If the term "greenwash" hasn’t been given its own entry in the dictionary yet, let me propose that, when it does, it is linked directly to the word "Wal-Mart". For those not yet familiar with the term,  "greenwashing" occurs when a company pretends to be environmentally progressive yet is quite misleading about its true efforts to save the planet.

    And, in this area, as with just about everything ranging from unveiling a new "health plan" for workers to its impact on communities, the Beast of Bentonville shows, again, its hypocrisy. To much press hoo-hah, Wal-Mart announced the other day that it was, according to a Reuters story, opening "four stores that use 25 percent less energy than its supercenters that were in operation in 2005." The press mainly reported this development uncritically:

"That store will incorporate the learnings from all of our previous experimental stores, and will operate at a level that’s 25 percent more efficient than a traditional Wal-Mart supercenter," said Leslie Dach, Wal-Mart’s executive vice president of corporate affairs and government relations, speaking at the National Retail Federation conference.

Wal-Mart has set a goal of one day using only renewable energy and creating zero waste.

It opened two stores in 2005 to experiment with ways to cut waste, looking at everything from recycling french fry oil to testing solar and wind power, hoping that successful technologies could be incorporated into other stores.

Wal-Mart has also challenged its suppliers to remove nonrenewable energy from their lives and, because of its status as the world’s largest retailer, it is considered one of the few retailers with enough heft to make direct changes to global energy consumption.

Sounds lovely, huh? But, hold on because here’s some real truth behind the press release:

    From the folks at Wal-Mart Watch, we learn that Wal-Mart is throwing up a lot of gorilla dust, to quote my favorite nutty politician, Ross Perot:

“Every few years Wal-Mart opens a few greener stores and hundreds of its traditional, energy-draining stores.  As Wal-Mart continues to expand, its in-store energy saving measures will be offset by the increase in the number of supercenters consuming electricity.  Leslie Dach’s announcement is just the latest example of Wal-Mart’s willingness to focus its efforts on public relations campaigns rather than make substantive changes to its environmental and other business practices.  If Wal-Mart ever accomplishes Leslie Dach’s dreams of reduced energy use, we will applaud the company.  Until then, we will be watching.”

  And, as Wal-Mart Watch points out:

In addition, Wal-Mart’s sourcing is one of its most critical environmental problems. Wal-Mart imports more than 70% of its products from China and would rank 7th (ahead of the UK, Singapore and Taiwan) on China’s top export locations, creating a tremendous carbon footprint. If it chooses to source products from countries with low environmental standards because it reduces cost, then it must aggressively monitor and enforce the environmental standards of the suppliers from which it buys. Asking domestic suppliers to make efforts to reduce their carbon footprints cannot possibly compensate for Wal-Mart’s massive global carbon footprint.

    Frankly, Wal-Mart is not the only company engaging in "greenwashing". But, as the big boy on the block, it deserves singling out because it is using p.r. to obscure its devastating impact on the environment. The sad reality is that if Wal-Mart really wanted to "go green" that would be a huge development for the planet because of the influence the Beast has on markets around the globe. We’re still waiting.