Walmart is rolling out a global program to benefit women but it won’t help their own female U.S. retail employees.

Recently Walmart made our unofficial list of workplaces that are unfriendly to women. For years, the company has been fighting the largest class action gender discrimination lawsuit in history. In June 2011, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that there was no evidence of a centralized corporate conspiracy by Walmart to discriminate against women, so they decertified the class action and cast the individual claims back into the lower courts. These cases are still pending. Now Walmart has turned around and announced an ambitious, global initiative to benefit women.

On September 14, Walmart unveiled their Global Women’s Economic Empowerment Initiative. Emphasis on global, and add “external women.” Nowhere in Walmart’s entire we-love-women press release or dog-and-pony webcast did the phrase “female Walmart U.S. retail workers” ever come up. Of course, any corporate lawyer would caution against this while the individual discrimination cases are pending, but it was the pink elephant in the room during the entire presentation.

President and CEO Mike Duke listed four goals the company has set toward making “…Walmart the best place for women to work at all levels.” The company plans to develop and advance women leaders, build a pipeline of women talent, promote inclusion, and invest in women externally. Duke made clear that the rest of the discussion would focus solely on the fourth goal, although the first three were crying out for discussion and elaboration.

As far as things go for women outside the organization, Walmart is committing to an enormous program. In their press release, Walmart details plans through 2016.

1. Over the next five years, the company will source $20 billion from women-owned businesses in the U.S. and double sourcing from women suppliers internationally.
2. New programs will help 60,000 women working in factories that supply products to Walmart and other retailers develop the skills they need to become more active decision-makers in their jobs and for their families.
3. Successful retail training programs will be scaled to help 200,000 women receive job training and education internationally. In the U.S., Walmart will help 200,000 women from low-income households gain job skills and access higher education.
4. The company will work with major professional service firms and merchandise suppliers with over $1 billion in sales to increase women and minority representation on Walmart accounts.
5. The company will support women’s economic empowerment programs with more than $100 million in grants. Funding will come from the Walmart Foundation and donations directly from Walmart’s international businesses.

Frankly, it sounds great. Women and women-owned businesses could use a benefactor like Walmart. But how can a company claim to support women and families around the world while ignoring the concerns of their own female employees and fighting them in court? More than 1.5 million women joined the original class action claim. Every company has dissatisfied employees, but this should be a red flag the size of Texas. Yet Walmart acts as though none of it ever happened as they proclaim their admiration and respect for women and deny any correlation between their legal problems and the announcement of this program. Not only do they not publicly acknowledge any issues within their own organization, they are mandating that the companies they work with promote women to work on Walmart accounts. That’s pretty bold.

Despite the many questionable business practices that have come to light in recent years, Walmart is a very smart company. The Walmart C-suite knows that women are good for more than just cheap(er) labor – women also make the vast majority of household buying decisions. Duke acknowledges that globally, women control $20 trillion in annual spending. Repairing its image and convincing women that it cares about women and families to cement customer loyalty in one fell swoop is a very shrewd move.

This might be a shamefully soulless PR stunt, yet it’s one that could benefit hundreds of thousands of women worldwide. Should we embrace it? If it was another company who had a proven track record for supporting and promoting women within their own organization, all the way down to the line workers, there would be no doubt. But considering Walmart’s disregard for women in its lower ranks, this fervent support for women rings hollow. Maybe someday they might even come back to those first three goals. As Dr. Isobel Coleman, Senior Fellow for U.S. Foreign Policy, Council on Foreign Relations told Walmart, “The world will be watching.”

image: Melissa Wall

Gender bias still thrives in some workplaces.

Women are still fighting battles in the workplace, including unequal pay, low numbers in the C-suite, sexual harassment, and, in some cases, even rape and assault. Here are five organizations that have recently been on the wrong end of allegations and legal action by women for gender discrimination and other unfair practices aimed primarily at female employees.

KBR

Jaws dropped when KBR was voted number 46 on a list of the best companies for work for by Woman Engineer magazine. The company has been sued several times by female employees alleging sexual assaults and sexual harassment by KBR employees. In addition, the company required employees to sign contracts that took away their constitutional right to bring civil action in the event of sexual assault or other grievance – instead, forcing them to agree to confidential and binding arbitration. That practice is now being scrutinized by the U.S. Senate, which estimates that 30 million Americans have unknowingly signed away their legal rights with similar contracts.

