Reflect on the choices made by Wells Fargo in its 2016 consumer deception scandal, and describe what an intensity analysis might have looked like for those choices, in terms of the six intensity factors discussed in your lesson (e.g. for “consensus”, briefly discuss how widely agreed it was that the actions taken by the banks were wrong, then do the same assessment for “probability of harm”, “imminence of harm”, etc.).
the 2016 Wells Fargo consumer deception scandal, employees created millions of unauthorized accounts in customers’ names to meet aggressive sales targets. These unethical practices led to significant harm to consumers and were widely condemned. An intensity analysis, which assesses how morally intense a situation is using six factors, helps us evaluate the ethical dimensions of Wells Fargo’s decisions.
The Correct Answer and Explanation is:
1. Magnitude of Consequences:
This factor refers to the degree of harm caused. The scandal had high magnitude—over 2 million fake accounts were created, resulting in damaged credit scores, fees charged to unaware customers, and erosion of public trust.
2. Social Consensus:
There was strong consensus that Wells Fargo’s actions were unethical. The general public, regulators, media, and even company leadership eventually acknowledged the wrongdoing. This consensus indicates a clear societal disapproval of the behavior.
3. Probability of Effect:
There was a high probability of harm. Opening unauthorized accounts directly led to financial damage and loss of trust. The likelihood of customers being affected negatively was not speculative—it was almost guaranteed.
4. Temporal Immediacy:
The harm was immediate. Customers were charged fees, their credit was impacted without delay, and the effects were felt soon after the accounts were created.
5. Proximity:
Proximity was high in terms of the relationship between employees and customers. Bank employees had direct, personal interactions with customers and knowingly violated their trust.
6. Concentration of Effect:
The harm was both widespread and concentrated. Although many were affected, the damage to individual customers—such as credit score reductions and financial stress—was significant.
Conclusion:
Wells Fargo’s actions scored high across all six intensity factors, indicating a morally intense situation. This makes their choices particularly inexcusable from an ethical standpoint, as the harm was direct, foreseeable, and preventable. An intensity analysis clearly shows that the ethical violations were severe and deserved strong accountability measures.