The ways in which companies seek to influence the direction
and content of public policy is a central issue of business ethics. In
the bad old days, some were known to plot the overthrow of governments
they did not like. That is frowned upon today. But Adam Smith’s dictum
that ‘men of the same profession never gather together except to
conspire against the general public’ still rings true.
Now
Co-operative Financial Services has shone a torch into this dark corner
by disclosing details of how it has sought to influence policymakers in
Whitehall and Brussels (see page one).
The revelations are not exactly earth-shattering. Many of its exertions
relate to the sort of right-on issues the bank and insurance group has
long successfully used to attract and retain customers. It wants less
animal testing, more recycling and cleaner energy. Other disclosures
are predictable in a different way: no insurer is in favour of climate
change or of uninsured drivers who push up the premiums for law-abiding
road users. And its lobbying for a parliamentary debate on mandatory
corporate non-financial reporting could be viewed as an attempt to
level the costs playing field – for a relatively small organization,
CFS devotes considerable resources to this work.
Moreover, CFS is fortunate in being able to disclose lobbying
activities that do not conflict with – indeed support – its image and
commercial objectives. Other companies may find it harder to reveal
what they do and say behind the scenes, and fewer synergies between
marketing and public affairs.
But it is easy to snipe. CFS
has done the entire big business world a favour. Once again, it has
pioneered an area of non-financial reporting and so thrown down the
gauntlet to other companies. Crucially, it has shown that while there
is a good case for developing a protocol to guide reporting on public
policy disclosure, companies do not need to waste time waiting for one
to be drawn up. Much better, where practical, simply to get on with it
and learn by experience.
CFS, of course, has done the easy
bit. Problems remain. Assurance is one: some forms of influencing will
be hard, if not impossible, to verify. Where the limits of legitimate
representation of corporate interests lie is another. The devil is
invariably in the detail. Perhaps greater openness is all one can ask
for.
Companies are suspected of saying one thing and doing
another. For as long as their lobbying is conducted behind closed
doors, there is that smell. Fresh air à la CFS is the only answer.
