There is nothing as diverse and dynamic as information. Therefore, information becomes one of the most sought-after assets in the world. In both the social and corporate world, access to information has always had a major impact on how business is done and also, how people interact. Information has also been known to influence and sharpen politics and how people think and perceive leadership and this is what has translated to information being restricted in a technical sense. In today’s knowledge-based economies, although people are guaranteed access to information as a fundamental right in their constitutions, information is barred from access through legal legislation like the privacy of information. There are also government secrets that are classified as top secrets. What this means is that although people have a right to access information, information that is seen as private can be restricted from the public without breaking any rights of the populace.
The existence of classified information that is hidden from the public has prompted some companies to establish mechanisms on how they can gain access to information and release it to the public. Such organizations include Wiki Leaks. WikiLeaks has been one of the twenty-first century’s greatest online sites in exposing information to the public. Since the era of espionage, information cables that were deemed classified and top-secret to the American government were leaked by Wiki Leaks to the surprise and dismay of the American government. This in itself has led to worldwide outrage by those affected but more significantly is the impact that these leaks have on the freedom and access of information.
A few months after the Wiki Leaks founder Mr. Assange had mentioned that he would release other cables on a hard drive belonging to an executive of an American bank revealing massive corruption in the financial industry. This had massive repercussions. Major financial players like visa, PayPal, and MasterCard would not process any transaction belonging to Wiki Leaks. They were soon to be joined by other financial players like the Bank of America which was widely speculated to be the bank in question. These actions on refusal to process financial transactions for Wiki Leaks by the financial institutions raised a question on normative ethics. It is should be noted that legally, the Bank of America and other financial players are entitled to choose who they do business with. The freedom of banks to choose who to deal with is allowed by the Federal Reserve, which is the banking industry’s regulator.
WikiLeaks remains to be a sensitive company due to its ability to access information that has been kept as top secrets by various governments and corporate entities. This makes the company have a suspicious image which makes any party dealing with the company to be wary of any negative impact that the company may have. Due to this fear, companies take an analysis of possible benefits that the company can bring to them before bringing them on board as customers. For a bank like the Bank of America, the first thing that it would try to evaluate is the information that it possesses a secret. With the precedent set by Wiki Leaks on its ability to gain access to various categories of information, financial institutions have a reason to be fearful about the intentions of the company.
According to Carroll and Buchholtz, (2008), banks contain millions of sensitive data. Banks are obligated by law to guarantee the privacy of such data. When companies like Wiki Leaks request service profiles, banks have a right to imagine that the intentions of the company are malicious. Thus, they have a reason to try and evaluate what would be the benefits of such a relationship against what are the possible dangers. This process may consider many issues. The banks should have the obligation to take that actions that they establish are more beneficial.
The process of establishing the option with the highest benefits is what utilitarianism calls the establishment of the level of utility in a specific course (Zandt, 2008). The Bank of America should ensure that by engaging in a business relationship with Wiki Leaks, it maximizes its utility while its disutility is minimized. If the reverse is true, it would be prudent that the bank opts not to serve the company as this act may jeopardize the future position of the bank. For instance, the company may use its capacity as a customer to gain access to vital information that may be damaging if submitted to the hands of the public. The bank’s acceptance or otherwise to process transactions for Wiki Leaks should solely be determined by the analysis of pain and pleasure such an action may have. If the pain exceeds the possible pleasure, then the bank must ensure that they do not serve the company.
From the utilitarian point of view, Bank of America has the right to refuse to process Wiki Leaks transactions if they feel processing these transactions will be detrimental to the bank. This brings us to the deontological ethics approach that stresses the rights that persons have. WikiLeaks has the right to be served by any financial institution like any other citizen or company without discrimination. However, it should be noted that deontological ethics stresses that every right must have a correlative duty (Ferrell, Fraedrich & Ferrell, 2010). If Wiki Leaks has the right to be served by a financial institution, the company must ensure that it does not harm the operations of the institution. However, the company has proved that it can harm the bank’s operations by releasing classified information to the public which may result in desperate measures such as panic withdrawal by the bank’s customers leading to the collapse of the bank.
The decision on whether Bank of America should process Wiki Leaks transactions should be based on the nature of the information anticipated to be leaked. If the leaked information exposed malpractice, then the actions of the company should be hailed as its main aim was to improve the efficiency of the company. Although the Bank of America’s action to bar the company’s financial transactions can be said to be legal, the decision can be said to be a disutility in itself as Wiki Leaks encourage efficiency on the part of the bank’s operations. However, since it is hard to predict what would be the future interest of the company, it would be prudent that the bank opts not to serve the company to protect its identity and that of its customers.
Another aspect that comes out is whether the financial sector has the right to decide which political groups they can do business with. Financial institutions wield a lot of power in influencing political activities. Corporate entities require an enabling political environment to operate efficiently (Ferrell, Fraedrich & Ferrell, 2010). Engaging in Wiki Leaks business can jeopardize this environment as Wiki Leaks appear to be in open confrontation with the mainstream political realm. Therefore, the banks appear to be forcing the closure of Wiki Leaks by refusing to offer them the required financial services. The financial constraint that may result may force the company to shut down its operation hence leaving such banks in good books with successive governments. Besides this, the Bank of America which Schwartz, (2011), points out that is stained by its constant public bailouts has all the ethical responsibility to ensure that the government that bails it out in times of need is protected. Thus, the company can opt not to process Wiki Leaks’ transactions as a self-defense mechanism against possible insider dealing exposure and as an attempt to please the government that bails it out in times of need.
In conclusion, financial institutions have the right to decide who they should serve against who not to serve. The process of making this decision always involves an ethical decision-making process where an action’s utility is examined. Where the banks feel that serving Wiki Leaks is a disutility in itself, it is advisable that the company not be served. On its part, Wiki Leaks should know that although it has the right to be offered financial services, it also has a correlative duty not to harm the operations of the financial institutions. Since Wiki Leaks doesn’t seem to honor this view, it is only prudent that the Bank of America opts not to offer financial services to the company.
References
Carroll, A., B. and Buchholtz, A., K. (2008). Business and Society: Ethics and Stakeholder Management. Upper Saddle River: Cengage Learning.
Ferrell, O., C., Fraedrich, J. and Ferrell, L. (2010). Business Ethics: Ethical Decision Making and Cases. Upper Saddle River: Cengage Learning.
Schwartz, N., D. (2011). Facing Threat From Wiki Leaks, Bank Plays Defense. New York Times. Web.
Zandt, J. D. (2008). Ethical issues in business: a philosophical approach. New York: Pearson