Comments on: More evidence of the Wal-Mart effect

By: Tom Chan

Tom Chan — Sat, 29 Nov 2008 04:10:08 +0000

Walmart is a place of evil. Their management treats the employees very badly. Bullying is used regularly by the managers. They do not consider their employees as humans. There are no sense of belonging at Walmart. The management encouraged gossips and tell-tales among the employees. Then they can use the employees to “fight” each others. No wonder Walmart has a high turn over rate at their work places. It is NOT a Happy work force there. Walmart will continue to create poverty as long as it exists. Walmart destroys jobs and lowers wages in your community.

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Sat, 22 Dec 2007 12:03:00 +0000

Regardless what people may think, it’s a good thing that Wal-mart started it. Other retailers will follow soon I believe if Wal-mart gets it going well.

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Mon, 03 Dec 2007 16:30:00 +0000

I haven’t shopped there for 5 years. About the same time that I became aware of social/economic/enviromental problems surrounding them.

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Mon, 03 Dec 2007 15:49:00 +0000

Walmart are moving in the green direction on the trasportation side by using trailer aerodynamics, we are a vendor of trailer Fairings, a Canadian innovation . They have been proven to reduce Aerdynamic drag by diverting yaw angle wind down the side of the trailer instead of undeneath and releasing from the downwind side of the trailer. They have been validated by the EPA, Good year proving grounds and NRC in Ottawa. fuel savings are in the 5-6% range or 2800 litres per tuck per year. plus 4 tons of Carbon .www.laydoncomp.com

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Mon, 03 Dec 2007 15:29:00 +0000

Wow, quite the hate-on everybody has for Wal-Mart. I wonder how many of you have shopped there? Fact is, if North Americans keep shopping there who’s to blame? Again, my comment is not on whether Wal-Mart is good or evil, it’s that in the last few years, if you measure where the company has started, it has made measurable strides in decreasing its larger eco-footprint and it is committed over the next few years to being even more aggressive. This commitment influences others to take action, and also requires Wal-Mart suppliers to raise the bar. Tell me what the problem is with this?

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Mon, 03 Dec 2007 15:23:00 +0000

How many of the deadly sins of greenwashing is Wal-Mart committing?

Hidden Trade Off,

in which companies highlight one eco-friendly attribute, and ignore their product’s other (potentially more significant) environmental concerns.

No Proof,

which, just like it sounds, involves claims that can’t be verified (the report found 26% of environmental claims fall into this category).

Vagueness –

terms like “chemical-free,” or “non-toxic,” which are both universally true, and universally false depending on your interpretation.

Irrelevance,

when companies make claims that — while true — are unhelpful (like “CFC-free,” when CFCs have been banned for almost 30 years).

Lesser of Two Evils –

like “green” herbicides, which ignores the fact that herbicides in any form aren’t good for the environment.

Fibbing.

The most obvious, in which companies flat out lie (less than 1% of companies make this mistake, but does happen).

http://www.greendaily.com/2007/11/19/the-six-sins-of-greenwashing/

http://www.greenbiz.com/radio/radio_third.cfm?NewsID=36268

Jason

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Mon, 03 Dec 2007 02:36:00 +0000

I wonder what benefit there is in adopting some business practices that protect the environment, while other practices exploit their workers? Wal-Mart might be a little more holistic if it tries to have a sustainable approach to its workforce as well as the environment. Any thoughts?

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Mon, 03 Dec 2007 02:26:00 +0000

I would like to see the numbers. What is the percentage of reduction in greenhouse gases (produced by Walmart) that can be attained by their move? I am guessing it would be equivalent to less then .01% factoring in all stages of manufacturing and transportation. I agree with your statement “better then doing nothing” but it steals attention away from the fact that they pollute more then they are worth. They are not a necessity.

It sounds like the real question underlying it all is what’s more important jobs or the enviroment? Or perhaps our lifestyles or the enviroment? I understand Walmart employs 1.6 million people who most certainly don’t get paid very well. That is a tremendous work force that could be involved in the manufacture and sales of green tech products such as solar cell, fuel cells…fill in the blank. It’s this mass production of these technologies that we need to lower the cost. North america does not produce anything anymore…oh, except consumers.

To summarize. We don’t need Walmart for the sake of keeping people employed and shopping there is not making their customers rich from the savings they have achieved. We are just keeping a valuable work force away from important jobs.

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Sun, 02 Dec 2007 21:34:00 +0000

I have no expectations that a WalMart will alter its approach to selling cheap disposable stuff – this is where our governments must step in. They can level the playing field for products by creating standards for recylability, reusability and cradle to grave life cycle environmental impact analysis. We must focus our criticisms on a government that takes vary minimal action to create a supply of such products that a WalMart can sell. WalMart will not sell more expensive greener products in any volume until they can get them from their supply chain. In the meantime, I try not to shop there, but I also find it increasingly difficult to find really good quality products with 5 year warranties from any retailer. So, I just try to resist buying stuff!

Cheers

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Sun, 02 Dec 2007 15:05:00 +0000

I agree, in an ideal world, with all your points. Wal-Mart should die. Wal-Mart is bad. Big box is bad. Let’s all take this as a given. Now, in a realistic scenario, is it good or bad that Wal-Mart begins taking these steps and sparks more industry-wide change in the process? If we assume the big box approach is here to stay, then it can’t be all bad that efforts are in place to try to decrease the environmental footprint.

My concern is that too many people, even when some companies are trying, simply poo-poo the idea and are suspicious of motives. Every now and then, however, you have to encourage and applaud small moves in hopes they will become bigger moves. If you immediately dismiss them, then why would a company like Wal-Mart try to go any further?

I’m just trying to be realistic, here, not dogmatic.