Open Road Ahead for Clean Trucks

Our nation is making great progress in reducing the environmental impact of trucking.

This is tremendous news, of course, as trucking – the main method of transporting the goods and services we desire – is critical to the fabric of our society.

Jason Mathers, Senior Manager, Supply Chain Logistics

Jason Mathers, Senior Manager, Supply Chain Logistics

Consider these facts:

We’re making major progress because of a team effort from truck and equipment manufacturers, fleets, policymakers, and clean air and human health advocates. With protective, long-term emission standards in place, manufacturers are investing in developing cleaner solutions and bringing them to market. Truck fleets are embracing new trucks because of lower operating costs and improved performance.

(For a more detailed picture of the widespread support for cleaner trucks, see EDF’s list of quotes supporting recent national Clean Truck standards.)

We must continue this team effort to make further necessary improvements in the years ahead.

Despite our recent progress, diesel trucks continue to be a leading source of NOx emissions, which is why a number of leading air quality agencies across the nation, health and medical organizations, and more than  30 members of Congress are calling for more protective NOx emission standards.

Trucks are also a large and growing source of greenhouse gas emissions. Thankfully, the new fuel efficiency and greenhouse gas standards mentioned above – which were released this past August and just published in the Federal Register today – will cut more than a billion tons of emissions.

Trucking fleets are embracing cleaner trucks. UPS, for example, is expanding its fleet of hybrid delivery trucks. PepsiCo, Walmart, Kane and others have applauded strong fuel standards for trucks.

Manufacturers are developing solutions to further improve the environmental footprint of trucking. In the past few weeks alone:

  • Cummins unveiled a 2017 engine that cuts NOx emissions 90 percent from the current emission standard.
  • Volvo Trucks North American showcased its entry to the DOE SuperTruck program, which is  a concept truck capable of surpassing 2010 efficiency levels by 70 percent and exceeding 12 miles per gallon.
  • Navistar also revealed its SuperTruck, the CatalIST, which hit a remarkable 13 mpg.

The progress we’ve made to date does more than just improve conditions within the U.S. Our strong standards push U.S. manufacturers to develop solutions that will resonate with international markets. For example, the European Union, Brazil, India, Mexico, and South Korea all are exploring new fuel efficiency and greenhouse standards for big trucks. U.S. manufacturers will be well positioned to compete in markets that put a premium on fuel efficiency.

In the coming years, we will need to continue to advance protective emission standards to protect the health of our communities and safeguard our climate. When the time comes, we will be building upon an impressive record of progress and cooperation.

Working smarter, not harder: goals help companies get strategic about climate change

lizIt’s no secret that companies use goals to push their businesses in a positive direction. Whether it’s about creating more value or reducing impacts, goals provide focus, direction and a sense of urgency. Recently, a wave of corporate, climate-related goals, such as renewable energy and emissions-reduction targets, have grabbed the public’s attention. Companies, cities and other large institutions are stepping up and committing to reduce their environmental impact. But behind the scenes, are these goals actually leading to corporate action? And if so, what kind?

As program director of EDF Climate Corps, every summer I get a glimpse inside the operations of 100 large organizations that are working to manage energy and carbon in progressively responsible ways. This past summer, 125 EDF Climate Corps fellows – talented graduate students armed with training and expert support – worked to advance clean energy projects in large organizations across the U.S. and in China. Their project work reveals that organizations are more strategic, focused and results-oriented than ever. More than 70 percent of EDF Climate Corps host organizations have energy or emissions-reductions goals, and to meet these targets, our class of 2016 fellows was strategically deployed to help achieve them. In fact, the majority (two-thirds) of our entire cohort of fellows worked on strategic plans and analyses that will help turn these goals into action. So what did we see this summer?

  1. Ambitious goals are driving big impacts at the building level

A great example of goals driving smart and strategic action in buildings is our recent work in New York City. Over the summer, more than 25 fellows worked within companies, city agencies and even a local utility to design strategic plans to help meet Mayor de Blasio’s ambitious 80 x 50 goal that pledges to reduce city greenhouse gas emissions 80% by 2050.  Rather than approach this one boiler room at a time, our fellows worked on ambitious, portfolio-wide equipment replacement and onsite renewable energy plans, with the potential to impact thousands of buildings at once. It’s great to see a municipal goal drive strategy from both the public and the private sector. The mayor’s goals are clearly spurring action and large-scale strategy is the way to drive rapid improvements that would take much longer through an incremental approach.

