In this update you will find:

U p c o m i n g . E v e n t s

Wal-Mart/Big Box Accountability Track at Good Jobs First Conf, May 7-8
Lunch Series Discussion on Living Wage Policies and Wal-Mart, May 6
Are you planning anything?

W o r t h . a . L o o k

Report alleges abuse in Asia shrimp industry (CNN)
Wal-Mart's "PAC Mentality" (Center for Public Integrity)
This Earth Day, Let's Scrape Off the Greenwash (Center for Media and Democracy)
Group Focuses on Working Conditions (Kalamazoo Gazette)
Wal-Mart Chief's '07 Earnings Disclosed (Arkansas Democrat-Gazette)
U.S. Retailers' Sales Gain 1.4% on Gasoline Costs (Bloomberg News)
More U.S. Retailers Give BPA the Boot (USA Today)

R e s o u r c e s

Going Green or PR Stunt: Video from Canada
Video: Do As We Say, Not As We Do - Wal-Mart and Women's Empowerment
Discounting Rights: Wal-Mart's Violation of US Workers' Right to Freedom of Association
Baby's Toxic Bottle Sold at Wal-Mart, Target and other stores
Wal-Mart's 2008 sustainability speech - lots of promises but not too much substance
Wal-Mart's Sustainability Initiative: A Civil Society Critique produced by 23 organizations

G e t . I n v o l v e d & T a k e . A c t i o n

Tell Wal-Mart to Clean Up Its Act
Vote Wal-Mart into the Corporate Hall of Shame!
Keep Wal-Mart's Health Care Nightmare in the News!
Do you have investments through TIAA-CREF?
Ask Wal-Mart to Wash its Hands Clean of Toxic Triclosan
BBC Working Groups

 --------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Upcoming Events

Wal-Mart/Big Box Accountability Track at Good Jobs First Conf in May

Good Jobs First's Third-Ever National Conference! "Reclaiming Economic Development III" May 7-8, 2008 ~ Near Baltimore, MD

More information is available on Good Jobs First's website.

Wal-Mart/Big-Box Accountability

1. Wal-Mart in the Taxpayer Trough

2. Regulating Big-Boxes to Curb Sprawl and Protect Existing Businesses

3. Wal-Mart's Low-Road Employment Practices/Hidden Taxpayer Costs

4. Roundtable: What Have Wal-Mart Campaigns Accomplished (and Not Accomplished)?

Some of the Big Box experts that will be speaking include:

Stacy Mitchell, author of Big-Box Swindle: The True Cost of Mega-Retailers and the Fight for America's Independent Business and Senior Researcher at the New Rules Project

Madeline Janis, Executive Director, Los Angeles Alliance for a New Economy and co-founder Partnership for Working Families

Wal-Mart Watch Executive Director David Nassar

Meghan Scott, Wake-Up Wal-Mart

Al Norman, Director of Sprawl-Busters and author of two books on fighting Wal-Mart

Ken Jacobs, Chair of UC Berkeley Labor Center

Living Wage Policies and Wal-Mart: How a Higher Wage Standard Would Impact Wal-Mart Workers and Shoppers

Lunch Series Discussion With: Ken Jacobs, author of "Living Wage Policies and Wal-Mart: How a Higher Wage Standard Would Impact Wal-Mart Workers and Shoppers"

WHEN: Tuesday, May 6, 2008

TIME: 12 Noon -1 :00 PM

WHERE: 1130 Connecticut Ave. NW. Washington, DC. 20036 Suite 300, Conference Room B

RSVP: 202.557.7451 or alex@walmartwatch.com by Friday, May 2.

About Ken Jacobs:

Ken Jacobs is the Chair of the UC Berkeley Center for Labor Research and Education. His areas of specialization include health care, the retail industry and labor standards. He has co-authored a series of reports on Wal-Mart and the retail industry, including The Hidden Cost of Wal-Mart Jobs (2004), Living Wage Policies and Wal-Mart: How a Higher Wage Standard Would Impact Wal-Mart Workers and Shoppers (2007), and Impact of Health Benefit Reductions in the Unionized Grocery Sector in California (2007).

The Hidden Cost of Wal-Mart Jobs, which quantified Wal-Mart workers' reliance on public assistance programs to supplement their substandard wages and benefits, received widespread media coverage in the United States and internationally; the report was also distributed by the California State Controller to public officials throughout the state. Jacobs has testified on big box legislation at public hearings in Chicago, Los Angeles and the San Francisco Bay Area, and has spoken at numerous public events on Wal-Mart and changes in the retail industry.

Are you planning anything?

This space could be filled by something you are working on. Planning to release a report, host an event, or send out an urgent action alert: send an email to trina.tocco@ilrf.org and your info will be added in this weekly email.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Worth a Read

Wal-Mart's "PAC Mentality": How the world's largest retailer added an artificial sweetener to its political war chest
April 23, 2008
By Bill Hogan
The Center for Public Integrity

Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., the world's largest retailer, has transformed its once-tiny political action committee into one of the nation's biggest corporate PACs by promising salaried managers and other executives that it will make corresponding donations in their names, on a two-to-one basis, into a company-controlled charity.

The unusual sweetener, unveiled at company meetings in 2001, has clearly fueled the dramatic growth of Wal-Mart's "Responsible Government" PAC. That year, according to reports filed with the Federal Election Commission, Wal-Mart's PAC counted more than 380 contributors of $200 or more. In 2002, with the incentive in place, the number of $200+ contributors to Wal-Mart's PAC zoomed to more than 1,040, and by 2004 it was up to more than 1,240.

The Center for Public Integrity has unearthed a series of videotapes (see box, right) that show Wal-Mart executives making pitches for the "double your money" PAC program, as it was billed internally, at company events in 2001 and 2004. The tapes, drawn from a mammoth archive of Wal-Mart video footage, offer unique insights into how the company induced ever-larger numbers of salaried managers to earmark a part of each of their paychecks for the PAC.

"A clever way where we can kill two birds with one stone . . ."

