We Care About Environment Protection Flashcards
當您致力於整頓沃爾瑪的環境問題時，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，而並沒有涉及到環境問題。那麼究竟是什麼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？
When you started focusing on the environment at Wal-Mart, you were under an organized attack from union-backed groups that were attacking you for wage policies, immigration policies, health policies, but not necessarily for environmental policies. So what made you decide to bring the environment to the forefront of what Wal-Mart was doing?
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。我們研究了山姆．沃爾頓創立和發展沃爾碼的過程，最後得到的結論便是減少浪費，提高效率。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，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，因為在這些過程中便會產生浪費。所以我們認為這與山姆最初的設想是完全一致的。
It’s consistent with what we say our purpose is, and that is saving people money so they can live better. We looked at what Sam Walton started and how he developed the company. It was by eliminating waste, bringing in efficiencies. And by thinking about sustainability from our standpoint, it really is about how do you take cost out, which is waste, whether it’s through recycling, through less energy use in the store, through the construction techniques we’re using, through the supply chain. All of those things are simply the creation of waste. We found it’s consistent with the entire model we’ve had since Sam opened the first store.
所以這都是關於降低成本的，這並非是折衷的舉措？您會不會認為，雖然做這些事成本花費要高一些，但對保護環境更有益處？
So it’s all about cost reduction. It’s not about trade-offs? Is there never a point where you say, gosh, this is going to cost us a little more, but it’s going to be much better for the environment?
作為一個企業，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，這種事時有發生。人們常常討論的一件事情是：人們需要為此而付出更多嗎？ 而我們所考慮的問題是：人們為什麼要付出更多呢？ 如果可以減少浪費，降低成本，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，我想他們會積極回應，而且他們的確是這麼做的。
Well, there are things that you, as a busines’s, have to think about that something may be more cost-effective but is just wrong—pollution of the water or those kinds of things. Those things come into play. One of the things people talk about is, will people pay more? Our question is, why should they have to? If you can take the waste out, if you can take the cost out, and you can provide people who are working people living paycheck to paycheck with an opportunity to be more sustainable, we think they will react to that, and they do.
您認為顧客會願意以更高的價格購買那些對環境有益的商品嗎？顧客會有這樣的意向嗎？
Will your consumers pay more for products that are environmentally green? Is there any willingness to pay more for something that is perceived as being good for the environment?
這取決於商店所處的位置，顧客對此的反應因人而異。如果把商店設在高收入區，你會發現那裡的人們有能力也願意多付一些錢去購買這類商品。 一般而言，美國大部分人都是依靠薪水生活的，不是他們不關心社會的可持續發展，而是他們的收入水準不允許他們為此而花更多的錢，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。
Depending on the store, you see a difference in how people are reacting. 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. People in general are living paycheck to paycheck for a broad amount of American society. It’s not that they don’t care about sustainability; it’s that they can’t afford to pay more. They can’t pay a dollar more for the cleaning supply. They can’t pay $3 more for a T-shirt.
如果對碳排放徵稅或者設立類似稅收的限額交易體系，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？
If we impose either a tax or a cap-and-trade system on carbon emissions, that is like a tax, 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?
很有可能，我們認為一個精心設計的關於碳排放的規劃是必然會出現的，而且還會產生積極的作用。我們想要提醒人們的是，大家要留意總體的情況，而不是簡單地想我要從哪去哪，人們是會比以前花費的更多但這是值得的。怎樣做才能最大限度地既對環境有利，又能有利於經濟的可持續發展，但同時又不會讓我的顧客流失呢？
I think that’s very possible. We believe a carefully crafted carbon program is something that probably is inevitable and probably positive. What we would ask is that people be mindful of the general population and not be so ideological that we simply say we’re going to go from here to here and, yes, people have to pay more but it’s worth it. How do you craft something that does the right thing for the environment and for sustainability but doesn’t leave behind the basic population that we serve the most?
到2050年，二氧化碳的排放量減少60% - 80%，這會不會太多？
Is 60% to 80% by 2050 too much? A 60% to 80% reduction [in carbon-dioxide emissions]?
這我不太清楚。我們在華盛頓只有一個很小的辦公室，我們不是科學家，我們只不過是零售商，經營商店為顧客服務。
You’re outside of my knowledge base. We have a very small Washington office. We have no scientists. We are a retailer, and we operate stores that serve customers.
那讓我們來聊聊您知道的東西， 您在過去三年一直都是這麼做的。您把精力放在產品上的同時，也讓供應商、 運輸隊和賣場把注意力放在產品上。儘管如此，正如您自己的報告中所提到的，你們公司的碳排放量每年仍上漲 8% - 9%。儘管在過去三年裡您做了這麼多，但是碳排放量仍在以一定速度增加，照這種情況發展，到2050年碳排放量怎麼能減少60% -80％呢？
But let’s take it to a level that you understand very well, and that is that you have done all that you’ve done in the past three years. You’ve focused on products, you’ve gotten your suppliers focused on these issues, you’ve gotten your trucking fleet focused on these issues, you’ve gotten your stores focused on these issues. And yet with all of that, you’re still growing your carbon footprint by, according to your own reporting, what, 8% or 9% a year. So how, after making all the efforts that you’ve made in the past three years and you still see your carbon footprint expanding at that rate, can we possibly hope to do 60% to 80% reductions by 2050?
首先，我們已經開始了一項長期計畫。在賣場方面，我們在進行PSP 計畫，即個人可持續發展計畫，這個計畫鼓勵沃爾瑪的員工在環境可持續性發展和個人健康等方面有所建樹。我想我們已經有50萬人簽了約並且已經開始進行回收利用，或是為保護環境和維護身心健康作出貢獻。從供應鏈到我們的工會，很多人都參與了這樣的活動。大家對此很有熱情，而且確實製造了不同，但這只是一個開端。
First of all, we have started on a program that has a long, long way to go. At the store level, we have what are called PSPs, which are Personal Sustainability Programs which encourage Wal-Mart employees to embrace a cause in areas such as environmental sustainability or personal health. We have, I think, 500,000 people who are signed up and have started recycling or using CFLs or that are doing something related to wellness. We have these groups of people working on different things from our supply chain all the way into our communities. There is an energy about it, and it’s real and it makes a difference. But it is simply the start.
當然，解決對於像包裝這樣的問題，你們還有很多要做的。有不少人認為，我們不應該使用瓶裝水，為什麼要用瓶子裝水呢？那簡直就是一種環境資源的浪費。你們對此如何打算？我想， 你們現在還是在賣瓶裝水吧？
On an issue like packaging, of course, there’s a long way you could go. There’s significant groups of people out there now who are saying we shouldn’t be bottling water. Why bottle water? It’s just an environmental waste. How do you decide? You’re still selling bottled water, I assume?
是的，我們有很多瓶裝水。如果顧客需要瓶裝水，那麼我們就會賣。 但是即使賣瓶裝水，我們也能盡可能小地對環境造成傷害。怎樣安排運輸才能最有效地進行配送，如何合理地給商品定價從而幫助顧客進行選擇而達到更好的環保效益？
A lot. If the customer wants bottled water, we are going to sell bottled water. But even if you’re going to sell bottled water, you can sell it and have less of a negative impact. How have you arranged your transportation so that it’s the most effective that it possibly can be? How do you price in a way that can help a customer make a choice that is more environmentally effective?
您將公司的目標定位為零污染和能源百分百再生，這是很有抱負的目標。但您沒有說的是這個目標將在什麼時間實現。
You have set as company goals zero waste and 100% renewable energy. Those are very ambitious goals. What you haven’t told us is when.
