The Truth About Mike Daisey—and Walmart

A Walmart store in Beijing, China.<a href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/galaygobi/114527025/sizes/m/in/photostream/">Galaygobi</a>/Flickr

Fight disinformation: Sign up for the free Mother Jones Daily newsletter and follow the news that matters.

Mike Daisey made you care. Give the man that much.

For all the flaws and fabrications in his monologue “The Agony and Ecstasy of Steve Jobs,” excerpted and then retracted on the popular radio program “This American Life,” Daisey changed how you looked at your iPhone or iPod or iPad. He caused you to consider how and where your Apple gadgets were made, and who made them. That Daisey lied about meeting underage workers at Apple supplier Foxconn does not mean Apple suppliers don’t hire underage workers. They do. That Daisey misrepresented meeting a man with a hand snarled from repeating the same motion on an Apple production line doesn’t mean such injuries aren’t common in China. They are. Daisey’s lies have stained his reputation. But Apple’s once-glittering reputation is tarnished, too. For that Apple can blame Daisey, and even more so the reporting team behind the New York Timessuperb iEconomy series.

But the problems plaguing the Chinese manufacturers are not limited to Apple. Far from it.

Today, you can read my investigation into an even more massive American corporation that, like Apple, depends on cheap, fast, and nimble Chinese labor: Walmart. It’s a story 18 months in the works, and it reveals how the world’s largest retailer has fallen well short on its much-hyped sustainability campaign, especially in China, where so much of Walmart’s products are made.

Walmart launched its sustainability campaign in 2005, billing it as a boardroom-to-break-room effort to shrink the retailer’s waste footprint, slash emissions at its stores and suppliers worldwide, and stock its shelves with more environmentally friendly products. Walmart’s “green” embrace fit into a broader makeover at the embattled retailer. Walmart redesigned the company logo, de-cluttered its shelves and store aisles, and changed its slogan from “Always Low Prices” to “Save Money. Live Better.”

Walmart’s sustainability initiative wowed industry types and retail competitors. Respected environmental groups, some of them old foes, partnered with Walmart to help achieve its admittedly ambitious goals. I began my reporting as something of an admirer of Walmart’s environmental push, but after interviewing company officials and key insiders and digging deep into Walmart’s own reports, I found a trail of unfulfilled promises, jaded partners, and under-whelming results. Nowhere was that clearer than in China, where an estimated 70 percent of all Walmart products are made.

For my Walmart story, I spent nearly two weeks in China visiting suppliers and interviewing factory owners, energy consultants, and other manufacturing experts. I met Terry Foecke, a Midwesterner and clean manufacturing guru who at the time spearheaded one of Walmart’s most ambitious goals, cutting energy use at 200 of the retailer’s Chinese factories. (He no longer works with Walmart.) Reporting on the ground opened my eyes to the murky world of Chinese manufacturing. One revelation was how companies that supply Walmart often rely on so-called shadow factories—unregulated, off-the-books shops where labor and environmental laws don’t apply. Shadow factories undermine the very progress Walmart claims to want. After all, how can you shrink the footprint of a factory you don’t know exists?

The auditing process is another problem. Walmart uses auditors to enforce the labor and environmental rules in its supplier code of conduct; auditors also help verify progress on Walmart’s sustainability goals. Yet the auditors and watchdogs I interviewed described the auditing process as a deeply flawed one, plagued by graft and fraud. This is a problem not only for Walmart but for Apple, too, which has quieted some of its critics by promising tougher audits of its Chinese factories—audits that may be fatally flawed.

And that’s just a taste of what’s in my story, which appears in MoJo‘s March/April 2012 dead-tree issue. Just as the revelations in the Times‘ series and—yes—Mike Daisey’s deeply flawed yet moving monologue forced readers and listeners to rethink Apple and its wildly popular products, I hope my story will do the same for Walmart.

WE'LL BE BLUNT

It is astonishingly hard keeping a newsroom afloat these days, and we need to raise $253,000 in online donations quickly, by October 7.

