Yesterday, I commented on the philanthropic component of Chrystia Freeland’s article in the Washington Post on Sunday .

Chrystia’s article also touches on the role of regulation.  She takes the view that

“getting confused about the principal job of business is even more dangerous for the state. CSR, and the communitarian philosophy behind it, asks us to believe that the interests of an individual company and those of the wider community are fully aligned. They aren’t — a truth too many regulators forgot in recent years.”

I see the attraction in the idea but I don’t come out in favor of it.  There is an argument that clearly stove-piping roles and responsibilities is the best way to ensure people do what you expect of them. A company’s job is to make as much money as possible and the only limitation is not to get caught breaking the law. Government’s job is to set and apply that law to protect society from the money motive running amok.

To some extent this stove piping of roles is forced on us more and more as companies, society and organizations become bigger and bigger.  But I also think this is the source of many of our problems.  Most dilemmas cannot be reduced to simple stove piped opinions. A nuanced view on, and approach to, the role of business in society is far more commensurate with good decision making.

One doesn’t have to agree that the “interests of an individual company and those of the wider community are fully aligned” to be a supporter of CR. I believe that the profit motive and societal motives are partly aligned.  The role of CR practitioners is to understand and grow that area of alignment. Government and regulators have a role to play to fill the gap. It is in no one’s interest for it to be an all or nothing.