That's a dilemma for the trade, as well as all the many observers and commentators scrutinising the circuit-bar scene with ahostile eye in these binge-drinking days.
And it's a dilemma the Morning Advertiser faces constantly, as we monitor that scene, always hopeful that the social-responsibility message is being observed, but equally mindful that the intense competitive pressures in this saturatedenvironment mean even saints can sometimes slip and become sinners.
Last week, we suggested Mitchells & Butlers had been less than socially responsible with its pricing and promotions. We reported, uncritically, comments that it had been cutting prices across the board in the high street. We were wrong to make such a sweeping statement. As the company has pointed out this week, it has resisted the enormous pressures to cut prices wholesale and is not fighting its opponents purely on price. On average, across its high-street estate (which, of course, includes upmarket venues like its Nicholson's pubs in London) prices since the autumn have risen slightly.
We apologise for the poor targeting of our criticism, particularly as M&B is clearly committed to socially-responsible drinking, as we acknowledged when we recently awarded it a Responsible Drinks Retailing prize.
But the dilemma remains. M&B does make what it calls "tactical price offers". And these, admittedly few but nevertheless very real exceptions to the rule, are not great examples of socially-responsible retailing.
As we commented last week, if trade leaders accuse other operators or supermarkets of irresponsible pricing, surely there's a duty to have no exceptions to the rule? Now, asking retailers to be whiter than white in all circumstances, is a tough call. But when so much pressure is being trained on the trade, isn't total responsibility the only way to hold up our heads?
We all know you can't be a little bit pregnant. Do we know you can't be a little bit irresponsible?