Just read an interesting story about Wal-Mart (which may translate into ASDA here?) 'going green' in Fortune.
Overall it's encouraging, but again, contradictions abound. I just loved the bit about conservationists pitching to the bosses whilst scuba diving here and hiking there around the world. Nice work if you can get it, but I guess a small price to pay to swing the monolith in tangible green ways. And the CEO has traded his Beetle (!) in for a hybrid... er... SUV. Not sure if that was a step in the right direction or not.
But I think I am most focused on this claim: '[The] argument was simple: Wal-Mart could improve its image, motivate employees, and save money by going green.' Reads like our pitch to ASDA about 3 years ago. This has translated into tangibles: '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.'
A lot of the inspirations to have hit these multi-million salaried execs seem a bit 'Well, D'uh', when they are reported as so excitedly coming up with initiatives, but at least they are not (always - there is that bottom line) saying no.
And maybe I have some guys to write to about Junkk.com. Can't hurt.
No comments:
Post a Comment
I believe in freedom of speech. But I also don't like bullies on blogs, even verbal ones, as they can drive away those with something valid to say... or offer.
Subjective is fine, but well argued and substantiated is even better. Calm and polite tops. Anything that crosses my personal line will not go up. There may be reasons given, but not guaranteed.
I'm not too keen on 'Anon' as a handle (and the content usually explains why), so if that's what you opt for it may not make it. Sorry.