Relationships with customers and suppliers

1. Regulatory Concept & Core Standards

This video's topic is relationships with customers and suppliers. By the end, you should be able to apply impartiality and transparency in external relationships. We will connect the information available, the criterion guiding the decision and the action that must be recorded. Follow the case and compare your answer with the proposed response. A code turns principles into usable decisions. It does not replace law or authorise prohibited conduct. Public entities must also check ZIntPK and special rules; private policies may have a different scope.

Professional relationships must preserve decision criteria and avoid improper advantages. Commercial pressure may appear as urgency, a personal favour or future business. The code helps identify when a relationship exceeds acceptable limits. Cordial interaction is not inherently improper, but context and rules matter.

Apply the following rule: Entities with an internal-route duty and external authorities report previous-year statistics to KPK by 1 March; this does not mean sending every identified case. The ZIntPK integrity plan has a different group of obliged entities. Current KPK guidelines apply from 1 January 2025, with reporting on implementation by 5 June. Portugal’s RGPC is not Slovenian law. Recommended organisational measures are not automatically universal legal duties.

2. Practical Implementation & Procedure

Use approved criteria and preserve relevant decision information. Refer exception requests to authorised people. Declare relationships or interests that may influence your actions. Avoid promises about outcomes requiring independent assessment. If an improper proposal arises, refuse or pause according to procedure and record what is necessary. Before moving on, turn this procedure into a sequence you could explain to a colleague. Identify the first check, the action that depends on its outcome and the record that allows the decision to be reconstructed. Follow the sequence on screen and identify the point where an error would change the result.

3. Case Study & Compliance Action

A longstanding partner submits a late bid and expects acceptance because of the relationship. The team assesses applicable rules rather than familiarity. Now read the case carefully. Separate established facts from information you would still need to confirm. Do not add motives or events that have not been described. This distinction matters when choosing a response proportionate to the information available.

The exercise is as follows: Is supplier loyalty enough to justify an exception? Choose an answer and write one sentence explaining it. During the pause, compare your choice with the criteria we have just considered. Also think about the material you would retain to explain the decision later.

No. A permitted basis and fair assessment are needed. An internal signature cannot authorise a prohibited exception.

One mistake to avoid is: turning personal trust into an exemption from controls.

Now apply the national rule to a second decision. The team describes every prevention measure as mandatory in every organisation. How should the explanation change?

Separate the specific duty and its obliged entities from recommended practice. Integrity plans, conflicts and public procurement have their own scope. Portugal’s RGPC does not transfer automatically. For a recommended control, identify risk, owner and evidence of effectiveness.