We talked back in April about a stunning Wal-Mart scandal, uncovered by the New York Times’ David Barstow, who found evidence of the retail behemoth bribing public officials in Mexico. As it turns out, the larger controversy is sill unfolding.
Wal-Mart longed to build in Elda Pineda’s alfalfa field. It was an ideal location, just off this town’s bustling main entrance and barely a mile from its ancient pyramids, which draw tourists from around the world. With its usual precision, Wal-Mart calculated it would attract 250 customers an hour if only it could put a store in Mrs. Pineda’s field.
One major obstacle stood in Wal-Mart’s way.
After years of study, the town’s elected leaders had just approved a new zoning map. The leaders wanted to limit growth near the pyramids, and they considered the town’s main entrance too congested already. As a result, the 2003 zoning map prohibited commercial development on Mrs. Pineda’s field, seemingly dooming Wal-Mart’s hopes.
But 30 miles away in Mexico City, at the headquarters of Wal-Mart de Mexico, executives were not about to be thwarted by an unfavorable zoning decision.
The zoning map wouldn’t be official until it was published in a government newspaper, so Wal-Mart apparently delivered a $52,000 bribe to a local bureaucrat who redrew the lines, changed the map in the company’s favor, and then sent it to the newspaper. Locals were outraged by the store, but never knew about the bribe that made it happen.
Here in the U.S., it’s been widely reported that a senior Wal-Mart lawyer learned about the company’s campaign of bribery in virtually every corner of Mexico in 2005, and an internal investigation was launched. That is, until Wal-Mart executives squashed the probe a year later, before the extent of the scandal was clear.
So, the New York Times is doing what the company would not: getting to the bottom of the alleged, systemic Wal-Mart corruption in Mexico.
There may be some who believe that Mexican business practices somehow necessitate bribes, and that Wal-Mart was just going along with standard practices in the country. It may have simply been the price of doing business, the argument goes.
Except, this isn’t even close to being true.









