I recently read an article in the San Francisco Chronicle regarding Adam Werbach's controversial alliance with Wal-Mart, entitled, "Werbach at Wal-Mart"? Adam Werbach's consulting firm, Act Now Productions, recently took Wal-Mart as a client although Werbach strongly criticized the retailer in his 1997 book, "Act Now, Apologize Later".

The issue, in my opinion, is not whether or not you like Wal-Mart. Adam is quoted as saying, "Whether you love or hate Wal-Mart, it has done more for sustainability than any environmental organization I've worked for". The issue is what kind of actions and alliances can have the greatest positive impact on the environment either directly or by educating people?  There are idealists who will have nothing to do with Wal-Mart under any circumstances because they would prefer that Wal-Mart did not exist. 

Members of this group will respond by trying to persuade people to stop shopping there in the hope of hurting its bottom line or even putting it out of business.  The pragmatists, like Adam Webach, may never wish to shop at Wal-Mart and may be happier if  Wal-Mart didn't exist, but they realize that Wal-Mart does exist and understand that it can have a very large impact on the environment when it makes changes. Thus, Adam Werbach was open-minded when Andy Ruben, who runs Wal-Mart's sustainability program, approached him about a project to raise environmental awareness among the millions of Wal-Mart "associates". For years, Werbach and his colleagues had been frustrated by their failure to enlist the broader population in the fight against global warming - and this opportunity would directly address that problem.Werbach did not let his distaste or distrust of Wal-Mart keep him from taking the opportunity to affect changes which could influence people's thinking on a large scale. The question for people who distrust Wal-Mart's intentions is whether it will initiate any sustainable practices which either do not save money or attract more customers.