Comment: When any publicity is bad publicity

People who say any publicity is good publicity should try telling that to licensees affected by the stink around Diageo at the moment.

The spirits giant is steadfastly refusing any compromise over the proposed closure of two of its bottling plants in Scotland despite high-profile protests. The row is building negative associations around its portfolio - especially, but not exclusively, the Scotch brands whose production is in question.

If Diageo goes ahead, there are going to be aggrieved workers and members of the public sympathising with them looking on the company's products in a less than favourable light. That may be on principle, or a subconscious result of bad publicity, but it makes it more difficult for licensees to shift Diageo's wares. There has even been talk of boycotts among protestors.

Diageo's decision has been labelled 'irresponsible' by critics. It's not. At least, it's not when considering it purely in a business sense. The only irresponsible thing for Diageo to do under the capitalist system in which we live would be to risk not returning the maximum amount of money it can to shareholders.

However, let's take a moment to consider responsibility in a broader sense.

What is implicit in Diageo's duty to be 'responsible' is balancing the be-all-and-end-alls of capitalism with actions that demonstrate respect for the communities in which the company operates. A decision to axe Scottish jobs and ignore the protestors' wishes completely would be perceived by many as overlooking this responsibility.

Diageo putting one responsibility before the other will leave a nasty taste in the mouths of would-be drinkers of Johnnie Walker, Gordon's, Guinness and Smirnoff.