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.