As much as I like the University of Texas as they are my parent’s alma mater and I live in the same city as the great university, I can’t stand the invalidation of a sense of ethical behavior. UT’s Student Financial Services’ Office, as reported in today’s The Daily Texan Online seems to be under just that level of scrutiny right now as they have seemingly given preferrential treatment to those lenders who show “strong presence” in their office, especial through gifts and “treats”.
Everyone tends to give gifts to companies that they do business with to develop a relationship with the company. The thing is, though, while it is a great marketing tool, it can be viewed with improprieties or being unethical if it is much more than taking cookies to all the employees occasionally to build awareness of their own services that they offer. It is a marketing tactic that companies often use to set themselves apart from the other companies that might be vying for presence and usuability of their own services. Just a part of doing business.
However, when things are gone overboard – trips, gifts, happy hours, and such are given – and the influence of these gifts influences the companies to give special treatment or ranking of a vendor based on those “treats” then it becomes a bit unethical.
It is often the topic of much heated debates in business, law, and ethic classes all over the world. Consumables are almost accepted (cookies, donuts, tacos, etc.) practice while others are not. The difference is often in the value of the gift and not singled out to any one person who has the power and influence to make decisions on vendor usuage or a ranking thereof.
Now. Just how confusing does that sound??? Doesn’t it sound like they allowed themselves a little bit of breathing room for allowing exceptions in accordance with those “permitted in the Rules of the respective chamber”?
While I have seen an absolute definition that can be applied to all, I have yet to see companies try to lobby for a spot in other business to do business with them without providing some sort of gimick to draw brand name identity and recognition for their goods or services. If they are not able to provide certain gifts, I am sure that there will always be that weasel who figures out a loop hole of some sort that makes their gift perfectly acceptable, even if it is just in the best interest of the company to be able to market themselves. After all, free commerce is based on the appeals of being able to market freely their goods or services — right???
Where should the line be drawn? Any ideas????