8 replies to this topic

[Pineriver]

How many of you make suppliers actually sign a code of conduct?   vs. send out the code of conduct with a statement like "We thank you for your valued partnership and your cooperation in this matter.  Your continued sale of products shall constitute agreement with this Code of Conduct."   and not require signatures.  

[MDaleDDF]

I probably won't be popular for my response, but I don't send such a thing to anyone, and I don't sign one either.   Our conduct in this building is none of their business past food safety.   

[TimG]

I don't make suppliers sign a code of conduct, no. When requested of me, I typically send a statement I already have that we follow all rules and regulations of the good ole US of A and then list out it applies to requirements of FDA/USDA/Labor.

 

HOWEVER, we sell to some very big fellas who DO require very specific audits and documents be signed (my predecessor called them the SJW crap). Those get handled by the sales manager of the customer.

[SQFconsultant]

We require anti-Corruption, anti-fraud statements to be read, understood and signed by primary principals in the supplier company as well as sales reps in the target companies or we don't do business with them.

[acarver]

Pineriver, you have given me food for thought. I got an NC on a recent audit because I did not have supplier code of conduct for ALL suppliers, just those involved with the specific products that are covered in the certification of the audit. (Not lying, I think it's ridiculous. Just like TimG said, all my suppliers would presumably follow rules of the good ole US of A!) I've come up with something that covers the bases as generically as possible, but would love for it to be a statement rather than a document that they have to sign and return...going to have to revisit the code for clarification on the requirement before I send it out. 

 

*I do sign one for a large customer who receives said products under same certification, but they are the only ones. Curiously, theirs is VERY specific.

[GMO]

Not sure if this is a tangent or not.

 

But we have SEDEX / SMETA ethical audits a lot in the UK and things like the modern slavery act puts more ethical transparency requirements onto suppliers wherever they are in your supply chain. So depending on where your customer is, they may have a different view on what is needed for code of conduct.

 

I went to a sit though who were struggling after a recent audit. You would not believe the lack of due diligence this (large) company had not done with their suppliers and how little knowledge there was in the procurement team about ethics. What was the problem? Not a random supplier half way across the world but on site contractors. Security, agency staff, cleaning / sanitation, canteen staff. Working beyond the working time directive in the UK (48 hours not including breaks), paying no overtime, not paying according to contracts, making staff pay for workwear etc.

 

It was the suppliers that the client didn't see as suppliers in the traditional sense who were the problem.

 

All those contracts procurement were slapping each other on the back for because they were cheap weren't so cheap when they had to increase staff pay. Couldn't have been more pleased to be the one to force that to happen if I'm honest.

 

Anyway, my point being that "code of conduct" is as long as it is wide and vastly depends on your customer base, the markets you're supplying to etc. I would be super clear what you're expecting someone to sign up to both for the signatory and the procurement team (who should, after all, be the ones driving this not you). Because if the procurement team don't know the ethical, legal and moral requirements of your business, they'll pop some work out to Bob who lives down the road who'll employ a few kids to do the landscaping...  (I jest but also I've actually seen that happen.)

[GMO]

Oh and on the not signing?

 

Funny story. There is a tiny village in the UK which is twinned with Paris. As in Paris, France.

 

Back after the second world war, there was a thing where villages and towns across Europe started to be "twinned" to promote European relations (so we didn't carry on the next 100 years fighting like cats in a sack like we had for most of our history prior to that point.)

 

Some likely lads from Whitwell sent a message to then Mayor of Paris - and future French President - Jacques Chirac, saying that if he did not reply, they would assume the city accepted their offer.

 

As there was no reply, they assumed it was accepted. The inhabitants of Paris have no idea I assume they are twinned with a village in our smallest county in England. But it's all just a bit of a laugh. European elections 2019: The village (sort of) twinned with Paris - BBC News

 

The point of my long and possibly boring tangent (again, I apologise) is telling someone "you've got this, therefore you agree to it" is, excuse my language, a bit of a d*** move. It doesn't actually prove they're following your code of conduct, it's just a tick in the box. IMO ask them to sign it and use leverage from procurement to make that happen. If it's important to you and not just a tickbox. Or, more simply, build this into the initial contracts that you sign with suppliers meaning it's all part of that initial agreement (or when the agreement is renewed).

Edited by GMO, Today, 04:08 PM.

[jfrey123]

We have one, along with a social accountability questionnaire.  Both require signatures.  I don't think the "by selling to us, you agree to all of our rules" holds any water legally or for audit compliance.  Hell, we even include language to say "By signing you confirm you have authority to bind your company to this agreement" because our lawyer says a signed agreement is worthless if it's not signed by someone with such authority to make the agreements.  So just by sending a CoC to a QA team at your supplier's office doesn't mean the proper personnel are aware of the agreements.

 

Now on the side discussion discussing CoC's in general: they're just a checkbox on my spreadsheet, but they came about because of retailers demanding that we extend their social accountability requirements down past us in their supply chain.  Traceability is becoming a bigger and bigger issue to them: seems as if they're well on their way to asking what farm grew the wheat that our supplier used to make crackers that we put in a snack tray.

[TimG]

I mean, it's probably not a bad idea to get something from suppliers or you could end up like Tyson.. GRAPHIC: Tyson Foods under investigation for employing minors amid surge in US child labor violations - Investigate Midwest They took a hit I'm sure when it came out kids were cleaning their meatpacking plants which they then pushed all responsibility off to the sanitation company for.

 

In 2022, the DOL fined a sanitation company more than a million dollars for employing over 100 children some as young as 13 years old, to clean meatpacking at Tyson, JBS, Cargill and other plants across eight states.

 

Although, more than a million? Kind of a slap on the wrist, IMO.