David Barstow’s epic Wal-Mart investigation in the Sunday New York Times has already lopped $10 billion off the company’s market value ($8 billion if you assume Wal-Mart would have been down 1 percent like the rest of the market today).
Rest assured, though, the reverberations from this piece have just begun to be felt in Bentonville.
The Times gives Barstow nearly 8,000 words to present the case against Wal-Mart—and boy does he. This is one of the most damning exposés of corporate corruption I’ve seen in years. It’s an incredible piece of journalism.
Barstow untangles a web of corruption at Wal-Mart de Mexico that would eventually ensnare executives up to the CEO in a coverup. This story has a complicated hero, $24 million in alleged bribes, executive intrigue, and a coverup of serious and credible allegations. At the biggest company in the U.S., “bribery played a persistent and significant role in Wal-Mart’s rapid growth in Mexico.” Wal-Mart killed the investigation by taking its U.S. investigators off the case and giving control of it to the Mexican executive accused of helping orchestrate the bribes. Really.
The complicated hero is Sergio Cicero Zapata, a Wal-Mart real estate executive and linchpin in the alleged bribery scheme. He tells Barstow, in fifteen hours of interviews, “how he had helped organize years of payoffs,” blown the whistle, and seen nothing come of it. This is a former company executive implicating himself and his superiors in crimes.
Barstow shores up Cicero’s credibility, which is already pretty good, by talking to stifled Wal-Mart investigators, who vouched for Cicero’s allegations. But he went further, examining “thousands of government documents related to permit requests for stores across Mexico” and finding that “Again and again, The Times found, legal and bureaucratic obstacles melted away after payments were made.”
The inevitable pushback, already begun in some places, is that this is just how business is done in Mexico and that Wal-Mart had to play the game. But if proven, these aren’t just Mexican crimes, they’re American ones. The Foreign Corrupt Practices Act prohibits American companies from paying foreign officials to do business. If you have to pay bribes to do business someplace, then you just don’t do business there. By doing so, you’re perpetuating the corruption that chokes poor economies like Mexico’s.
And by not dealing head-on with this alleged corruption in its fast-growing Mexico unit, Wal-Mart has let it metastasize into the C-suite. Cicero implicated the head of Wal-Mart’s Mexico unit, Eduardo Castro-Wright, as “most responsible” for the payment scheme. Castro-Wright has since been CEO of Wal-Mart in the U.S. and is (as I type this, at least) now vice chairman of the company.
Time and again, then-CEO Lee Scott rejected entreaties by advisers inside and outside the company to launch a full investigation of the alleged corruption. He “rebuked internal investigators for being overly aggressive” and, reading between the lines a bit, he was responsible for sending control of the Mexico investigation to the implicated executive.
This piece is just rock solid. One of the key reasons for that is that Barstow has gotten hold of scads of internal emails and memos to and from senior executives of the company that help show how they buried this big problem. These documents also show that the current CEO, Michael T. Duke, was also in the loop on the investigation, which will be a major headache for him in the coming months.
The scope and depth of the reporting is awe-inspiring, as is how the Times makes it easy to follow a complicated story with more than twenty important characters.
These kinds of blockbuster investigations don’t come around very often, even at The New York Times. The last non-magazine story given that much space in the paper was on the Deepwater Horizon disaster. The one before that was a 2008 expose of TV news shows and the military experts who propagandize for them. Barstow was lead byline and solo byline, respectively, on those.
Both of those were great pieces. This one is even better.
FLASH!
Bribes in Mexico!
In other news... Spring comes, grass grows... Sun rises, then sets...
Anyone who seriously thinks there will be criminal prosecution by the Obama adminstration is ignoring the likely reality that no criminal prosecution will happen.
I hate Walmart... ESPECIALLY Mexican Walmarts (and ESPECIALLY the one in Bucerias) I hope whoever paid bribes goes to jail and I hope whoever took bribes goes to jail even longer. I doubt it will happen, but I hope it does.
But..
$24 million in Mexican bribes? Stop the presses!
This is good and important story, but it isn't exactly an Earth-shattering story. We're not talking Enron or Bernie Madoff here.
When you have to bribe a Federale to give your rental car registration back (in front of the U.S. consulate, as I had to), it is hardly surprising to learn that the Mexicans are squeezing bigger "mordidas" out of Walmart.
As for prosecution under FCPA - don't hold your breath. Many payments that most Americans would consider to be "bribes" are actually legal under the act - greasing an official isn't illegal. Furthermore, proof of a bribe sufficient to get past a federal grand jury would almost certainly require the testimony of the Mexican official - and what do you think the chances are of this happening?
#1 Posted by padikiller, CJR on Mon 23 Apr 2012 at 10:46 PM
Of course, it now comes out prominently in follow-up news that in fact WalMart had disclosed the Mexican problem to the feds last December. Wonder why the New York Times made such a splash .... do you suppose it had anything to do with left-leaning types hating WalMart for its stance against labor unions?
#2 Posted by Siouxlouie, CJR on Tue 24 Apr 2012 at 03:35 PM
Siouxlouie, how about actually reading the NYT story before criticizing it?
"In December, after learning of The Times’s reporting in Mexico, Wal-Mart informed the Justice Department that it had begun an internal investigation into possible violations of the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act, a federal law that makes it a crime for American corporations and their subsidiaries to bribe foreign officials. Wal-Mart said the company had learned of possible problems with how it obtained permits, but stressed that the issues were limited to 'discrete' cases."
#3 Posted by Ryan Chittum, CJR on Tue 24 Apr 2012 at 05:14 PM
I agree with padikiller that this should not have surprised anyone. The embedded issue here is that bribing should be treated as a cost of doing business in developing countries which are infested with corrupt politicians who never allow a level playing field and never really want to introduce anything or anyone that is big enough to challenge their authority. You provide enough competition in a market and corruption will start disappearing from it - unless, and that is a big UNLESS, the politicians want more of them for more bribes by using discretionary methods. Then it is corruption masquerading as liberalization.
This phenomenon is too complicated for the simple American to understand, so it will be impossible for its policy makers to have two sets of rules - one to apply in a fair society and the other abroad - not that Americans do not do it when it comes to a perception of security.
#4 Posted by The Contrarian, CJR on Wed 25 Apr 2012 at 03:33 AM
Bribery is corruption here in USA and international corruption in a foriegn country.Many Americans just don't know much about foriegn countries, especially doing business in them. I have friends who own businesses in foriegn countries where bribery and payoffs are common. My good friend who owns several succsesful businesses in Thailand told me long before this walmart stuff came out, that the most important thing to know if i want to start a business there is never get involved in bribery and payoffs, and not just because its illegal, but because its just not proper business, its a low life, criminal, corrupt way of doing things, it is unethical, wrong and of course very imoral. and he's just an average guy like me really. If walmart had any moral conscience at all it would not have ever bribed officials, much less orchestrated a company wide cover-up scheme all the way to top home office officials. I worked for walmart for 10-years. I know first hand, the depths of Walmarts evilness and imorality are limitless, and we probably haven't even seen the tip of the iceberg yet. If this company fell, the world would be a much better place. Robert Snodgrass snod307@hotmail.com
#5 Posted by Robert Snodgrass, CJR on Thu 24 May 2012 at 02:11 AM