Hardly a week goes by without the media publishing sensitive information obtained from persons who feel the need to reveal information unknown to the public. Some of the leaks are no more than banal kitchen-sink items that are often given headline prominence in the popular media, especially the tabloid newspapers. Other leaks contain information on issues organisations try hiding from the public to protect their narrow self-interest.
The Centre for Applied Ethics at Santa Clara University in the US refers to “good” and “bad” leaks. According to this university, “a good leak is the disclosure of information that expands public understanding of an issue of public interest – without harming anyone. A bad leak is one that does harm and does not aid public understanding of an important public issue”. So, who are the good and the bad leakers?
To answer this question, one must understand why people leak information. My experience is that some organisations, especially in the public sector, suffer from toxic internal and external political cultures.
In these organisations, a small group of individuals project themselves as saintly whistle-blowers. Often, they are no more than schemers obsessed with advancing their careers by endearing themselves to their political patrons. They weaponise their confidential information to substantiate their side of a story about alleged management abuse.
However, concluding that all leaks are unethical and must be eradicated at all costs is dangerous. Leaks will always be part of a free society, even more so in the era of many competing news sources, including blogs and websites. Many understandably argue that if leaks reveal a government action that is illegal or behaviour that harms individuals significantly, it can be more easily ethically justified.
No organisation can claim that it is immune to the risk of leaks. The Vatican, the British royal family, large multinational companies like Volkswagen, the European Central Bank, and even the EU suffer from embarrassing regular leaks, with the sources being their employees.
In 2023, Unicredit, the second-largest Italian bank, suffered from an embarrassing leak that forced the bank’s head of the remuneration committee to resign. The unsubstantiated allegations of leaking from the bank’s board related to the proposal for a new substantial pay package for chief executive Andrea Orcel.
Concluding that all leaks are unethical and must be eradicated at all costs is dangerous. Leaks will always be part of a free society
The source of leaks is notoriously difficult to find. Jayne-Anne Gadhia, a former CEO of UK lender Virgin Money and non-executive director of Unicredit, had to step down as non-executive director following an internal investigation even though no evidence was found about her suspected involvement in this leak.
The ECB was not pleased with how the bank tackled this incident. It promised to conduct its own investigations to determine whether Unicredit suffers from the “absence of a healthy challenge culture” among executives.
Andrew Rettman is a Brussels-based reporter for the EUObserver covering foreign policy and security affairs. He argues: “Leaks are needed to hold the EU to account on matters of public interest because documents constitute evidence of allegations.” He goes to great lengths to advise potential whistle-blowers on how to “safely” leak sensitive information that interests EU citizens.
In 2016, the Greens/EFA group in the European Parliament launched the EU Leaks platform to help whistle-blowers pass on information that is considered crucial for the well-being of EU citizens. In their website EU leaks, the Greens argue: “We are not inciting anyone to do anything. We are simply providing secure tools for those who feel that they are doing the right thing in shedding light on particular processes or policies. We launched the project to defend the public interest, and anyone who wants to blow the whistle is free to make a decision to use our platform or not.”
The Panama Papers, the Volkswagen diesel emission scandal and the mishandling of the COVID crisis by some politicians in the UK and Italy confirm how showing moral courage by revealing secret, sensitive information in the public interest is legitimate.
While some will label whistle-blowers as corporate terrorists, others will praise them as freedom fighters who risk their jobs to uncover breaches of the law, misconduct, abuse of power, incompetence and discrimination.
Alfred Charles William Harmsworth, later Alfred Lord Northcliffe, was a British newspaper pioneer who revolutionised magazine and newspaper publishing in Britain in the early years of the 20th century. He wielded significant political power through the medium of his popular dailies.
Northcliffe was right when he said, “News is what somebody, somewhere, wants to suppress; all the rest is advertising”.