Our title is the mission statement of arguably the most powerful company on earth - Google. In Mauritius too, the debate on the role of the private sector in ?doing good? or improving social welfare is gathering pace. In his last budget, Rama Sithanen urged companies to devote a share of their profits to Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) actions and it is now common practice for Government to demand CSR commitments to be included in major infrastructure projects such as the IRS schemes.

However, do managers, acting in their professional capacity, have the competence ? or the democratic credentials ? to advance the public good or should this not be left to our elected officials ? It could be argued that CSR is but a diversion from the critical task of encouraging political reforms to ensure that Government does not abdicate its responsibility to solve social problems? After all, this is what our taxes should be used for.

The argument for CSR is based on the assumption that companies? self-interested pursuit of profit cannot advance social welfare, that private enterprise is a win-lose game. This tension, indeed incompatibility, between private profit and public interest is unquestionable and self-evident to many in Mauritius, to politicians, unionists and probably, many private-sector managers themselves. But is it true?

One must make the distinction between greed and long-term self-interest. When firms use their market position to abuse their customers, block out competition or pollute the environment, this is greed. It is condemnable and it is Government?s role to regulate and discourage such activity. However, greed is not an inherent characteristic of capitalism; it is stupid as, freely indulged, it makes one fat and reduces life expectancy. Intelligent, rational, calculating self-interest makes a firm worry about its reputation with all its stakeholders, leads it to make sacrifices in the short term to preserve long-term sustainability.

While the motivation for such ?ethical? behaviour may be a moral one, it actually is based on enlightened self-interest - and that is a good thing, as in the business world ? as elsewhere ? virtue is in much shorter supply than self-interest. As such, ?good management? is perhaps the most powerful form of CSR although it is seldom perceived or applauded as such. Firms who treat their customers, employees, suppliers and shareholders fairly and honestly; who imbed in their management model an openness towards new forms of collaboration with other firms to encourage and develop new competencies based on merit; who concern themselves with environmental sustainability, will contribute to social welfare as well as to their own bottom-line. The recently highlighted concerns with expatriate labour in the textile industry are illustrative as a case in point.

Indeed, ?good management? requires more effort and rigour than the more traditional forms of CSR with which we are more familiar - sponsorships, charitable donations to social causes and, more recently, empowerment programs aimed at building competencies for the disenfranchised. The impact of these traditional CSR actions seem to have had little impact on overall social welfare ? notwithstanding the large sums spent, public opinion remains unimpressed and many ? including our politicians ? feel the private sector is not doing nearly enough.

This is perhaps unsurprising. While certainly not to be discouraged, sponsorships are often advertising masquerading as virtue. Philanthropy is best left to individuals or families giving away their own wealth. Corporate philanthropy, especially in the context of public firms, is managers doing charity with other people?s (shareholders?) money. While the support of effective NGOs has been valuable, few firms have clearly defined policies as to the recipients of their donations and thus suffer from legitimate questions as to their motivations. Empowerment programs are a relatively new phenomenon and certainly praiseworthy - however, such programs require serious management to ensure effectiveness and few have the scale necessary to ensure such management.

So should our private sector simply concentrate on ?good management? and the ?business of business? and leave the demands of social justice to Government ? which has, after all, been elected to achieve just that? Unfortunately, that is not an option today. Many firms realise that they cannot survive and prosper as islands in an ocean of social discontent and misery where their customers and employees are affected. The tourism industry, for example, is extremely vulnerable to deterioration in social cohesion leading to concerns of law and order as well as a risk of a decline in the renowned hospitability of the Mauritian destination.

Our country has embarked on a necessary but painful process of transition towards a more open, liberal and sustainably competitive economy. This transition is being made all the more painful because of a convergence of external and uncontrollable increases in the price of many basic commodities. It is evident to all that the most vulnerable sections of society, those who have lost their livelihoods due to the transformation of the traditional textile and sugar sectors, will be most affected.

There is a growing concern that Government is unable to fulfil its responsibility of managing this transition without support and a realisation that the private sector must now become involved as a real, committed partner in social development and welfare.

The form of this involvement must be qualitatively different from past efforts at CSR which have not been very measurable. It must be a model built on our private sector?s strengths while avoiding its weaknesses and it must be structured to make a real difference ? both in its delivery as well as in its impact on public opinion. More on this in our next article.

Agora - Urmilla Boolell, Arif Currimjee, Eric Ng Ping Cheun, Jacques de Navacelle