A video segment from 2001, for example, captures Thomas M. (Tom) Coughlin, a top Wal-Mart executive and confidant of founder Sam Walton, laying out the basics of the program at a company meeting. "Wal-Mart is not by federal law allowed to contribute to the Wal-Mart PAC," he begins. "You are. I am. But Wal-Mart is not."

Under federal election law, PACs set up by corporations may solicit contributions only from a "restricted class" of employees - typically executive and administrative personnel - stockholders, and family members of both groups, and the contributions must be voluntary.

Coughlin then goes on to explain the mechanics of the program. "They've come up with a very clever way where we can kill two birds with one stone," he says. "For every dollar that you contribute to the Wal-Mart PAC, the Wal-Mart Foundation will match that into the Associates in Critical Need Trust [sic] . . ."

"We like to call it a twofer," Jay Allen, Coughlin's sidekick at the meeting, adds, saying that the program allows Wal-Mart's managers not only to "take care of our own" but also "to take care of our business in Washington."

(Coughlin resigned from Wal-Mart's board in 2005 amid accusations that he misappropriated as much as $500,000 from the company through fraudulent reimbursements and the improper use of gift cards; he later pleaded guilty to federal charges of defrauding the company through the theft of money, merchandise, and gift cards. Allen retired in 2005 from his position as Wal-Mart's top communications and government affairs executive; through at least 2007, he was a spokesman for the Walton family.)

Four corporate entities are referenced in the tapes: Wal-Mart; Wal-Mart's PAC; the Wal-Mart Foundation, the philanthropic arm of Wal-Mart, which is its sole contributor; and the Wal-Mart Associates in Critical Need Fund, a tax-exempt affiliate of the Wal-Mart Foundation formed in 2002 with the stated purpose of providing "monetary support for [Wal-Mart] associates or their dependents during medical or extreme hardships, including death of the associate or dependent."

The Federal Election Commission has generally allowed corporations to match contributions made to their PACs with donations to third-party charitable organizations so long as no individual contributor gets a financial, tax, or other tangible benefit from his or her donation. Its decisions have not always been unanimous, however, and Wal-Mart's use of a company-controlled charity as the beneficiary of its promised matches seems to be novel.

Elizabeth (E.R.) Anderson, a regional media director for Wal-Mart, told the Center that the two-for-one matches are made by Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., not the Wal-Mart Foundation. "Many political action committees do the same thing," she said in an e-mail. "We think it is a win-win."

Anderson also said that salaried Wal-Mart managers who contribute to the PAC could end up being beneficiaries of the Associates in Critical Need Fund. "It is possible that an associate who participated in the PAC program could apply for and receive assistance," she said in the e-mail.

Another video segment from 2001 shows Norm Lezy, a retired Air Force lieutenant general who'd opened Wal-Mart's first Washington office in 1999, making the case for the company's PAC and explaining what it gets for its money.

"Let's be frank," Lezy begins. "In this day and age, if you don't have a good political action committee operation to support candidates, you really can't do much in Washington."

Lezy proceeds to tell his audience the story of a breakfast meeting that he and another Wal-Mart lobbyist hosted for an unnamed U.S. senator. "For a PAC contribution, we sat and had an audience with this senator - eight of us, for an hour and a half," he says. "We covered every issue that's important to us and important to you, and let me tell you, you just get that quality time, and that's the way it works."

"Our cover charge"

Fast forward to 2004. Wal-Mart's PAC is in the process of spending more than $2.7 million on federal elections - nearly double what it had just two years earlier - and it is a political force to be reckoned with, particularly since 78 percent of the contributions it makes are to Republicans. The "double your money" pitch, coming as it does in the middle of a presidential election year, takes on new urgency.

This time it's Betsy Reithemeyer, Wal-Mart's vice president of corporate affairs, making the appeal.

"There is a way to double your money," Reithemeyer says in a video segment from 2004. "Wal-Mart determines our contribution to the trust [the Wal-Mart Associates in Critical Need Fund] by what salaried members of management contribute to Wal-PAC, our political action committee. You know, this is an election year, and our participation in that process has never been more important.

"We all know the criticisms that we're getting," Reithemeyer said, alluding to Mission, Kansas, where in August 2004 the city council had blocked Wal-Mart's plans to open a large "Supercenter." "You saw in Kansas City and other places how the politicians continue to take swipes at us. Well, your political action committee is basically your cover charge for us to participate in the process in Washington."

Reithemeyer then holds up Microsoft Corporation, which had shunned Washington until it faced an epic antitrust battle, as the poster child of political inaction. "Many of the things that we face today as a company are the results of unions, special-interest groups already being at the table, because we always believed that if we took care of our associates and our customers, the government would leave us alone," she says. "Well, Microsoft found out that wasn't going to happen, and we're finding that out as well."

The answer, Reithemeyer says, is Wal-Mart's PAC, and her description of the quid pro quo is unvarnished. "For every dollar that you contribute to our political action committee," she says, "the company is committed to putting $2 in the trust, in your name."

Then, turning to a colleague on the stage, she explains why PACs are so important to a company like Wal-Mart. "A lot of people don't understand political action committees, but what, in a very simple term, this is, they're our cover charge," she says. "They're the cost of admission to the tables where politicians and legislators are."

 

This Earth Day, Let's Scrape off the Greenwash
April 22, 2008
By Sheldon Rampton
Center for Media and Democracy

Today marks the 38th annual celebration of Earth Day, and once again the event comes with its fair share of PR hype and misleading marketing campaigns. In the spirit of dedicating ourselves to genuine concern for the planet, today is therefore a good time to look carefully at corporate environmental claims, some of which consist more of empty rhetoric than real substance.

Companies like Wal-Mart are announcing environmental initiatives. General Electric has its "Ecomagnation" advertising campaign. In Singapore, a shopping center is advertising that customers can "shop to save planet earth" -- and if they buy enough, they might win a new car!

The ritual of green hypocrisy frequently requires that companies and politicians redefine environmental progress in increasingly creative ways. Last week, for example, George W. Bush announced a plan to address the problem of global warming by "halting the growth" of U.S. greenhouse gas emissions by the year 2025. Beyond the fact that this target date is 17 years in the future, what really means is that during those 17 years not only will greenhouse gas emissions continue, the amount of those emissions will continue to grow. As columnist Gail Collins observed in the New York Times, this would be akin to having an overweight person announce a plan to achieve "an 18 percent reduction in the rate at which he was gaining weight, to be reached within the next decade."