Perhaps the most famous case is Jamie Leigh Jones. After only four days on the job, Jones was drugged and raped by seven U.S. contractors in 2005. Afterward, she was held captive by two KBR guards in a shipping container. She fought for over four years for her day in court as a result of her employee contract (Republican leadership infamously came to the defense of KBR). Her attorney, Todd Kelly, has represented five former KBR employees who have alleged sexual assault or harassment and told ABC News some 40 women have contacted his office about alleged incidents while they were working for KBR.

Walmart

It began with Betty Dukes. After years of being passed over for promotion, she and five other female employees filed a federal discrimination suit against Walmart in 2001. The women allege there is a centralized culture biased against women in the organization and cite more than 100 specific instances of discrimination. 80 percent of Walmart hourly workers are women, while less than one-third of managers are women. The plantiffs claim that Walmart favors men for higher pay and promotions.

The case has grown into a landmark fight as the women have become representatives for 1.5 million female employees who also claim to have been victims of discriminatory practices at the largest employer in the U.S. Together they are bringing a massive discrimination suit against the retailer.

Arguments reached the U.S. Supreme Court in March 2011, where the justices will determine if the suit can move forward as a class action. Walmart claims these were isolated incidents, not a widespread company attitude against women. If the case remains a class action and the plaintiffs win, it could have a big impact on how employers throughout the country treat female employees in the future. If the Supreme Court dismantles the class action, each woman would be left to fight their own case individually, which is much less expensive for Walmart and a bigger uphill battle for the women. The court’s decision is expected by summer 2011.

Goldman Sachs

In September 2010, Goldman Sachs, home of the 10,000 Women initiative, was sued by three former female employees who allege discrimination in pay and advancement. Bloomberg Businessweek reports that in the complaint, one of the former employees said, “Men at Goldman Sachs are viewed more favorably, receive more compensation, and are more likely to be promoted.” After one former employee reported being kissed and groped by another male employee, she was punished by hostile attitudes and her career suffered. In the meantime, the male colleague she accused was steadily promoted and his compensation increased by more than 400 percent.

There are very few women at the director and partner level, compared to lower levels at the firm, but Goldman Sachs counters by claiming that their numbers are comparable to and even better than many other financial firms. In March 2010, a former vice president at the firm also filed suit claiming bias. After she gave birth and chose to work part-time, she claims that she was pushed onto the “mommy track” and eventually fired.

Novartis Pharmaceuticals

In May 2010, after a six-week trial, a jury found Novartis guilty of discriminatory practices against women. Twelve women, representing 5,600 women, alleged that women were discriminated against in pay, promotions and pregnancy-related issues.

Kate Kimpel, an attorney for the plaintiffs, told Swissinfo.ch, “Novartis had a corporate culture that expected female sales reps to be ‘available and amenable to sexual advances’ from the doctors they met while marketing drugs. ‘To add insult to injury, Novartis paid those same women less, wouldn’t promote them into management, and punished them if they got pregnant.’”

During the trial, the plaintiffs presented testimony about a district manager who showed female workers pornographic images and invited them to sit in his lap. Novartis’ lawyer Richard Schnadig explained, “He was an embarrassment to the company. He wasn’t that bad a manager. He was just terrible with women.”

U.S. Armed Forces

In February 2011, two men and 15 women, veterans and active-duty service members, filed a federal lawsuit accusing the U.S. Department of Defense of permitting an armed forces culture that does nothing to prevent rape and sexual assault. When crimes are reported, they mishandled the cases, violating the plaintiffs’ constitutional rights. The New York Times reported that the suit specifically names Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates and former Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, claiming they “ran institutions in which perpetrators were promoted and where military personnel openly mocked and flouted the modest congressionally mandated institutional reforms.” In addition, they failed “to take reasonable steps to prevent plaintiffs from being repeatedly raped, sexually assaulted and sexually harassed by federal military personnel.”

The plaintiffs claim that soldiers that make any sort of complaint in the military are likely to experience retaliation and have nowhere to turn for help. In this oppressive climate, many sexual assaults are not even reported. Even attempts at sexual harassment and assault education were mocked. Plaintiffs related an incident where a soldier stripped naked and danced on the table during a break in a class on the prevention of sexual harassment and assault. Another incident involved two men who raped a woman, videotaped it, and distributed the tape to her colleagues.

