Marketplace

Search

Being green and quiet about it

I need ear plugs to go to the store these days, so I won’t hear all the companies shouting at me about how good they are to the environment. Wal-Mart’s bellowing voice is growing even louder — as you probably know - it’s planning to label products with green ratings.

Marketplace’s Sam Eaton reported on this last night. Wal-Mart is telling its suppliers today that they must total up the environmental costs of making their products, and Wal-Mart plans to turn that into a rating system of some kind. From Sam’s story:

How Wal-Mart determines whether its products are sustainable is another issue. Tyson Slocum with the consumer watchdog group, Public Citizen, say the potential for green washing is huge.

TYSON SLOCUM: I’m not sure that it’s appropriate for a giant retailer like Wal-Mart to be crafting these definitions. I think we got to have an unbiased source.

Like the federal government. But Andrew Hutson at Environmental Defense says Wal-Mart’s inclusion of universities, manufacturers and competing retailers in the process gives the initiative credibility.

More from the Wall Street Journal:

The most immediate impact of Wal-Mart’s latest drive will be felt by its 100,000 suppliers, which will bear the costs of the company’s environmental mandates, at a time in which many are struggling economically…

Wal-Mart insisted there will be no exemptions. Asked what relationship Wal-Mart would maintain with suppliers that don’t supply the data, Chief Merchandising Officer John Fleming said bluntly, “We probably don’t have one.”

While it sounds like a good idea, I wonder if the ratings will a. be meaningful and b. make any sense. If Wal-Mart can create “calorie labeling” for the environment, then we might have something here.

Our team of environmental bloggers, The Greenwash Brigade, is cautiously optimistic. Janne Flisrand writes:

My job is to write about greenwash, but until the index (and the messy, messy details underlaying it) are public, it’s impossible to say whether it is or it isn’t. The big W has been making significant steps for a while, so maybe they’ll do it right. The further I read, the more hope I have, because they seem to have the right players at the table - including my hometown big box brand Target and a host of life-cycle-analysis experts.

I’ll put on my skeptical hat for a moment to go along with my ear plugs. I got into a conversation about this earlier today, and the theme was — the language around the environment and the grandstanding about it turn people off.

I was talking with my colleague, Brendan Newnam, co-host of the fabulous Dinner Party Download, and he mentioned a French chef, Alain Coumont, who has mastered an art many American companies have not — being green and quiet about it. His menu is slowing turning vegan, but he’s not telling the customers, even the staff. From Food and Wine:

Coumont wants the vegan options to succeed, and not just because they taste so good: He believes that even a partly vegan diet is healthier and more environmentally friendly. But he does not want to be known as a vegan missionary. “The vegan dishes have to be fun, and fun to eat. When we taste-test these products, we don’t tell the staff that they’re vegan,” Coumont says. “We just want to be sure they’re fantastic.”

Good advice. “Being green” might sell, but so does making good products that are also green. Everybody likes the person who does good things but doesn’t feel compelled to constantly tell the world about it.

Bookmark and Share

Comments (9)

joey | Respond
July 16, 2009 11:57 AM PT

Did Tyson Slocum actually say the federal government would be an unbiased source? Was he being serious?

If the federal government did this, the best we could hope for would be something like the food pyramid they came up with.

ἐγκώμιον SHILL: responding to joey | Respond
July 17, 2009 7:50 AM PT

” food pyramid they came up with. “

Did the founding fathers of our government get it all upside down? With grains more important than chocolate bars thus why government didn’t leave the question hanging? Would a stalactite be more pointed? Even on our currency there is a pyramid. For a bunch of cave men like us we need a stalactite. Did you ever notice how in computer program the “stack” does not build on top of itself from low memory as would a stalagmite but hangs from one point and builds downward like a stalactite. When you pop a parameter off the stack you are actually taking it from the bottom as your stack pointer increments. When you push a register onto the stack the stack pointer decrements. We should call it not a stack but a stalac. We should flip the food pyramid upside down and call it the hanging food stalac. Or just a coconut.

Naaaaaaah !

John H | Respond
July 16, 2009 4:38 PM PT

Having a “green rating” seems about as complex to me as calculating the Value Added Tax. Every vendor and middle man needs to be measured and impacted for an accurate rating. With a tax this makes financial sense to calculate (obviously it’s still effort; but there’s mandate to pay for it)… but if this is just informational, and marginally informational at that, then where’s the financial sense?

When we talk of “too big to fail” where does wal-mart fall? If they’re at the point they can really bully suppliers into something like this it’s certainly “too big” of some sort. I can understand a government mandate for something like this; at least then it’s somehow tied back to a majority vote from the public (understandably this link is indirect at best). A large coalition of retailers again might make sense to develope something like this. But if this is only coming from Wal-Mart, some initiative started by a small group of individuals… it just scares me to think that this small group really wields such influence without also holding explicit accountability.

Janne Flisrand | Respond
July 17, 2009 7:12 AM PT

Scott - a small correction. The Greenwash Brigade is written by four of Marketplace’s Public Insight Journalism members (not Sam Eaton). I wrote the post you referred to.

-Janne Flisrand Greenwash Brigadier

Scott Jagow: responding to Janne Flisrand | Respond
July 17, 2009 9:07 AM PT

Sorry, Janne. I misread your post, but I have updated mine to give credit where credit is due!

Chris Glennon | Respond
July 17, 2009 11:43 AM PT

Why create another measurement that will only be used at one retailer. What about one with broad market appeal, such as JumpGauge Interactive Labeling (http://www.JumpGauge.com/)? Consumers could use it at all retailers, not just Walmart. Interactive labeling also offers greater transparency and knowledge transfer than a simple questionnaire

Bill Freeman | Respond
July 18, 2009 10:08 PM PT

I believe the vendors could calculate the cost of a product from development, or farm to Walmart, but then Walmart should calculate the impact of moving the product to each particular store. For example, cranberries, delivered to Maine from Massachusettes should have a different enviromental impact then cranberries to California from Massachusettes. I am confident that Walmart could publish these facts for each of their products in each of their stores but I doubt they will.

Jason | Respond
July 20, 2009 4:27 AM PT

Walmart can do no right but some. Yes, the potential for greenwashing is high so we should all keep an ear out to groups that will expose that problem.
And yes it’s a bit scary that Wal-mart has enough power to bully it’s suppliers like they do. Though I suspect the suppliers would not follow Walmart directives if it caused them to be unprofitable. But isn’t it nice that they MIGHT be bullying there suppliers for a good cause? Instead of constantly forcing suppliers to make things cheaper they will be forciing them to innovate and make things cleaner. Might even drive some of the suppliers to bring jobs back to the US from China since, I’ve heard, a big cause for the exodus of jobs is the lazy environmental laws in other countries. Basically, let’s keep our watchdogs watching Wal-mart for greenwashing bs, and hope that the evil empire is finally starting to turn away from the darkside.

LC | Respond
July 20, 2009 4:31 AM PT

I like the idea of “environmental calories”, but how is Walmart going to verify the numbers given by their suppliers, particularly in China? If the suppliers are just churning out numbers, then there won’t be much point to this.

Post a comment

 


Comment preview will appear below.
If responding to another comment, your comment will appear below the original comment when it's published.

The following HTML tags are allowed in your comments:
+ Bold: <b>Text</b>
+ Italic: <i>Text</i>
+ Link: <a href="http://url" target="_blank">Link</a>


American Public Media © |   Terms and Conditions   |   Privacy Policy