Criticism of Wal-Mart

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Several groups have criticised Wal-Mart's policies and/or business practices, including community groups, grassroots organizations, labor unions,<ref name="mkabel">Kabel, Marcus. "Wal-Mart, Critics Slam Each Other on Web." Washington Post. July 18, 2006. Retrieved on July 31, 2006.</ref> religious organizations,<ref>Sellers, Jeff M. "Women Against Wal-Mart." Christianity Today. April 22, 2005. Retrieved July 31, 2006.</ref><ref>Sellers, Jeff M. "Deliver Us from Wal-Mart?." Christianity Today. April 22, 2005. Retrieved on July 31, 2006.</ref> and environmental groups. In particular, several labor unions have specific concerns regarding the company's anti-union stance, as well as several employee relations issues. Other areas of concern include the corporation's extensive foreign product sourcing, treatment of employees and product suppliers, environmental practices, the use of public subsidies, and the impact of stores on the local economies of towns in which they operate.<ref>Copeland, Larry. "Wal-Mart's hired advocate takes flak." USA Today. March 13, 2006. Retrieved on July 31, 2006.</ref><ref>Rodino Associates. "Final Report on Research for Big Box Retail/Superstore Ordinance." Los Angeles City Council. October 28, 2003. Retrieved on July 31, 2006.</ref><ref>Smith, Hedrick. "Who Calls the Shots in the Global Economy?" PBS. Retrieved on July 31, 2006.</ref>

In 2005, several organizations were created by labor unions to confront these issues, including Wake Up Wal-Mart (United Food and Commercial Workers) and Wal-Mart Watch (Service Employees International Union). By the end of 2005, Wal-Mart launched, Working Families for Wal-Mart, to counter the criticisms of the other two groups. Additional efforts to counter many criticisms include launching a public relations campaign in 2005 through their public relations website,<ref>"walmartfacts.com (official public relations website)." Wal-Mart. Retrieved on August 1, 2006.</ref> as well as several television commercials. The company also retained the public relations firm Edelman to respond to negative media attention,<ref name="newweapon">Barnaro, Michael. "A New Weapon for Wal-Mart: A War Room." New York Times. November 1, 2005. Retrieved on August 1, 2006.</ref> and has started looking beyond mainstream media and interacting directly with bloggers, by directly sending them news, suggesting topics for postings, and even inviting them to visit their corporate headquarters.<ref name="bloggerPR">Barbaro, Michael. "Wal-Mart Enlists Bloggers in P.R. Campaign." New York Times. March 7, 2006. Retrieved on August 1, 2006.</ref> In August 2006, the company initiated a voter education program by sending a letter to its 18,000 Iowa associates regarding the decision of a few elected leaders and candidates for office to attack the company at union-funded publicity events in the state.<ref name="votereducation">Staff Writer. "Wal-Mart Begins Voter Education Program to Its 18,000 Iowa Associates." CNN. August 15, 2006. Retrieved on August 18, 2006.</ref> They also plan to send similar letters to associates in other key states, including South Carolina, New Hampshire, and Nevada, as well as to invite various candidates to tour their stores and meet associates.

Several independent critics have suggested that Wal-Mart is a success in the system of free enterprise because it sells products at low prices that people want to buy, satisfying customer's needs, but at the same time their lower prices draw customers away from established business, "hurting the community."<ref>Boaz, David. "Chrysler, Microsoft, and Industrial Policy." Cato Institute. November 8, 1996. Retrieved on August 17, 2006.</ref><ref>Bandow, Doug. "Can 'Unbridled Capitalism' Be Tamed?" Cato Institute. March 26, 1997. Retrieved on August 17, 2006.</ref> Others argue that Wal-Mart is attacked simply because it is a "leader of the Fortune 500 list", "the largest employer in America" and a "free-market success story"<ref>Nordlinger, Jay. "The New Colossus." National Review. August 5, 2004. Retrieved on November 20, 2006.</ref>

