Analyzing Business Ethics: The Walmart Mexico Bribery Scandal

This case study delves into the allegations of bribery faced by Walmart, specifically focusing on the Walmart De Mexico scandal and the company's subsequent handling of the situation. It examines the ethical implications of bribery in business, the efficacy of Walmart's initial and later responses to the allegations, and the advice that an outside consultant might offer regarding ethical issues. The analysis contrasts the initial denial with later admissions, highlighting the fabrication of information and shifting of the burden of proof. It also explores what Walmart's management could have done differently, commenting on the 'case closed' aspect and the lessons learned from the scandal, ultimately concluding that the different responses over time indicate a cover-up and demonstrate the consequences of unethical commercial conduct. Desklib provides a platform for students to access similar case studies and solved assignments for academic assistance.

Running head: BUSINESS ETHICS
BUSINESS ETHICS
Name of the Student
Name of the University
Author Note

1BUSINESS ETHICS
Question 1
Bribery is the unwarranted offering of a particular advantage, benefit or remuneration in
exchange for a favor which is not specifically due to the party soliciting the same. Bribery is
considered illegal in a majority of jurisdictions within the same. The legality of it being of
secondary importance, the act of bribery is wholly unethical and thus using the same in business
transactions would not be an acceptable practice. According to the sources quoted in the article
the acts of Wall Mart De Mexico, which involved obtaining various building permits around the
country in order to gain a competitive advantage in the market through bribery would be
chastised in the global community however since the top level management of the company was
involved they ensured that the same would not be disclosed in the public domain (Church, 2014).
Such an anti-competitive act however is absolutely unethical and warrants legal repercussions.
Question 2
At the initial stage of the investigation Wall Mart, the parent company, had denied all
claims of such an act. Mr. Smith being a member of the highest tier of organizational hierarchy
admitted the allegations to a certain extent but had also stated that the highest levels of the
organization were not involved in such an act. The evidence before us contradicts these
contentions and displays that such high amounts of bribes could not have been sanctioned by the
company unless the higher tiers of the organization were involved (Mboga, 2017). Thus Wall
Mart’s first response was wholly fabricated and its secondary stand shows admission of guilt
however it does not fully elaborate on the people from the management involved in the same.

2BUSINESS ETHICS
Question 3
In a case where the evidence strongly suggests that the allegations are true, avoiding a
legal battle through fabricated contentions would not be upheld in court. This is more prevalent
when investigative efforts are being initiated by the authorities to reach an amicable conclusion
to the issue (Morillo, McNally & Block, 2015). In such a case, the Wall Mart’s ideal stand would
be to acknowledge guilt in case of the allegations which are clearly easy to establish.
Question 4
The easiest way to circumvent controversy, when such claims and supporting evidence
has already been brought into the public domain would be identify the members of the
management conspicuously involved in the controversy and to inform the authorities of the
same. This would be the ideal ethical approach.
Question 5
The case has been deemed to be closed as no supporting evidence of conspicuous
involvement with the bribery scandal has been established. However the former employee and
the evidence provided by him provides clarity on the matter that Wall Mart De Mexico was
definitely involved in the scandal (Heineman Jr, 2014).
Question 6
The different responses at different points of time establish an inclination to fabricate
information and shift the burden of proof on the parties alleging the same. This is a clear

3BUSINESS ETHICS
indication of guilt and it shows that Wall Mart was in fact involved in covering up the bribery
scandal. This resultantly establishes the consequences of unethical commercial conduct.

4BUSINESS ETHICS
Reference list
Church, N. F. (2014). Impact of culture on retail industry compliance. Journal of Business and
Retail Management Research, 9(1).
Heineman Jr, B. W. (2014). Who’s Responsible for the Walmart Mexico Scandal?. Harvard
Business Review.
Mboga, J. (2017). ORGANIZATIONAL ETHICS: MILLENNIAL VIEWS ON BRIBERY AND
CONDUCTING BUSINESS IN EMERGING MARKETS. European Journal of
Economic and Financial Research.
Morillo, J., McNally, C., & Block, W. E. (2015). The Real W almart. Business and Society
Review, 120(3), 385-408.