04.06.2015 Views

Walmart-at-the-Crossroads-FINAL-06.04.15

Walmart-at-the-Crossroads-FINAL-06.04.15

Walmart-at-the-Crossroads-FINAL-06.04.15

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS

Create successful ePaper yourself

Turn your PDF publications into a flip-book with our unique Google optimized e-Paper software.

energy consumption derived from renewable sources.<br />

45<br />

At 45 metric tons of CO2 for every million<br />

dollars of sales, <strong>Walmart</strong>’s oper<strong>at</strong>ions are significantly less efficient than competitors like Target and<br />

Costco (<strong>at</strong> 42 and 16 metric tons, respectively). In fact, <strong>Walmart</strong> ranks 33 rd in <strong>the</strong> list of top industrial<br />

polluters, just after Chevron.<br />

46<br />

Additionally, Scott promised th<strong>at</strong> by 2012 stores built before 2005 would reduce greenhouse gas<br />

(GHG) emissions by 20%, a goal which <strong>Walmart</strong> claims to have reached.<br />

47<br />

Despite supposedly reaching<br />

“<strong>Walmart</strong> ranks 33rd in<br />

<strong>the</strong> list of top industrial<br />

polluters, just after<br />

Chevron.”<br />

this goal, <strong>Walmart</strong> has not outlined regul<strong>at</strong>ions on <strong>the</strong> GHG<br />

emissions from new stores built since 2005. Given th<strong>at</strong> a new store<br />

is built roughly every eight hours somewhere in <strong>the</strong> world,<br />

48<br />

without<br />

regul<strong>at</strong>ions, <strong>the</strong> GHG emissions from <strong>the</strong>se new stores may<br />

counteract <strong>the</strong> reduction of emissions <strong>at</strong> <strong>Walmart</strong>’s original stores.<br />

Additionally, any store th<strong>at</strong> added square footage since 2005 was removed from <strong>the</strong> program to reduce<br />

emissions. This system allowed <strong>Walmart</strong> to claim success in reaching its 2012 emissions goal, when in<br />

reality it may not have actually <strong>at</strong>tained this goal if <strong>Walmart</strong> included those stores th<strong>at</strong> were removed<br />

from <strong>the</strong> tally.<br />

49<br />

In ano<strong>the</strong>r push to reduce GHG emissions, <strong>Walmart</strong> announced in 2010 th<strong>at</strong> it would cut 20<br />

million metric tons (MMTs) of GHGs out of its supply chain by <strong>the</strong> end of 2015.<br />

50<br />

As of March 2015,<br />

<strong>Walmart</strong>’s website st<strong>at</strong>ed th<strong>at</strong> <strong>the</strong> company has “…elimin<strong>at</strong>ed more than 7.575 MMT of GHG<br />

emissions” from <strong>the</strong> supply chain.<br />

51<br />

When measured as part<br />

of <strong>the</strong> overall goal of GHG emissions reduction, this puts<br />

<strong>Walmart</strong> <strong>at</strong> 38 percent goal completion with just 7 months<br />

left in <strong>the</strong> plan.<br />

Besides <strong>at</strong>tempting to reduce GHG emissions<br />

throughout its supply chain internally, <strong>Walmart</strong> also requires<br />

in its environmental standards th<strong>at</strong> suppliers be “leaders in<br />

<strong>the</strong> implement<strong>at</strong>ion of measures for reducing air and w<strong>at</strong>er<br />

“<strong>Walmart</strong>’s demand for<br />

extremely low prices, however<br />

means suppliers may struggle<br />

to test out new str<strong>at</strong>egies th<strong>at</strong><br />

would reduce emissions, due to<br />

<strong>the</strong> fear of losing <strong>the</strong>ir contract<br />

with <strong>Walmart</strong>.”<br />

pollutants, energy and w<strong>at</strong>er usage and waste.”<br />

52<br />

<strong>Walmart</strong>’s demand for extremely low prices, however,<br />

means suppliers may struggle to test out new str<strong>at</strong>egies th<strong>at</strong> would reduce emissions, due to <strong>the</strong> fear of<br />

Page !12

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!