In 2005, Congress mandated the creation of a task force on military sexual assault, but by 2008 the Government Accountability Office (GAO), determined that it had spent $15 million but could not substantiate any proven results. In 2009 reported sexual assaults went up 11 percent, according to the Department of Defense, resulting in one third of the women serving in the military reporting having been sexually assaulted. Even the Pentagon admits that these probably only represent about 20 percent of actual incidents. The Daily Beast reports that female recruits “are now far more likely to be raped by a fellow soldier than killed in combat.” Women aren’t the only victims in this case. More than fifty percent of those who are diagnosed with Military Sexual Trauma are men.

The plaintiffs’ lawyer, Susan L. Burke, stated, “You should not have to be subjected to being raped or sexually assaulted because you volunteered to serve this nation.”

We’ve got a long way to go, baby.

Image: cinnamon_girl

Forget Generation Y. Marketers are on to an even more valuable group: Generation Z. Eight to twelve year old girls represent a $2 billion market that is totes untapped. In the great American spirit of seizing every opportunity because it’s there, a company named Pacific World Brand has partnered with Walmart to bring us a new cosmetics line for tweens called Geo Girl, launching in March. This isn’t bubblegum flavored lip balm. This is mascara, blush, lipstick, the works. The product line’s 69 offerings even include anti-aging products like antioxidant-loaded exfoliants for extra smooth and healthy skin, which is impressive because I don’t even use anti-aging products.

The big sell is that Geo Girl is an eco-friendly and therefore healthy brand for children who just happen to wear makeup. Unlike other real makeup that may irritate babyfat with regular use, Geo Girl is real makeup that won’t irritate anything except people with a moral compass. Market research shows that Generation Z girls are very ecologically attuned, and to that end, the products contain no sulfates, pthalates or parabens, and packaging is recyclable. Given the Geo Girl market potential which I had no idea existed until now, they’ll want to consider viable brand extension possibilities early: a bioplastic faux Botox syringe or perhaps diet yogurt calcium chews. If there’s one thing, okay two, the modern woman needs, it’s botulism and milk food.

The initial reactions are largely negative. Bloggers are decrying the wholesale commercial theft of that once-wholesome pastime known as playing with Mommy’s lipstick, offended by a brand that would so blithely encourage little girls to think about their outsides rather than their insides, namely, their hearts and minds. A few green publications, most notably the highly respected Triple Pundit (“Walmart’s Geo Girl: Eco-friendly Cosmetics for 8- to 12-year-olds”), have criticized the brand and pending launch as inappropriate.

The executive vice president behind the company, Joel Carden, believes that these eco-friendly products are perfect for grooming a “new beauty consumer.” Or to put it in textual tween terms favored by Geo Girl branding, BFF 4VR! Carden explains the cosmetics are ideal for young children who use makeup but want a natural option. Oh, of course.

Though the thought of second grade girls twirling mascara wands together to look their very best for story time may be disturbing, I’m not so sure a prepubescent dusting of blush automatically means we’re consigning a generation of nymphets. After all, we encourage little girls to play with baby dolls that cry and coo. We give them Easy Bake ovens by Hasbro. The number one girl’s toy is still the impossibly curvaceous Barbie doll, which Mattel has considered appropriate these many decades for children as young as five despite being based upon a German sex toy and also not having the capacity for internal organs were she real.

Really, what’s the big deal with a little lip gloss? The colorways are very sheer, the company tells us.

The conventional female consumer so desired by American marketers is the product of a society that teaches its girls from a very impressionable age to be thin, pretty, and eternally youthful. The modern Stepford must not only be fashionable and friendly, she should think about the planet once in a while, too. She should have at least one child, maintain a beautiful home, land herself a handsome husband with whom to procreate by 35 and, though it nearly goes without saying, achieve financial success. The ideal woman looks good, acts good, lives good and gives good. In other words, she’s perfect, and you know what they say about that: It takes practice.

So you might say Geo Girl is doing girls a favor by starting them young. For the nine-year-old role-playing mommy to her plastic infant, or whipping up a whole-grain pasta primavera in the Fisher-Price kitchen for her imagined hungry hubby, she may as well learn how to stay young while she’s still young by getting into the exfoliating habit today.

