I'm sure Wal-Mart critics -- whom I frequently agree with -- will criticize the slowing growth, but I disagree. The problem with corporate philanthropy is that it's the shareholders' money. It would be far better, I think, if companies did little in the way of charitable giving, and focused on providing shareholders with strong returns, letting them decide what to do with their money.
Too often, philanthropy by public companies focuses on the pet causes of executives. To Wal-Mart's credit, the USA Today reports that "Most donations were made locally by the more than 4,000 Wal-Mart and Sam's Club stores to charities they pick. Wal-Mart said U.S. donations went to organizations including the National Teacher of the Year program, hospital aid group Children's Miracle Network, The Salvation Army, United Way and food bank America's Second Harvest."
But if I were a Wal-Mart shareholder, I'd be unhappy with having my money used to support the Salvation Army, an organization which has an established track record of treating the LGBT community very badly.
As the country's largest corporate philanthropist, Wal-Mart could take steps to make giving more shareholder-friendly. I'd like to see them adopt a policy similar to the one Berkshire Hathaway, Inc. (NYSE: BRK.A) used to employ, which allocated a percentage of profits each year toward philanthropy, and let individual shareholders decide what to do with their percentage of it.











Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)
2-29-2008 @ 11:39AM
Nick Pasquine said...
Just like the lawsuits show. walmart makes contributions to teachers when they come in to town to try and buy them and have them get the kids on the walmart habit just like the Tobacco companies. Once they are in, no more contributions. Instead they try to weasel out of their fair share of property taxes to try and rip off the teachers and kids.