CSR of Google Company - Essay Example

? CSR of Google Company The Corporate Social Responsibility (CRS) of a company refers to the sense of responsibility, which a company shows towards the environment and community in the company’s area of operation. CSR can be shown through the development of social and educational programs (Weber, 2008 p. 62). This assignment will discuss the Google Company with respect to CSR issues facing the company and courses of action on the issues. In addition, limitations due to the courses of action selected will be discussed. A Brief Outline of Google Company Google Company began as a research project, conducted by two Stanford students. In the year 1996, Larry and Brin conducted a search engine using a distinctive method of grading search results. Since they required a relevant search engine using the internet, the need grew further and, as a result, registered Google.com domain and officially created Google, Inc. in 1998 (Girard, 2009 p. 14). As a search engine during the time, Google had advantages over other search engines because the search results were organized in a relevant manner. Google grew as a popular search engine, which was easy to use. The company has grown to employ over 12,000 individuals worldwide. The company has acquired several acquisitions to permit continuity of innovation. For instance, the company has acquired DoubleClick and YouTube companies. The company’s mission is to organize the world’s report and make it useful and accessible universally. The company takes part in various philanthropic donations (Girard, 2009 p. 21). Corporate Social Responsibility Issues Facing Google Company Although Google Company ranks among the top companies practicing corporate social responsibility under the Corporate Social Responsibility Index (CSRI), the company faces several challenges doubting its ethics and responsibility as an international company. One of the ethical issues facing Google Company is that the company has proved to be deceptive and not outspoken (Meiners, 2011 p. 20). Google has publicly claimed to respect the users’ privacy, inform and disclose to the consumers what they do with their private data. To the contrary, in 2008, a consumer poll indicated that 93 percent of individual interviewed preferred internet companies to ask for authority before accessing personal information. Hence, Google words do not match consumer expectations (Drushel, 2011 p. 47). This is evident from the consumer watchdog, where they have gathered a video on how Google harms the privacy of consumers and unfairly represent what they do. Google does not represent its business fairly or disclose its incompatible interests. The company has always claimed to work for users, but the users pay the company nothing. The company works for advertisers, which indicates a conflict of interest. The company’s cofounders had foreseen and understood the conflict, which the company hides from users as written in their PHD dissertation (Jennings, 2010 p. 57). There is also enough evidence showing that the company’s undisclosed conflicts poses serious risks to users of either defraud or harm. If Google Company cared for its users, it would have bothered having a customer service or would protect the safety and privacy of users. The company is even deceptive in philanthropy. The philanthropy arm of the company has deceptively created the impression that the company’s philanthropy is devoid of a profit aim, which is not true (Miller, 2011 p. 76). Another ethical issue facing the Google Company is avoiding legitimate accountability, designed to protect others. There is enough evidence indicating that Google Company does not consider it is subject to the same principles everyone is. For instance, One World Trust ranked the company worst in the world survey of accountability. Also, Audit Integrity Firm ranked Google Company in the bottom 2% of all publicly traded organizations, in terms of, governance risk and accounting. In addition, the company founders developed a two-tier stock vote formation where the original investors and the founders have ten votes for every share of stock (Miller, 2011 p. 42). When the founders had the opportunity to be accountable to the shareholders, they refused. A company submitting to accountability is a principal element that promotes ethical behaviour. In addition, another ethical issue facing the Google Company is stealing. Stealing does not show corporate responsibility and is unethical. In its recent book, Google Company has indicated that crime pays if a business has the market power. Google Company has been charged with theft of property by other industries, of which, it is settling the cases. This is also evident since National Legal and Policy Centre, which is an independent body, has excoriated the company for disregarding other industries’ property. The company has been recorded a high fraud rate in the internet industry through stealing from its advertisers. It has been noted not to fight click fraud cases. Recommendations In order to address the above highlighted issues, the Google Company can take several courses of action in order to address the ethical issues. One course of action is developing a customer care centre, which would help in resolving any queries to consumers, and providing relevant information regarding