But what does Geo Girl think? After skimming the outraged reactions on a few blogs, I called Carden to make sure he really did say what’s being attributed to him. I argued with the assistant – Just five minutes! Just a few questions! – who at first insisted on passing me off to the public relations agency, then placed me on hold, and even asked me if I would call Walmart instead. Finally, after another bout on hold, she said she had been given permission to let me access his voicemail.

I left a message indicating that given how quickly an online echo chamber can develop around a story, I wanted to provide a fair opportunity for the man behind the product to speak about the issue. Executives usually avoid speaking directly to the press, of course (it can be disastrous). I’m not holding my breath.

Steering youngsters in the direction of eco-friendly personal care is commendable; for the average 13-year-old encountering the dreaded first pimple, parents should know there are healthy, organic options available these days. But makeup for a girl of eight? That’s a whole other can of hairspray.

My questions for Carden, by the way:

1. Why develop such a line? As executive vice president of marketing and sales for Geo Girl, what was your specific role in this?

2. Since Geo Girl products are expanding single use products into a new target demographic, how are they defensibly green? Are there significant non-eco-friendly competitors in your market?

3. How concerned are you about the feedback so far in the media?

4. Is there clinical evidence to suggest that eight-year-old skin benefits from regular exfoliation?

5. What kind of relevance does children wearing cosmetics have to the frequent cultural complaint that children, especially girls, are being sexualized at far too young an age?

Joel, I invite you to respond. Between us, I really wish you’d just give a girl a call.

Image: Kaunokainen

Last week, Walmart announced (with the help of the Michelle Obama megaphone) that it was embarking on a five-year plan to help America eat healthier.

The plan involves reducing the amounts of sodium, transfats, and sugar in its Great Value line of goods, pushing its suppliers to do the same, lowering the prices on fresh fruits and vegetables to make them more affordable, and building more stores in under-served communities.

The optimist on my right shoulder says, “With the incredible power Walmart has to influence the supply chain, this could have a real impact on the way America eats. If Walmart can get Kraft and other big food manufacturers to reformulate their products, then everyone will benefit, even the 10 people who don’t shop at Walmart.” If people are going to eat packaged food (which they are) shouldn’t it be healthier?” And, “Isn’t a low-paying grocery job coming to your neighborhood better than no job at all?”

Those are the same things a realist would say. Because, well, Walmart isn’t going away anytime soon and until Congress starts doing its job to ensure healthy food and equal opportunity for all of our nation’s citizens, we’ll just have to take what we can get.

The first lady is a realist. She mentioned in her remarks during the press conference that almost half the population of the U.S shops at Walmart each week. Why not go where you can have the greatest possible impact? The first lady is trying to get something done here. Who can blame her for going where the real power is?

Corporations have become citizens and our lawmakers are more interested in blocking the proposals of the other party than in actually enacting policies that will improve the dismal state of our nation’s collective health. This means people who care about such things are put in the position of praising Walmart for taking measures that the company wouldn’t do if it didn’t, in the end, serve their bottom line.

The cynic on my left shoulder thinks there is something terribly wrong with this.

When we leave it up to packaged food companies and retailers to determine what is “healthier,” we’re in trouble. Just this week, it was reported by Marion Nestle that packaged food companies are developing yet another new label that not only lists calories, fats, sodium, etc. but also “positives.” It’s obvious that any industry-led healthier food initiative is going to become another marketing tactic.

Marketing isn’t education and education is what the public needs.

In my ideal world, there would be a giant public education campaign around healthy whole foods, information about how to shop for, store and prepare them, and family-friendly employment policies that will leave people with the time to cook real food. Oh and the farm bill would have to be written so that it doesn’t subsidize the kind of crap that sits on the interior shelves of our supermarkets in favor of healthy whole foods.

I know. I’m dreaming.

The part of the initiative that sounds the most interesting is Walmart’s pledge to drop the prices of fruits and vegetables. Ever sensitive to charges that it squeezes its suppliers to get its prices so low, making it hard for farmers to break even, Walmart execs promise that it will cut into its own profits, not farmers’. The company hopes to do this through supply chain tweaks and make up for lower prices in higher sales volume. If Walmart is so eager to cut its own profits for the nation’s health, why can’t they pay their employees a living wage that will allow them to buy real food, instead of relying on taxpayers to foot the bill? It’s been well-documented that employees of Walmart and other retail chains often make so little money that they qualify for taxpayer-funded food stamps and public assistance.

