate law is still valid), Horwitz' Transformation of American Law, and Dominick Armentano's history of oil policy in _Antitrust and Monopoly_.

I would concur with Reason with one adjustment: Sustainability is neither promoted nor excluded by Free Markets, AS SUCH. I don't think state capitalism is quite that benign.