  1. Public goals allow leaders to shine, but also inspire others to follow

Many corporations maintain internal sustainability goals but shy away from publicizing them for a multitude of reasons – from fears of greenwashing to competitive advantage. But we’ve recently observed that this trend is changing, with more and more of our host companies realizing that smart, data-driven analysis can help them set public commitments with confidence. For example, EDF Climate Corps host Amalgamated Bank wanted to incorporate climate change mitigation in its mission, but first needed to dig deeper into its data to create smart goals and a strategy to achieve them. With the help of their EDF Climate Corps fellow, who conducted the first greenhouse gas emissions inventory and an assessment of its carbon footprint, Amalgamated Bank got the information it needed to set ambitious goals, culminating in a September announcement to become the second largest net-zero energy bank.

  1. Supply chains are beginning to benefit from corporate goals

While many corporations have articulated impressive goals related to their corporate operations, setting targets in supply chains is an even more ambitious endeavor. Corporate supply chains are the source of significant carbon emissions and are notoriously hard to manage. Longtime EDF Climate Corps host Verizon – a corporation with a history of setting and achieving sustainability goals –knew that by working strategically it could tackle this daunting challenge. This past summer, Verizon asked its EDF Climate Corps fellow to help the company cross the finish line on its 2017 supplier target. By creating a holistic strategy that used a combination of risk-identification and supplier engagement, Verizon is now on track to accomplish its 2017 supplier goal and formally launch its next target to help manage supply chain carbon emissions.

The EDF Climate Corps community is a living laboratory. Through our fellowships and engagement with large energy users, we see companies and cities trying new things, and working smarter, not harder, to achieve ambitious goals. We’ve mirrored this journey as well, moving from a “one boiler room at a time” mentality to broader, more strategic engagement with companies to help drive progress. Through a focus on smart energy strategy, driven by goals, we know that companies can generate a virtuous cycle of positive returns for their organizations.

PepsiCo Joins Growing Ranks of Green Supply Chain Leaders

PepsiCo, one of the world’s largest food and beverage companies, this week announced new sustainability goals. The goal that caught my attention is:

“we intend to reduce absolute greenhouse gas emissions across our value chain by at least 20%

In setting this impressive goal, PepsiCo join Kellogg’s and General Mills in setting big, comprehensive greenhouse gas emission reduction goals for their supply chain.

So, this leadership action is officially a trend.

Jason Mathers, Senior Manager, Supply Chain Logistics

Jason Mathers, Senior Manager, Supply Chain Logisticsgreenhouse gas emission reduction goals for their supply chain. So, this leadership action is officially a trend.

It's also a really big deal.

Companies are increasingly focused on cleaning up supply chains because of Sutton’s Law as applied to corporate sustainability: that is where the impact is. Over 90% of natural capital impacts associated with food and beverage companies occur in supply chains. The statistics are similar for the retail and consumer goods industries too. This is far from an academic point.

Supply chain executives are increasingly attuned to the fact that driving sustainability improvements needs to be a focus in the years ahead. In a recent survey from SCM World, 77% of food and beverage supply chain professionals recognized that “their supply chain plays a substantial role in securing the future of the planet.”

PepsiCo and other leaders are moving from the realization that there is a challenge to taking meaningful action. The new and important aspect of their approach is that they are aiming to improve their entire value chain. In doing so they are stating the obvious: it is no longer sufficient to make improvements in a few areas only. They need to tackle the system.

Now certainly some will look askance at these goals and warn of “boiling the ocean”; nothing could be further from the truth. The fact is that these goals are necessary and achievable.

They are necessary because they establish a long-term corporate commitment to continuous improvement on supply chain sustainability. As the goals are performance based, supply chain managers will be able to objectively track their progress and do what they do best – reduce risks, increase efficiency, and cut costs. They will be freed from chasing big shiny objects in the name of sustainability. Instead, they will be empowered to drive improvements with the best return.