Of course, this strategy of reframing failure as success is hardly unique to Bush. Last year, the Dallas-based utility TXU had plans in the works to build 11 new coal-fired power plants until it was bought out by private equity firms that had struck a deal with two environmental groups, Environmental Defense and the Natural Resources Defense Council. Under the terms of the buyout, TXU scaled back its plan to only build three coal plants instead of 11. This of course still means burning more coal, not less, but to judge from the Earth Day section of TXU's website, you would think the company had died and gone to environmental heaven.

As Alex Steffen and Sarah Rich observed last year, "The biggest problem with Earth Day is that it has become a ritual of sympathy for the idea of environmental sanity. Small steps, we're told, ignoring the fact that most of the steps most frequently promoted (returning your bottles, bringing your own bag, turning off the water while you brush your teeth) are of such minor impact (compared to our ecological footprints) that they are essentially meaningless without larger, systemic action as well. ... If the politics of gesture weren't bad enough, Earth Day is rapidly becoming a firestorm of gestural shopping. Marketers today will shamelessly slap the 'green' label on nearly anything, including things that are demonstrably stupid and ecologically steps backwards."

How did the actual practice of Earth Day become such a corrupted version of the original concept? As John Stauber and I wrote in our 1995 book, Toxic Sludge Is Good For You, this transformation was no accident. It reflects deliberate, carefully calculated strategies by the public relations industry. PR firms have carefully studied opinion polls which show that the vast majority of people in the United States (and throughout much of the rest of the world as well) are concerned that human actions are damaging the natural environment. Rather than confront public opinion head-on, therefore, they use environmental rhetoric -- often consisting mostly of empty words and minor, symbolic gestures -- to make themselves look green while continuing to do business as usual.

The appropriate term to describe these environmental deceptions is "greenwashing." We have an article on the topic on SourceWatch, which defines greenwashing as "the unjustified appropriation of environmental virtue by a company, an industry, a government, a politician or even a non-government organization to create a pro-environmental image, sell a product or a policy, or to try and rehabilitate their standing with the public and decision makers after being embroiled in controversy."

As a result of its reliance on greenwashing, the public relations industry has redefined the terms "environmental" and "green" to mean the very opposite of what those terms evoke for most people. "Environmental public relations," for example, refers to a PR campaign designed to lobby against environmental regulations. E. Bruce Harrison, the man often considered the founder of "environmental public relations," got his start when he helped the pesticide industry attack Rachel Carson and her classic 1962 environmental book, Silent Spring. By the 1970s, however, Harrison began to adopt a more subtle approach, aimed at undermining environmental activism from within, by offering corporate cash to environmental groups that could be persuaded to moderate their activism.

"The activist movement that began in the early 1960s ... succumbed to success over ... the last 15 years," Harrison proclaimed in his 1993 book, Going Green, which argued that large environmental groups had become so focused on fundraising that they were really businesses themselves. As he put it, the environmental movement's most pressing need was "not to green, but to ensure the wherewithal that enable it to green." The need for money and a "respectable" public image, he said, provided the motivation for green bureaucrats to sit down and cut deals with industry.

Harrison and other PR firms also work through a variety of green-sounding front groups that have been created precisely to create confusion about environmental issues. Many people, for example, have heard of Keep America Beautiful (KAB), ostensibly an anti-littering organization. In fact, KAB is funded by major corporations such as McDonald's, Coca-Cola and Anheuser-Busch, as well as major tobacco companies, and it has refused to support legislation that would make companies responsible for recycling the bottles, cans and cigarette butts that they produce.

Some groups still attack environmentalism head-on. This year, for example, Americans for Prosperity, a conservative advocacy group formerly known as Citizens for a Sound Economy, is using Earth Day as the occasion to launch a "nationwide hot air balloon tour" aimed at ridiculing what it called "global warming alarmism."

Some environmental front groups adopt a more subtle strategy. The Greening Earth Society, a project of the Western Fuels Association, claims that greenhouse gas emissions are a good thing because they will lead to greater plant growth and a greener environment. The The Foundation for Clean Air Progress, a front group for the American Petroleum Institute, was created by the Burson-Marsteller PR firm to lobby against air pollution controls.

There is a reason why front groups adopt language that means the very opposite of what they really intend. As George Orwell observed in his essay on politics and the English language, "The great enemy of clear language is insincerity." Greenwashing is ultimately an attempt to obscure awareness of environmental pollution by polluting language and thought itself in an attempt to stop people from thinking clearly about the issues they face.

In this degraded information environment, it helps to have some means of identifying the most common deceptions. For that purpose, our SourceWatch article includes links to examples of greenwashing throughout the world -- Australia, Europe, Canada, the United States. We also have dozens of articles about environmental front groups and other greenwashing-related topics. Like all articles on SourceWatch, these profiles are open to public editing, so you can add your examples and research.

Of course, not every environmental initiative on Earth Day should be dismissed as greenwashing. For example, Heather Clancy at ZDNet has compiled a short list of environmentally-themed marketing campaigns that actually look worthwhile. Genuine efforts to protect the environment should be praised and valued, which is all the more reason why phony marketing campaigns and outright attacks on the environment should not be allowed to masquerade as the real thing.

 

Group Focuses on Working Conditions
April 18, 2008
By Chris Killian
Kalamazoo Gazette (via MLive.com)

OSHTEMO TOWNSHIP -- The glass doors to the Wal-Mart Supercenter's sprawling food section slide open and Didier Leiton steps inside.

The Costa Rica native doesn't do his food shopping in places nearly so massive, yet in a way, he is intimately familiar with some of the produce before him at the Ninth Street store near Kalamazoo.

A pile of pineapples is stacked in front of him, for $2.98 each. He grabs one with his left hand and reads the label.

``Dole,'' Leiton says in a thick Spanish accent.

I've picked these before,'' he says through his translator. I've been in those plantations.''

