In the obscure digital labyrinth of my corporate benefits system, there exists an opportunity to subsidise the purchase of a pair of shoes. All very good. All very dull. What is far from dull, however, is the veto list.

Clogs need not apply

A quick perusal of the list of shoes and their status is not only hilarious, but also whiffs of a certain social engineering inclination in the Swedish corporate psyche.

Banned are such innocent delights as crocs, espadrilles (unforgivable), flipflops, galoshes, clogs and moccasins. A more humble, workaday and egalitarian set of shoes could hardly be imagined.

Then there are the cryptic ones. Why are pumps banned, but sneakers approved? Why are ballerina shoes banned, but sailing shoes, golf shoes, even ski boots allowed?

Puritanical shoes

While slippers are barred, roller blades are ok. And this points to a wider wholesome trend. There is a ruddy-faced gusto to the acceptance of everything from hiking shoes and ‘desert shoes’ to snowboard boots and riding boots.

Yet elsewhere, the heel comes in for stern attention. In fact, it is frowned upon so hard as to smell of sinfulness. Platform shoes, banned. Boots, approved, but only, the coda specifies, if they are low-heeled.

And of course, the dark satanic queen of shoes: the stiletto. What of its fate? I hardly need to tell you, do I? Wear them if you dare, but don’t expect a corporate staff subsidy for such depravity.

Feeling peckish? How about a traditional Swedish hot dog?