These goals are achievable because they deploy a Science-Strategic-Systems approach – a proven framework for corporate sustainability success:

  • Science: These initiatives are built on a solid foundation of science that puts corporate sustainability goals in context of the overall challenge at hand. As a result of this, these corporate commitments are consistent with the scope and pace of greenhouse gas emissions targets necessary for climate stability. Framing the goals in terms of what our best science dictates ensures that the companies will be using the best metrics to assess progress.
  • Strategy: Supply chain greenhouse gas reduction goals are strategic for food and beverage, consumer brands, retailers and others because it directly targets the largest areas of impact. By placing the focus on these areas, companies are able to put durable solutions in place that expand revenue and drive business growth. They strengthen relationships with key suppliers and develop a fuller understanding of market risk.
  • Systems: The audacity in the scope of these goals is a power in itself. Far from the small-minded outlook that warns of boiling oceans, big goals such as these require companies to drive improvements to entire systems. The manifest challenge of tackling systems forces these companies to recognize they must collaborate with others – beyond the four walls of their company— to achieve their goals. With partners, they can drive deep changes in how products are made, designed, packaged and distributed; and collaborate with policymakers to align market incentives with sustainable business practices.

PepsiCo deserves our praise for setting its new goals. But, more importantly, it needs our help in achieving them.

Not just the help of EDF and other advocates, of course, but the help of its suppliers, retail customers and competitors too. We all have a role in driving down supply chain emissions.For EDF, we’re helping by partnering with PepsiCo and others to develop best practices to drive supply chain improvements, including reducing the environmental impacts of commodity row crop production, strengthening zero deforestation zones, and greening product distribution.

We are also calling on other companies to join PepsiCo, General Mills and Kellogg’s by setting transformational supply chain sustainability goals too. It is what the future of corporate sustainability looks like.

What’s your company going to do?

What was Left Off the Menu at the WSJ Global Food Forum?

Many of us spend a considerable amount of time thinking about food – whether it’s deciding what’s for dinner or how healthy something is for our family. Given that I work on food sustainability and am married to a chef, I spend an even more extreme amount of time thinking about food.

Last week, the Wall Street Journal hosted the first annual Global Food Forum in New York City – more proof that food and agricultural issues are increasingly on the radar screens of many jenny_helen_expertexecutives, including those from Walmart, Campbell’s Soup, Panera, Perdue, Monsanto, and many more.

I was eager to attend the event and hear the discussions among some of the most powerful food companies out there. They covered many topics including food safety, “clean” labels, biotechnology, antibiotic use and the humane treatment of animals.

All important stuff—but given the prestige of the event, I’d like to bring up the elephant in the room (or more accurately the elephant not in the room): sustainability. The environmental impacts of agriculture were barely touched upon, and considering the corporate heavyweights who were in the room, this was a missed opportunity on a massive scale.

Why? Because across the entire food production supply chain, sustainability and profitability go hand-in-hand. Consider just a few of the advantages offered by sustainable growing methods:

Increased efficiency and cost savings: Crops take up on average only 40 percent of the nutrients applied to them each growing season. The rest is susceptible to running off the field, and contributing to water and air pollution.

But optimizing fertilizer use—using just the right amount and avoiding over applying—can mean higher yields and lower input costs for farmers, while simultaneously reducing that pollution-causing runoff.

Improved supply chain resiliency: One of the biggest risks that businesses face in the coming decades is supply chain disruptions caused by climate change. Unpredictable weather events like flooding and drought can mean grain shortages or inventory losses.

A couple of years ago, thousands of jobs were lost when Cargill closed meat processing plants in Wisconsin and Texas because drought had reduced its cattle count. And, according to a UC Davis study, last year saw about 542,000 acres of California farmland being left fallow for lack of water. That's about 7 percent of the state's irrigated farmland—meaning thousands fewer farm laborers had work.

But sustainable growing methods can help mitigate these risks. By helping farmers become more resilient, businesses are also protecting themselves by ensuring a consistent, dependable supply of goods. This improved resiliency is something shareholders are increasingly aware of.

Improved customer trust: The ability to share where and how ingredients are grown helps meet consumer demand for transparency. Consumers are clearly becoming more educated, and to remain competitive businesses need to respond to this demand.