any intention of the organization. This will assist the company obtain the views of customers and do as per the will of the customer. This will also improve the users understanding of the company’s intentions in any dealing. The company will have promoted transparency through being outspoken, which will help the users in understanding all the business related issues of the company. Another course of action that the company can consider is seeking an internally recognized independent body, which can audit the company in order to bring out the issues of accountability clearly to the public. If such an independent body is contracted by the Google Company, then there would be clear information regarding accountability of the company on weighty matters of the company (Werther, 2010 p. 65). The independent body’s reports can be compared with other reports provided earlier by other firms in order to reach a conclusion. The independent body can also be helpful in determining the argument whether the Google Company is a thief or is involved in stealing the property of other industries. The reports of the independent body should also be compared with earlier reports provided by other companies. This will assist in comprehending how the Google Company runs its operations. Hence, this course of action will help the company to deal with issues of accountability and stealing. Limitations One of the limitations of taking the above courses of action is that developing a customer care service centre to serve all the users internationally will be cumbersome. The cost associated with creating a customer service to serve all international customers of the company will be extremely high. This is because the customers are many, and hence, many customer service staffs will be required. Building of such centres to accommodate customer service staffs, training such a staff, and paying them will involve a lot of costs. Although the company may provide information regarding its full disclosures, some people may not believe the information due to other reports provided by untrustworthy sources. Such reports from untrustworthy sources may be towards tarnishing the name of the company, but the customers may get confused with the reports provided by different sources. In addition, having a customer care service centre may not be helpful due to the limitation of some users not being able to express themselves correctly. Hence, the customer service unit will only solve problems for some customers and not for others. Hiring of an independent body to audit the company and bring out full reports on the company may be viewed as a cover up by some individuals. People may be of the opinion that the Google Company wants the independent body to audit the company so as to contradict earlier information provided by other companies (Johnson, 2011 p. 34). However, this may not be the case, but may be interpreted as so, when reports that will be given by the independent body differs with earlier data. Some people have preferences for certain companies, which imply that some will not be contented with the independent body carrying out the audit, but will rely on information provided by their company of preference. It is not possible to establish all the operations of the company if there is no volunteering of information about the company (Kotler, 2005 p. 40). Hence, although the independent body may be summoned to perform an audit on the organization, accurateness of the reports provided will depend on the truthfulness of all information volunteered about the company. Conclusion Practicing of corporate social responsibility is an essential part of fulfilling an ethical duty of a company. Although the Google Company has been ranked as one of the companies, which employ corporate social responsibility in its operations, according to CSRI, the company has been involved in different ethical challenges that question its application of ethics and responsibility. As an internationally recognized business, the company has faced stealing challenge, denial of accountability challenge, and the challenge of not being outspoken and being deceptive. These issues challenge the ethical responsibility of the company. For instance, stealing and lack of accountability displays the company as being unethical (Fraedrich, 2012 p. 22). References Girard, B 2009, The Google Way: how one company is revolutionizing management as we know it, No Starch Press Publishers, San Francisco. Weber, S 2008, Organizational Behaviour, GRIN Verlag Publishers, Munich. Johnson, C 2011, Meeting the Ethical Challenges of Leadership: Casting Light or Shadow, Routledge, London. Fraedrich, J 2012, Business Ethics: Ethical Decision Making & Cases, Cengage Publishers, London. Miller, R 2011, The Legal Environment of Business: Text and Cases, Cengage Publishers, London. Drushel, B 2011, The Ethics of Emerging Media: Information, Social Norms and New Media, Continuum Publishing, London. Jennings, M 2010, Business: Its Legal, Ethical, and Global Environment, Cengage Publishers, London. Kotler, P 2005, Corporate Social Responsibility, Wiley & Sons, New York. Werther, W 2010, Strategic Corporate Social Responsibility: Stakeholders in a Global Environment, Routledge, London. Meiners, R 2011, The Legal Environment of Business, Cengage Publishers, London. Read More