Add to that the fact that, whatever Walmart says about supporting farmers, doesn’t always play out in real life, as this article in the Pensacola Business Journal about a group of local farmers who have to dole out oodles of cash for a Walmart approved food safety inspector makes clear.

As to the final pledge, to open more stores in underserved areas, Walmart has always wanted to open more stores in poor neighborhoods. In fact, they had to negotiate with labor leaders and the Chicago city council and promise to raise their lowest wages when attempting to open a store in the Pullman Park area of Chicago’s South Side.

Maybe with a combination of low paying jobs at Walmart and cheaper produce (at Walmart) people in underserved communities will be able to buy produce (or at least use their food stamps to do so). But that’s not what I would call opportunity or choice.

One could argue that working at Walmart and being able to use your food stamps to buy fresh produce is better than being unemployed and shopping at the liquor store. But here I go dreaming again: This is America and we can, and should, do much better. Our citizens should not have to depend on the largest retailer on the planet to provide whatever crumbs of jobs and healthy food it chooses to provide. It’s up to society to create opportunity for all. But what’s a society when profit-seeking corporations have the same rights as people?

In a funny take on the parallel universes the left and the right live in, I’ll leave you with some gems from Media Matters.

While the left thinks Walmart is evil in a big, giant Bentonville box that bullies communities, workers, and suppliers, the right thinks that the First Lady is bullying Walmart.

From Fox Business Freedom Watch, 1/20/11:

“This is sort of like Joe Biden saying to BP, give us the $20 billion or we’ll take it? The president, through his wife of all people, says to Walmart, “Start selling what we want you to sell, or we’ll make it illegal for you to sell the other stuff.”

And from Fox Business, America’s Nightly Scoreboard, 1/20/11:

“Walmart pays protection money to the thugocracy. Yes, Walmart’s politically sensitive moves may yield profit, but Walmart has to constantly improve its image as a pre-emptive defense against leftists who hate their success, and hate the company’s resistance to labor unions.”

It’s a funny kind of logic that actually makes a lot of sense, because the truth is, neither the Democrats nor the Republicans really want to regulate business. They just have different methods of making sure it doesn’t happen.

This is the latest installment in Vanessa Barrington’s weekly column, The Green Plate, on the environmental, social, and political issues related to what and how we eat.

Image: Willem Van Bergen

Squeezing community after community, farmer after farmer, and attempting to camouflage and clean up its heavily packaged inventory with so-called green initiatives, the behemoth Walmart appears more tenacious than bed bugs as it keeps creeping in expected and unexpected places around the globe.

The discount retail giant, which operates in 14 countries, has now set its blights on Africa, namely the Johannesburg-based Massmart with an offer of $4.2 billion to buy out the business. Massmart is a combo of Walmart and Home Depot and the biggest peddler of basic foods in the region, selling in 14 sub-Saharan countries with sales of about $6.8 billion this year. No wonder Walmart is considered a global superpower. It is more than a force to reckon with; it is a planet with a life force of its own.

It’s hard to believe this is what Sam Walton had in mind in 1962 when he set up shop. Yet in the nearly five decades since the enterprising son of an Oklahoma farmer founded the discount chain, it has morphed into one of the 100 most powerful economies in the world, ranking #19. Meanwhile, it has emerged as the anti-green in putting mom and pop stores out of business, planting its own cheap farm sources and peddling affordable bulk to a growing base of consumers buying the concept that quantity over quality is the way to get ahead.

The post-war aspiration of a car in every garage has been reinvented as the goal of a flat screen in every den, as Walmart makes it possible for low-income families to afford the luxuries that define the viral American dream. In fact, the company operates like bankrupt attorneys, growing fatter during a recession, benefiting from hard times. And as the economy recovers, sales at Walmart suffer. That tells you something about perception.

In efforts to recover, the company is doing what it has trained serotonin seeking consumers to do: Go shopping. After using up its credit allowance in small towns and suburbs, it is trying to locate urban hoods that have rejected the retailer in years past, along with new international ventures like Africa. It figures it can disguise its box stores and still offer cheap goods that will appeal to cash-poor shoppers in cities like New York and Chicago.

