Big business is occasionally referred to as an object of scorn as opposed to a symbol of strength and success. Indeed, it is not unusual to note derogatory references. Why this vilification, scepticism and distrust?

Drawing an analogy with the fable of the three little pigs that were not afraid of the big bad wolf, is there reason to be afraid of big ‘bad’ business?

Accusations of big business corrupting the political process and influencing government decision-making is nothing new. Indeed, over the years there have been various allegations of shady business dealings aimed at influencing or bribing people in authority, giving rise to abusive practices, along with suspicions of conspiracy theories.

Clearly, one cannot claim that all big business is clean. It is not. Nevertheless, it is absolutely incorrect to simply relegate and classify big business as being bad or, worse, to automatically associate big business with the abuse of power.

There is a dire need to rectify this obscure view of diabolically depicting big business as a ruthlessly profiteering breed. Such sweeping assertions, or perceptions thereof, need to be placed in their proper perspective.

Just as competition law experts will tell you, being dominant within a market does not make a business illegal. It is any resultant abuse of its dominant position that would render its operations anti-competitive and, at that stage, illegal.

Most big businesses are exemplary in the way they work and the values they uphold and practise. Even if size remains a consideration of influence, it certainly does not determine if a business is good or bad. It is how one operates and attains goals that determines on which side of the fence a business stands.

As a rule of thumb, business should not get entangled in politics. Nonetheless, and as paradoxical as this sounds, this should not preclude business from airing its views and, when warranted, even firing warning shots.

Business should not only lobby but also speak out publicly, especially on key issues of national interest.

To give a classic example, business organisations very rightly supported Malta’s bid to join the European Union in the run-up to the referendum, even though the question was controversial and politically divisive.

Not getting involved in politics does not mean ignoring it. Businesses can sometimes find themselves in troubled waters by simply staying silent as opposed to weighing in and lobbying to ensure that policies and decision-making are moving in the right direction. Indeed, being vocal is something that should be considered as a legitimate expectation.

Most big businesses are exemplary in the way they work and the values they uphold and practice- Norman Aquilina

Over the years, we have seen a proliferation of organised interest groups, certainly not just business-related, each seeking to influence the government or attaining some form of protection, intervention or regulation.

Just like public consultations, lobbying is a vital part of the democratic process, which in return forms an integral part in the formulation of public policy.

There is no denying that business has used its influence to set the rules of the game under which it can play. Nevertheless, even if it is a well-resourced and influential voice, it is not the only one. In fact, it is not uncommon to be countered and challenged by equally influential voices.

When businesses and, even more so, business representative organisations seek to influence a policy direction, they are fulfilling an important role. Since they are strongly affected by public policies, it is in their interest to stay informed and try to influence decision-making to safeguard their competitiveness and long-term prosperity.

Complementing all this, the government has an interest in promoting investment and incentivising business performance with a view to ensuring economic well-being. Likewise, it has an obligation to appoint the relevant sectorial regulators and authorities to ensure businesses can compete within a level playing field while also operating in a legal and socially responsible manner.

All this draws an important demarcation line between that of legitimately lobbying and seeking to influence policy- formulation and decision-making as opposed to seeking some form of compromising preferential treatment, particularly if attained abusively, with the added risk of dangerously tying business and politics together. It is in such opposing instances that one should distinguish good from bad business.

So, the moral of this story is that it is not the wolf that we should be afraid of, certainly not because of its size. It is those egocentric opportunists, be they from the business or political field, who are overly interested in pigging out that we must all be afraid of.

Going forward, we certainly need to avoid generalisations and place our bets on the house of bricks which is capable of distinguishing and keeping unwarranted visitors out, while welcoming those who are desirable and well-intended.

Norman Aquilina is group chief executive of Simonds Farsons Cisk.