Posted by
L Gravel on Saturday, July 29, 2006 1:17:21 PM
Marc Gunther discusses Wal-Mart's new penchant for environmental friendliness in
Fortune Magazine. There's some goofiness to be sure, starting with a visit by the High Priest of Environmental Doom, Al Gore.
Looking at the big picture, there seems to be a trend that business is expected to do all kinds of
"good" for society, above and beyond the traditional good of providing
products and services at low prices to people who want them. I
disagree for two reasons:
1. There is disagreement on what is good (example: Planned Parenthood
-- discuss amongst yourselves). Rather than charge me a higher
price to let a corporate board (and the activists who pressure them)
decide what is worthy of charitable funding, lower the price and let me
decide.
2. The effect of business being responsible for charity is the ejection
of religious influence from the same. For example, not long ago,
Target Corporation was pressured into disallowing the Salvation Army
from placing donation kettles in front of their stores.
Businesses, understandably, want to sell their products to lefties,
conservatives, Christians, Jews, Buddhists, atheists and tree-huggers
alike. But while tree-hugging is generally tolerated by the
non-tree-huggers, traditional religion is much more controversial. The best
business strategy, then, is to remove anything smacking of God from
their charitable activity. (The same thing, of course, happens
when government "does good".)
Anyhow, here's a fun example of loopy priorities from the article:
A study found that Wal-Mart's average spending on health
benefits for its employees was 30% less than the average of its retail
peers. The company's environmental record was nothing to boast about
either: It had paid millions of dollars to state and federal regulators
for violating air- and water-pollution laws.
Ok, we can all agree that polluting the air and water is, well,
bad. But spending less on health care is a good thing. In
fact, companies have been wracking themselves trying to figure out how
to control health care costs over the last several years.
Furthermore, as with education, increased spending on health care
doesn't necessarily make people more healthy (try it on an individual
basis). Besides, Wal-Mart could increase health care spending in
a heartbeat -- simply purchase a Cadillac plan for their employees,
require that they all participate, and pay them less. It's
amazing how the removal of personal choice can appease the do-gooder
activists.
Meanwhile, here are some examples of non-loopy priorities:
On Kid Connection, its private-label line of toys, for
instance, Wal-Mart found that by eliminating excessive packaging, it
could save $2.4 million a year in shipping costs, 3,800 trees, and one
million barrels of oil.
On its fleet of 7,200 trucks Wal-Mart determined it could save $26
million a year in fuel costs merely by installing auxiliary power units
that enable the drivers to keep their cabs warm or cool during
mandatory ten-hour breaks from the road. Before that, they'd let the
truck engine idle all night, wasting fuel.
Yet another example: Wal-Mart installed machines called sandwich balers
in its stores to recycle and sell plastic that it used to throw away.
Companywide, the balers have added $28 million to the bottom line.
These are classic examples of how capitalism, or "corporate greed" is
often good for the environment. As it turns out, greed causes
companies to cut waste because it makes them more money. And
cutting waste typically cuts pollution.
On the other hand, the worst thing for the environment is a centrally
planned economy. Compare East Germany vs. West Germany before
reunification.