But we wonder if Walmart’s journey will end when its influence peddling no longer charms decision makers or when consumers can no longer fill their trucks with gas to drive to the stores to load up their reusable bags.

According to Joel Makower, Executive Editor of GreenBiz. com, the company’s influence is huge but doesn’t guarantee a sustainability as a business.

“I don’t believe Walmart will ever be a sustainable business in the classic definition of being able to operate indefinitely in the way they current do,” he tells me. “Eventually, they’ll run out of resources of permission to operate or something else. But I also believe that they are extremely resourceful and clever and powerful, so like so many other companies, they may find a pathway through this. Time will tell.”

Meantime, Makower points out that box stores aren’t the enemy of the green good movement, arguing that they might work to introduce local and organic ideology to the masses.

“Farmers markets are flourishing in record numbers, and more big stores – including Walmart and Whole Foods – are learning how to source locally when possible and affordable,” he suggests. “And these big players have scale, which we need to make these products mainstream and affordable. If we relegate green products to a few small niche players, we simply won’t make the different we need to make.”

Still, its a mixed grocery bag, according to food writer Vanessa Barrington, who says Walmart’s touted Heritage Agriculture  Program is just another scam to undercut farmers, citing the profit margin in 2006 when farmers received a mere 19 cents for every $1 consumers spent on food. She says the company could end up displacing the very farmers it set out to support with this initiative. In other words, there’s no business like show business.

“The problem is that Walmart doesn’t do anything without a compelling business reason,” Barrington wrote in a recent EcoSalon article. And often when a whale as large as Walmart moves an inch, it displaces everything around it.

Is there cause for concern? Makower believes Walmart may look unbeatable on the outside but is a long way off from from truly transforming into the good, green, sustainable brand the marketing geniuses are spinning.

“What makes Walmart interesting is its influence, both upstream with its 60,000-plus suppliers, and downstream to its 300 million or so consumers,” he observes. “They can make a big different. If they can succeed as a business along the way, that’s terrific, but they’re a long way from that.”

Images: Koonisutra, Walmart

Love it or hate it, you can’t deny that whatever the giant retailer, Walmart, does sends shock waves through their supply chain. Lately they’ve introduced some bold initiatives in greening their supply chain. Are the efforts real or are they marketing? Will they help the environment, consumers, workers and producers – or harm them? The answer is: All of the above.

Walmart has been busy developing a sustainability index for every product it sells. I could argue (and others have) that flimsy, cheap plastic consumer goods people don’t actually need are not sustainable by definition.

But what about food and household cleaners? Those are not recreational purchases.

And many people, in many parts of the country, need to shop at Walmart because, frankly, there are no other options or they simply can’t afford the local stores.

According to Change.org, opening Walmarts in areas known as “food deserts” is really just a band-aid that masks the underlying causes of poverty and inequality.

This is true and there’s no doubt it is a complicated issue. Similarly, many commenters pointed out in this article by Marc Gunther that the entire model of how Walmart builds and spreads across the landscape is flawed. Again, indisputably true.

But Walmart isn’t going anywhere, anytime soon. Is it possible to look at some of their initiatives in a positive light?

For example, the recent news that Walmart is partnering with the leading green cleaning product brand, Seventh Generation, was widely lauded for its potential to bring truly green products to a larger audience. But on the other hand, as this Treehugger piece asks, does the partnership simply lend undeserved credibility to the retailer’s green efforts?

And what of the retailer’s local food initiatives?

In the midst of a highly entertaining grocery smackdown in The Atlantic in which a bunch of foodies choose Walmart produce over Whole Food’s in some aspects of a blind tasting, there’s a little tease about Walmart’s Heritage Agriculture program. The program encourages farms within a day’s drive of one of the company’s warehouses to grow crops that would normally be trucked from far-away states.

The three-tiered strategy of the Heritage Agriculture program is to create a transparent supply chain of local and regional sources, support women and minority businesses, and reinvigorate historic growing areas for produce that is popular with the United States’ growing minority communities.

This all sounds great. On the surface, it could be a powerful way to re-regionalize the food system, keep farmers on their land, and increase the diversity of crops grown in different parts of the country. A regional, diverse food system is better for the environment than monocropping and more likely to result in increased accessibility to better quality food for consumers.