Given all this, what advice do I have for the organizers of next year’s WSJ event?

First off, include deforestation, which is responsible for nearly 15 percent of the world’s greenhouse gases. In many tropical nations, it is more economical to cut down forests for farmland than to protect them.

In addition to taking on a massive carbon footprint, companies sourcing food from deforested land are likely exposing themselves to legal and ethical risks. Solutions exist, such as sourcing from large-scale zones that operate under an umbrella of sustainable practices, but companies need to be educated and informed about their options.

Second, shine a spotlight on corporate sustainability leaders helping make farmers more resilient and profitable, such as:

  • The Midwest Row Crop Collaborative, a diverse coalition of food companies, retailers, and nonprofits working to expand on-the-ground solutions to protect air and water quality, enhance soil health, and maintain high yields throughout the Upper Mississippi River Basin.
  • Land O’Lakes’ SUSTAIN® platform, co-developed by EDF, which trains agricultural retailers in best practices for fertilizer efficiency and soil health. The ag retailers then bring this knowledge to the customers they serve. Kellogg Company, Campbell’s, and Smithfield Foods are all using SUSTAIN as a way to connect directly with growers in their sourcing regions.

Lastly, talk about food waste. Up to 40 percent of food in the U.S. ends up in a landfill – the equivalent of $165 billion each year. The only way to truly address the environmental issues of our food system while feeding a growing global population is to reduce food waste, which translates into improved bottom lines for farmers, food companies, and customers.

So, yes: I spend a lot of time thinking about sustainable food. But sustainability is clearly where the food industry is going.

The WSJ Global Food Forum should be thinking about it too.

A new era of collaboration for sustainable agriculture

Companies have the opportunity to use their voice to draw attention to issues that matter to their business and to their customers.  Today, a handful did just that – by announcing their commitment to sustainable agriculture.Cornfield

Over the past several months, I’ve spent countless hours representing Environmental Defense Fund in a room with Cargill, General Mills, Kellogg Company, Monsanto, PepsiCo, The Nature Conservancy, Walmart, and World Wildlife Fund. This group makes up the Midwest Row Crop Collaborative (MRCC) – a diverse coalition working to reduce the environmental impacts of commodity row crop production (i.e., corn, soy, wheat, etc.) throughout the Upper Mississippi River Basin.

This isn’t just good news for the planet. Implementing on-the-ground solutions that reduce fertilizer pollution and improve soil health can also result in higher yields for farmers, reduced risk of supply chain disruptions for food companies and retailers, reduced air and water pollution, and improved transparency for consumers.

Why companies care about fertilizer and soil health

Farmers and food companies need fertilizer to grow their ingredients, but fertilizer in excess of the amount crops need can lead to water and air pollution and wasted money for farmers, who spend approximately half of their input costs on fertilizer.

Each year, fertilizer runoff contributes to an aquatic dead zone in the Gulf of Mexico – an area the size of Connecticut that so devoid of oxygen, marine life cannot survive. And excess nitrogen fertilizer can lead to nitrates contaminating drinking water and water supplies – posing serious health risks to infants in particular.

Three pilot states

That’s why, along with a council of scientific and agronomic advisors, the MRCC will work with growers to help improve and implement conservation activities across three pilot states that are responsible for 44 percent of the corn, soy, and wheat production in the U.S.: Illinois, Iowa, and Nebraska.

By vastly increasing the number of row crop acres enrolled in sustainability measures in these three states, farmers and companies can help protect food security and drinking water supplies, while improving efficiencies in their business operations.

The power of collaboration

Farmer organizations, environmental groups, food companies, state and local watershed organizations, and many others share these common goals – and much work is already underway.

That’s why the MRCC isn’t reinventing any wheels. It’s shining a spotlight on an important environmental issue that is often overlooked, while helping support and scale the various technical and regional sustainability efforts already in place.

When leading companies collaborate around a common goal, both business and the planet will thrive.


This work is hard and will take time, but I’m more hopeful than ever that one day my daughter won’t grow up to read about toxic algae blooms or dead zones in the news and I’ll know I had a small part to play in that.


