That’s brilliant.

It comes across as slightly arrogant to think that doing good forgives manipulating the truth (however subtle the manipulation might be).  I still have loads of respect for Kiva, but not as much as I did before this story broke.  

Yes Joel, there are many metrics to consider when determining if a building is sustainable. But the reality is that 40% of the word’s CO2 emissions come from buildings, which makes energy efficiency THE MOST important metric.

I’m a bit skeptical of this too, particularly because of the methodology used in generating the rankings. (For example, the #1 company on the list actually scored 175th on the Environmental Impact Score portion).Siobhan, if you are interested in seeing data on a company’s CO2 emissions, check out the Carbon Disclosure Project. https://www.cdproject.net. It’s an amazing resource. (And they’re a non-profit, so there is no kowtowing to advertisers).  

This is a really good example of stakeholder engagement, which is pillar of corporate responsibility. Starbucks listened to their external audiences – their customers and the communities where they operate - who were sick of over-branded/generic stores and decided to test a new business model in response. Dave Cameron (above) makes the critical point that it is now up to the customer to decide if the effort is meaningful. Personally, I don’t go to Starbucks, but I agree with Siobhan that this is compelling.

(Of course P & G and co. are part of the consortium – when your biggest customer asks you to do something, you do it). .And to answer your last question: yes, exactly..So thank you for the good dialogue (no snark). I certainly give credit to Wal-Mart for sparking these sorts of conversations. And my fingers are cautiously (and optimistically) crossed to see how this project plays out…..

Kimberly-Clark, Proctor and Gamble, General Mills, PepsiCo and countless other suppliers to Wal-Mart are doing extensive work to track the carbon footprints of their products,  cut CO2 emissions, reduce water use, reduce waste, etc. These are the actual manufacturers of consumer goods making real efforts to make real change. Contrary to what you say, most of this information is available to customers  online. I don’t believe it’s Wal-Mart’s role to “expose this information.” 
.
As a reseller, Wal-Mart should not have the power to influence the General Mills consumer by providing a sustainability number, particularly when they’re also selling Kellogg’s, Post , Kashi and every other cereal under the sun. They’re not regulators – they’re retailers.  
.
Because the idea of an index is good and I’m not suggesting that they keep the data secret. I’m suggesting they do what other companies do: Conduct audits and hold suppliers accountable for their social and environmental practices. Create a procurement system that shares best practice. This is not an ultimatum – it’s Wal-Mart setting a bar for themselves as to what they believe in and holding themselves accountable-  that’s what sustainable business practice is.
.
I don’t  want to hate Wal-Mart and I’m not mixing up causes. Believe me, if Wal-Mart announced tomorrow  that they no longer sell products that didn’t  meet standards on their sustainability index, I’d be thrilled. But they’ve yet to do that. .

It’s easy to create an index that holds everyone else accountable. Wal-Mart is #2 on the Fortune 500.  Who’s holding them accountable? 

I have a hard time accepting Wal-Mart as a regulatory agency.  This move is just business as usual for a company that is big enough to bully its suppliers. If Wal-Mart really took sustainability seriously, they would keep this index internal and base their own purchasing decisions on those metrics. Products that didn’t make the grade would not be sold at Wal-Mart. They would take short-term loss on profits, but for long-term social and environmental benefits. By simply putting a number on all of their products, they can keep selling everything without ever having to take any responsibility or make tough decisions. Wal-Mart resells goods. Now they’re just reselling the concept of sustainability.

From a business perspective it’s brilliant. Tap into one of the most relevant issue in our world today, woo the head of the Sierra Club over, shell out cash to get a panel of sustainability professors in the wings and Viola! Wal-Mart is now the expert on sustainability. They will make huge profits based on this apparent expertise. I don’t find this exciting. I find this scary.

That’s brilliant.

It comes across as slightly arrogant to think that doing good forgives manipulating the truth (however subtle the manipulation might be).  I still have loads of respect for Kiva, but not as much as I did before this story broke.  