[edit] Local Communities

[edit] Store openings

Image:Mexico.Mex.Teotihuacan.PyramidMoon.01.jpg When planning new store locations, Wal-Mart often faces many concerns from the affected communities. Local critics that oppose new Wal-Mart store openings cite concerns such as traffic problems, environment problems, public safety, absentee landlordism, bad public relations,<ref>Washburn, Gary; Meyer, H. Gregory. "Wal-Mart hasn't written off city." Chicago Tribune. September 1, 2004. Retrieved on August 4, 2006.</ref><ref>Baldacci, Leslie. "Thousands apply for jobs at new Wal-Mart." Chicago Sun-Times. January 26, 2006. Retrieved on August 4, 2006.</ref> low wages and benefits, and predatory pricing.<ref name="wm_vs_ad">"Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. vs. American Drugs, Inc.: Arkansas Supreme Court Decision." (Case No. 94-235). Arkansas Supreme Court. January 9, 1995. Retrieved on August 4, 2006.</ref><ref name="The Hometown Advantage">Staff Writer. "Wal-Mart Settles Predatory Pricing Charge." The Hometown Advantage. October 1, 2001. Retrieved on August 4, 2006.</ref><ref name="German High Court">Staff Writer. "German High Court Convicts Wal-Mart of Predatory Pricing." The Hometown Advantage. February 1, 2003. Retrieved on August 4, 2006.</ref> Critics that defend Wal-Mart cite consumer choice, economic studies,<ref name="sobel_dean">Sobel, Russell S.; Dean, Andrea M. "Has Wal-Mart Buried Mom and Pop?: The Impact of Wal-Mart on Self Employment and Small Establishments in the United States." West Virginia University. Retrieved on August 4, 2006.</ref> as well as the underlying political response. Opposition may include rejections for developer applications from city councils as well as protest marches formed by activists, unions, and even religious groups.<ref>Buckley, Frank; McShane, Jamie; Bhatnagar, Parija. "No smiles for Wal-Mart in California." CNN. April 7, 2004. Retrieved on August 4, 2006.</ref><ref>Taylor, Peter Shawn. "Freedom to shop." National Post. February 20, 2006. Retrieved on August 4, 2006.</ref><ref>Wallworth, Adam. "Protesters hit streets to march against Wal-Mart." Northwest Arkansas Times. June 3, 2005. Retrieved on August 4, 2006.</ref> In some instances, activists have demonstrated opposition by causing property damage to store buildings or by creating bomb scares.<ref>Rosencrans, Willy. "Wal-Mart Supercenter rammed." Asheville Global Report. August 31, 2004. Retrieved on August 4, 2006.</ref><ref>Roselle, Jody; Frisinger, Kerrie. "Wal-Mart receives bomb scare." The Ithaca Journal. May 26, 2005. Retrieved on August 4, 2006.</ref>

One such criticized store location was a Wal-Mart Superstore that opened in 2004 in Mexico, 1.9 miles away from the historic Teotihuacán Pyramid of the Moon and archaeological excavation site.<ref name="wal-mart_pyramid">McKinley, Jr., James C. "No, the Conquistadors Are Not Back. It's Just Wal-Mart." New York Times. September 28, 2004. Retrieved on August 4, 2006.</ref> During construction, a 3 foot square ancient altar was uncovered 1 foot beneath the grade of where the store's parking lot is now located.<ref name="wal-mart_pyramid"/> The store proposal received much international media attention. Critics that opposed the Wal-Mart store opening included the local community resistance, as well as environmental groups and anti-globalist policy groups, which protested the store opening.<ref>Stevenson, Mark. "Despite months of protests, Wal-Mart-owned store opens near Mexico's pyramids." San Diego Union-Tribune. November 4, 2004. Retrieved on August 4, 2006.</ref> Homero Aridjis, one of the store's lead opponents in the community characterized the opening as being, "supremely symbolic", and, "...like planting the staff of globalization in the heart of ancient Mexico."<ref>Staff Writer. "Mexicans Protest Wal-Mart Opening Near Ancient Pyramids." Democracy Now! November 8, 2004. Retrieved on August 4, 2006.</ref> Other critics compared the store opening to Hernan Cortés and the Spanish conquest of Mexico. Wal-Mart stated that they, "are not building 'next to' the pyramids at Teotihuacán, but miles away. ... Our construction is in an area designated for commercial buildings and residences, and hundreds are currently located there. The only opposition to our store has come from a small group of merchants who find competition unwelcome and are seeking to misrepresent our plans for their own interests."^{[citation needed]} The Wal-Mart location was supported by Mexico's national anthropology institute, the United Nations and the Paris-based International Council on Monuments and Sites.<ref>Staff Writer. "Shoppers rush to pyramid Wal-Mart." BBC News. November 5, 2004. Retrieved on September 5, 2006.</ref>

