From: Meaningful Beauty
I am so glad you posted your experience because I have been wondering about Meaningful Beauty. I really wanted to try it but it is a little expensive.…
From: Late Nite Indulgences
oh yes, I have had same experiences, but no more! Denise, you already know what part of your problem is as you have said that your insomnia is probably…
From: Marketing Tantrums
Michael, I laughed as I read your post. It reminded me of two other instances where McDonald's was at the wrath of the unwashed masses we call society.…
Companies today claim to be all about sustainability and environmental responsibility. In reality, however, many of these firms are doing very little to reduce emissions and increase sustainability and oftentimes spend far more on marketing their “green” image than on the actual “green” activities. This practice is called greenwashing, which is basically a firm’s marketing of an image that appears to be eco-friendly when the reality is anything but, all to trick the environmentally conscious consumer into buying from them. When Walmart was losing customers in 2005 because of its history of mistreating its suppliers and employees, it became a greenwasher because it was a more cost-efficient way to improve its image as opposed to improving employee conditions.
Walmart announced goals of being entirely supplied by renewable energy sources and to develop a Sustainability Index for each of the 140,000 items it sells. Seven years later, a whopping 2% of Walmart’s energy comes from renewable sources, meaning they are well on their way to 100% sustainability in about, oh, 300 years or so. Walmart’s Sustainability Index has also fallen by the wayside. Since 2009, the company has completed all of 10 assessments of different product types, and they admitted that a product-specific index is not really a reality. In addition, Walmart’s policy of opening up new stores on undeveloped land and leaving abandoned buildings and parking lots they refuse to sell to potential competitors is also inconsistent with their green image. Some would call the company’s land use “their most serious legacy for the environment.”
All of this might just be due to miscalculations on Walmart’s part. The company probably didn’t expect a sustainability strategy to really affect its bottom line. The PR campaign certainly did the trick though. The percentage of Americans who thought unfavorably of the company had decreased by almost 20% by 2010 and the company is doing as well as ever. To continue touting their green image to reap its economic benefits with little or no results is unethical at best. On top of everything, Walmart actually has a tendency to back political candidates who are known to be environmentally unfriendly, including some who don’t even think global warming is a valid concept. Meanwhile, little has changed in the way of employee conditions at Walmart.
Are Walmart’s actions an unethical PR stunt to distract consumers from their employee mistreatment or are they the result of a gross miscalculation of what it takes to achieve sustainability?