Supplier Agreement Code Of Conduct Overkill?

[EEVblog]

I've got to sign a supplier agreement (me being the supplier) for a company who shall remain nameless.

These are a few of the gems from it:

We select and promote our people on the basis of their merit and qualifications, without discrimination or concern for religion, race, colour, national origin, age or disability, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity or expression;
You affirm that you have similar policies in place.

We believe that a workplace should be civilised and safe; we will not tolerate discrimination, sexual harassment, or offensive behaviour of any kind, which includes the persistent demeaning of individuals through words or actions, the distribution or display of offensive material, or the use or possession of weapons on our or client premises
You affirm that you have similar policies in place. and that you will respect our workplace and people as described.

We will not tolerate the use, distribution or possession of illegal drugs, or our people reporting for work under the influence of drugs or alcohol;
You affirm that you have similar policies in place and that you will respect our workplace and people as described.

We will not knowingly create work which contains statements, suggestions or images offensive to general public decency and will give appropriate consideration to the impact of our work on minority segments of the population, whether that minority be by race, religion, national origin, colour, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity or expression, age or disability;
Wherever relevant, you confirm that you have equivalent standards for your work.

We will not undertake work which is intended or designed to mislead, including in relation to social, environmental and human rights issues;
Wherever relevant, You affirm that you have similar policies in place.

We will not give, offer or accept bribes, whether in cash or otherwise, to or from any third party, including but not restricted to government officials, clients and brokers or their representatives. We will collectively ensure that all staff understand this policy through training, communication and by example;
This applies directly to you.

We will not offer any items of personal inducement to secure business. This is not intended to prohibit appropriate entertainment or the making of occasional gifts of minor value unless the client has a policy which restricts this;
This applies directly to you.

We will not accept for our personal benefit goods or services of more than nominal value from suppliers, potential suppliers or other third parties;
This applies directly to you.

We will not have any personal or family conflicts of interest within our businesses or with our suppliers or other third parties with whom we do business;
You affirm that you have similar policies in place.

No corporate contributions of any kind, including the provision of services or materials for less than the market value, may be made to politicians, political parties or action committees, without the prior written approval of our board;
You should have your own policy regarding such contributions, together with appropriate authorisation procedures.

We will continue to strive to make a positive contribution to society and the environment by: maintaining high standards of marketing ethics; respecting human rights; respecting the environment; supporting community organisations; supporting employee development; and managing significant corporate responsibility risks in our supply chain.
You affirm that you have similar policies in place.

Well, yeah, ok, I'm all for that stuff, but I can't help but think PISS OFF!

Anyone else seen one of these kinds of things before?

[Richard Crowley]

Those seem reasonable if it is for YOUR OWN company. 
But requiring them for external suppliers seems way over the top.
Please tell us this isn't some mainstream electronics entity.

[EEVblog]

Please tell us this isn't some mainstream electronics entity.

No, it's not.

[IanB]

Seems like someone's trying to change the world all by themselves...

They are telling you that your principles may not be good enough, so you'd better sign up to theirs.

I can understand why you might want to tell them to piss off.

[jancumps]

Suppliers and consultants that work with my employer have to do the same.
As employee, I go through a code of conduct re-training and certification every year.

[G7PSK]

From the way it reads I would think that this is a media company and nothing to do directly with hardware. Its the sort of BS they go in for on there contract documentation then don't bother with complying themselves.

[sunnyhighway]

I'm asked to sing this kind of stuff all the time. I'm a software guy working on contract base.
It seems almost company with headquarters in the USA has them.
Most of it is already in the constitutional laws of almost every decent country. (discrimination, sexual harassment, bribes, etc. etc.)

There are probably also some references to other documents. (to which you have to comply also)
Ask for those documents!!!

Scan those documents also for references to other document. Some of them will probably online and can change from day to day.
Again, ask for ALL these documents too.

Eventually you will find some references to documents where you don't have access to because you are not on the payroll.
There will probably also references to webpages or internal phone directories where you can file reports if they are not adhering to their own rules. (some sort of internal ombudsman)

Keep asking for all those documents and access to the online dynamic webpages which are referenced.
Don't sign anything until all of this is done by them.
In the meantime they wil start doing business with you. (money alway seems to be more important.

By the time you have everything, you are probably done doing business with them. 