[edit] Economic impact

As one of the largest corporations in the world, the presence of Wal-Mart in local communities has a significant impact on the local economies in which it operates. Studies on the economic impact of Wal-Mart indicate that there are both positive and negative effects that arise from the presence of a store. For example, a study at Iowa State University in 1997 found that small towns can lose almost half of their retail trade within ten years of Wal-Mart opening.<ref>Stone, Kenneth E. "Impact of the Wal-Mart Phenomenon on Rural Communities." (published in Proceedings: Increased Understanding of Public Problems and Policies - 1997, by Farm Foundation, Chicago, Illinois). Iowa State University. 1997. Retrieved on August 4, 2006.</ref> A subsequent study in collaboration with Mississippi State University indicated that there are, "both positive and negative impacts on existing stores in the area where the new supercenter locates."<ref>Stone, Kenneth E.; Artz, Georgeanne; Myles, Albert. "The Economic Impact of Wal-Mart Supercenters on Existing Businesses in Mississippi." Mississippi State University. 2003. Retrieved on August 4, 2006.</ref> A June 2006 article published by the Ludwig von Mises Institute suggests that the economic effects of Wal-Mart are overwhelmingly positive, and that all of the fundamental complaints of Wal-Mart's critics are based on profound ignorance of Wal-Mart's actual economic significance.<ref name="ultimate">Kirklin, Paul. "The Ultimate pro-WalMart Article." Ludwig von Mises Institute. June 28, 2006. Retrieved on August 17, 2006.</ref> Wal-Mart's low prices cause some existing businesses to close, yet also creates new opportunities for other small business and that, as a result, "the process of creative destruction unleashed by Wal-Mart has no statistically significant impact on the overall size of the small business sector in the United States."<ref name="sobel_dean"/>

A study commissioned by Wal-Mart by Global Insight, claimed that their stores' presence saves working families more than $2,329 per year, while creating more than 210,000 part time, minimum wage jobs in the U.S.<ref>Clark, Sarah. "Wal-Mart Saves Working Families $2,329 Per Year; Has Net Positive Impact on Real Wages and Job Creation." Wal-Mart. November 4, 2005. Retrieved on August 4, 2006.</ref><ref>Business Planning Solutions Global Insight Advisory Services Division. "The Economic Impact of Wal-Mart." Global Insight. November 2, 2005. Retrieved on August 17, 2006.</ref> From 1985–2004, Wal-Mart was found to be, "associated with a cumulative decline of 9.1% in food-at-home prices, a 4.2% decline in commodities (goods) prices, and a 3.1% decline in overall consumer prices."<ref name="globalinsight">Global Insight, Inc. "The Economic Impact of Wal-Mart." Global Insight. November 4, 2005. Retrieved on August 4, 2006.</ref> The study also indicated that, "nominal wages are 2.2% lower, but given that consumer prices are 3.1% lower, real disposable income is 0.9% higher than it would have been in a world without Wal-Mart."<ref name="globalinsight"/>