For years, Leiton has worked in pineapple and banana plantations in Costa Rica. A pesticide he has sprayed on the fruit has made him and many others sterile, caused birth defects in many children in his extended family and contaminated rivers and well water, he claims.

Leiton approaches a woman who has picked up a container containing a pineapple core, with a label: ``Product of Costa Rica.'' Through his translator, he asks if she is aware of the working conditions for those who pick the pineapples.

``No,'' she responds.

``Then I want to tell you something,'' Leiton says.

He talks to her about conditions he has endured working 12- to 15-hour days, six or seven days per week, for $5 a day. He mentions scars the plantations have left on his country through clear-cutting forests.

I'm not asking you not to buy that,'' Leiton tells the woman. But if you think the working conditions of those who picked that pineapple should be better, I want you to let Wal-Mart know that.''

The Kalamazoo woman, who asked that her name not be used for this story, puts the container back. I don't want it anymore,'' she tells Leiton. I thought these were grown in Hawaii. I had no idea of the things you just told me.''

Leiton, Jimenez and Trina Tocco, a Western Michigan University alumna and organizer with the International Labor Rights Forum, who organized the trip to Wal-Mart on Thursday, head toward the women's clothing section.

They meet-up with Victoria Kaplan, of SweatFree Communities, a group that advocates against sweatshops, and Savan Phal, a Cambodian woman who has made clothing for a supplier to Wal-Mart.

For the past two weeks, the group has been traveling to Wal-Mart stores in Michigan and Ohio to tell their stories to customers.

Phal holds a pink, collared, short-sleeved shirt listed at $8.84. She's worked on this exact style of shirt before, in a cramped, hot factory in the Cambodian capitol city of Phnom Penh.

She made 2 cents for every 12 tasks she performed, such as attaching the size tag or stitching the collar to the shirt, she said through her translator. She averaged making $1.50 per day and only once in the past year made more than $50 in a month, regularly working 14-hour days, she said.

Her translator approaches two women looking at a shirt made in Cambodia and explains how it was made. A Bloomingdale woman who asked that her name not be used, seems moved.

I've seen pictures of groups of workers in other countries sewing, just hundreds of them in a room, and they're getting nothing,'' she said. It's just horrible.''

The products Leiton, Phal and workers like them have harvested or made are sold in many stores.

Wal-Mart is the biggest corporation in the world and therefore has the most responsibility to ensure that the workers who provide their products are being treated and paid fairly,'' Tocco said of the focus on the retailing giant. They need to be the leader.''

A statement from Wal-Mart's senior manager for corporate communications, Sharon Weber, said: ``Wal-Mart does not tolerate sweatshop conditions in any of our suppliers' factories. To ensure this, we ask each supplier to sign a Code of Conduct which requires suppliers to comply will all local laws and practices, and prohibits the use of child labor or forced/prison labor.

``The code additionally protects the right for freedom of association and collective bargaining, and requires suppliers to have a safe work environment.''

At the Oshtemo Township Wal-Mart on Thursday, Leiton, still holding the pineapple, enters a checkout lane, hands the clerk a crumpled $5 bill, then explains to her why he is buying the pineapple and tells her his story.

``Well, thank you. ... I appreciate knowing that,'' the clerk says.

The group asks to see a store manager, who is handed a card urging Wal-Mart to pay a living wage, support anti-discrimination practices, initiate grassroots monitoring of factories and allow workers to freely associate. ``You'll have to mail this to the home office,'' the manager responds.

 

Report alleges abuse in Asia shrimp industry
April 23, 2008
CNN

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Workers in Southeast Asia's shrimp industry suffer regular abuse and sometimes live in what amounts to virtual slavery, a human-rights organization said Wednesday.

Sexual and physical abuse, debt bondage, child labor and unsafe working conditions are common in Thailand and Bangladesh's shrimp processing factories, the Solidarity Center said in a 40-page report.

The Solidarity Center describes itself as "an international nonprofit allied organization of the AFL-CIO established to provide assistance to workers around the world."

Workers told Thai police who raided one factory in September 2006 "that if they made a mistake on the shrimp peeling line, asked for sick leave, or tried to escape, they could expect to be beaten, sexually molested, or publicly tortured," according to the report.

The plant, Ranya Paew, "was more like a fortress than a factory, with 16-foot-high barbed-wire capped walls, an armed guard force, and an extensive internal closed-circuit television system," the Solidarity Center alleged, citing Thai police reports.

"Behind the walls, the police found a scene that one report described as 'little short of medieval,' with hundreds of workers literally trapped inside the compound, living in squalid conditions, forced to work long hours, and subjected to physical, emotional, and sexual intimidation and abuse. Workers who angered the employer were often 'put to shame' in front of others by having their hair cut or shaved in patches. Women and girls were stripped naked and publicly beaten as a form of discipline."

The report says the owner of the factory, who was charged with some offenses, received little in the way of punishment.

"Despite widespread worker rights abuses, including child labor and human trafficking, the owner was charged only with employing children under 15 and failing to provide holidays and time off. Though these charges are serious, they were treated as first-time labor code violations. The owner initially only paid a fine of about $2,100 and has returned to work."

The report, "The Degradation of Work: The True Cost of Shrimp," also contains information from interviews with workers in Thailand and Bangladesh. The labor rights organization did not name the workers, saying they could suffer retaliation from employers if their identities were not protected.

"In April 2007, workers at a factory owned by a major Thai shrimp processing company spoke with Solidarity Center partners, alleging hazardous working conditions as well as an intimidating and discriminatory work environment. Workers complained of forced overtime and nonpayment of wages if production quotas were missed. They also claimed regular exposure to harsh chemicals, lack of access to first aid or health care, and poor air and drinking water quality.

"They additionally alleged that they had unexplained deductions from their pay, that they worked without a written contract, and that native Thais and migrant workers were segregated by the use of colorcoded uniforms."

U.S. Rep. Carolyn Maloney, a New York Democrat, said she was "deeply disturbed by the findings of this report" at a news conference announcing the study. "Simply put, this is outrageous. It is unacceptable to treat ... people this way."

Much of the shrimp processed in Thailand is destined for the United States, the report said.

