It's a little curious they wouldn't choose to buy panels from a company they own.... don't you think?

First Solar has acted as an engineering, procurement and construction (EPC) firm for large ground-mounted solar farms, but they have never been in the rooftop solar installation business like SolarCity.

First Solar's panels would also be an unusual choice for a rooftop installation even if a different installer handled the work. Rooftop solar installations typically call for high efficiency panels. First Solar makes lower efficiency, lower cost panels that maintain performance at elevated temperatures. Their panels are good for solar farms, particularly in hot climates. They don't have anything special to recommend their use in rooftop projects.

except catching any CdTe runoff in gutter traps

Blatant nepotism and self dealing might be normal at WeWork and Tesla but some companies do have better corporate governance.

Yeah Walmart is really a bastion of moral integrity in corporate America

Compared to your average SV outfit like Tesla? It most likely is.

You said, with zero evidence to back it up. Unsubstantiated anti-Musk astroturfing is really tired and boring

Evidence of what? Of Saint Elon calling people pedophiles because they laughed at his harebrained ideas? Of Teslaclaiming to have the world's safest vehicles when between Musk's marketing and serious product deficiencies they quite literally kill people? Of and Musk personally being regularly found making fraudulent statements? And so on and so forth. I didn't realize than I need to provide backing evidence that water is wet. But Tesla's PR troll brigade would just say that it is the shorts' conspiracy anyway, because Saint Elon says water is solid, and so it is.

Examples of where it’s not, in comparison to other similar companies?

Walmart’s “controversy and criticism” section on Wikipedia links to its own page (which I’ve never seen before): https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_Walmart

> Criticisms include charges of racial and gender discrimination,[1][2][3] foreign product sourcing, treatment of product suppliers, environmental practices,[4] the use of public subsidies, and the company's spying on its employees.[5]

Despite having a high average quality, wikipedia is a very dangerous source for anything controversial. And in particular, using the existence of a criticism page to infer anything at all is ill-advised.

Many SV companies, and certainly tons of corporate America are subject to the same (or worse) criticisms.

Not at all. Obviously more to it but these are the 2 main reasons I see;

1) Walmart would have a procurement department. These guys probaly have no idea of the likely 1000's of investment companies the Walton family own.

2) As a listed company, Walmart procurement would contact jobs like this to the best offer, not to seperate companies that happen to be owned by shareholders.

Honestly not really.

seems unlikely that the issue would've risen to the level of walmart's board, so they might not have even heard about.