Many companies these days are taking on a social responsibility, or a promise on a way to conduct their business. Whether it’s promising donations to charity, good customer service, or protecting the environment, many companies take part in this in order to improve society and to show customers that there is a more wholesome approach to how their business is conducted. I believe a social responsibility is a good idea for businesses to take part in, especially large corporations that can afford to put aside some money to benefit society and the greater good.
When Hurricane Katrina occurred, Wall-Mart made a pledge to “rely fully on renewable energy and sell products that sustain the environment.” If you ask me, this seemed to be a large and daring proposition on Wall Mart’s part. And it goes to show how it has affected their image currently.
Now, in 2013, instead of reducing greenhouse emissions, they have in fact risen, and only 4 percent of its power is said to have came from renewable resources. This lag in becoming more sustainable has been an overall challenge for Wall Mart because of the rapid expansion of their chain over the past few years.
Essentially, Wall Marts problem is the inability to adjust and modify their business model in order to better implement change. According to Stacy Mitchell, a senior researcher at the Institute for Local Self Reliance, Wall Mart has “launched a publicity campaign that boasts of solar installations while green washing the true environment costs of its business model.” So in the end, Wall Mart appears to be mostly talk when it comes to this initiative. Although they have done some efforts to become more environmentally conscious, Wall Mart’s story should be lesson to other companies. In order to promise change in business practices, a company must first throughly think it through and discuss the costs of these improved practices.
I find your post interesting, but at the same time how do you reconcile the internal conflict Walmart faces with this kind of decision ie conflict between stakeholders and the environment vs shareholders who Walmart is legally responsible too? I mean this is more of a thinking question as it is one that is more universal that all business have to answer.
Thank you for your comment. And your point is very relevant, to jump into such a decision without hearing from shareholders is a huge risk on Wall Mart’s part. What they should have done before publicly announcing their pledge to be environmentally conscious is to get the advice and opinions from the shareholders/investors, etc. Without including them in the decision, they could have lost many important partners who are essential to the success of their company.
This is a thoroughly engaging blog post, and i agree with you that multinational corporations holding to their word when making promise to.
However is it Wal-mart’s sole responsibility to be environmentally sustainable in the current economic climate? In my opinion society would be better served if a business’s main objective would be to maximize profits in order to grow and survive, thus ultimately saving jobs. Also the mere fact that Wal-mart is attempting to change in order to better serve the environment, while having to deal with the increased costs that arise with rapid expansion, should be commended given the current financial climate.
Failure to be successful in terms of becoming ‘green’ after implementing their plans will only be to their detriment. However i do agree that it would be wiser and slightly more ‘ethical’ if companies such as Wal-mart were able to able to devise a ‘successful’ plan based on the review of the potential costs involved.