Greening Wal-Mart

In 2005, Wal-Mart adopted a slate of environmental initiatives aimed at "greening" the company's image and saving money. Some of the goals included reducing the company's total greenhouse gas emissions 20% by 2012 (from 2005 levels), using a more energy-efficient fleet of trucks, and working toward being waste neutral. Wal-Mart used its massive influence to push its suppliers into using more recycleable and sustainable materials, as well as pulling other large corporations into the race to be environmentally sustainable.

How has Wal-Mart done in the four years since it resolved to help save the world?

It's hard to tell, actually. Certainly they have made some progress: the company builds new stores with sustainable elements like white roofs, daylight harvesting systems, and high-efficiency faucets (download Wal-Mart's "Sustainable Buildings" PDF Factsheet). The company's "2009 Global Sustainability Report" (PDF download) is filled with glowing reports of Wal-Mart's environmental successes and normal people who are saving money by buying more sustainably. All of these advances are valuable -- to a certain extent, any advance is valuable. But Wal-Mart operates more than 4,000 retail locations in the United States alone, not all of which are "sustainable" buildings. They open new stores every year. I think that simply making small changes while still expanding so much will not equal out. That is, how much will a white roof (or a hundred white roofs) really do to offset the pollution of the entire Wal-Mart operation? Not enough, I think. The amount of changes becomes very small in comparison to the scale of the company.

The store chain's biggest change has been in public perception. With a new logo, a new slogan, and even older stores getting a new (greener) look, Wal-Mart is popular again. Sales were falling off before the green campaign; today Wal-Mart is stronger than ever. The store is seen as working tirelessly for sustainability, regardless of the truth of the situation.

True, Wal-Mart has brought awareness of environmental issues to the general public and increased the availability of low-cost sustainable products. However, buying CFLs at the new "green" behemoth (for example) lets the public think that they are saving the world without actually making many of the serious lifestyle and consumption changes that will be needed to make our society truly sustainable. Too, the company could push more of its suppliers to make their products more sustainable.

In the end, Wal-Mart's pursuit of the bottom line -- hey, sustainability pays -- has helped the environment in small ways. It is still working toward its larger goals, set back in 2005. For example: Wal-Mart has already made its transportation 25% more efficient. These measures are saving the company money. But they could be doing more -- and should be. I am interested in seeing how the movement toward greater corporate responsibility, rising from a public perception of corporate recklessness and greed that caused this recession, affects environmental action. We are starting to believe that corporations should consider the common economic good. Why not the common environmental good as well?