The problem is that Walmart doesn’t do anything without a compelling business reason. And often when a whale as large as Walmart moves an inch, it displaces everything around it. In Walmart’s case, the business reason is always to obtain products at the lowest price possible and pass that savings on to consumers. This could end up being a problem for the very farmers Walmart supports with the initiative. In 2006 farmers received just 19 cents of every dollar consumers plunked down for food. That’s a pretty small margin to work on, and with Walmart in the mix, it could get worse.

Walmart has a reputation for squeezing suppliers. Consider if Walmart, with its immense power, offers to buy a small, regional farmer’s entire harvest. The farmer, already squeezed by the system, may jump at the chance to sell all her output. If the farm no longer had sufficient supply to continue to sell to its local mom and pop and co-op stores (assuming any exist) then those stores would have to find other suppliers and try to compete with Walmart on price.

Competing with Wal-Mart on price is impossible. Those stores would likely go out of business, taking with them the only other outlets that small farmers have for their products, putting people out of work, and decreasing choices for community members. Once all other buyers are gone, Walmart could pretty much pay the farmer as little as it wants. In this way, we could end up with the control of our food system concentrated in the hands of one corporation, killing any chance we might have of rebuilding community based food systems that are more democratic in nature.

And it’s not just the farmers. Walmart squeezes entire communities economically. Once Walmart is one of the only employers in an area it can effectively keep wages down and unions out. When the farmers don’t make enough money to live on and neither do the employees of the only game in town, you can bet everyone is dependent on the always low prices that Walmart offers.

It’s true we need affordable, accessible, high quality food in all communities, but wouldn’t it be better to fix it from the ground up systemically instead of leaving it to one company?

Maybe Walmart’s grand plan to green and localize its supply chain will remove XX amount of carbon from the atmosphere. But some things can’t be quantified. Like the pleasure of talking to your neighbors and connecting with the people who grow your food. It just makes for stronger communities and relationships. This article makes the point that no matter how much local food Walmart buys, it can never replace the deeply human interactions that happen in a farmers’ market.

I would also add that it’s within these interactions that democratic change happens and, while we may cautiously applaud Walmart’s efforts for the great impact they might have, it’s not time to roll over yet. I think a more democratic food system is worth fighting for. As long as I have a choice, I will continue to shop for seasonal produce at my local farmers’ market.

This is the latest installment in Vanessa Barrington’s weekly column, The Green Plate, on the environmental, social, and political issues related to what and how we eat.

Image: Monochrome Flickr

A few years ago, “eco fashion” became the hottest buzzword. The media in particular loved it and used every opportunity available to position it as the hottest trend. Recall those “Green is the New Black” headlines everywhere? Fast forward to today, and we know that eco fashion is definitely not a trend. It is a movement, and one that is taking the world by storm.

How so? Well for starters, a growing number of designers are now sourcing more sustainable fabrics than a few years ago, and the variety and quantity of those fabrics has grown out of this demand. An increasing number of brands and retailers are now engaged in ethical sourcing, and are working with their suppliers to create benchmarks and standards. Many companies now understand the benefits of corporate social responsibility (CSR), even if their product or service is not “green”.

Organic Exchange (OE) offers more evidence of this eco fashion movement. According to their Organic Cotton Market Report, global sales of organic cotton apparel and textiles has grown by $1 billion in 2009, which amounts to a 35 percent increase over 2008. And at the same time that organic cotton sales have grown, overall cotton clothing and home textiles sales have shrunk by seven percent.

However, the rise of organic cotton has been steady for nearly a decade – on average by 40 percent each year since 2001. You just didn’t hear much about it because it wasn’t deemed important enough by mainstream media and industry. But that seems to be changing.

Organic Exchange estimates that the organic cotton market will continue to grow at this steady pace of 20-40 percent – both this year and next, to about $6 billion; and that the organic cotton market has been driven largely by consumer interest in “green” products, and by retailers and companies looking to offer more organic options.

So just who are the top organic cotton buyers from 2009 according to the OE report? You might be shocked to learn that it’s some of the biggest names in retail, including Nike, Walmart and Adidas.

