Do-gooders

If Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) sounds like an oxymoron, then maybe you believe that no company will ever do anything "good" unless it is legally obliged to do so. However, many modern organisations are often prepared to do good things without being forced to, usually in a philanthropic manner (Bill Gates comes to mind).

This can be seen as a relatively new idea, or the old Victorian concept of charity, depending on your point of view. The Economist mentioned in its lengthy special report that the goal of CSR is often to mitigate against social disasters (e.g. sorry about polluting the atmosphere, but we now grow nice trees) or to show a worthy side while recruiting naïve graduates. It is sometimes just boardroom waffle.

Obviously the flip side is that the more a company does to behave, the less government has to do. This allows a minister to pass the buck to large corporations when things go wrong. If kids are fat, it's the fault of fast food producers. If roads are smelly, blame car manufacturers and so on. Either way, the state gives way to the private sector.

Can this principle work elsewhere? Can a company push against government regulation in other areas because it is can take responsibility for itself?

When I was dropped off a block away from the entrance of Glasgow airport a week ago, it took me a few minutes to remember that it suffered from an attack by terrorist doctors, in the middle of last year. To stop any more car bombers, three foot steel barriers now protect the entrance to the terminal buildings. That should be sufficient to foil any further terrorists planning to do exactly the same thing again. Lets hope they are deeply unimaginative.

As yet another plane was delayed for no clear reason, it was easy to see how the airline industry has become beholden to forces other than economics. Clearly airport authorities feel that safety is more important than flying planes. But this is probably only because they have been told to see things that way. Few customers entirely agree with the current balance.

It is fairly obvious that running an airline smoothly is more important to society than following government inspired fear regulations. It might be that CSR should inform airlines that it is to everyones benefit to run what is already an environmentally harmful industry as efficiently as possible. It might be that I trust an airline to judge security concerns more than I trust government because they are not trying to justify illegal wars.

Usually companies fight regulation quietly with lobbyists. But it might be better for them to try and make the process more transparent. As we have seen recently, handing politicians unattributable amounts of money in lieu of services just gets them in trouble. Better to stop the backhanders to government and try airing the unpleasant issues in public as well as the nice ones.