Mallen Baker's Blog

Socially responsible gamblers?

13 Sep 2008

The inclusion of Partygaming in the recent FTSE4good index listing has provoked some comment on the Citywire blog. Can it every be right, Deborah Hyde asks, that gambling and oil companies can find themselves on a socially responsible index?

I have always held that if society thinks that the products of such companies are truly beyond the pale, it should have the courage of its convictions to actually ban them. Of course, to take such action would provoke outrage.

After all, even if some people find themselves getting into problems with problem gambling, most do not. Lots of people enjoy 'a harmless flutter' and the government that tried to tell them they weren't allowed to would not do tremendously well.

As for oil, well excuse me but do we all use the stuff or not? So do we now fill up our cars on the way into the office, and then demonise the companies who we ask to provide us with it?

Ultimately, if it's a legal product then you must be able to envisage how a company can provide it in a socially responsible way. That doesn't mean that if it is a high impact product there aren't raised expectations on what the company will do to tackle those impacts. Gambling companies have to tackle problem gambling, and they can draw lessons from companies like Camelot on how you can do this. Oil companies have to invest in becoming long-term sustainable energy companies, not merely defending the oil-based status quo.

The assessors at FTSE4good will be only too aware of the issues.

Deborah finishes her comment by observing "only companies involved in the business of war, uranium or tobacco are shunned by the so-called ethical industry". Personally, I would have none of these sectors shunned purely because of the industry there are in.

Which would we prefer - a tobacco company that invests serious money in developing reduce harm products, works to abolish child labour from tobacco plantations, that reduces its impact on the environment and supports local communities - or one that accepts the argument that it is already beyond the pale, and therefore it has nothing to lose by doing none of these things.

Personally, I would be perfectly content if societies chose to ban tobacco tomorrow. It's a nasty product. Societies show rather little inclination to do this, so to default to simply demonising the companies seems an exercise in self-indulgence rather than one based on a real desire for change.

Comments

Add your comment

Your name  

Your web link  

Just checking that you're a real person. Which barks? dog or cat?

 

<< back