[tszaboo]

Let me guess. It is a Merikan company.

We will not give, offer or accept bribes, whether in cash or otherwise, to or from any third party, including but not restricted to government officials, clients and brokers or their representatives. We will collectively ensure that all staff understand this policy through training, communication and by example;
This applies directly to you.

We will not offer any items of personal inducement to secure business. This is not intended to prohibit appropriate entertainment or the making of occasional gifts of minor value unless the client has a policy which restricts this;
This applies directly to you.

We will not accept for our personal benefit goods or services of more than nominal value from suppliers, potential suppliers or other third parties;
This applies directly to you.

We will not have any personal or family conflicts of interest within our businesses or with our suppliers or other third parties with whom we do business;
You should have equivalent policies in your organisation.

This is standard procedure is many countries. Why do people feel like they need to force other people/company/community/country to do things their way? Even though this is hardly forcing.

[josem]

It's super easy to find who this is from on the web, global British co. starting with a W... Not sure if you want to keep the terms verbatim, Dave.

You even have to sign junk like this to attend conferences these days. Some people don't know how to behave and every blog is a potential PR nightmare... Hard to believe but I've seen people complaining to companies for not having stuff like this.

But no accessibility policy clause?

[miguelvp]

There are many companies that have those clauses verbatim, on top of the one you mention, there is one that starts with M and another one that starts with L

As well as some academic institutions.

[SirNick]

Suppliers and consultants that work with my employer have to do the same.
As employee, I go through a code of conduct re-training and certification every year.

Same here.  I always assumed it was part of a face-saving plan, where the company can brag that not only are THEY ethical, but they hold their partners to those same standards, because they're all such good people.  Then of course, reality sets in, along with all the usual high-jinks behind closed doors.

[mikeselectricstuff]

Let me guess - PR/advertising dept?
They're just trying to avoid the risk of bad publicity coming back on them.
 Most of it is so wooly & subjective as to be meaningless

and will give appropriate consideration to the impact of our work on minority segments of the population,

I have examined your point, and consider it appropriate to call you dickhead.

[apelly]

a company who shall remain nameless.

Weak, Dave.

Well, yeah, ok, I'm all for that stuff, but I can't help but think PISS OFF!

Yep. Too much HR, not enough substance.

Anyone else seen one of these kinds of things before?

All the time.

As an employee of a consulting company I don't personally have to deal with it, but typically (always) a counter-contract squashes it on the spot.

[mikeselectricstuff]

I think you should make up your own version
e.g.

We will not knowingly create work which contains statements, suggestions or images offensive to general public decency and will give appropriate consideration to the impact of our work on minority segments of the population, whether that minority be by race, religion, national origin, colour, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity or expression, age or disability;
However there are some people who just can't take a joke, and if they get offended, tough titties.

Whilst we do not discriminate on the basis of any particular religion, we will not make any effort to pander to the wishes of anyone who chooses to live their life by archaic rules. It's the 21st Century, deal with it. 

[lewis]

It's all very gag-inducingly PC. It's a shame that in modern society we feel the need to enshrine into a written contract what used to be common sense.

[EEVblog]

The wife (who works in the government) just read it and didn't bat an eyelid, absolutely bog-standard corporate responsibility supplier agreement.

[AndyC_772]

Your definition of "equivalent" may not be equivalent to mine 

[EEVblog]

a company who shall remain nameless.

Weak, Dave.

Why?
It's of no real public interest. I was given this in-confidence and their name will remain so.
Now, if they had a Hobby Lobby type discrimination thing happening then you bet your arse I would have exposed them. Otherwise, no.
But I raise it here out of community interest in such things, to promote discussion, and to see what's normal out there.

[VK5RC]

To me it smells of Government Department, no one else would bothered writing all that BS.
I have to swear to an abbreviated version of that every so often when I log into a Government work data system.
The funniest thing is the bit about intimidation and bullying and I think having to keep on testifying is actually a form of intimidation!
I try to ignore it as it just gets my BP up.

[EEVblog]

It's all very gag-inducingly PC. It's a shame that in modern society we feel the need to enshrine into a written contract what used to be common sense.

