Case 6.12 : Walmart in Mexico

One in every five new Walmart stores around the world is located in Mexico. With 209,000 employees there, Walmart is the largest private employer in the country. The expansion of the giant retailer in Mexico has been remarkable. The expansion has also resulted in both an internal investigation as well as one by the U.S. Justice Department for violations of the FCPA.

The internal investigation began in 2005 when a senior U.S. Walmart executive received an e-mail from a former Walmart executive in Mexico, who revealed that Walmart had paid bribes all over the country in order to obtain permits to build the new stores rapidly and ubiquitously. Following the resulting internal investigation, Walmart uncovered $24 million in payments to government officials in exchange for permits for building the stores. The subsequent follow-up and training were delegated to Walmart's general counsel in Mexico City, the man who was identified as having authorized the payments.

However, despite the discovery, Walmart made no public disclosure about the payments or its investigation. Then-chairman of Walmart, H. Lee Scott, told internal investigators that they were being "too aggressive" in handling their work. The payments and evidence were not disclosed to the U.S. Justice Department until December 2011. That disclosure was made after U.S. executives learned that the New York Times was investigating and had both documents and statements from those involved in paying the bribes.The Times was the first news organization to break the story.

Walmart issued a response to the story that explained the steps that it has taken and is taking to eliminate the problem. One of the critical issues in the outcome (in terms of criminal charges) will be whether the payments were facilitation payments, a means of getting the company's voice heard on obtaining permits, or whether they really were bribes to government officials.

The Walmart internal report describes the payments as follows: "They targeted mayors and city council members, obscure urban planners, low-level bureaucrats who issued permits-anyone with the power to thwart Walmart's growth. The bribes, he said, bought zoning approvals, reductions in environmental impact fees and the allegiance of neighborhood leaders." How the funds were used and to whom they were paid and in exchange for what will be critical in determining whether there was a violation of the FCPA.

One example illustrates the efforts the company made for expansion in Mexico. Walmart wanted to build a new store in Elda Pineda's alfalfa field, located just one mile from the Mayan ruins that draw tourists from around the world. The estimated activity of the store was 250 customers per hour, if the location in the alfalfa field could be approved by the city council in San Juan Teotihuacán, Mexico.

However, the city council members wanted to limit commercial development near the ruins in order to preserve the area. As a result, the city's zoning map that was approved by the city council prohibited commercial development in the alfalfa field. The zoning map would take effect once it was published in the newspaper.

Walmart officials in Mexico City paid $52,000 to a city official to redraw the zoning area on the map prior to publication. The map that was published included the alfalfa field as part of the area zoned for commercial development. The store's construction began a few months later and opened for business in time for Christmas 2004.

Walmart's general counsel had been pushing for a policy of "no payments to government officials," regardless of the reason. However, Walmart executives in Mexico were using gestores, a type of unofficial lobbyist who is able to get through to local government officials and who takes a 6 percent commission for winning an expedited permit for the company's new stores. There was benefit in Walmart self-reporting the issue. However, the delay could prove costly once the government has its arms around the case and what exactly was paid, to whom, and why.

Discussion Starters

1. Why do we worry about these types of payments if the result is more jobs for those in Mexico?

2. Why does it make a difference whether the payments were bribe or "grease"/facilitation payments?

3. Why was general counsel pushing for a "no payments to government officials" policy?

4. Subsequent to the discovery of the payments in Mexico, issues about Walmart behaviors in India emerged.

A business consultant there said that the payments result because it is so difficult to open businesses in India and that "All of these conditions have only made India a poorer country." Do the restrictions or the bribery hurt the country's economy more?