The short of it: Last year, we had to cut $1 million from our budget so we could have any chance of breaking even by the time our fiscal year ended in June. And despite a huge rally from so many of you leading up to the deadline, we still came up a bit short on the whole. We can’t let that happen again. We have no wiggle room to begin with, and now we have a hole to dig out of.

Readers also told us to just give it to you straight when we need to ask for your support, and seeing how matter-of-factly explaining our inner workings, our challenges and finances, can bring more of you in has been a real silver lining. So our online membership lead, Brian, lays it all out for you in his personal, insider account (that literally puts his skin in the game!) of how urgent things are right now.

The upshot: Being able to rally $253,000 in donations over these next few weeks is vitally important simply because it is the number that keeps us right on track, helping make sure we don't end up with a bigger gap than can be filled again, helping us avoid any significant (and knowable) cash-flow crunches for now. We used to be more nonchalant about coming up short this time of year, thinking we can make it by the time June rolls around. Not anymore.

Because the in-depth journalism on underreported beats and unique perspectives on the daily news you turn to Mother Jones for is only possible because readers fund us. Corporations and powerful people with deep pockets will never sustain the type of journalism we exist to do. The only investors who won’t let independent, investigative journalism down are the people who actually care about its future—you.

And we need readers to show up for us big time—again.

Getting just 10 percent of the people who care enough about our work to be reading this blurb to part with a few bucks would be utterly transformative for us, and that's very much what we need to keep charging hard in this financially uncertain, high-stakes year.

If you can right now, please support the journalism you get from Mother Jones with a donation at whatever amount works for you. And please do it now, before you move on to whatever you're about to do next and think maybe you'll get to it later, because every gift matters and we really need to see a strong response if we're going to raise the $253,000 we need in less than three weeks.

payment methods

WE'LL BE BLUNT

It is astonishingly hard keeping a newsroom afloat these days, and we need to raise $253,000 in online donations quickly, by October 7.

The short of it: Last year, we had to cut $1 million from our budget so we could have any chance of breaking even by the time our fiscal year ended in June. And despite a huge rally from so many of you leading up to the deadline, we still came up a bit short on the whole. We can’t let that happen again. We have no wiggle room to begin with, and now we have a hole to dig out of.

Readers also told us to just give it to you straight when we need to ask for your support, and seeing how matter-of-factly explaining our inner workings, our challenges and finances, can bring more of you in has been a real silver lining. So our online membership lead, Brian, lays it all out for you in his personal, insider account (that literally puts his skin in the game!) of how urgent things are right now.

The upshot: Being able to rally $253,000 in donations over these next few weeks is vitally important simply because it is the number that keeps us right on track, helping make sure we don't end up with a bigger gap than can be filled again, helping us avoid any significant (and knowable) cash-flow crunches for now. We used to be more nonchalant about coming up short this time of year, thinking we can make it by the time June rolls around. Not anymore.

Because the in-depth journalism on underreported beats and unique perspectives on the daily news you turn to Mother Jones for is only possible because readers fund us. Corporations and powerful people with deep pockets will never sustain the type of journalism we exist to do. The only investors who won’t let independent, investigative journalism down are the people who actually care about its future—you.

And we need readers to show up for us big time—again.

Getting just 10 percent of the people who care enough about our work to be reading this blurb to part with a few bucks would be utterly transformative for us, and that's very much what we need to keep charging hard in this financially uncertain, high-stakes year.

If you can right now, please support the journalism you get from Mother Jones with a donation at whatever amount works for you. And please do it now, before you move on to whatever you're about to do next and think maybe you'll get to it later, because every gift matters and we really need to see a strong response if we're going to raise the $253,000 we need in less than three weeks.

payment methods

We Recommend

Latest

Sign up for our free newsletter

Subscribe to the Mother Jones Daily to have our top stories delivered directly to your inbox.

Get our award-winning magazine

Save big on a full year of investigations, ideas, and insights.

Subscribe

Support our journalism

Help Mother Jones' reporters dig deep with a tax-deductible donation.

Donate