This is why we have laws that apply to everyone.
To put this stuff in a private contract (which probably has almost zero validity anyway) is just silly 

[GreyWoolfe]

I'm with jancups.  We go through the training/certification every year.  My company does business strictly on the government (federal/state) level and they have their own code of conduct (cough, cough, ahem) that we have to work in alignment with, though the 2 sets of codes do pretty well line up.  Not sure abou the international contracts as I am too far down the food chain to be involved there.

[tszaboo]

It's all very gag-inducingly PC. It's a shame that in modern society we feel the need to enshrine into a written contract what used to be common sense.

That is what I'm saying. It is not common sense, and this is not the accepted business model around the world. In east europe/russia/middle east/india it is expected to give a substantial present if you get a contract, I even heard percentages for goverment related order (reliable source, winning those orders).
Companies shouldn't have this "I'm on the moral high ground, and I require you to be also" mentality, because there is always a higher ground or a different look.
Next time you look around, and they require equal wage for workers and the CEO, the usage of only recycled materials, or you pay 10 percent to the Jehovah's Witnesses (or equivalent).

[bwat]

That is what I'm saying. It is not common sense, and this is not the accepted business model around the world. In east europe/russia/middle east/india it is expected to give a substantial present if you get a contract, I even heard percentages for goverment related order (reliable source, winning those orders).

Which is why these companies use consultants to "handle" the sales.  If you're being asked to sign the contract then you're probably not being asked to sell directly to these other cultures.

[jridley]

Not allowed to possess weapons on property - the last mailbag might get you in trouble there Dave.

[sleemanj]

Sounds like an advertising supply agreement.  It's stupidly PC and overkill, but fair enough, advertisers paying good money diddly squat for space on a website want to make sure that website isn't going to do stuff that will damage their reputation by association.

Personally I prefer an agreement like "1. don't be a dick; 2. see 1.".

[jay]

These Code of Conduct agreements are nowadays quite common. It's kind of a trend but it also makes sense.

Let's assume a supplier uses monkeys as slave labor for manufacturing components for iPhone and then a reporter finds out that they don't give them any bananas then Apple can at least tell that the supplier had agreed to different policies and they do not condone such treatment of monkeys.

The point in these CoCs is really to tell suppliers that we don't want to deal with suppliers that don't care about such things and also to tell the employees that they shouldn't do certain things. For example, I used to work for a company that had operations on almost every continent. It was more than well known that the business suffered in many countries, because our code of conduct made it clear that lubrication money, gifts or bribes were out of question - even in countries where it's (semi-)legal and a common practice. Many competitors didn't care.. Business first, ethics last.

[KJDS]

I first saw that sort of thing when I worked at Tyco, just after the Cheif Executive got a very long jail sentence and the company was keen to ensure it could show that they were doing all they could to absolve themselves of the actions of any employees behaving in similar ways.

It was so badly drafted that I signed it, but only when they agreed with the four pages of objections I'd raised.

[zapta]

>> Supplier Agreement Code Of Conduct Overkill?

It's just one more aspect of the utopia-at-any-cost that the political left tries to push for years. Around here for example, supermarkets are not allow to give or sell plastic bags with handles.

[pickle9000]

In my experience a supplier agreement means a new and typically long term customer.

[BillyD]

Hah, I googled one of the sentences in the first post and the first 2 results are a company which shall remain nameless and... this thread. 

[G7PSK]

I always work on the principle of if you never offend or upset anyone you never do or get anything done. As they say you cant make an omelet without cracking eggs. also rely on someone somewhere getting offended by something done,said or unsaid.

[Fsck]

Not allowed to possess weapons on property - the last mailbag might get you in trouble there Dave.

the question is, did they define weapon?
otherwise, wouldn't it be in a big fat legal grey area?

[Stonent]

Now, if they had a Hobby Lobby type discrimination thing happening then you bet your arse I would have exposed them.

Discrimination...what?

Asking to be exempted from adding 3 abortifactant drugs to the 17 other contraceptives they already provide is discrimination?

Now to the matter at hand, if you were to accept their agreement, how do they intend to enforce it?

If you were to swear in a video, say "Won Hung Lo", make an unhappy comment about non-atheists, etc would that constitute a breach of contract? You wouldn't last two seconds.

[SeanB]

It's not a weapon, it is a Big Ass letter opener, box trimmer and roof tile edging utensil. That some have used it as a weapon is a sad commentary on modern society, and a terrible injustice to all those poor letter openers who do packing and roof tile trimming as a part of work, who are hobbled by the banning of the tools they need to operate their trade properly.

