eracode:

 

Refusing to open accounts for a sex toy operation has been BNZ's loss. Maybe their 'principles' transcend this but when the other banks heard about this, they flocked in and offered accounts to the business. It seems the client is going to run with Westpac.

 

This raises the question: If a BNZ business client selling say, religious paraphernalia, suddenly started also selling sex toys, would BNZ stroll in and tell them that their account is going to be closed? Since when did banks become the moral police - or the climate change police for that matter - but that's a current and actual separate story.

 

The individual banks have a set of governing principles regarding who/what they will allow to have accounts. 

It's called ESG. 

Effectively, it covers everything from Environmental, to Social and Governance structures and sets out the types of customers they will or won't take on as new customers and those they will choose to exit. 
It's hard because businesses have to be able to be banked somewhere, so exiting a customer that no other bank wants can be problematic or near impossible at times. 

It's nbot about being the moral police. It's about sticking to the principles of their ESG policies and the shareholders' and board's comfort levels and the optics of such. 
i.e. - companies that sell or manufactire Weapons, Drugs, Tobacco, etc will all be very hard to find a banker for here in NZ. 

ESG policy is more than just taking a moral stand: It integrates sustainable practices into banking operations, aligning financial performance with environmental stewardship, social responsibility, and strong governance principles (I took that sentence from the interwebs, but it's accurate) 

So yeah - one bank's loss may be another's gain, but sometims it can be a millstone too