If you seek a five forces analysis of Wal-Mart, please try this page.

Appearing in today's New York Times is an article by Michael Barbaro and Stephanie Strom entitled "Wal-Mart Find's an Ally in Conservatives." My first reaction upon reading the title was "This is surprising why, exactly?" But as I read further I realized a rather important point is being made, one about the possible relationship between donations made by philanthropic foundations and the research produced, the opinion pieces written, and the policy positions taken by groups that receive them.

As Wal-Mart Stores struggles to rebut criticism from unions and Democratic leaders, the company has discovered a reliable ally: prominent conservative research groups like the American Enterprise Institute, the Heritage Foundation and the Manhattan Institute.

Top policy analysts at these groups have written newspaper opinion pieces around the country supporting Wal-Mart, defended the company in interviews with reporters and testified on its behalf before government committees in Washington.

But the groups — and their employees — have consistently failed to disclose a tie to the giant discount retailer: financing from the Walton Family Foundation, which is run by the Wal-Mart founder Sam Walton’s three children, who have a controlling stake in the company.

That the Times picks Wal-Mart, the Walton Family Foundation, and "prominent conservative research groups" to make its point is not surprising. But to their credit, in an effort to provide some semblance of balance, just six paragraphs in the authors do mention that "liberal policy groups receive significant financing from unions and left-leaning organizations without disclosing their financing."

What I did find surprising is what I found myself saying next: I fundamentally agree with the authors about the importance of the questions they raise about disclosure. But I do have one major concern, too. Before stating it, let me begin by saying that disclosure of conflicts of interest and monetary relationships is a good thing- for all concerned, be that bloggers, columnists, academics, and professional analysts, and private researchers. But as the article makes clear, disclosure doesn't always happen. There can be several legitimate reasons why.

In the article we are told that at times individuals advocating one position or another don't always know the sources of funding of the organization for which they work. At other times, they might not think that making financial or other ties known is relevant or they may not believe donations had any influence on their thinking. Sometimes the foundations that give the money place no expectation on the recipient to disclose. All good and well.

My concern about the article is one about what our priors ought to be. That is to say, in the absence of disclosure about financial and, perhaps, ideological ties, what should we assume about the position taken by a researcher, columnist, or policy wonk? I don't mean what should we assume about the existence of ties and relationships, I mean what should we assume about the merits of the argument. The passage below makes me think that the authors view lack of disclosure as a mark against a position, as discrediting it:

The lack of a clear quid pro quo between research groups and corporations like Wal-Mart makes the issue murky, said Diana Aviv, chief executive of the Independent Sector, a trade organization representing nonprofits and foundations. “I don’t know how one proves what’s the chicken and what’s the egg,” she said.

And what I don't know is whether or not this is the most important issue. If I worry about anything in this article it is the idea that relationships between research groups and corporations are an acceptable proxy for the quality of the research or the validity of the arguments advanced. To my mind, the best use of time for Wal-Mart critics, and defenders too for that matter, is to focus less on who sponsored what research and focus more on what is actually said.

Neither side should attempt to discredit research that they don't like because it was funded by an organization hostile to their own aims or agendas. Rather, arguments should be assessed on their merits; data, sources, and methods should be scrutinized; alternative theories and explanations should be advanced; limitations of the research should be acknowledged; questions still in need of objective answers should be clearly articulated...and then the process should begin again.

And speaking of disclosure, here's mine:

Disclosure: Many bloggers get email from Wal-Mart's PR firm, Edelman, about articles and blog posts written about Wal-Mart. I found out about the Barbaro and Strom article by way of an email message sent directly to me by Edelman earlier today. My doctoral thesis at Duke University's Fuqua School of Business focussed on economic and organizational impacts of retail information systems. While there my thesis advisor and I did once meet over lunch with Wal-Mart's Chief People Officer and some other members of the organization working in the logistics function. I never did, however, receive any funding from Wal-Mart or any other retailer for my research. Here's a link to one research paper I published about stock market reactions to announcements by major retailers about the retailer's investments in information systems and technologies. Warning: don't operate heavy machinery for at least 3 hours after reading it.

File Under: Wal-Mart