Yes Joel, there are many metrics to consider when determining if a building is sustainable. But the reality is that 40% of the word’s CO2 emissions come from buildings, which makes energy efficiency THE MOST important metric.

I’m a bit skeptical of this too, particularly because of the methodology used in generating the rankings. (For example, the #1 company on the list actually scored 175th on the Environmental Impact Score portion).Siobhan, if you are interested in seeing data on a company’s CO2 emissions, check out the Carbon Disclosure Project. https://www.cdproject.net. It’s an amazing resource. (And they’re a non-profit, so there is no kowtowing to advertisers).  

This is a really good example of stakeholder engagement, which is pillar of corporate responsibility. Starbucks listened to their external audiences – their customers and the communities where they operate - who were sick of over-branded/generic stores and decided to test a new business model in response. Dave Cameron (above) makes the critical point that it is now up to the customer to decide if the effort is meaningful. Personally, I don’t go to Starbucks, but I agree with Siobhan that this is compelling.

(Of course P & G and co. are part of the consortium – when your biggest customer asks you to do something, you do it). .And to answer your last question: yes, exactly..So thank you for the good dialogue (no snark). I certainly give credit to Wal-Mart for sparking these sorts of conversations. And my fingers are cautiously (and optimistically) crossed to see how this project plays out…..

Kimberly-Clark, Proctor and Gamble, General Mills, PepsiCo and countless other suppliers to Wal-Mart are doing extensive work to track the carbon footprints of their products,  cut CO2 emissions, reduce water use, reduce waste, etc. These are the actual manufacturers of consumer goods making real efforts to make real change. Contrary to what you say, most of this information is available to customers  online. I don’t believe it’s Wal-Mart’s role to “expose this information.” 
.
As a reseller, Wal-Mart should not have the power to influence the General Mills consumer by providing a sustainability number, particularly when they’re also selling Kellogg’s, Post , Kashi and every other cereal under the sun. They’re not regulators – they’re retailers.  
.
Because the idea of an index is good and I’m not suggesting that they keep the data secret. I’m suggesting they do what other companies do: Conduct audits and hold suppliers accountable for their social and environmental practices. Create a procurement system that shares best practice. This is not an ultimatum – it’s Wal-Mart setting a bar for themselves as to what they believe in and holding themselves accountable-  that’s what sustainable business practice is.
.
I don’t  want to hate Wal-Mart and I’m not mixing up causes. Believe me, if Wal-Mart announced tomorrow  that they no longer sell products that didn’t  meet standards on their sustainability index, I’d be thrilled. But they’ve yet to do that. .

It’s easy to create an index that holds everyone else accountable. Wal-Mart is #2 on the Fortune 500.  Who’s holding them accountable? 

I have a hard time accepting Wal-Mart as a regulatory agency.  This move is just business as usual for a company that is big enough to bully its suppliers. If Wal-Mart really took sustainability seriously, they would keep this index internal and base their own purchasing decisions on those metrics. Products that didn’t make the grade would not be sold at Wal-Mart. They would take short-term loss on profits, but for long-term social and environmental benefits. By simply putting a number on all of their products, they can keep selling everything without ever having to take any responsibility or make tough decisions. Wal-Mart resells goods. Now they’re just reselling the concept of sustainability.

From a business perspective it’s brilliant. Tap into one of the most relevant issue in our world today, woo the head of the Sierra Club over, shell out cash to get a panel of sustainability professors in the wings and Viola! Wal-Mart is now the expert on sustainability. They will make huge profits based on this apparent expertise. I don’t find this exciting. I find this scary.

Maybe the stimulus bill isn’t “wrong,” but maybe it could have been better. A single party controlling the House, Senate, and the Executive Office means legislation passed hastily. And no matter what side you’re on, haste has potentially negative consequences.

The focus should be on tackling climate change in the most cost-effective way. Czar or no czar, the new administration has simply got to get the job done.