Another study at the University of Missouri further examined Wal-Mart's specific impact on local employment, which found that an individual store's entry into a county increased net retail employment in that county by 100 jobs in the short term, with half of this increase disappearing as other retail establishments close or reduce employment over a five-year period, while still producing net gain of 50 jobs.<ref>Basker, Emek. "Job Creation or Destruction? Labor-Market Effects of Wal-Mart Expansion." University of Missouri. 2002. Retrieved on August 4, 2006.</ref> Furthermore, Wal-Mart's low prices provide for an increase in real income. For example, one study has shown that Wal-Mart's discounting on food alone boosts the welfare of shoppers by at least $50 billion per year.<ref>Mallaby, Sebastian. "Progressive Wal-Mart. Really." Washington Post. November 28, 2005. Retrieved on August 4, 2006.</ref> A study in 2005 at MIT that measured the effect on consumer welfare found that the poorest segment of the population benefits the most from the existence of discount retailers.<ref>Hausman, Jerry; Leibtag, Ephraim. "Consumer Benefits from Increased Competition in Shopping Outlets: Measuring the Effect of Wal-Mart." Massachusetts Institute of Technology/United States Department of Agriculture. October, 2005. Retrieved on August 4, 2006.</ref>

However, while Wal-Mart is providing jobs for more people and their low prices are providing advantages in the marketplace, their low wages are also increasing the burden on taxpayers. For example, a 2002 survey by the state of Georgia's subsidized healthcare system, PeachCare, found that Wal-Mart was the largest private employer of the parents of children enrolled in its program, and also found that one quarter of the employees at Georgia Wal-Marts qualified to enroll their children in Medicaid.<ref>Bailey, Lynn. "The Extra Costs Behind "Everyday Low Prices!" The South Carolina Nurse. April-June, 2004. Retrieved on August 4, 2006.</ref>A 2004 study at the University of California, Berkeley further asserted that Wal-Mart's low wages and benefits resulted in an increased burden on the social safety net, costing California taxpayers $86 million.<ref>Arindrajit, Dube; Jacobs, Ken. "Hidden Cost of Wal-Mart Jobs." University of California, Berkeley. August 2, 2004. Retrieved on August 4, 2006.</ref><ref>Raine, George. "Wal-Marts Cost State, Study Says." San Francisco Chronicle. August 3, 2004. Retrieved on November 30, 2006.</ref> A Pennsylvania State University study, also in 2004, showed that U.S. counties with more Wal-Mart stores showed evidence of increasing rates of poverty relative to those with fewer stores.<ref name="PSUstudy">Goetz, Stephan J.; Swaminathan, Hema. "Wal-Mart and County-Wide Poverty." Pennsylvania State University. October 18,2004. Retrieved on August 4, 2006.</ref> This could be due to the displacement of workers from higher-paid jobs in the retailers that are driven out of business, Wal-Mart providing lower levels of local philanthropy than the replaced businesses, or a shrinking pool of local leadership and reduced social capital due to a reduced number of local independent businesses.<ref name="PSUstudy"/>

[edit] Corporate welfare

Some U.S. critics also point to more than $1 billion in taxpayer-supported developmental incentives that Wal-Mart has received in the U.S.<ref>Mattera, Philip; Purinton, Anna. "Shopping for Subsidies: How Wal-Mart Uess Taxpayer Money to Finance Its Never-Ending Growth." Good Jobs First. May, 2004. Retrieved on August 4, 2006.</ref> Such development incentives have been termed by critics as, "Corporate welfare", a pejorative term describing a government's bestowal of grants and/or tax breaks on corporations or other, "special favorable treatment" from the government.<ref>Nader, Ralph. "Testimony of Ralph Nader Before the Committee on the Budget U.S. House of Representatives." nader.org. June 30, 1999. Retrieved on August 4, 2006.</ref>

[edit] Predatory pricing and supplier issues

Wal-Mart has faced several accusations of, "predatory pricing", or intentionally selling a product below cost in order to drive some or all competitors out of the market. In 1995, in the case of Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. American Drugs, Inc., American Drugs accused Wal-Mart of intentionally selling individual items below cost for the purpose of injuring competitors and destroying competition. While the lower court ruled in favor of American Drug, the Supreme Court of Arkansas ruled in favor of Wal-Mart, citing that their pricing strategies, including the use of loss leaders, did not constitute predatory pricing.<ref name="wm_vs_ad"/> In 2000, the Wisconsin Department of Agriculture, Trade, and Consumer Protection accused Wal-Mart of selling butter, milk, laundry detergent, and other staple goods below cost, with the intention of forcing competitors out of business and gaining a monopoly in local markets.<ref name="wisconsin">Staff Writer. "Wal-Mart Settles Predatory Pricing Charge." The Hometown Advantage. October 1, 2001. Retrieved on August 4, 2006.</ref> Crest Foods filed a similar lawsuit in Oklahoma, accusing the company of predatory pricing on several of its products, in an effort to drive their own company-owned store in Edmond, Oklahoma out of business.<ref>Staff Writer. "Crest Foods sues Wal-Mart claiming predatory pricing." The Oklahoma City Journal Record. September 28, 2000. Retrieved on August 4, 2006.</ref> Both cases were settled out of court, with no fine and no admission of wrongdoing. There was a stipulation in the Wisconsin case, however, that Wal-Mart would face double or triple fines for any future violations.<ref name="wisconsin"/>

In 2003, Mexico's antitrust agency, the Federal Competition Commission, investigated Wal-Mart for, "monopolistic practices", prompted by various charges that the retailer has abused its market power by pressuring suppliers to sell goods below cost or at prices significantly less than those available to other stores.<ref>Staff Writer. "Mexico Investigates Wal-Mart for Antitrust Violations." The Hometown Advantage. August 1, 2002. Retrieved on August 4, 2006.</ref> Later, in 2003, the German High Court ruled that Wal-Mart's below cost pricing strategy undermined competition and violated the country's antitrust laws.<ref name="German High Court"/>

Wal-Mart has also been accused of using monopsony power to force suppliers into self-defeating practices. For example, Barry C. Lynn, a senior fellow at the New America Foundation, argues that Wal-Mart's constant demand for lower prices caused Kraft Foods to "shut down thirty-nine plants, to let go [of] 13,500 workers, and to eliminate a quarter of its products." Kraft's cost of production had gone up due to higher energy and raw material costs. Lynn argues that in a free market (referring to a non-monopsony market, as opposed to the general economic definition of a free market), Kraft could have passed those costs on to its distributors and ultimately consumers.<ref>Lynn, Barry C. "Breaking the Chain: The antitrust case against Wal-Mart" Harper's Magazine. July, 2006. Retrieved on September 5, 2006.</ref>

[edit] Employee and labor relations

See also: Wal-Mart employee and labor relations

Wal-Mart has been criticized for their policies against labor unions. In North America, the company has largely thwarted unionization by its employees with aggressive anti-union tactics. For example, when meat cutters at the Jacksonville, Texas supercenter voted to unionize in 2000, Wal-Mart closed its meat department and began shipping in pre-packaged meats at all stores.<ref>Dicker, John. "Union Blues at Wal-Mart." The Nation. June 20, 2002. Retrieved on July 26, 2006.</ref> When workers at a Jonquière, Quebec Wal-Mart voted to unionize, Wal-Mart closed the store five months later, citing weak profits.<ref>Bianco, Anthony. "No Union Please, We're Wal-Mart ." Business Week. February 13, 2006. Retrieved on July 26, 2006.</ref> Another store, in Saint-Hyacinthe, Quebec, voted to unionize and Wal-Mart lost a court challenge to the certification process in April, 2006.<ref>Staff Writer. "Wal-Mart faces Canadian labour clash." MSNBC. April 30, 2006. Retrieved on July 26, 2006.</ref> In Germany, the ver.di union reports that it has organized every local Wal-Mart SuperCenter, but it complains that Wal-Mart ignores German co-determination rules and does not adequately inform ver.di about store closings.<ref name="Struggling In Germany">Ewing, Jack."Wal-Mart: Struggling In Germany." BusinessWeek. April 11, 2005. Retrieved on July 27, 2006.</ref> Company officials say they comply with labor laws. In July 2003, employees affiliated with the ver.di union staged a brief strike.<ref name="A Bumpy Ride in Europe">Fairlamb, David with Laura Cohn "A Bumpy Ride in Europe." BusinessWeek. October 6, 2003. Retrieved on July 27, 2006.</ref>

On July 29, 2006, 30 Wal-Mart employees in the southeast province of Fujian decided to form a local union, affiliated with the All-China Federation of Trade Unions (ACFTU), the country's only legal trade union.<ref>Wal-Mart workers in China form first union AFP July 29, 2006</ref>