Then again, that is a pretty boiler plate set of conduct rules, almost invariably printed on any such contract or other communications, and pretty much like any other shrink wrapped EULA. It might be part of a 30 page document, written in 3 point Flyspec font in 18% grey.

Almost universally ignored, and you probably could put Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipisicing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum in there as well and it would also be accepted.

[Stonent]

Not allowed to possess weapons on property - the last mailbag might get you in trouble there Dave.

the question is, did they define weapon?
otherwise, wouldn't it be in a big fat legal grey area?

That's not a weapon!



Here's a weapon!

[abaxas]

Now, if they had a Hobby Lobby type discrimination thing happening then you bet your arse I would have exposed them.

Discrimination...what?

Asking to be exempted from adding 3 abortifactant drugs to the 17 other contraceptives they already provide is discrimination?

Now to the matter at hand, if you were to accept their agreement, how do they intend to enforce it?

If you were to swear in a video, say "Won Hung Lo", make an unhappy comment about non-atheists, etc would that constitute a breach of contract? You wouldn't last two seconds.

Couldn't he just end his videos with 'I think everyone is a cnut'.

Job done.... no discrimination

[cimmo]

Now, if they had a Hobby Lobby type discrimination thing happening then you bet your arse I would have exposed them.

Discrimination...what?

Asking to be exempted from adding 3 abortifactant drugs to the 17 other contraceptives they already provide is discrimination?

Uh oh, I can smell a thread-locking around the corner.

And in answer to your question:
Yes.

[Stonent]

Now, if they had a Hobby Lobby type discrimination thing happening then you bet your arse I would have exposed them.

Discrimination...what?

Asking to be exempted from adding 3 abortifactant drugs to the 17 other contraceptives they already provide is discrimination?

Now to the matter at hand, if you were to accept their agreement, how do they intend to enforce it?

If you were to swear in a video, say "Won Hung Lo", make an unhappy comment about non-atheists, etc would that constitute a breach of contract? You wouldn't last two seconds.

Couldn't he just end his videos with 'I think everyone is a cnut'.

Job done.... no discrimination

Or "I don't discriminate, I hate you all!"

[Stonent]

Now, if they had a Hobby Lobby type discrimination thing happening then you bet your arse I would have exposed them.

Discrimination...what?

Asking to be exempted from adding 3 abortifactant drugs to the 17 other contraceptives they already provide is discrimination?

Uh oh, I can smell a thread-locking around the corner.

And in answer to your question:
Yes.

No, telling an employee they would be fired if the company found out they purchased them with their own money would be discrimination.

[mikeselectricstuff]

All it says is that you have an "equivalent", but doesn't appear to ask for the actual policy
It should easily be arguable that "Equivalent" this covers adaption to local norms, and that of the target demographic.
In terms of ass-covering, it may be worth actually writing a policy, so at least you have something that you can claim is equivalent. This would better match the terms than having no written policy.
Another thing - does the agreement state that the policy must be in force for ever, or only at the time of making the agreement ?
Polices can change 
 

[Stonent]

Besides, how many suppliers in China would fit the criteria of this agreement?

[apelly]

a company who shall remain nameless.

Weak, Dave.

Why?

Because this sort of PC crap annoys me. I do essentially agree with the spirit, but why do you need such a specific document? HR people with too much time on their hands. There is no other reason. Anyway, now they've managed to annoy me by proxy. Cunning.

It's of no real public interest. I was given this in-confidence and their name will remain so.

OK

[chrisbrown]

Everyone is calling this an example of PC gone mad, but let me just toss this out there:

Say a company establishes a long-term agreement with a supplier, with penalties for cancellation. If that supplier is subsequently caught using unethical practices, the company's reputation may come under fire because of that partnership. Should the company be penalized for the supplier's transgressions (be it through cancellation penalties or tarnished image) or should the company have a means of escape in these circumstances? That's what I believe these clauses to be.

[Richard Crowley]

Everyone is calling this an example of PC gone mad, but let me just toss this out there:

Say a company establishes a long-term agreement with a supplier, with penalties for cancellation. If that supplier is subsequently caught using unethical practices, the company's reputation may come under fire because of that partnership. Should the company be penalized for the supplier's transgressions (be it through cancellation penalties or tarnished image) or should the company have a means of escape in these circumstances? That's what I believe these clauses to be.

That's fine, and I don't disagree.  But they could say: "These are our values. We prefer to do business with vendors who share our values, and we reserve the right to terminate our arrangements with you if your actions cast any negative impression of our company."  But I guess lawyers don't talk like that, do they?

[zapta]

Now, if they had a Hobby Lobby type discrimination thing happening then you bet your arse I would have exposed them.

Discrimination...what?

Asking to be exempted from adding 3 abortifactant drugs to the 17 other contraceptives they already provide is discrimination?

It was a bait, don't fall for it.

[aroby]

However asinine and objectionable you may find this, clearly you should not sign it if you cannot comply with the terms.  It becomes a contract and you obviously need to read the rest of the contractual terms that deal with liability, indemnification, breach etc. Last thing you want is one of their customers suing them for some comment you made that falls foul of a set of policies and then they come after you for indemnification

Anthony

[Corporate666]

a company who shall remain nameless.

Weak, Dave.

Why?
It's of no real public interest. I was given this in-confidence and their name will remain so.
Now, if they had a Hobby Lobby type discrimination thing happening then you bet your arse I would have exposed them. Otherwise, no.
But I raise it here out of community interest in such things, to promote discussion, and to see what's normal out there.

Interesting.


I sell through Amazon (not their reseller program, but they stock our stuff).  I sell through Walmart.  I sell through quite a few large home stores in the USA, and I sell through distributors who are billion-dollar companies and have thousands of resellers all across the USA and Canada.... and I've never been presented with such an agreement.

Can you say how large this company is in general terms?  It sounds like the kind of thing (not to name names) Adafruit or something would ask for. ... whereas much larger companies either wouldn't ask or would do some due diligence on your business first and see how you run things for themselves.

[warp_foo]

I've got to sign a supplier agreement (me being the supplier) for a company who shall remain nameless.

These are a few of the gems from it:

We select and promote our people on the basis of their merit and qualifications, without discrimination or concern for religion, race, colour, national origin, age or disability, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity or expression;
You affirm that you have similar policies in place.

We believe that a workplace should be civilised and safe; we will not tolerate discrimination, sexual harassment, or offensive behaviour of any kind, which includes the persistent demeaning of individuals through words or actions, the distribution or display of offensive material, or the use or possession of weapons on our or client premises
You affirm that you have similar policies in place. and that you will respect our workplace and people as described.

We will not tolerate the use, distribution or possession of illegal drugs, or our people reporting for work under the influence of drugs or alcohol;
You affirm that you have similar policies in place and that you will respect our workplace and people as described.

We will not knowingly create work which contains statements, suggestions or images offensive to general public decency and will give appropriate consideration to the impact of our work on minority segments of the population, whether that minority be by race, religion, national origin, colour, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity or expression, age or disability;
Wherever relevant, you confirm that you have equivalent standards for your work.

We will not undertake work which is intended or designed to mislead, including in relation to social, environmental and human rights issues;
Wherever relevant, You affirm that you have similar policies in place.

We will not give, offer or accept bribes, whether in cash or otherwise, to or from any third party, including but not restricted to government officials, clients and brokers or their representatives. We will collectively ensure that all staff understand this policy through training, communication and by example;
This applies directly to you.

We will not offer any items of personal inducement to secure business. This is not intended to prohibit appropriate entertainment or the making of occasional gifts of minor value unless the client has a policy which restricts this;
This applies directly to you.

We will not accept for our personal benefit goods or services of more than nominal value from suppliers, potential suppliers or other third parties;
This applies directly to you.

We will not have any personal or family conflicts of interest within our businesses or with our suppliers or other third parties with whom we do business;
You affirm that you have similar policies in place.

No corporate contributions of any kind, including the provision of services or materials for less than the market value, may be made to politicians, political parties or action committees, without the prior written approval of our board;
You should have your own policy regarding such contributions, together with appropriate authorisation procedures.

We will continue to strive to make a positive contribution to society and the environment by: maintaining high standards of marketing ethics; respecting human rights; respecting the environment; supporting community organisations; supporting employee development; and managing significant corporate responsibility risks in our supply chain.
You affirm that you have similar policies in place.

Well, yeah, ok, I'm all for that stuff, but I can't help but think PISS OFF!

Anyone else seen one of these kinds of things before?

To be honest, this PC stuff is getting out of hand,

At some point, denigrating the snail darter is going to exclude you from bidding on or competing for business...

m

[SirNick]

Can you say how large this company is in general terms?  It sounds like the kind of thing (not to name names) Adafruit or something would ask for. ... whereas much larger companies either wouldn't ask or would do some due diligence on your business first and see how you run things for themselves.

Huh uh.  I work for a small part of a VERY large company.  (You've definitely heard of them.)  We are required to view training videos on this more than once yearly.  It's a giant dog and pony show where they very publicly proclaim that we are the company who's staunchly against ethical violations, totally for including the little guy in their supply chain, and values diversity in the workplace.

I expect it's business-as-usual despite all of this, but the ability to distance themselves from partners who get caught with hands in the cookie jar is no doubt worth all the effort.

Small companies try to change the world.  Large companies learn to play the game.  And nothing has changed since elementary school, where no one will sit by the kid everyone makes fun of, because they don't want to be ridiculed themselves.  Apparently that behavior sticks for life.

[Bored@Work]

Part of this stuff is even coming from 'da laws. Those laws the US is attempting to enforce world-wide. Sarbanes–Oxley is one of them.

Companies put this stuff into their own rulebook for fear of getting into trouble doing business in the US or having problems doing business with a US company. If you then add a bit of PR, a bit of paranoia, and a bit of PC you end up with this stuff.

I have seen one company where they had outsourced the process of becoming a supplier for that company to a compliance agency, because the paperwork was getting too much for the company itself. You had to provide certificates of no child labor, confirmation that you permit union activities, a detailed list of workplace incidents, detailed list of harassment complaints in the last ten years, safety material handling, description of your rat-out-a-colleague (whistleblower) system, etc. The list was going on and on. We had already supplied the goods when we finally got the certificate that we were a certified supplier. We didn't go through the trouble to get recertified every other year and dropped them as a customer.

In Dave's example it is interesting to see that they give their business partners a backdoor, the "equivalent policy" requirement. Of course, this also gives them a excuses to get rid of a supplier at will, claiming his equivalent policy isn't equivalent.

[ejeffrey]

I have seen one company where they had outsourced the process of becoming a supplier for that company to a compliance agency, because the paperwork was getting too much for the company itself. You had to provide certificates of no child labor, confirmation that you permit union activities, a detailed list of workplace incidents, detailed list of harassment complaints in the last ten years, safety material handling, description of your rat-out-a-colleague (whistleblower) system, etc.

The flip side of this is of course that companies use a mutli-level supply chain precisely to avoid responsibility for child labor, slavery, unsafe working conditions, illegal environmental practices, product safety, and so forth.  Outsourcing isn't just about saving money, it is also a way to take a bunch of problems you don't want to worry about and handing it over to someone who won't worry about them for you.

It would be nice if some of these things were solving actual problems, rather than just creating more paperwork, but sadly that does not appear to genuinely be the case.  A few companies may be trying to actually clean up problems in their supply chain, but it is trendy, and it is much easier to copy someone's paperwork than their actual work.

[ConKbot]

The obvious answer is to add a line item to the quote for handling compliance paperwork, billed at 2x the normal rate. 

[Bassman59]

That's not a weapon!
Here's a weapon!

My father is a retired butcher, and several of his knives are bigger and badder than that toy you're brandishing there, Dave. Nobody seems to worry about a butcher walking through a store with what looks like a machete, but if you thought about it for a moment, he's the one guy with whom you do not want to fuck.

[SeanB]

Yes, cheap Chinese steel that will not hold an edge well. will go blunt pretty fast. Looks nice, but not going to cut like a proper knife with a proper edge.

[SirNick]

Seeing that reminded me a little of Final Fantasy VII.

[zapta]

Seeing that reminded me a little of Final Fantasy VII.

Or this

[Stonent]

Seeing that reminded me a little of Final Fantasy VII.

Or this

I see you've played Knifey-Spooney before!

[lewis]

I see you've played Knifey-Spooney before!

Beat me to it!

[allikat]

These guys have dealt with cheapskates across the world before.

Notice how it says that you must have a similar policy in place, but doesn't say anything about upholding or enforcing that policy...
That's how they can deal with ... certain countries that don't actually uphold that sort of thing...