Self-Regulation Within Organisations
Organisations traditionally had to only carry out their operational activities while the government regulated the laws to prevent any socially destructive consequences. This arrangement is best because it allows each to focus on what they do best — the government on legislation and the organisation on operation. However there has been many failures of such an arrangement due to a inefficient governance or collusions between governments and organisations. Therefore, in the interest of society in which the organisation functions, it must exercise self-regulation.
In fact, self-regulation is in the interest of organisations long term. Unholy alliances and collusions result in dire social consequences that persuades common people to either protest for a legislation challenging the status quo, or boycott an organisation, or ask for a new system altogether that can be more destructive. Also, any socially destructive actions instil a sense of resentment from your consumers, thus spoiling your reputation and your mission. Self regulation is being responsible.
When organisations pass on regulations to external entities, they have willingly given the key to not going rogue to someone else; instead of safeguarding it within themselves and using it. They have now become potential anti-social entities since they have shrugged off self-regulation and it is now up to the external regulators to keep organisations from going rouge. This is not a good design.
Having said that, it is important to note that every compliance, self enforced or otherwise, adds cost to the operations. They do not either bring any tangible benefit to the end product (they bring only to the process). If there is a competition who evaded such compliances, your product is of similar quality as theirs, but expensive. Most consumers do not bother about ethics or is willing to pay the extra cost of being ethical. Therefore, if only few organisations are compliant to laws and self-regulations, they risk an unfair financial disadvantage over others.
A smarter act to do in such situations is to defer these compliances, beat the competition and then fulfil these compliances. This often serves as an attack vector for the adversaries to character assassinate the organisation for the practice of hypocrisy and double standard. But such organisations are not to be considered the same as their competition who wilfully flouts regulations. Later, when competitions and markets change, these organisations' willingness and zeal to be compliant can be materialised.