In the United States, there are concerns on several labor issues, including low pay and inadequate health care coverage. Additionally, Wal-Mart is facing several lawsuits by current and former hourly associates who allege that the company forced them to work, "off the clock", or failed to provide work breaks, or otherwise claim they were not paid for work performed."<ref>"Wal-Mart SEC Form 10-Q." United States Securities and Exchange Commission. October 31, 2005. Retrieved on July 31, 2006.</ref>

[edit] Imports and globalization

As the single largest customer to most of its vendors, Wal-Mart openly uses its bargaining power to negotiate lower prices from vendors. Specifically, in its negotiations with suppliers, Wal-Mart requires that prices go down from year to year.<ref name="fastco">Fishman, Charles. "The Wal-Mart You Don't Know." Fast Company. December, 2003. Retrieved on August 29, 2006.</ref> If a vendor does not comply with Wal-Mart's request for reduced prices, they risk having their entire brand removed from Wal-Mart's shelves in favor of a lower-priced competitor or a less expensive store brand.<ref name="pbs">"Is Wal-Mart Good for America?" PBS. November 16, 2004. Retrieved on August 29, 2006.</ref> Critics argue that this pressures vendors to shift manufacturing jobs to China and other third world nations, where the cost of labor is less expensive.

In the mid-1990s, Wal-Mart had a "Buy American", campaign, which was eventually cancelled. By 2005, about 60% of Wal-Mart's merchandise was imported, compared to 6% in 1995.<ref name="pbs"/> In 2004, Wal-Mart spent $18 billion on Chinese products alone, and if it were an individual economy, the company would rank as China's eighth largest trading partner, ahead of Russia, Australia, and Canada.<ref>Jingjing, Jiang. "Wal-Mart's China inventory to hit US$18b this year." China Daily. November 29, 2004. Retrieved on August 29, 2006.</ref> The growing deficit with China, heavily influenced by Wal-Mart imports, is estimated to have moved over 1.5 million American jobs to China between 1989 and 2003.<ref>Scott, Robert E. "U.S.-China Trade, 1989-2003: Impact on jobs and industries, nationally and state-by-state." Economic Policy Institute. January, 2005. Retrieved on August 29, 2006.</ref> According to the AFL-CIO, "Wal-Mart is the single largest importer of foreign-produced goods in the United States", their biggest trading partner is China, and their trade with China alone constitutes approximately 10 percent of the total US trade deficit with China as of 2004.<ref>Serna, Liberty; Moser, Paul. "Paying the Price at Wal-Mart: Wal-Mart's Imports Lead to U.S. Jobs Exports." AFL-CIO. 2006. Retrieved on August 29, 2006.</ref> While the company certainly imports many products, the company also claims that it purchases goods from more than 68,000 U.S. vendors, spending $137.5 billion in 2004, and supporting more than 3.5 million supplier jobs in the U.S.<ref>Staff Writer. "Walmart's Impact on the Economy." Wal-Mart. 2006. Retrieved on August 29, 2006.</ref>

[edit] Overseas labor concerns

There are many concerns over Wal-Mart's use of foreign labor, particularly over its failure to maintain adequate supervision over its foreign suppliers, as well as incidents of products have been made using sweatshops or alleged slave labor. For example, in 1995, Chinese dissident Harry Wu discovered that Wal-Mart was contracting prison "slave labor" in Guangdong Province.<ref name="palast">Palast, Gregory. "Praise Uncle Sam and pass the 18p an hour." The Guardian. June 20, 1999. Retrieved on August 29, 2006.</ref> There have also been reports of teenagers in Bangladesh working in, "sweatshops", approximately 80 hours per week, at $0.14 per hour, for Wal-Mart contractor Beximco, and in 1994, Guatemalan Wendy Diaz reported that she had been working for Wal-Mart at $0.30 per hour at the age of 13.<ref name="palast"/> The documentary, Wal-Mart: The High Cost of Low Price, also claims that the factories that produce goods for Wal-Mart are in poor condition and that factory workers are subject to abuse and inhumane conditions.

