Since 2004, the Walton Family Foundation has given EDF (the Environmental Defense Fund) more than $53 million. Last year, the foundation’s donations totaled an astounding 15 percent of EDF’s budget, or $13.7 million. This news generated a front page New York Times business section story under the headline “Unexpected Ally Helps Walmart Cut Waste.”
EDF wants to make sure we don’t confuse Walmart with the Walton Family Foundation. But how could we not? The foundation’s board is made up entirely of Waltons. While Walmart’s board includes three family members, and the Walton’s own about 50 percent of Walmart’s stock.
As reported by Grist, “Last year, the foundation made $71 million in grants to environmental organizations — with the largest grants going to groups that have collaborated with Walmart. In addition to EDF, top recipients included Conservation International, which has a corporate partnership with Walmart, and the Marine Stewardship Council, which began receiving foundation support the same year it agreed to certify and provide an eco-label for some of the seafood Walmart sells. These three organizations accounted for 46 percent of the foundation’s environmental funding last year.”
Is it credible to believe that the Walton Family Foundation’s donations to EDF do not influence EDF’s policy? Might EDF hesitate before publically criticizing the retail giant? Is it possible that EDF would share knowledge about a pending attack from a fellow environmental group? If EDF had to choose a business to praise, might the fact that it has received $53 million from the Walton Family Foundation influence its thinking?
Organizations like EDF should not hop in bed with big business like the Waltons, there is a simple expression for what happens next and it is called A CONFLICT OF INTERESTS.
Of course they’ll think twice before critisizing one of their major donors, in fact they won’t think at all, less trouble so.
In my mind it is clear that being so generous to this type of organizations amounts to bribery, I wouldn’t know what else to call it.
It intrigues me that someone who believes that business must lead in the sustainability space falls into the trap of assuming that any business who works in this space must be co-opting their NGO partners if funding is involved.
I’ve led EDF’s on-site work with Walmart for five years – and no, I don’t think twice about telling Walmart what I think is the right thing to do. Partnerships are collaborations, but my mission remains EDF’s – to preserve the natural systems on which all life depends. If you’d like to know what we actually do to advance that goal, just ask.
It might be more productive than sitting on the sidelines casting baseless aspersions.
First, I do not sit on the sidelines, you should know I have a long history with Wal-Mart’s sustainability efforts.
Second, while appreciate that you “don’t think twice about telling Walmart what I think is the right thing to do,” sadly that’s a poor measure of effectiveness since as you know I reported on my disappointment in Wal-Mart’s post Lee Scott progress before the EDF funding relationship ever came to light.
Third, your point of view fails to acknowledge how bad the situation looks to most people who have read about it.
Fourth, in most cases a significant financial relationship does impact the manner in which two parties relate to each other. As a commentor on my blog posting noted: “Organizations like EDF should not hop in bed with big business like the Waltons, there is a simple expression for what happens next and it is called A CONFLICT OF INTERESTS.”