Kruse Kronicle

Walmart Is Crushing Its Ambitious Global-Responsibility Goals

—

by

mwkruse
in , ,

Fast Company: Walmart Is Crushing Its Ambitious Global-Responsibility Goals

Walmart, that bastion of cheap food, clothing, and everything in between, has corporate-responsibility goals that put every other big box retailer to shame. When Walmart asks its 60,000 suppliers to shape up, the world listens; a demanding packaging goal will have companies the world over scrambling to fit the requirements (for both Walmart and the inevitable copycat retailers that jack up their requirements later). In Walmart's 2011 Global Responsibility Report, we get a glimpse at just how far along the company is in meeting its ultra-ambitious goals. It's making exceptional progress.

Goal: Reduce our global plastic shopping bag waste by an average of 33% per store by 2013 (2007 baseline)

Convincing people to part with their beloved plastic bags is no small feat (outside of San Francisco, of course, where bans are a way of life). But Walmart has managed to do it. In 2010, the retailer cut down on plastic bag waste across its global operations by approximately 3.5 billion bags. This is a 21% reduction from the company's 2007 baseline–meaning the 2013 goal isn't out of the question. …

Goal: We will partner with suppliers to improve energy efficiency by 20% per unit of production in the top 200 factories in China from which we directly source by 2012 (2007 baseline).

Believe it or not, Walmart has already managed to achieve this goal (with a little help from the Environmental Defense Fund). …

Goal: In the U.S., Walmart will double sales of locally sourced produce, accounting for 9% of all produce sold by the end of 2015.

This goal, announced in October 2010, is still "in progress," according to Walmart. The chain says that it will measure success based on the amount of produce sales within the state of origin versus overall dollar amount of produce sales. …

The first two are great. I'm still mystified why locally sourced produce is such a desired end.

Comments

11 responses to “Walmart Is Crushing Its Ambitious Global-Responsibility Goals”

  1. Taylor G Avatar
    Taylor G

    What about fair wages for factory workers in China? I’d like to see a goal for that from Wallmart.

    Reply
  2. Michael W. Kruse Avatar
    Michael W. Kruse

    It doesn’t directly address the issue you raise but here is their statement on ethical sourcing:
    http://walmartstores.com/sites/ResponsibilityReport/2011/social_supply_ethicalSourcing.aspx

    Reply
  3. Al Shaw Avatar
    Al Shaw

    The case for locally-sourced produce (point three in your post) is relatively easy to make on environmental stewardship grounds.
    Food that is produced close to where it is bought and consumed uses far fewer transport miles (hence fossil fuels) than food that is shipped, flown or otherwise transported from a distance.
    The practice of flying in out-of-season fruit from Africa or Latin America, for instance, is a radically unsustainable practice.

    Reply
  4. Michael W. Kruse Avatar
    Michael W. Kruse

    I know this is the rationale but is it true?
    The central question here is what it would take to get one item from the plant to the kitchen table. Let’s take a tomato for example.
    There are three ways we could transport a tomato from plant to market:
    1. A small vehicle (say pickup) with a few hundred other tomatoes.
    2. Semi-trailer with thousands of other tomatoes.
    3. A cargo ship with millions of other tomatoes.
    Here is the approximate portion of fuel costs per tomato per one mile traveled.
    1. Small vehicle = .5 – .05%
    2. Semi-trailer = .003%
    3. Cargo ship = .0000015%
    (I don’t know the exact amount for rail but as I recall it is something closer to a cargo ship than a semi-trailer.)
    Now if you are going to move 10 million tomatoes, you can use one cargo ship, 250 semis, or 9,000 small vehicles. Now we have to figure in the carbon expended to manufacture these semis and small vehicles as well as the roads and infrastructure that must be built and maintained to support all these vehicles.
    But now let’s add the idea that little farmer markets will now be used to sell the vegetables. That means that thousands of small farmers will now be using more carbon to bring produce to market. Furthermore, instead of going to one market, consumers will now engage in more driving to get to the small markets to buy the locally grown goods, using even more carbon.
    The bottom line is that is often more sustainable, from a carbon standpoint, to ship in food from thousands of miles away than to create a network of small local growers. If you really want to change agriculture, then what we need is local community gardens and people growing their own food, not purchasing food from local growers. But the fact is most will not choose this option. The opportunity costs to spend extensive growing your own food are simply too high.
    I suspect Wal-Mart may be able to create more efficient, less carbon emitting, local markets, but I think it is highly questionable that they can create significantly less carbon intensive methods than what we currently have.
    I’ll also add this, for many locales, the comparative advantage they have in trade is agriculture. Exclusively local food means no trade with the poorest nations of the world. Locking them out of trade is a death sentence to their emergence into reasonable levels of prosperity.
    The local food movement is well intentioned but we all know what the road to hell is pave with.

    Reply
  5. Dave Avatar
    Dave

    Another portion of the farmers market mode of selling things is that in our particular case it is a 90 mile round trip to the farmer’s market. So how much is saved for the things we buy as opposed to going to the grocery store 5 blocks away?
    Of course the whole argument is based on CO2 emissions which actually contribute to better plant growth anyway. So maybe driving further to get produce creates more CO2 which is better for the local plants, which is better for us.

    Reply
  6. ceemac Avatar
    ceemac

    Local is a very vague word.
    I suspect most consumers have a romantic assumption of what it means:
    *Fresh, as in those carrots I buy at noon were in the ground at sunrise this morning. The tomato was on the vine 3 hrs ago.
    *Flavor, since you don’t have to worry about shipping you can grow tomato varieties exclusively for flavor and not pay attention to durability and uniform size for packing. Not to mention you can leave them on the vine until the last possible moment.
    *grown at a very small operation of a few acres. Cultivated and harvested by hand and handled very carefully.
    But look at Walmarts definition: “within the state of origin.” I live in Dallas so that means Walmart considers produce from the Rio Grande Valley as local. That’s hundreds of miles away. I am not sure that would fit most folks definition of local

    Reply
  7. Dana Ames Avatar
    Dana Ames

    “Local” usually means grown within 100 miles or so.
    It’s not only the carbon concern. Produce grown, if not in your own backyard, then as close as that surely does taste better, being fresher.
    Dana

    Reply
  8. Chuck Avatar
    Chuck

    The plastic bag issue is a biggie for me. Here in the Houston area discarded plastic bags are a scourge on the landscape. They are everywhere! I understand that this is mainly a personal responsibility issue but c’mon, it appears that way too many folks can’t seem to properly dispose of their plastic.

    Reply
  9. Michael W. Kruse Avatar
    Michael W. Kruse

    There are certainly advantages to growing food locally but I’m deeply suspicious that this contributes to “sustainability” … less carbon. At best, growing some food in my yard or a nearby community garden will supplement what I eat. I have no desire to grow a garden. The great majority don’t either. So we are still going to need some to grow not only for themselves but others.
    To really feed a major metropolitan area you are going have to use acreage extending many miles beyond the city to grow enough food. We are back to moving food in a small-vehicle carbon-emitting way. And if you deteriorate the capacity to let a broader market distribute the food, what happens when regional events like hail storms, late freezes, or drought occur?
    Again, “grow local” can create community and generate more tasty and nutritious food. I just don’t think it is going to improve sustainability one bit.

    Reply
  10. Michael W. Kruse Avatar
    Michael W. Kruse

    I should also add that Walmart has done things like initiate the new stackable rectangular milk cartons. The ability to stack them has cut transportation cost by something like 40%, thus saving emissions. Walmart has also bargained to eliminate wasteful packaging where 1/3 of the contents is air in order to make the product look bigger, or reducing the size of the plastic blister packages. The logistics systems ensure that everything moves with a bare minimum of waste, including wasted fuel that creates more carbon.

    Reply
  11. DevilBiss Pressure Washer Avatar
    DevilBiss Pressure Washer

    Well it looks like Wal-Mart has officially conquered the United States, I suppose it’s good that they’re going to start growing responsible. It seems nowadays companies take over then ween every single bit of profit out of their domain by cutting the quality of everything they do. Good step Wal-Mart

    Reply

Leave a Reply

Discover more from Kruse Kronicle

Subscribe now to keep reading and get access to the full archive.

Continue reading