According to Wal-Mart, as well as many advocates of free trade, comparisons of wage levels between vastly different countries is not a useful way to assess the fairness of a trade policy. The company also asserts that wages paid to overseas workers are comparable to or exceed local prevailing wages. In that case, the company claims that the overseas manufacturing jobs it creates are often an improvement in the quality of life for its employees. They have also asserted that factory jobs with its suppliers are often safer and healthier than local alternatives, which may include prostitution, the drug trade or scavenging.

Wal-mart currently uses in-house monitoring, which, critics say, leaves outsiders unable to verify reforms. Since no external agency, such as Social Accountability International or the Fair Labor Association, is involved and Wal-Mart will not release its audits or even factory names, the public is left to simply take their word for it.<ref>Bernstein, Aaron. "A Major Swipe At Sweatshops." Business Week. May 23, 2005. Retrieved on August 29, 2006.</ref> In 2004, Wal-Mart began working with Business for Social Responsibility, a San Francisco-based nonprofit, to reach out to groups active in monitoring overseas plants. "Wal-Mart is at an early stage", says BSR President Aron Cramer, "and it's likely that they, like most companies that engage in these processes, will adapt their approach over time."<ref>Berner, Robert. "Can Wal-Mart Wear a White Hat?." Business Week. September 22, 2005. Retrieved on August 29, 2006.</ref>

[edit] Product selection

Wal-Mart's product selection has been criticized by some groups in the past, primarily as viewed as a promotion of a particular ideology or as a responses to their original rural, religious target market. For example, in 2003, Wal-Mart removed certain men's magazines from their shelves, such as Maxim, FHM, and Stuff, citing customer complaints regarding their racy content.<ref>Staff Writer. "Wal-Mart banishes bawdy mags ." CNN. May 6, 2003. Retrieved on September 29, 2006.</ref> Later that year, they decided to partly obscure the covers of Redbook, Cosmopolitan, and Marie Claire due to, "customer concerns", and also refused to stock an issue of Sports Illustrated's swimsuit special because it took exception to one photograph.<ref>Younge, Gary. "When Wal-Mart comes to town." The Guardian. August 18, 2003. Retrieved on September 29, 2006.</ref>

Since 1991, Wal-Mart also has not carried music albums marked with the RIAA's Parental Advisory Label, although they do carry edited versions, with obscentities removed or overdubbed with less offensive lyrics, of such albums.<ref>Schneid, Scott. "Ratings Soup – Music II." Family Media Guide. July 26, 2005. Retrieved on September 29, 2006.</ref> In one example, in 2005, Wal-Mart rejected the original cover of Willie Nelson's reggae album, Countryman, which featured marijuana leaves, in an apparent pro-marijuana statement. To satisfy Wal-mart, the record label, Lost Highway, issued the album with an alternate cover, without recalling the original cover.<ref>Hall, Sarah. "Wal-Mart Tweaks Willie's Reggae." E! July 12, 2005. Retrieved on September 29, 2006.</ref>

In 1999, Wal-Mart announced that it would not stock emergency contraception pills in its pharmacies,<ref>Staff Writer. "Wal-Mart: No Morning-After Pill." CBS News. May 14, 1999. Retrieved on September 29, 2006.</ref> claiming that it had the legal right to carry and sell whatever products its consumers and/or shareholders desired. In February 2006, three women filed suit against the company in Massachusetts after they were unable to purchase emergency contraception at their local Wal-Mart stores.<ref name="morningafter">Staff Writer. "Wal-Mart To Stock Morning-After Pill." CBS News. March 3, 2006. Retrieved on September 29, 2006.</ref> The women won the suit and the Massachusetts Pharmacy Board ruled that Wal-Mart must stock the drug in all of its pharmacies within Massachusetts.<ref name="morningafter"/> Expecting that other states would soon do the same, Wal-Mart reversed its policy and announced that they would begin to stock the drug nationwide.<ref name="morningafter"/> The company has maintained its conscientious objection policy, however, which allows any Wal-Mart pharmacy employee who does not feel comfortable dispensing a prescription to refer customers to another pharmacy.<ref name="morningafter"/>

Wal-Mart has also been criticized for some of the products that it does carry. For example, the company was criticized for selling the notoriously anti-Semitic, The Protocols of the Elders of Zion, text on its website. Most scholars consider the text to be a forgery, but Wal-Mart's product description suggested the text might be genuine. Wal-Mart stopped selling the book in September, 2004, though the document is still available for purchase from many other booksellers, who sell it in the interests of freedom of speech.