Walking the Walk: Companies Lead the Call for New Clean Truck Standards

A number of America’s most iconic brands helped pave the way for the new Clean Truck standards announced August 16th by the U.S. EPA and DOT. Nearly 400 companies, large and small, publicly urged strong, final fuel efficiency and greenhouse gas standards for heavy trucks.

Through their action, these companies have reaffirmed a basic truth of business today: to be a “leader”, companies must align their sustainability goals and strategies with their external engagement on policy.

Tom Murray, VP, Corporate Partnerships Program

Tom Murray, VP, Corporate Partnerships Program

While there are many differences as to how these 400 companies intersect with heavy trucks—manufacturers make the trucks, fleet owners drive the trucks, brands hire the trucks to move their goods to market—they are all unified by one resounding theme: cleaner trucks are better for their business, better for our health and better for the planet.

Indeed, common-sense efforts to cut climate pollution have gone mainstream in business. Earlier this year Microsoft, Google, Amazon, Apple and others raised the bar on corporate climate leadership by standing up for the clean power plan. Colgate-Palmolive, Hewlett Packard Enterprise, Nike, Starbucks and over 100 other companies built on this trend by urging “the swift implementation of the Clean Power Plan and other related low-carbon policies so that we may meet or exceed our promised national commitment and increase our future ambition.”

But this corporate support of the clean truck standards goes even further: it’s another step in the evolution of corporate climate leadership. This is beyond simply supporting good policy; a number of these companies are actively shaping it to deliver significant sustainability benefits. Among the companies that distinguished themselves in this effort are:

  • PepsiCo: the largest private fleet in the U.S. led the way in demonstrating the alignment between its sustainability objectives and its policy advocacy through an op-ed, and expert testimony.
  • Walmart, the 3rd largest private fleet in the U.S., was highly proactive and constructive in its engagement on the clean truck phase two program, supporting it with public statements, and expert commentary.
  • Cummins, FedEx, Eaton, Wabash National, Conway, and Waste Management joined PepsiCo in the Heavy Duty Leadership group that urged the EPA and DOT to: “Achieve Significant Environmental, Economic and Energy Security Benefits.”
  • Honeywell, Achates Power and a number of other innovators made clear that they were ready to meet the challenge of building more fuel efficient trucks.

There were hundreds more examples like these—each one of them a proactive leadership action that demonstrates the new frontier for corporate leadership.

Securing these protections was a real team effort.  The Pew Charitable Trusts organized a letter of support for strong standards signed by IKEA, Campbell’s Soup, and many others. Ceres brought forward a strong statement from General Mills, Patagonia and more. The Union of Concerned Scientists articulated how strong rules would benefit leading fleets, including UPS, Coca-Cola and Walmart. Together, these efforts marshalled an unprecedented level of corporate support for a critical piece of climate policy.

So, if your company is among the now hundreds of companies actively advocating for strong climate protection measures, thank you. We look forward to your continued leadership and engagement on other critical advances, including implementation of the Clean Power Plan and moving forward with reductions in methane emissions. We want to work with you to shape protective policies that also make business sense.

If, however, your company is still stuck at talking the talk, it’s time to start walking the walk when it comes to supporting common sense measures like the Clean Trucks program.

You’re falling behind the leadership pack in the one of the world’s most important races.

New Clean Trucks program: Business, Consumers and the Planet all Win

Across America, companies have reason today to celebrate an important step to drive cost and emissions out of their supply chain. The U.S. EPA and U.S. Department of Transportation unveiled new fuel efficiency and greenhouse gas standards for heavy trucks. Once fully implemented, the new standards will cut over a billion tons of climate pollution and save hundreds of millions of dollars by 2035.

Jason Mathers, Senior Manager, Supply Chain Logistics

Jason Mathers, Director, Supply Chain

Every business in America stands to benefit.

Why? Because every business in America relies, in some form, on trucking services. Product manufacturers need trucks to get goods to market. Service and knowledge companies depend on trucks to deliver equipment and supplies. Retailers utilize trucks in distribution.

Retailers and consumer brands are among the top winners of strong fuel efficiency standards, as these companies account for a lot of freight movement. Companies that have undertaken detailed carbon footprint analysis often find, as Ben & Jerry’s did, that freight transportation can account for upwards of 17% of their total impact.