"On average, Americans eat more than three pounds of shrimp each year; about 80 percent of that shrimp is imported. In 2006 alone, U.S. shrimp imports were valued at over $4 billion, making shrimp the most valuable seafood import into the United States. Roughly one-third of that shrimp came from Thailand. ... In 2002, shrimp overtook tuna as the most popular seafood in American homes and restaurants."

The Solidarity Center tracked shrimp from factories it criticized directly to some of America's best-known retailers and restaurants, though it did not allege wrongdoing on the part of the U.S. companies.

Wal-Mart, the world's largest retailer, was among the companies mentioned.

A spokeswoman for Wal-Mart said the company was not aware of the allegations until contacted by CNN but that it adhered to industry standards.

"We hold our shrimp suppliers to the highest safety and quality standards -- including maintaining processing plants and packaging facilities that meet or exceed best aquaculture practices (BAP) standards set by the Global Aquaculture Alliance. Although we have not seen the Solidarity Center's report, we are working with our suppliers to investigate the allegations shared by CNN," Deisha Galberth of Promote Communications said in a statement on behalf of Wal-Mart.

The global shrimp industry is worth about $13 billion annually, the report said, making shrimp "the most popular and widely traded seafood in the world." Thailand is one of the world's largest shrimp exporters; Bangladesh has a much smaller industry.

 

Wal-Mart Chief's '07 Earnings Disclosed
April 23, 2008
By Stacey Roberts
Arkansas Democrat-Gazette

Wal-Mart Stores Inc. paid its president and chief executive officer $ 29. 61 million in 2007, according to the proxy statement the company filed with the U. S. Securities and Exchange Commission on Tuesday.

H. Lee Scott was paid $ 10. 61 million in salary, nonequity incentives and other forms of compensation - plus stock options and restricted shares valued at $ 19 million when granted Jan. 21.

Wal-Mart's fiscal year ended Jan. 31.

Scott separately received $ 6. 84 million from the exercise of stock options and awards from the Bentonvillebased retailer.

According to the proxy statement, Scott received more than $ 23. 63 million in total compensation in 2006 - nearly $ 6. 31 million in salary and bonuses.

On Monday, Wal-Mart was ranked the nation's top company on the Fortune 500 list, besting Exxon Mobil for the second year in a row. The Fortune rankings are based on total revenue.

For fiscal 2008, Wal-Mart's revenue was $ 378. 8 billion, up 8. 6 percent from $ 348. 7 billion. Net income from continuing operations was $ 12. 7 billion, up 12. 3 percent from $ 11. 3 billion. Earnings per share for the year were $ 3. 13, up from $ 2. 71.

Wal-Mart aggressively slashed prices in the fourth quarter to push revenues over $ 100 billion. Some analyst say Wal-Mart is well positioned as consumers look for low prices on necessities in uncertain economic times.

Shares of Wal-Mart closed at $ 56. 55, up 17 cents or 0. 30 percent in Tuesday trading on the New York Stock Exchange. Shares have traded as low as $ 42. 09 and as high as $ 57. 36.

Wal-Mart's Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer Thomas Schoewe was paid $ 3. 08 million in salary, nonequity incentives and other forms of compensation. He was paid $ 3. 6 million in stock options and restricted shares as valued on Jan. 21.

Schoewe received $ 1. 29 million from the exercise of stock options and awards in 2007.

John Menzer, vice chairman and chief administrative officer, was paid $ 5. 63 million in salary, nonequity incentives and other forms of compensation. Menzer retired from Wal-Mart on March 1, so he was not eligible to receive any payments in stock options or restricted shares.

Menzer received $ 2. 43 million from the exercise of stock options and awards in 2007.

International Vice Chairman Michael Duke was paid $ 5. 89 million in salary, nonequity incentives and other forms of compensation. He was paid $ 7 million in stock options and restricted shares valued on Jan. 21.

Duke received $ 2. 22 million from the exercise of stock options and awards in 2007.

Eduardo Castro-Wright, executive vice president and president and chief executive officer of Wal-Mart Stores division, was paid $ 3. 37 million in salary, nonequity incentives and other forms of compensation. He was paid $ 9. 5 million in stock options and restricted shares valued on Jan. 21. Castro-Wright received $ 621, 795 from the exercise of stock options and awards in 2007.

 

U.S. Retailers' Sales Gain 1.4% on Gasoline Costs
April 22, 2008
By Cotten Timberlake
Bloomberg News

April 22 (Bloomberg) -- U.S. retail sales rose 1.4 percent last week from a year earlier, the seventh straight week with a gain of less than 2 percent, as record gasoline prices caused consumers to limit spending on clothes.

Sales at stores open at least a year may increase as little as 1.5 percent this month compared with April 2007, the International Council of Shopping Centers and UBS Securities LLC reiterated today in an e-mailed statement.

``Consumers over the last week continued to face strong headwinds with new record high gasoline prices hurting discretionary spending,'' ICSC Chief Economist Michael Niemira said in the report.

Shoppers struggling with declining housing values, rising costs for food and higher gasoline prices have sought out lower- priced goods, benefiting Wal-Mart Stores Inc. and other discounters while hurting J.C. Penney Co. and Limited Brands Inc. Same-store sales fell 0.5 percent last month, the biggest decline in almost a year and the worst March since 1995, the ICSC said.

Gas prices have a stranglehold on the consumer pocketbook,'' Patricia Edwards, who helps manage more than $14.5 billion including Wal-Mart shares at Wentworth, Hauser & Violich in Seattle, said today. Gas prices are forcing consumers to spend a greater portion of their discretionary income on the basic necessities of living.''

The average U.S. pump price for regular gasoline rose 11.9 cents to a record $3.508 a gallon in the week ended yesterday, the U.S. Energy Department said.

Same-store sales are considered the best measure of a retailer's performance because they exclude locations that have recently opened or closed. U.S. consumer spending accounts for more than two-thirds of the economy.

The average monthly same-store sales gain for the year ending Feb. 2 was 2.1 percent, the ICSC said.

Wal-Mart rose 17 cents to $56.55 at 4:15 p.m. in New York Stock Exchange composite trading. The retailer has climbed 19 percent this year, while the Standard & Poor's 500 Retailing Index dropped 3.2 percent.

