>> cavalier treatment of suppliers undoes relationship-building
The fragile state of some buyer:supplier relationships has emerged as one of our key editorial themes so far this year. Hardly surprising, perhaps, given some of the issues we have been uncovering, debating and analysing in recent weeks - and, of course, publication of the OFT’s delayed report into the supermarkets code of practice.
Once again you will find plenty of coverage of these issues in our news and features pages. Meanwhile, in our Saturday Essay spot, guest columnist Lib-Dem agriculture spokesman Andrew George gives the OFT a bashing for not having the stomach to act. It is, he says, a toothless, academic institution. Ouch.
You will no doubt have your own thoughts regarding the efficacy of the OFT. But as you digest our latest coverage of its report into the code, I hope you will not overlook the fact that in this week’s issue we also take time to remind ourselves that not all relationships are grim and not everything goes wrong. First, on page 17, we have our monthly Six of the Best feature, where suppliers identify the most respected buyers in their category. And then, on page 39, we reveal the own label suppliers that buyers think are, quite literally, the best in the business.
These features demonstrate that even in our tough trading climate there is still plenty of trust and mutual respect out there. That’s important, because these are surely the key features of the many successful trading relationships that exist. And yet…
Reading the detail of the OFT report, one of the disturbing things I spotted was how many times auditors PKF unearthed evidence of suppliers complaining of contracts being terminated at short notice - usually following what are dubbed ‘tender exercises’. It’s a fact of life, I guess, and not covered by the code per se. But I counted nine such examples and, given the limited scope of the PKF audit, that feels uncomfortably high.
For ‘tender exercises’ I am guessing that PKF has actually spotted the aftermath of online auctions - that most controversial of buying tools. So,perhaps the OFT report has given us an indication, albeit inadvertently, of the scale of these auctions and the impact they are having on suppliers.
And it made me think. Breaking up a relationship is never easy. But if it has to be done, surely your suppliers deserve to be treated with a bit more respect than seems to be happening?
Breaking up is never easy
The fragile state of some buyer:supplier relationships has emerged as one of our key editorial themes so far this year. Hardly surprising, perhaps, given some of the issues we have been uncovering, debating and analysing in recent weeks - and, of course, publication of the OFT’s delayed report into the supermarkets code of practice.
Once again you will find plenty of coverage of these issues in our news and features pages. Meanwhile, in our Saturday Essay spot, guest columnist Lib-Dem agriculture spokesman Andrew George gives the OFT a bashing for not having the stomach to act. It is, he says, a toothless, academic institution. Ouch.
You will no doubt have your own thoughts regarding the efficacy of the OFT. But as you digest our latest coverage of its report into the code, I hope you will not overlook the fact that in this week’s issue we also take time to remind ourselves that not all relationships are grim and not everything goes wrong. First, on page 17, we have our monthly Six of the Best feature, where suppliers identify the most respected buyers in their category. And then, on page 39, we reveal the own label suppliers that buyers think are, quite literally, the best in the business.
These features demonstrate that even in our tough trading climate there is still plenty of trust and mutual respect out there. That’s important, because these are surely the key features of the many successful trading relationships that exist. And yet…
Reading the detail of the OFT report, one of the disturbing things I spotted was how many times auditors PKF unearthed evidence of suppliers complaining of contracts being terminated at short notice - usually following what are dubbed ‘tender exercises’. It’s a fact of life, I guess, and not covered by the code per se. But I counted nine such examples and, given the limited scope of the PKF audit, that feels uncomfortably high.
For ‘tender exercises’ I am guessing that PKF has actually spotted the aftermath of online auctions - that most controversial of buying tools. So,perhaps the OFT report has given us an indication, albeit inadvertently, of the scale of these auctions and the impact they are having on suppliers.
And it made me think. Breaking up a relationship is never easy. But if it has to be done, surely your suppliers deserve to be treated with a bit more respect than seems to be happening?
Breaking up is never easy
No comments yet