評論
打印
We care about environment protection
我們關注環保
Reporter:When you started focusing on the environment at Wal-Mart,
記者：當您致力于整頓沃爾瑪的環境問題時，
you were under an organized attack from union-backgroups that were attacking you for wage policies,immigration policies,health policies,
很多工會支持的小組正在對您制定的工資政策、移民政策、健康政策進行著有組織的抨擊，
but not necessarily for enverionmental policies.
而并沒有涉及到環境問題。
So what made you decide to bring the environment to the environment to forefront of what Wal-Mart was doing?
那么究竟是什么原因使您決定將環境問題作為沃爾瑪要處理的首要問題呢?
Scott:It's consistent with what we say our purpose is, and that is saving people money so they can live better.
斯科特：這與我們的企業目標一致，即為人們節省資金以使他們過上更好的生活。
We looked at what Sam Walton started and how he developed the company.
我們研究了山姆·沃爾頓創立和發展沃爾瑪的過程。
It was by eliminating waste, bringing in efficiencies.
最后得到的結論便是減少浪費，提高效率。
And by thinking about sustainability from our standpoint it really is about how do you take cost out, which is waste,
站在我們的角度來考慮公司長期發展，那實際上就是降低成本勤儉節約，
wherther it's through recycling,through less energy use in the store, through the constructinn techniques we're using,through the supply chain.
無論是通過回收利用、節約現有能源、改善施工技術的方式，還是通過控制供應鏈的方式，
All of those things are simply the ceration of waste.
因為在這些過程中便會產生浪費。
We found it's consistent with the entire model we've had since Sam opened the first store.
所以我們認為這與山姆最初的設想是完全一致的。
Reporter:So it's all about cost reduction.
記者：所以這都是關于降低成本的。
It's not about trade-offs?
這并非是折衷的舉措?
Is there never a point where you say, gosh,this is going to cost us a little more,
您會不會認為，雖然做這些事成本花費要高一些，
but it's going to be much better for the environment?
但對保護環境更有益處?
Scott:Well,there are things that you, as a business,
斯科特：作為一個企業，
have to think about that something may be more cost-effective but is just wrong pollution of the water or those kinds of things.
不得不考慮如何更有效地節約成本，但某些節約成本的方法可能是錯誤的比如為了降低成本可能會導致水資源的污染，
Those things come into play.
這種事時有發生。
One of the things people talk about is, will people pay more?
人們常常討論的一件事情是:人們需要為此而付出更多嗎?
Our question is, why should they have to?
而我我們所考慮的問題是:人們為什么要付出更多呢?
If you can take the waste out,if you can take the cost out,
如果可以減少浪費，降低成本，
and you can provide people who are working people living paycheck to paycheck with an opportunity to be more sustainable,
那就能為那些靠工資辛苦生活的工人們提供一個機會，使他們能夠更好地生活，
we think they will react to that,and they do.
我想他們會積極響應，而且他們的確是這么做的。
Reporter:Will your consumers pay more for products that are environmentally green?
記者：您認為顧客會愿意以更高的價格購買那些對環境有益的商品嗎?
Is there any willingness to pay more for something that is perceived as being good for the environment?
顧客會有這樣的意向嗎?
Scott:Depending on the store, you see a difference in how people are reacting.
斯科特：這取決于商店所處的位置，顧客對此的反應因人而異。
Where you have a store that's in a higher-household-income area, you can see that people can afford to and are willing to pay a little bit more.
如果把商店設在高收入區，你會發現那里的人們有能力也愿意多付一些錢去購買這類商品。
People in general are living paycheck to paycheck for a broad amount of American society.
一般而言，美國大部分人都是依靠薪水生活的.
It's not that they don't care about sustainability; it's that they can't afford to pay more.
不是他們不關心社會的可持續發展，而是他們的收入水平不允許他們為此而花更多的錢。
They can't pay a dollar more for the cleaning supply. They can't pay $3 more for a T-shirt.
他們不會為清潔服務而多花1美元，也不會為一件T恤多花3美元。
Reporter:If we impose either a tax or a cap-and-trade system on carbon emissions, that is like a tax,
記者：如果對碳排放征稅或者設立類似稅收的限額交易體系，
that means that those shoppers at Wal-Mart will have to pay more for most of the things they're buying from you, doesn't it?
這是否意味著顧客在沃爾瑪購買商品時就不得不比以前花費更多?