 

More U.S. Retailers Give BPA the Boot
April 21, 2008
By Liz Szabo
USA Today

Canada's proposed ban on a hormone-like chemical in baby bottles has spurred U.S. retailers and legislators to try to phase out use of the ingredient, called bisphenol A, or BPA.

Canada's announcement Friday came just days after the National Toxicology Program, part of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, found "some concern" that low levels of BPA cause changes in behavior and the brain, prostate gland, mammary gland and the age at which girls enter puberty.

Toys 'R' Us announced Monday that it will phase out bottles and other "baby feeding products" containing BPA by the end of the year. Wal-Mart last week said that it will stop selling baby bottles made with BPA by early next year.

Nalgene, which makes plastic water bottles popular with hikers, and Playtex, which makes a variety of baby products, also say they'll stop using BPA, an ingredient in polycarbonate plastic.

Brian Fallon, a spokesman for Sen. Charles Schumer, D-N.Y., says the senator plans to introduce legislation today to ban BPA from all baby bottles.

The American Chemistry Council, an industry group, notes that BPA has been used safely for decades and is an important ingredient that makes plastics flexible and shatter-resistant.

Rick Locker, an attorney for the Juvenile Products Manufacturers Association, says parents can be confident that products made with BPA are safe. Locker notes that the Food and Drug Administration has not found that BPA poses a risk to children. Neither have regulatory agencies in Japan or Europe, he says.

"Consumers shouldn't have choices made for them by rash actions by Canada or retailers," Locker says.

But a growing number of consumers are concerned about the chemical, which has been found in the urine of 95% of Americans tested.

A group of 38 scientists last year issued a joint statement warning that even very low doses of BPA - which acts like the hormone estrogen - cause profound effects on laboratory animals, particularly during pregnancy and infancy. They found that BPA can permanently rewire genetic programming before birth. The research was published in Reproductive Toxicology.

Stanford University pediatrician Alan Greene, author of Raising Baby Green, encourages parents to reduce their children's exposure to BPA. "I wouldn't use it for my children," says Greene, a father of four.

Greene says parents can avoid BPA by choosing glass bottles or shunning plastics labeled with a number 7 recycling code. Some bottles, such as BornFree, Medela and Adiri, are now marketed as BPA-free. Greene notes that BPA is found in a number of products, including the linings of formula cans. Because BPA may be less likely to leach into dry products, powdered formula could be a safer choice than liquid, he says.

 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Resources

Going Green or PR Stunt: Video from Canada

Green Giant: Wal-Mart says it's going green, but do its business practices measure up?

This video from The Agenda, a Canadian current events show, includes a panel discussion on Wal-Mart's greening efforts and whether the company is serious or simply looking for good PR.

Click Here to Watch Video

 

Video: Do As We Say, Not As We Do - Wal-Mart and Women's Empowerment

March is National Women's History Month - and there's no denying that Wal-Mart has had an enormous impact on women.

In front of the camera and in the public eye , Wal-Mart claims it is "committed to empowering all women." But behind closed doors, Wal-Mart sends its employees a very different message.

Take a look at this "behind closed doors" footage of Wal-Mart CEO Lee Scott at a 1995 Wal-Mart logistics meeting:

http://action.walmartwatch.com/page/invite/doaswesay

Once you watch the video, it should come as no surprise that Wal-Mart is the subject of the largest class-action lawsuit in America's history: Dukes v. Wal-Mart.

Over 1.6 million women are suing Wal-Mart for business practices that deny them equal job assignments, promotions, training and compensation.

Although women outnumber men 4-1 among hourly supervisors, in 2001 they made up just 45% of all Support Manager positions - the highest-level hourly position.

And the further up the ladder you go, the worse it gets. Women make up only 37% of Assistant Managers, 21% of Co-Managers, and 15% of Store Managers. In 2001, those women who did become salaried Wal-Mart managers earned about $14,500 less than men per year.

Wal-Mart knew about the problem - and chose to do nothing to fix it.

Wal-Mart might suggest that the performances featured in the footage from this 1995 meeting were intended to be funny, but discriminating against women is no joking matter. Watch the video now:

http://action.walmartwatch.com/page/invite/doaswesay

As the largest corporation in the world, Wal-Mart should set the right example and treat all employees with respect. Unfortunately, it looks like the company still has a long, long way to go.

David Nassar
Wal-Mart Watch

Discounting Rights: Wal-Mart's Violation of US Workers' Right to Freedom of Association

» View the report

This report was released back in May 2007 by Human Rights Watch. Thanks to the thorough work of HRW, this report points the figure at Wal-Mart over and over again.

"Wal-Mart is a case study in what is wrong with US labor laws. It is not alone among US companies in its efforts to combat union formation, following the incentives set out in unbalanced US labor laws that tilt the playing field decidedly in favor of anti-union agitation. It is also not alone in violating weak US labor laws and taking advantage of ineffective labor law enforcement. But Wal-Mart stands out for the sheer magnitude and aggressiveness of its anti-union apparatus and actions."

Baby's Toxic Bottle Sold at Wal-Mart, Target and other stores

» Read Baby's Toxic Bottle: Bisphenol A Leaching from Popular Brands of Baby Bottles

Last Week the Center for Health, Environment and Justice released a report about toxics in baby bottles. The U.S. bottles were purchased in nine states at major retailers: Babies"R"Us, CVS, Target, Toys"R"Us, Walgreens, and Wal-Mart. Tests found these popular bottle brands leach levels of bisphenol A (5-8 parts per billion) when heated. Laboratory experiments with animals show that exposure to this level of bisphenol A causes a range of adverse effects.

Wal-Mart's 2008 sustainability speech - lots of promises but not too much substance

» Click here to download the video
» Click here for text of the entire speech

BENTONVILLE, Ark. - Jan. 23, 2008 - In a speech to more than 7,000 managers at the annual kick-off meeting for its U.S. stores, Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. president and CEO Lee Scott said the company would continue to demonstrate leadership and work for change on major issues important to Wal-Mart's customers, communities, associates and suppliers worldwide.

