The ethics of taking vendor’s gifts

Another reader has brought up an ethical quandary that most of us who meet with vendors face on a regular basis: the question of whether it’s proper to take gifts or event tickets from vendors even if the amount involved is small. And the related question is whether that changes when the amount of the item is much larger.

The reader had read about individuals at private firms and in public jobs who were taking expensive golf outings and other inducements from vendors. He writes:

“This has caused me to consider whether or not it is ethical if I were to be offered a pair of tickets to a baseball game, or be invited to a golf game. Now I don’t have vendors lined up outside my door with these types of offers, but in the past 14 years, I have probably been to a half dozen ball games, and probably a half dozen golf games. But in ethics, the volume or quantity isn’t always what decides between right and wrong.

“Also, should there be different ethics in how the Public Sector and Private Sector operate?

“What about other ‘prizes’ one can be offered as part of [one’s] job? While at a conference/trade show in San Francisco a few years ago, I dropped off my business card for more product information from a vendor, and this allowed me to qualify for a draw of several prizes. I happened to win a $100.00 travelers check in U.S. funds, which was nice as it worked out to almost $160.00 Canadian.

“The reason for golfing and prizes at a conference is that both actions may have the effect of causing a person to have ‘favorable feelings’ toward a company that they might not have otherwise had. If the ‘favorable feelings’ caused one to consider one product over another, then I think that is wrong. But should we in IT completely avoid the appearance of influence by not accepting invitations to outings, or to accept prizes in a draw, or, by even picking up a neat looking pen on a trade floor?”

I think that some of the issues are easily solved. For many government employees, there’s simply no question. They’re not allowed to take things from vendors — or often other people when they’re on government business — so the matter is settled. That’s pretty much a “zero-tolerance” arrangement, and it sometimes seems silly, although there’s a good reason for it.

Government employees need to be, like Caesar’s wife, “above reproach.” Even the slightest hint of impropriety can cause concern. At the same time, it’s easy for small favors to grow into big ones and raise the issue of corruption. So it’s probably better to err on the side of silliness, rather than take the chance of setting the stage for a scandal.

For everyone else, as far as taking trade show trinkets or throwing your card in a fishbowl to get a prize, it seems that this is a different case altogether. The purpose of these gimmicks is to get you into the booth or to get your name and contact information for a company marketing campaign. I don’t think that anyone believes you’re going to buy $50,000 worth of software because someone gave you a T-shirt. If you do, then your company has much bigger problems than the T-shirt, and so do you.

If you throw your business card into a bowl or box in the hopes of winning a PDA, a camera, or even a $100 travelers check, it doesn’t seem that this is any different than taking a chance in a lottery for which you pay a price. You have given the company something of value for your chance to win the prize. For those in sales and marketing, lists of names, especially of potentially qualified buyers, are worth their weight in gold. For them to walk away from the show with a large contact list is well worth what they pay for the small items they give away.

The bottom line at trade shows is that the T-shirts and giveaways are pretty much available to everyone or to a lot of people. It doesn’t seem that snagging a coffee mug or a pen is going to put you on the path to perdition. However, were someone to offer you — and you alone — a free copy of an expensive software program for your own use, that might put you in a compromising situation.

For those in the private sector, as opposed to government employees, such things as meals, outright gifts, and junkets present a different situation. The give and take of social interaction between vendors and clients — and between vendors and journalists, for that matter — often involves situations in which things offered could be viewed as gifts, and sometimes expensive ones. Many companies have stated policies that limit the value of things an employee may accept.

In most cases employees can’t take an item above a certain dollar figure, but are allowed to accept such amenities as a few drinks or a meal. But even these limits don’t cover the whole landscape.

For example, when someone invites you to play golf at his exclusive club, even though you might pay your own greens fees, the fact remains that you have gained access to something unavailable to other people without their paying large sums of money over and above the greens fees.

Does this constitute a “gift” that may be in excess of your company’s allowance for such things? That’s a hard question to answer. The same goes for dinner at a private club, which is inaccessible to ordinary folk. Even though you may pay for your own dinner, it seems that you’ve received something of value, although it’s hard to calculate just what value.

As in most other things, we find the easy answers at the extremes. Taking large-ticket items as “gifts” compromises your integrity, or at least the appearance of it. Taking a pen or a coffee mug seems fairly innocent. It’s the in-between space that causes the problem. A lot depends on how you value the item and whether you feel obligated to the company that gives it to you. And a lot depends on whether the company feels that you are obligated.

As opposed to the reader with the question, I feel that often the amount involved does change the ethical considerations. A good way to illustrate that is when we want to praise someone. If you were to give $100 to charity, people would say you did a good thing. They would think better of you if you gave $1,000, and even better if you gave $5,000. There’s no reason to believe it doesn’t work the other way too.

It would be easy to say that the best course is to use your own judgment, but unfortunately many have a finely honed ability to be lousy judges when their self interest is involved, which is why impartial and inflexible rules, as silly as they may seem sometimes, have great value.

For those without a strict company policy, a good rule of thumb — although not a solid ethical principle — would be to imagine that you recommended or bought this company’s product and it turned out to be a dud. How would you feel if the items you received came to light? If it were a pen, a mug, or a T-shirt, you could probably still chalk up your decision to bad judgment. However, if you and your spouse got a trip to the Caribbean or a new television set, that task would be much harder.