The new fuel standard means continued progress in tackling this significant source of emissions. This progress will reveal itself in lower carbon footprints for every product brought to market. It will be apparent through lower freight and fuel surcharge fees – saving large consumer brands millions annually. Read more

Is Walmart a Leader on Safer Chemicals?

Consumers want to know that the products they buy contain ingredients that are safe for them and their loved ones. EDF has identified five pillars of leadership to help companies meet that demand and in doing so build consumer trust in the products they make and sell. One company that has recently taken major steps to drive safer chemicals and products into the market is Walmart.

In 2013, Walmart published its Sustainable Chemistry Policy, which focuses on ingredient transparency and advancing safer product formulations in household and personal care products. EDF worked with Walmart as it developed its policy and has advised the company during implementation and data analysis. This past April, Walmart announced that the company achieved a 95% reduction in the use of high priority chemicals of concern. Now, Walmart has shared considerable additional information detailing the progress made, including the identities of the high priority chemicals.

In our previous blog, we broke down the wealth of information that Walmart has shared. However, to fully evaluate the significance of the numbers, we now look at how well Walmart has done against EDF’s five pillars: institutional commitment, supply chain transparency, informed consumers, product design, and public commitment.

Read more

Product Ingredients at Walmart Changed for the Better. Really.

It’s whack-a-mole time.

In April, Walmart released their 2016 Global Responsibility Report. In it, they noted a 95% reduction by weight in the approximately ten high priority chemicals in home and personal care products covered by their 2013 Sustainable Chemistry policy. Ninety-five percent is a big number, but the substance – the chemical names, the volumes – was missing.

No longer.

Today, Walmart released the names of those high priority chemicals, with details as to how the reductions were achieved. The chemicals – butylparaben, propylparaben, dibutyl phthalate, diethyl phthalate, formaldehyde, nonylphenol ethoxylates, triclosan, and toluene – will not come as a surprise to most who work on these issues; these chemicals have been called out for action by many for quite some time.


If this announcement is met like most environmental stories told by corporations, the mole-whacking will commence shortly. WHACK! Why these chemicals and not those? WHACK! What took so long? WHACK! What about everything else? While companies that do nothing will stay in the shadows, those like Walmart trying to drive needed change usually get whacked for what they haven’t done already.

And of course a lot still remains to be done.

But this story is a good one, and Walmart deserves credit for what they have accomplished. Walmart is the one company in the world that could drive drive over 11,500 tons – 23 million pounds – of chemicals out of so much product in less than 24 months.

Read more

Major Strides: Walmart Details Progress on Chemicals


In 2013, Walmart published its Sustainable Chemistry Policy, which focuses on ingredient transparency and advancing safer product formulations in household and personal care products. EDF worked with Walmart as it developed its policy and has advised the company during implementation and data analysis.

This past April, Walmart announced that the company achieved a 95% reduction by weight in the use of high priority chemicals of concern. Today, Walmart shared considerable additional information detailing the progress made, including the identities of the initial high priority chemicals. Let’s unpack this.

Revisiting Walmart’s Sustainable Chemistry Policy

Broadly speaking, Walmart made three commitments in its 2013 policy:

  1. to increase transparency of product ingredients,
  2. to advance safer formulations of products, and
  3. to attain U.S. EPA’s Safer Choice certification [formerly Design for the Environment] of Walmart private brand products

The policy, which went into effect in January 2014, focuses on formulated household cleaning, personal care, and beauty products, sold at Walmart U.S. and Sam’s Club U.S. stores. A few months after releasing the policy, Walmart published a policy implementation guide that gave suppliers greater specificity as to Walmart’s expectations and, importantly, outlined the quantitative metrics Walmart would use to track and report progress.

How Walmart has fared so far

  1. “Transparency”:

Walmart’s policy requires its suppliers to be more transparent about the ingredients in their products in two ways. First, Walmart requires suppliers to submit “full product formulations” – the names and concentrations of all ingredients in a product – to WERCSmart, a 3rd party- managed product ingredient database. WERCSmart provides the retailer with aggregate information about the types and quantities of chemicals in the products on its shelves without divulging specific product formulation data.

