Triple Bottom Line - Walmart

1) The first promise by Wal-Mart reeks of pragmatic reasoning. The view the author has here is that Wal-Mart is taking this course of action to show its stakeholders, particularly NGOs, which are against processed foods, that they are trying to contribute to providing healthier options for their customers. As America is becoming more health conscious with tight budgets, Wal-Mart knows that this campaign will attract more cost conscious customers, but at the same time will be criticized for not providing healthier options by NGOs. So in essence Wal-Mart must anticipate stakeholder concerns and act defensively to protect their reputation and viability

2) Promise 2: Making healthier choices more affordable. Here Melanie Warner at BNET is criticizing and questioning Wal-Mart's strategy of its attempt to have a healthier option for its customers at very low prices. Melanie's tone is that of suspicion on Wal-Mart's attempt to offer healthy, but low priced food. Is Wal-Mart going to get these fruits and vegetables from farmers that violate human rights ethics i.e. fair wages and safe working environment for employees? I mean where could they possibly get FDA certified organic fruits and vegetables that will be priced lower that those found at places like Whole Foods. Something has to give here. It will most likely be the quality of the food, thus making it even unhealthier for consumers. The only way Wal-Mart could possibly pull this promise off is by bending its ethics within its constituents i.e. sourcing cheaper labor, cheaper fruit, reducing wages or exploiting farmers. Because I certainly don't see Wal-Mart swallowing losses for a better reputation in return.

3) Promise 3: "strong criteria for a front-of-package seal." This is another pragmatic move by Wal-Mart to shield future concerns on their products. Charity begins at home. Instead of going out there to try and change the public's perception of Wal-Mart by venturing into environmental conservation campaigns and endorsing environmentally friendly practices, Wal-Mart needs to look on the inside and fix a long time lingering ethical issue of mistreating its employees by offering subpar wages and treating them with lack of respect and dignity. Wal-Mart's reputation has been dragged through the mud by these accusations for over a decade now and I don't think it's getting better. So making donations to charities, partnering with environmentalists and introducing organic produce in their stores won't sway the public's perception of them easily. But if they address their employee woes and then execute their other responsibilities, then Wal-Mart could rule the retail market.

4) Promise 4 "Providing solutions to address food deserts." Here the author reacts by simply stating that Americans are not stupid. They are fully aware of Wal-Mart's unethical labor practices and the quality of its products. Not until it addresses these issues successfully, it'll not see the success it sees in other cities, in politically charged cities like Washington DC, New York and Chicago.

5) Promise 5: more charitable support. Again here, the author goes back to the root of all of Wal-Mart's Achilles heel, unethical labor and wage practices. This has tarnished Wal-Mart's reputation so bad that Wal-Mart might never reach its peak potential of ruling the retail market share. It is hypocritical, and will only draw cynicism from the public, if Wal-Mart goes ahead with this. How can you donate funds to charities when your own people at your house are starving? Empower your people first and then reach out. It's clear here that all Wal-Mart is desperate to repair its reputation by acting as though it is socially responsible, but in fact very little has changed.

1) If I was a manager at Wal-Mart and had to discuss some of the unethical issues going at Wal-Mart to a friend I would start by addressing the unfair employee practices. PBS reported that Wal-Mart employs more people than any other company in the United States outside of the Federal government, yet the majority of its employees with children live below the poverty line. (www.pbs.org). In addition, Wal-Mart prouds itself as a seller of U.S. manufactured goods but in reality the company has products on its shelves made in foreign countries, at very low cost, that are of poor quality. As a result, Wal-Mart has forced many manufacturers in the U.S. out of business. Wal-Mart is currently facing ethical challenges in the way it conducts business. The first issue it's facing is labor union opposition. Wal-Mart is a non unionized. The general feeling is that it does not want any third party intervention. So, instead of unions, Wal-Mart has an open door policy that encourages employees to take their complaints beyond management. However this policy doesn't protect the employees against retaliation. In addition, the lack of a union gives Wal-Mart the power to start employees out at lower wages than unionized corporations. That's why their employee turnover is one of the highest in the retail sector. Wal-Mart also prohibits employees from talking to union representatives. It is unethical to prohibit employees to talk to union representatives. The National Labor Relations Act states that employers are not allowed to discourage employees from forming a union for it is their right to do so. The United Food and Commercial Workers Union filed a complaint with the National Labor Relations Board against Wal-Mart alleging that Wal-Mart violated federal labor law by "bribing" employees to report on co-workers who favored a union. (www.washingtonpost.com). But Wal-Mart denied the charges that were brought against the company. If this really happened then Wal-Mart was acting unethically for bribing employees, for this kind of behavior encourages dishonest behavior. The second ethics issue I would discuss is the unfair treatment of employees. Wal-Mart, on several occasions, has been accused of discriminating against women. Women had been denied training and passed over for promotion. Wal-Mart also under pays its women in comparison to its men. According to Hoover's handbook of American business, a group of six current and former female Wal-Mart employees filed a sex discrimination lawsuit (seeking to represent up to 500,000 current and former Wal-Mart workers) against the company in June 2001. (Hoover's Handbook, pg.907) The suit was based on the fact that Wal-Mart had failed to provide equal employment for women. Only a small proportion of women make it as managers at Wal-Mart despite the fact that 70 percent of its workforce are women. "Wal-Mart is the nation's largest employer of women, but unfortunately they are being treated without dignity and respect." (www.arkansasnews.com). If Wal-Mart wants to avoid lawsuits they