As the Wiki-Leaks - CSR and Transparency

When we talk about transparency in CSR terms, we are specifically referring to an honest accounting to relevant stakeholders of  a business's operations, including its environmental and social impacts relative to profit making activities. It also means corporations should be forthcoming in identifying problems, especially those which potentially endanger the environment or consumers, and offer prompt resolution to such problems. It is not meant to be a tell-all, revealing what might be considered proprietary information or client confidentiality.

Don Tapscot and David Ticoll in their book The Naked Corporation: How the Age of Transparency Will Revolutionize Business distinguish between "active transparency," as that which a company voluntarily chooses to divulge, and "forced transparency" when issues are made public by the media or other sources. Wikileaks obviously falls into the category of "forced transparency." Even the mere threat of the release of scandalous information has it impacts.  Bank of America's share price went down 3 percent when it was rumored that it would be the next Wikileaks target. Global strategy and marketing officer for Bank of America Anne Finucane, responded to the rumors stating that the bank had been so heavily examined after the financial crisis that it was unlikely any new revelations would be of consequence.  Even so, the stock price fell.

The idea that the activities of WikiLeaks fall under the rubric of CSR is certainly in the eye of the beholder, but such a determination should begin first with an assessment of the organizational model it represents and the quality of its purported service to the overall public good. The WikiLeaks website very clearly states that it considers itself "the first global Samizdat movement. The truth will surface even in the face of total annihilation." Samizdat refers to the self-published documents for the dissemination of both literature and politically charged sentiments which were officially banned in the Former Soviet Union. In the vein of dissidents such as Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn, these publications were made available in the face of rigid censorship at great personal risk as it could mean imprisonment in the Gulag.   Daniel Ellsberg who famously leaked The Pentagon Papers in an effort to precipitate an end to the Vietnam War, heartily applauded Wikileaks. His greatest hope is that it brings a quick end to the war in Afghanistan.  Wikileaks proprietor Julian Assange may boast that he is filling the same social service at great personal danger, but let's just say the jury is still out.

Media theorist and critic Geert Lovnik has his own list of theories regarding Wikileaks, suggesting that its modus operandi is characteristic - for better or worse - of the "hacker culture." While an entity such as Greenpeace is clearly interested in outing environmentally unsound practices, is it unclear what social objective Assange is hoping to accomplish as he lays open content to the global population. Lovnik says that Wikileaks "is a typical SPO (Single Person Organization)" which is "largely dependent on the actions of their charismatic leader, and their functioning is difficult to reconcile with democratic values." He also questions Wikileaks own lack of transparency and challenges their need "to be completely opaque in order to force others to be totally transparent." Moreover, in Lovnik's view a more responsible reporter would not just find and verify facts, but would put them into a context of "understandable discourse."

Transparency in the age of the Internet is a whole new entity with which we all have to contend. From Facebook bullying to identity theft to outing corporate malfeasance and political corruption, like any technology it can be a force for good or evil. Sunshine may be the best disinfectant, but too much exposure can also singe.

Photo Credit: by Sharon Mollerus