 |
| Should Human Costs Be Factored Into Environmentally Friendly Products? |
|
| Written by Miranda Marquit | |
| Wednesday, 02 July 2008 | |
 Photo: Dennis Gerbeckx, Creative Commons, Flickr Environmentalism is becoming a big deal. More and more companies, including Wal-Mart (WMT), are jumping on the environmental bandwagon, straining themselves to make changes so that they can show consumers how environmentally conscious they are. 
Photo: Kasei, Creative Commons, Flickr But even as sales of the Toyota (TM) Prius and other hybrids go up, the fact is that there are near-slave labor conditions at some assembly plants in Japan. Green Biz reports on some of the problems that environmental enthusiasts are ignoring: One-third of assembly line workers are poorly paid temp workers. Its parts supply chain is 'riddled with sweatshop abuse,' including trafficking of tens of thousands of foreign guest workers, sometimes working 16-hour shifts. ...This information should encourage a new, ethical, level of scrutiny for environmentally-friendly investing. Is it right to save the earth but ignore the plight of thousands of workers in sub-standard conditions? On the flip side, what about supporting companies that provide opportunities to the poverty-stricken, but whose environmental practices are questionable? There are companies out there with practices that are more friendly toward the environment, that treat their workers and suppliers with dignity and humanity. But they are few and far between, especially among the more solid earners. (Starbucks -- SBUX -- is one, but, though its share price is up right now, it is still having earnings issues.) With proxy voting season nearly over, we are reminded that we can use our voices as shareholders to work for change in the companies that we invest in, rewarding them for progress in the right direction. Perhaps it is time to start including human costs with environmental costs when we talk about sustainability? Or maybe we can work on one thing at a time. But that means that we may need to prioritize our investments: People first? Or the environment? Disclosure: I own none of the stocks listed above. After writing this, I'm trying to decide if I still want to buy a Prius. Site disclaimer. Corporate Accountability 
Labor Relations 
Miranda Marquit 
Shareholder Activism 
TM 
WMT 
Comments
(1)
...
written by Dan J. , July 07, 2008
Well there have been numerous reports (and numerous stories on Top Gear) that the Prius actually damages the earth more due to the fuel used to transport the batteries alone than that of a normal petrol car. That, coupled with the fact that any diesel powered car is MORE fuel efficient, makes the Prius a completely useless car.
Tag it:           | |
| Last Updated ( Sunday, 13 July 2008 ) | |
| < Prev | Next > |
|---|
| Company Profiles |
| Individual Profiles |
| Movie Reviews |
| Culture-Celebrity |
| Opinions |
| Staff Recommendations |
| Resources |
 ThePanelist Latest Postings Alternative Energy Christian Investing Climate Women Neubert's Trades Social Culture Technology |
 |
Subscribe to this comment's feed