Wal-Mart's Sustainability Initiative: A Civil Society Critique produced by 23 organizations

» Download the report

The Big Box Collaborative is proud to announce the release of Wal-Mart Sustainability Initiative: A Civil Society Critique written by 23 organizations which analyzes Wal-Mart's smoke in mirrors sustainability initiatives. This report calls on Wal-Mart to reframe their sustainability efforts so that workers, the environment and communities are all respected.

This report was coordinated by the Big Box Collaborative, and includes contributions from ActionAid International USA, Agribusiness Accountability Initiative, American Independent Business Alliance, American Rights at Work, Center for Health, Environment and Justice, Centro de Investigación Laboral y Asesoria Sindical (CILAS), The Cornucopia Institute, Corporate Ethics International, Dogwood Alliance, Environmental Investigation Agency, Food and Water Watch, Friends of the Earth, Good Jobs First, Global Exchange, Gulf Restoration Network, Institute for Policy Studies, International Labor Rights Forum, Mangrove Action Project, STITCH, WakeUpWalMart.com, Wal-Mart Alliance for Reform Now (WARN), and Washington State Jobs with Justice.

Download the report at http://laborrights.org/creating-a-sweatfree-world/wal-mart-campaign/resources/1009

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Get Involved and Take Action

Tell Wal-Mart to Clean Up Its Act

Wal-Mart has talked a big game on the environment during the past few years. But talk and action are very different things.

The company's initiative to open green stores has been diluted by its environmentally damaging business practices. The gains made by a few green stores are lost when Wal-Mart opens up a new energy-guzzling behemoth every two days.

Today is Earth Day - and Wal-Mart needs to get serious about becoming an environmentally responsible company.

Tell Wal-Mart to clean up its act:

http://action.walmartwatch.com/earthday

Wal-Mart has made a lot of promises, but has yet to make significant progress on any of the green goals it established in 2005:

1. To be supplied 100 percent by renewable energy.

2. To create zero waste.

3. To sell products that sustain our resources and environment.

Just last month, when asked whether Wal-Mart would achieve these lofty environment goals, CEO Lee Scott responded, "I have no clue."

The fact is, Wal-Mart's business model isn't compatible with eco-friendly living. As Stacy Mitchell, a senior researcher with the Institute for Local Self-Reliance, wrote on the environmental news website Grist.com:

Wal-Mart's initiatives have just enough meat to have distracted much of the environmental movement, along with most journalists and many ordinary people, from the fundamental fact that, as a system of distributing goods to people, big-box retailing is as intrinsically unsustainable as clear-cut logging is as a method of harvesting trees.

With "mom 'n' pop" shops shutting down, customers are driving further distances to shop at stores like Wal-Mart. And each Wal-Mart store requires massive amounts of land, labor and energy to function.

That's not all. By importing the vast majority of its products from countries overseas, Wal-Mart is creating an enormous global footprint. Forcing manufacturers to use cheap factories in countries with lax environmental laws is not only dangerous for product safety, it's dangerous for our planet.

Tell Wal-Mart to stop talking about helping the environment, and to start taking action:

http://action.walmartwatch.com/earthday

But if Wal-Mart really wants to "go green," it should start by following the law.

Only a few weeks ago, the Missouri Department of Natural Resources caught Wal-Mart trying to recycle hazardous agricultural products, instead of a using a more expensive hazardous waste disposal contractor, as required by law.

And Wal-Mart is still under investigation by the States of California and Nevada for violations of their hazardous waste disposal policies.

Wal-Mart's Earth Day campaign talks about how customers' choices, "multiplied by 200 million, can equal a brighter future for us all." That's true. Wal-Mart needs to start living up to its own promises and following our country's environmental laws to achieve those goals.

David Nassar Wal-Mart Watch

 

Vote Wal-Mart into the Corporate Hall of Shame!

If there were a Corporate Hall of Shame, would Wal-Mart belong in it? Of course they would.

Thankfully, there IS a Hall of Shame for abusive corporations, and now we can help make sure Wal-Mart is inducted.

Corporate Accountability International, a membership organization that protects people through campaigns that challenge abusive corporations, is opening up voting to the public for the second year in a row for their popular Corporate Hall of Shame.

The Hall of Shame exposes some of the most abusive, manipulative and harmful corporations - and this year Wal-Mart is one of eight possible inductees.

Voting is open now, so click here to vote to make sure Wal-Mart gets inducted.

It just takes a second, and you can also post comments about why they deserve to be in the Hall of Shame.

Corporate Accountability International will announce the three new inductees in July, and having Wal-Mart included will add pressure to our own campaign work.

Thanks for voting.

T.J. Faircloth Corporate Accountability International

Keep Wal-Mart's Health Care Nightmare in the News!

Now that Wal-Mart dropped its claim against Debbie Shank, everything is OK with Wal-Mart's health coverage, right?

Wrong.

Debbie Shank's tragic story was just the tip of the iceberg when it comes to Wal-Mart and health care. It is representative of the retail giant's nickel-and-dime approach to its workers' health coverage.

With all the attention being paid to the Shank family's tragic ordeal, now is the time to make sure the media continues to investigate Wal-Mart's failure to take care of its employees. Use our simple tool to write to the major media outlets and tell them there's much more to this story:

http://action.walmartwatch.com/healthcare

The American people need to know the larger context of the Debbie Shank saga.

Even though Wal-Mart makes the $470,000 it sought from the Shank family every 38 seconds, the retail giant still hounded them for the money for nearly three years until the public outcry force it to stop.

And even though Wal-Mart made $11 billion in profit last year, it still offers such poor health benefits that only half its workers participate in the company health plan.

This is unacceptable for the nation's largest private employer -- and we need to make sure the American people know it.

Help keep the pressure on Wal-Mart. Write a letter to the national media urging them to run more stories on Wal-Mart's poor record on health care:

http://action.walmartwatch.com/healthcare

In an interview last week, Wal-Mart CEO Lee Scott had the nerve to criticize other U.S. businesses over their poor health care policies.

Talk about the pot calling the kettle black -- Wal-Mart's failure to take responsibility for its employees' health care is why cases like Debbie Shank's occur.

