The question has been on every environmentalist’s mind since Lee Scott announced Wal-Mart’s sustainability initiatives in 2005: how much of Wal-Mart’s green efforts are genuine, and how much are just greenwashing?

Two articles from Advertising Age this week provide some insight. Both pieces examine the relationship between Wal-Mart’s advertising firms and its sustainability initiatives. The first article, “‘Come as You Are’ to Help Environment”, reveals that Wal-Mart’s green initiatives did indeed start as a marketing campaign and nothing more. The person speaking on the issue? Not a sustainability expert, but a representative from Wal-Mart’s advertising firm, the Martin Agency.

Mark Hughes, director of the ad firm, insists that despite its initial duplicity, Wal-Mart has become a true believer in sustainability. The company has launched a huge marketing campaign around the idea, and many of Lee Scott’s public statements reinforce Wal-Mart’s green image. But Hughes also notes that the company - and its marketing machine - focus more on what consumers can buy to help the environment, and less on what Wal-Mart is actually doing on the issue.

Ad Age’s second piece, “Who’s in Charge of Green?”, highlights the fact that Wal-Mart’s marketing staff vastly outnumbers the company’s sustainability team, and most of the go-to sustainability reps are actually part of the marketing department. Adam Werbach, the company’s sustainability golden boy, is employed by Saatchi & Saatchi, a marketing firm, not Wal-Mart’s sustainability department.

What does it mean for Wal-Mart’s environmental initiatives to be written about in an advertising industry magazine, rather than an environmental publication? Perhaps what Ad Age itself admits: that consumers are increasingly skeptical of corporate green campaigns, and are more and more often calling companies out for greenwashing. This could be disastrous for Wal-Mart’s green campaign, and the company implement more comprehensive changes if its intends to capitalize on a “green” image.

Who’s in Charge of Green? [Advertising Age]
‘Come as You Are’ to Help Environment [Advertising Age]

It will take more than promises and glossy marketing campaigns to convince consumers that Wal-Mart is green, a recent study has found.

The largest retailer on earth finds itself the subject of Environmental Leader’s latest study on green marketing. Despite Wal-Mart’s massive green marketing campaign over the last year, consumers still don’t consider the retailer a sustainable company, explaining:

Brands that have spent significant marketing dollars communicating green initiatives such as Wal-Mart and GE are not connecting.

Environmental Leader’s report focuses specifically on the effectiveness of green marketing campaigns, but it implies a much larger truth: consumers aren’t buying Wal-Mart’s greenwashing. The chart above (click here for a larger version) explains that in the minds of socially-conscious shoppers, social responsibility goes far beyond Wal-Mart’s current definition. Employee treatment, community connection and supply chain practices are equally important as environmental issues. But Wal-Mart has a track record of trouble in each of these categories, leading conscientious consumers to rightfully distrust the company’s green overtures.

Wal-Mart’s habit of making cosmetic changes instead of systematic improvements to its business practices aren’t fooling any shoppers. If Wal-Mart wants its green message to stick, it needs to address its sustainability problems from the ground up. Corporate transparency, employee friendliness, and fair, sustainable product sourcing aren’t just footnotes to an advertising campaign - they’re necessary parts of the modern responsible corporation. Wal-Mart would be better served to use the millions it currently spends on marketing to make holistic changes to its business model.

Green Marketing Campaigns Don’t Always Stick [Marketing Vox]

Wal-Mart’s environmental initiatives have been a major part of the company’s recent attempts to win public favor. The company has made a number of lofty promises aimed at improving its carbon footprint AND its public image. CEO Lee Scott has announced plans to reduce packaging, improve its truck fleet and “green up” the company’s stores. Up until now, the public has bought it.

But an article in today’s Northwest Arkansas Morning News shows that the company’s suppliers just aren’t responding the way the company had hoped. Pressure on suppliers was a major aspect - one of pray few tangible plans from the company - to reduce its carbon footprint. Today’s Morning News article reveals that fewer than half of Wal-Mart’s supplier companies have met demands for packaging improvements, and it doesn’t seem like they’ll be reaching Wal-Mart’s goals any time soon.

What will Wal-Mart do to remedy the situation? Cut out over half its suppliers? We think not. Perhaps Wal-Mart should make some changes to its own business model, before it starts demanding changes from its suppliers.

Suppliers struggle with scorecard [Northwest Arkansas Morning News]

Wal-Mart CEO Lee Scott attended the ECO:nomics conference in California this week. Wal-Mart has been heralded as a forerunner of corporate environmentalism: in 2005, the company announced big plans to “green up” its act. But when Scott was asked when Wal-Mart expects to achieve the environmental goals it set forth in 2005, Scott answered bluntly: “I have no idea when that will be.”

It’s the first time anyone from Wal-Mart has admitted so candidly that the company has no foreseeable plans to implement the changes it has promised. The company has failed to provide tangible benchmarks up until now (its 2007 sustainability report was unsubstantial) and Scott’s statements today imply the company has no intention of providing quantifiable results in the years to come.

In addition, Scott’s comments in this Wall Street Journal video lay bare the fact that Wal-Mart’s motivations lie with profitability, not environmentalism. While money is indeed a great motivator, the company’s dedication to eco-efforts is fickle at best. The company simply doesn’t have the stamina to achieve the long-term goals its set forth. Zero waste and 100% renewable energy are a looong ways off for this company.