CSR Press Release

Across the ideological spectrum(s), there is universal agreement that business ought to "play by the rules of the game." The most ardent fans of free markets say, essentially, that that is the only ethical obligation businesses have, beyond the pursuit of profit. It is up to government (and perhaps society more broadly) to make the rules. It is up to business to play by them. Fair enough. But what ethical standards apply to the practice on the part of business of trying to influence the very rules to which they are expected to adhere?

See this story from a few days ago, in the NY Times: Geithner Sets Limits on Lobbying for Bailout Money

"The new Treasury secretary, Timothy F. Geithner, announced on Tuesday that he would crack down on lobbying to influence the $700 billion financial bailout program by companies that are receiving billions in taxpayer money.

Among other steps, the Treasury department said it would make public a log of all contacts by public officials and bank officials regarding specific financial institutions."

(Here's another take on it, from the Washington Post: Treasury Moves to Restrict Lobbyists From Influencing Bailout Program.)

For Mr. Geithner and the Obama administration, this is matter of ethics in government, and of public accountability. And it's not an easy one. Certainly no one thinks that decisions about how to spend the bailout money ought to be influenced significantly by the fact that some senator had his or her ear bent for half an hour by a suave lobbyist acting on behalf of a well-heeled client. On the other hand, the right to petition one's government and thereby to have a say in public policy is a fundamental democratic freedom.

But what does it look like from the point of business ethics? What ethical limits - if any - ought there to be on lobbying by businesses? If it's true that corporate managers ought to pursue profits within the limits of the law, ought they also attempt to influence the law in ways that stand to enhance profits? Surely if they do that, it leaves the whole "we played by the rules" defence robbed of much of its normative force: it's pretty easy to agree to play by the rules when you get to influence what those rules are.

I'll offer just 2 factors relevant to the current issue:

1) This looks to me like a classic example of the kind of 'social' dilemma that economists & philosophers refer to as 'the Prisoner's Dilemma.' It's a situation where all (businesses) would be better off if they could all just keep their noses out of the process, but each business would do better (better for its shareholders) if it interferes. P.D.'s are notoriously hard for participants to resolve; it might be unreasonable to expect businesses to forego profit-seeking in this instance.

2) Lobbying for bailout money is in some ways different for other kinds of lobbying (say, lobbying for a change in health & safety regulations). In most regulatory matters, government suffers from a pretty serious information deficit: industry often knows much more about what sorts of regulatory standards are feasible, and which will achieve desired public policy goals. So, there's a public-interest argument for allowing (even encouraging) industry to share information & points of view with government. The spending of bailout money, it seems to me, isn't like that. I'm not an expert on finance, but I suspect that the U.S. government (via its various regulatory and taxation agencies) has all the information it needs, in this case. So there's not much weight to the public-interest argument here.

This piece originally appeared on Chris MacDonald's Business Ethics Blog.

About Chris MacDonald, Ph.D

Chris MacDonald is Associate Professor (Tenured) in the Philosophy Department at Saint Mary's University (Halifax, Canada) and is also Coordinator of SMU's M.A. Programme in Philosophy. He was recently named one of the "100 Most Influential People in Business Ethics, 2008," by Ethisphere Magazine.

He conducts research in business & professional ethics and health care ethics (currently focusing on ethical issues in the biotechnology and nanotechnology industries) and foundational issues in moral theory and is currently writing a book on ethical issues in the biotech industry.

About CSRwire's Video, Commentary, and Research

CSRwire's Video, Commentary, and Research section demonstrates the visual impact of CSR initiatives, provides a forum for opinions, and collects and organizes research. VCR highlights videos, podcasts, and presentations. It also includes news digests that put CSR issues into context, with a special focus on activists' viewpoints and public policy initiatives. Blogs call attention to expert personal commentary. Research and data is organized for CSR professionals. CSRwire.com invites multimedia contributions by businesses, NGOs, CSR professionals, and site users including: video, podcast/audio, slide show presentations, mini-documentaries, statements, maps and graphs, calls to action, and other educational, CSR-related material. All material must be non-commercial. There is no charge for this service

About CSRwire.com

CSRwire is the leading source of corporate social responsibility and sustainability news, reports and information. CSRwire members are companies and NGOs, agencies and organizations interested in communicating their corporate citizenship, sustainability, and socially responsible initiatives to a global audience through CSRwire's syndication network and weekly News Alerts. CSRwire content covers issues of Diversity, Philanthropy, Socially Responsible Investing (SRI) Environment, Human Rights, Workplace Issues, Business Ethics, Community Development and Corporate Governance.

For more information, please contact: