Register now or log in to join your professional community.
In case of high value procurement deals, some sellers have set aside a fix amount to be doled out to buyers in their individual capacity. This is done after the deal is executed and apparently has no effect on the decision making. Some people in Procurement Profession consider this as perk, and feel that such receipts do not violate ethical boundaries.
How do you feel about this?
Of course it is not possible, it will effect what comes later like delivery, shipment, and payments after that.
Thank you for inviting me to the discussion.
The situation you have described compromises one ethical standpoint namely, Objectivity. The person in charge will have a motive to rule in favor of this particular supplier even when alternate suppliers may equally qualify.
It can only be acceptable where the supplier in question is the only qualifier on technical criteria and others are rejected for not meeting the same.
There are principals , I would prefer the question that asking about the buyer behavior in such case rather than how do I feeling
:)
I also have questioned, these type of procedures and found managers are more prone to corruption. Giving orders to purchase from this vendor, since it is to be added into his performance review how much he has saved the company that year.
I have found vendors which offer this are not the most honest and reliable vendors; I found these vendors more expensive and had more problems reconciling PO's with Bills.....
I think at the end it was more costly to the company than the saving.
Not everything that is legal is ethical or for the best interest of a company.
Accepting such a "perk" is not only unethical according to purchasing ethics but also put the purchasing prof. in deep s#@$
In such a case there is no objectivity (totally agree with Ms. Nazneen Akram ) and it's a bait that influences your decision.
But it's well known that right after the "carrot" comes the "whip"!
How are you going to handle issues will come up later for shipments, scheduling, damages, wastages etc if you have pledged yourself this way?
Even worse, if a major issue pops-up, how are you going to change / replace this vendor without effecting your career?
Here applies the saying: "easy come - easy go"
Don't even post such a topic dear. Don't even think about such a trap!
Many thanks for nice explanation of question in the footnote. From ethical point of view, the procurement professional should not accept commission form the seller in any circumstances. If someone accepts, he is sold out, his honesty and integrity becomes questionable and he will not be able make impartial decision later on
I believe often we have heard about conflict of interest in procurement life cycle. The conflict of interest forces us to state any financial considerations that may affect or appear to affect the objectivity or fairness of an individual.
We don't want any individual to be part of the procurement process where transparency or fairness of the process is being compromised. From the supplier perspective they don't want a procurement folk whom they can influence for some dollars and procurement is about being fair and follow the rules.
Be very careful with this, I agree with all previous answers. Some cultures may acknowledge payment for services rendered but generally it is frowned upon and should be avoided.