As the world's largest company, Wal-Mart should be a leader in corporate responsibility. It can start by providing good wages, safe and fair working conditions, and quality health coverage for its employees.

Do your part to help get this message out to the rest of the country:

http://action.walmartwatch.com/healthcare

David Nassar Wal-Mart Watch

Do you have investments through TIAA-CREF?

There is an ongiong campaign to pressure TIAA-CREF to use their power to pressure Wal-Mart to change and also for TIAA-CREF to divest from Wal-Mart directly. If you would like more information, email Al Norman or Neil Wollman.

Would it upset you to know that TIAA-CREF---the nation's largest retirement fund, with over $400 billion and three million participants---is a major investor in Wal-Mart? Millions of TIAA-CREF investors are contributing their money to support Wal-Mart's abusive human and labor rights practices, environmental sprawl, loss of manufacturing jobs, and harming of local communities. Even if you are not in the TIAA-CREF system, you can help promote corporate responsibility.

It's time for faculty, staff, organizations, and citizens across America to tell TIAA-CREF that it must use its considerable shareholder power to influence Wal-Mart for the better--or stop investing in it.

1) Turn up the heat on TIAA-CREF to truly invest for the "greater good." Help us educate faculty/staff/organizations you know--and nationwide. Whether you have money invested in a TIAA-CREF account or not - email the below message to CEO Herbert Allison at Hallison@tiaa-cref.org, and send a copy to: [[trustees@tiaa-cref.org|trustees@tiaa-cref.org]]. Also leave the same message in a phone call (800-842-2733 or 212-490-9000 and ask for CEO Herb Allison).

Sample message: I am concerned about TIAA-CREF being a major investor in Wal-Mart, a company involved in abusive human and labor rights practices, environmental destruction, and harm to local economies and neighborhoods. I want TIAA-CREF to put Wal-Mart on notice that if it doesn't clean up it's bad practices, that TIAA-CREF will find other companies to invest in.

Let Allison know if you are in the TIAA-CREF system; and if you are able to do so at your institution and feel strongly enough, say that you (or your whole school/organization) will withdraw money from TIAA-CREF if it doesn't engage or withdraw from Wal-Mart.

2) As a faculty/ staff/organization, send a letter to TIAA-CREF and/or pass a resolution concerning Wal-Mart and send it to: Herbert Allison, CEO, TIAA-CREF, 730 Third Avenue, New York, NY 10017.

3) Write a letter to the editor of your school, local, or a national newspaper that "friends don't let friends invest in TIAA-CREF" because of their large holdings in Wal-Mart stores.

Ask Wal-Mart to Wash its Hands Clean of Toxic Triclosan

Wal-Mart sells health and beauty products made with Triclosan which can cause early puberty, serious reproductive issues and breast cancer.

Raise your voice and let Wal-Mart know that products with Triclosan just aren't acceptable given their health risks and lack of testing to determine long term effects. Triclosan can be found in L'Oreal skin cream, Johnson & Johnson's Kids' Hand Soap, Ahava Aftershave and countless other products used daily by men, women and children in the United States.

» Click here to learn more and to send an email to Wal-Mart

This action alert comes from the Safe Cosmetics Campaign.

BBC Working Groups

The Big Box Collaborative has active working groups and welcome additional participants. See the list of working groups and contact info for each group below. The BBC also welcomes new working groups, contact trina.tocco@ilrf.org with your ideas.

Environment
This Working Group includes organizations in internal dialogue with Wal-Mart and other big box retailers as well as organizations that are conducting external pressure campaigns. This group is focused on inside/outside strategy development to move forward environmental, public health and related campaign finance issues. Member organizations share information and develop strategy concerning both their internal dialogue with Wal-Mart, through the company's sustainability networks, as well as their external campaign efforts to put pressure on the industry. This group includes environmental and public health advocacy organizations, as well as labor, human rights, and internationally-focused NGOs. Lead group: Corporate Ethics International Contact: Michael Marx, Corporate Ethics International mmarx@corporateethics.org

Food and Agriculture
This Working Group launched in December 2006 after a strategy meeting in Washington, DC, that brought together organizations from around the world. This group is focused primarily on issues around organics, fair trade, and farm-worker rights. Lead Group: Action Aid, Agribusiness Accountability Initiative, BBC Contact: Karen Hansen-Kuhn, Action Aid International Karen.Hansen-Kuhn@actionaid.org & Judith Pojda. Agribusiness Accountability Initiative agribizacct@comcast.net

International Labor Rights within the Supply Chain
In May 2006, the Big Box Collaborative co-hosted the U.S./Asia dialogue with the International Labor Rights Fund to launch this Working Group. Much of the discussion within this Working Group focuses on the purchasing policies of big box retailers as well as information sharing among organizations that have strong relationships with trade unions and labor-allied organizations (such as the Asia Floor Wage Campaign) in the developing world. Thus far allies in southern Africa, Asia, Mexico, and Central America have been consulted and invited to become active in this working group. This group convenes discussions between domestic and international campaign organizations and shareholder advocates in developing effective inside/outside strategies. Lead Group: International Labor Rights Forum Contact: Trina Tocco, International Labor Rights Forum trina.tocco@ilrf.org

Shareholders
This Working Group helps share information and coordinate strategy between shareholder advocates and between shareholders and activist organizations. A number of shareholders participate in the other Working Groups, such as Environment and Food & Agriculture. Several are also engaged in Wal-Mart's sustainability networks or other forms of direct dialogue with companies. Lead Group: As You Sow Contact: Conrad MacKerron mack@asyousow.organd Patricia Jurewicz patricia@asyousow.org

State and Local Initiatives
This Working Group is focused on state and local laws and initiatives that regulate Big Box Retail stores. Examples include laws that set a minimum wage or minimum benefits for the big box retail sector. This Working Group creates a space in which local field organizers can interact with resource providers, such as legal experts and public policy researchers, similar groups in other regions of the U.S., and local politicians.
Lead group: Cities For Progress and Jobs With Justice
Contact: Karen Dolan, Cities For Progress kdolan@igc.org