But really, this isn’t all that surprising when you consider the report Exporting Textiles: March to Sustainability, that recently profiled the top brands and retailers who are implementing environmental sustainability throughout their global supply chains. Among the 19 companies profiled are once again, Nike, Walmart and Adidas! So what exactly are these companies doing to be given such accolades? Let’s take a look.

Adidas adheres to the ISO14001 standard and has an internal environmental benchmarking assessment that they use to collect data from their suppliers. Their top three sustainability priorities are embedding environmental sustainability across the business, effectively managing business risks and social compliance in the supply chain, and extending engagement internally and externally.

Walmart, as we all know, has issued their Sustainability Index, which asks their suppliers a series of questions as they relate to social and environmental practices. They also carry GOTS certification on organic textiles (although questionable to what degree) and their focus on energy efficiency is now shifting toward their suppliers.

Nike uses a few internal tools such as Material Analysis Tool (MAT) and Considered Index to evaluate its life cycle impacts. They have a water program, and have integrated energy efficiency practices at supplier factories.

According to this report, which focuses primarily on energy efficiency, carbon emissions, water and chemical footprint as well as logistics, these three companies rank in the top 5 (Levi Strauss & Co. and Marks & Spencer round out the list).

And so the evidence is mounting. It becomes clearer every day that eco fashion is a movement, and one that is gaining solid ground. I look forward to actively watching as more and more of the big brands and retailers move toward increased sustainability, motivated by people like us who demand quality and ethics from the products we choose to buy.

Image: adifansnet

Ursula Dean, founder and designer of women’s apparel line, Moda Spia, entered the eco-fashion neighborhood 10 years ago when she started utilizing factory over-runs from Italy.

Since then, the San Francisco designer has stayed true to using interesting, rescued fabrics but has added more organic fabrics for good measure, aiming to create clothing that becomes a keepsake, something coveted and special to its owner that stands the test of time.

Her concentration on seasonal collections that have her signature look of fresh, playful and always inherently feminine lines are what both buyers and shoppers now follow her for. Here’s what she had to say about her part in the eco-fashion movement.

What got you into designing with sustainable fabrics?

Honestly, I didn’t realize the inherent “good” to the environment of these left over fabrics until the whole green movement brought it to light. I love textiles and am really glad the surplus goods are in some way helpful in containing the negative impact of textile production on the environment. I started using organic fabrics like cotton/hemp blends, bamboo and more recently organic wool/lyocell blends. They have a very soft hand and beautiful weight and smell good, too!

Is there a different mindset that comes with creating sustainable or “green” garments?

My focus is primarily on the design itself. Through some research I’ve found several green textile companies to work with (like Pick Natural in San Francisco). Their products are exciting to work with and they bring in fresh fabrics on a regular basis. This makes my job as a designer trying to work primarily with green fabrics easy.

Do you feel part of a new eco-designing community?

Most of the designers I know personally have already made the push to offer garments that are at least in part green, so yes.

What was a stand-out piece you created over the past 10 years?

The Biba Jacket from my first collection 6 years ago. It was a silk velvet jacket with a ribbon belt and hand-made flower, really loose and bohemian. My partner at the time hand-dyed the velvet and silk-screened the lining. It was incredibly labor-intensive but the result was stunning. Calypso in NY carried it for 2 seasons. Heidi Klum showed up in it in InStyle and that really spiked sales. It was an auspicious start to our business.

How do you see the future of green clothing design evolving?

I don’t know the answer, nobody does. To me it seems like so many things are coming into play and will continue to. China is making Walmart and Target’s clothes. A LOT of people are shopping at these places right now because they need something and they don’t have any money, nobody has any money right now.  The U.S. relationship with China is changing isn’t it? China is heavily invested in the U.S. I’m not sure if these things will affect production but they may. To me it seems volatile but they’re looking for a partner in production and we’ve got the work for them. That’s the manufacturing end of it, anyway.

Do you think at some point all clothes will just be manufactured sustainably?

As far as sustainable fabrics are concerned I think they will only become more a part of our shopping culture. It seems to have become a very visible thing to most people. If you go to the tiniest town, chances are someone will have at least heard of an organic cotton t-shirt – though not necessarily know what that means!

]]> http://ecosalon.com/moda-spia-interview-with-san-fran-designer-ursula-dean/feed/ 7