Second, the policy requires suppliers to increase ingredient transparency to consumers by calling for disclosure of product ingredients online starting in 2015. Further, any Priority Chemical found in a product must be disclosed on the product’s packaging starting in 2018. Priority Chemicals (PCs) are Walmart’s designated chemicals of concern, drawn from 16 reputable regulatory and authoritative lists.

To track the first requirement, Walmart determined the number of products whose ingredients are fully accounted for in the WERCSmart database. According to the data, 94% of the product formulations are full formulations. This suggests that the other results Walmart presents today are based on real data.

To track ingredient transparency to consumers, Walmart polled suppliers about their online disclosure practices using the Walmart Sustainability Index, its annual environmental issues survey sent to suppliers. In 2015, 78% of respondents reported they disclose ingredients online for all their products. Walmart also breaks down the responses  in more detailed ways, such as by department.

  1. “Advancing safer formulations of products”:

The bulk of Walmart’s policy focuses on providing safer products to customers by calling for the “reduction, restriction, and elimination” of Priority Chemicals (PCs), and for product reformulations to be undertaken using “informed substitution principles.” Because the list of PCs includes hundreds (if not thousands) of chemicals — as evidenced by Walmart’s reference list of regulatory and authoritative lists used to define its PCs — Walmart focused its suppliers’ attention on a shorter list of High Priority Chemicals (HPCs).

Today, Walmart identified the HPCs as propylparaben, butylparaben, nonylphenol ethoxylates (NPEs), formaldehyde, dibutyl phthalate, diethyl phthalate, triclosan, and toluene. These eight chemicals and chemical classes appear on a number of authoritative lists (e.g. EU REACH Substances of Very High Concern) for their hazardous properties and are worthy of action by Walmart. The revelation of the identities of the chemicals was long-awaited and provides context to the rest of the information Walmart shared today.

To assess the portion of its chemical footprint[1] related to product sales covered by the policy, Walmart has measured progress in two ways: (i) the total weight of HPCs contained in products sold, i.e. pounds of HPCs going out the door, and (ii) frequency of use, i.e. the number of products on store shelves that contain HPCs and the number of suppliers using HPCs in their products. Walmart relied on RetailLink, its internal product inventory database, and WERCSmart, mentioned earlier, to make these calculations. Walmart has also computed and published this data for all Walmart PCs in the covered product categories.

Walmart reports a dramatic reduction in the total weight of PCs and HPCs going out the door. The total weight of HPCs dropped by 95% and PCS by 45%.  The more than doubling of reduction of HPCs suggests that focusing attention on a subset of chemicals accelerated action.

Walmart attributes part of the success to its ability to determine which select set of suppliers used the majority (in pounds) of HPCs. This illustrates the utility of a product ingredient database that can provide aggregate information by supplier while not disclosing proprietary information.

As it relates to progress made in reducing the frequency of use of HPCs, the results were far more modest.  Unfortunately, it appears that suppliers who use HPCs are largely still using them, though the aggregate mass has dropped. Overall, the percent of products containing HPCs dropped by only 3 percentage points (to 16%), while the percent of suppliers using HPCs increased slightly (to 39%). Meanwhile, the percent of products containing any Priority Chemical actually went up one percentage point (to 80%).

So while the weight amount of HPCs, and PCs more broadly, has dropped significantly, there is clearly much more work to be done to achieve complete elimination of these chemicals.

  1. “Safer Choice [formerly Design for the Environment] in private brands”:

Lastly, Walmart committed to increase the number of private brand product offerings bearing Safer Choice certification. As discussed in our recent blog, the Safer Choice Program is a voluntary program implemented by the U.S. EPA that seeks to recognize and bring consumer awareness to products that are leading the way when it comes to safer ingredients. This is the only commitment for which Walmart has not released quantitative data. The company reports that it has hit snags in making progress against this target but is still committed to the program.


Overall, Walmart has made major strides regarding the commitments set forth in its policy. Equally notable, it has set in place effective systems to measure and track progress over time – an ability that can’t be underestimated.

In our next post, we’ll assess where Walmart’s progress rates against EDF’s five pillars of leadership for safer chemicals in the marketplace.

[1] As defined by the Chemical Footprint Project, a chemical footprint is “the total mass of chemicals of high concern in products sold by a company, used in its manufacturing operations and by its suppliers, and contained in packaging.”

Further Reading: