Supplier Agreement Code Of Conduct Overkill?

[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.