In October 2004, Wal-Mart canceled its order for, The Daily Show's America (The Book) after discovering a page that depicts each Supreme Court judge in the nude. A week later, they returned copies of George Carlin's When Will Jesus Bring the Pork Chops?, with a cover recreating The Last Supper with Jesus' seat empty and Carlin seated next to it. The company claimed that the copies were shipped to them by mistake and a Wal-mart spokeswoman said she, "didn't believe this particular product would appeal" to its customer base.<ref>Staff Writer. "Carlin's no joke for Wal-Mart." CNN. October 28, 2004. Retrieved on September 29, 2006.</ref>

In January 2006, the company was criticized for suggesting that some African American-related DVDs, such as Introducing Dorothy Dandridge and documentaries on Martin Luther King, Jr. were items similar to the Planet of the Apes television series DVD box set. They quickly corrected the page, saying that it was a software glitch, though it ultimately blamed the matter on human error.<ref>Mui, Ylan Q. "Wal-Mart Blames Web Site Incident on Employee's Error." Washington Post. January 7, 2006. Retrieved on September 29, 2006.</ref>

While Wal-Mart's product selection may be seen by some as censorship, others view this from a free enterprise standpoint, that criticism of Wal-Mart's product selection is misguided because Wal-Mart is free to carry and sell whatever products it chooses and that customers are free to shop elsewhere, and would do so if they were in disagreement with its perceived moral values.<ref>Reynolds, Alan. "Should Wal-Mart Hike Prices?" Cato Institute. November 25, 2005. Retrieved on September 29, 2006.</ref>

[edit] Taxes

Until the mid-1990s, Wal-Mart took out corporate-owned life insurance policies on low level employees, such as janitors, cashiers, cart pushers, and stockers. This type of insurance is usually purchased to cover a company against financial loss when an executive or other high ranking employee dies. In this case it is usually known as "Key Man Insurance", but the policies that Wal-Mart took out on its rank-and-file workers were derided as "Dead Peasants Insurance" or "Janitor Insurance". Critics (such as the U.S. Internal Revenue Service) charge that the company was trying to profit from the deaths of its employees, and take advantage of a loophole in a tax law which allowed them to deduct the premiums. The practice was stopped in the mid-1990s when the federal government, which had previously called the financing scheme "tax arbitrage", closed the tax loophole and began to pursue Wal-Mart for back taxes.<ref>Reynolds, Frank. "Wal-Mart Gambled, Lost $1.3B on 'Dead Peasant' Policies, Insurers Say." Andrews Publications. September 8, 2005. Retrieved on September 29, 2006.</ref>

[edit] See also

• Business ethics
• Wake Up Wal-Mart
• Wal-Mart Watch
• Wal-Mart: The High Cost of Low Price
• Walmarting

[edit] References

[edit] External links

• Articles, Studies and Resources on Wal-Mart
• Moms vs. Wal-Mart
• Sprawl Busters
• Wal-Mart and Big Box Retail Economic Impact Studies
• Wal-Mart Wiki
• Articles, Studies and Resources on Wal-Mart at ReclaimDemocracy.org
• Canadian documentary WAL-TOWN The Film

News Articles

• Could the "Walmart Effect" impact Real Estate?
• How Costco Became the Anti-Wal-Mart
• In Wal-Mart's America
• Norway dumps Wal-Mart stock
• Stop the Attack on Wal-Mart
• The Costco Alternative
• The Wal-Mart You Don't Know
• Up against the Wal-Mart
• Wal-Mart to cut ties with Bangladesh factories using child labour
• Wal-mart's Wikipedia War
• What's Good for Wal-Mart...
• The Man Who Said No to Wal-Mart