Trident University

(Student Name Here)

Module 1 Case 1

ETH 501 Business Ethics

(Professor’s Name Here)

(Date Here)

First and foremost, I will introduce the two companies or parties: Bank of America and Wikileaks.

Bank of America is the nation’s largest bank holding company and financial company that serves individual consumers, small and middle market business, corporations and governments. The services provide range from banking, investing, and asset and risk management. (Bank of America) On the other hand, Wikileaks is an international non-profit organization that publish private, secret, and classified media derives from anonymous news sources, leaks, and whistleblowers. (2011, Wikileaks)

According to Webster’s (1996) ethics is defined as the study of standards of conduct and moral judgment. The manner in which a company does business tells how competent and trusty worthy people can deal with the company. A company that not only promotes an ethical environment, but that lives the company’s goals, policies, and values is a company that when controversy and tough times occur will make the right decisions and weather the storm. If the company not only promotes a fair and positive environment, but also values and foster this environment, the company will be around a long...long time.

If Bank of America were to use the words that define what ethics is as a basis for their decision whether to process payments and do business with Wikileaks, this would make the decision to favor with Bank of America. Simply, because Bank of America believes that Wikileaks has been engaged in activities that were inconsistent with their internal policies for processing payments, I don’t feel it is a reason to discontinue processing their customers’ transactions (Musil, 2010). However, in the long-run if Bank of America’s intent is to cut ties with Wikileaks because the presumed information that could harm the company and their patrons was acquired through illegal means, then consequently, the right thing to do would be to sever ties.

The next step is to forward all involved parties that effective said date, as any utilitarian would that Bank of America will no longer process transactions that funds or supports directly or indirectly Wikileaks’ views.

With this known, since Wikileaks stated there was information in their possession that could or would affect a major American bank, why would this result in a company (the #1 financial company in the nation) purchasing web addresses if it did not have anything to hide. Was this in the best interest of the company or their patrons? (Chuiko, 2010) Or was Bank of America acting on behalf of their patrons in a deontological manner? If so, why were their patrons not provided the information or knowledge of what Wikileaks had or information retrieved from the purchased websites? In my opinion, it is because their actions were not in that of a utilitarian but done for the good of those that would be affected at the corporate level. This contractual right by Bank of America by cutting accessibility or indirect relations with Wikileaks still resulted in their patrons closing their accounts and joining other institutions such as Wachovia. Bank of America while refusing to process payments for accessibility to Wikileaks was also doing what we call in the U.S. Navy “ORM” – Operational Risk Management. I think Bank of America knew or was “tipped-off” that something unethical or questionable was going on that could potentially negatively affect not only the workplace, but the company holistic – perhaps, a meltdown of the top executives. Or was Bank of America acting on behalf of the U.S. Government also since Wikileaks had already released classified cables from the embassies from around the world? Consequently, Bank of America was a recipient of the Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP) from the U.S. Government. Did Bank of America feel obligated to the U.S. Government? Or were they strongly encouraged?

Nonetheless, despite opposers of Wikileaks may say or think, the company prides itself as a site or domain that provides for all people information on governments’ and corporations’ unethical behavior or actions. I am sure supporters would say that Julian Asange and others at Wikileaks are only exercising their human and civil rights – the right to speak your mind (Study guide).

My question is, how was the information received and whether the information is Wikileaks’ to disclose? The truth is we will probably never know exactly who leaked the information to Wikileaks. I am sure the information did not belong to Wikileaks; therefore they were not authorized to disclose the information. Whether Bank of America was influenced by the U.S. Government or it was Bank of America’s own doing, they should be able to refuse payment but not without informing their patrons. This way their patrons can accept the decisions as it is for the good of all and have a choice to remain at Bank of America or close their accounts and open elsewhere.

Additionally, it would seem that Julian Asange and others at Wikileaks thought of themselves as doing the masses a service or their duty to provide information, it would appear what they thought was the truth – deontological ethics (Study guide). However, Wikileaks, still has and had a duty despite feeling they had the right to disclose information, to determine if it was authorized, legal, ethical, moral, and for the good of all that could be affected. As a patron of Bank of America, they have a moral and contractual duty to perform transactions on their behalf, regardless of where one chooses to spend their monies. When a person or entity has a choice of should they buy or support services offered that option is a good thing. Yet, when the person or entity has the option to deny the manner in which the services are to paid or settled I believe that decision is outside the scope of their responsibility.

In closing, I remain in support of Bank of America having the option to do or not do business with Wikileaks remains their choice, however Bank of America’s approach towards resolving their indirect relationship with Wikileaks should be handled in another way other than inserting themselves into how and where their patrons choose to spend their money. The fact they view the way out is to simply say “reasonable belief that Wikileaks may be engaged in activities that are, among other things, inconsistent with our internal policies for processing payments” in my opinion is a “catch-all phrase.”

References

Study guide, Power Point Presentation

https://www.bankofamerica.com/

Chuiko, V. (2010) Retrieved from http://www.chuiko.com/world/1955-bank-of-america- boycott-wikileaks-the-site-urged-supporters

Musil, S. (2010) http://news.cnet.com/8301-31921_3-20026103-281.html

http://www.thenewnewinternet.com/2010/12/20/wikileaks-urges-boycott-of-bank-of-america/

http://thenextweb.com/media/2010/12/18/bank-of-america-now-refusing-to-process-payments-belived-tobe-for-wikileaks/

Webster’s New World Dictionary and Thesaurus (1996). New World Dictionaries (p. 210, 2nd Ed). New York, Webster’s New World.

http://www.wiklileaks.ch

Wikileaks. (2011, May 28). Retrieved from Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/WikiLeaks