Corporate Social Responsibility at Google - Research Paper Example

Corporate Social Responsibility and Governance: GOOGLE of the of the Task A Google Inc. has always been an organization essentially driven by sustainable and ethical behavior (Richter, 2001, p.140). The Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) activities of the company have always been much renowned and the organization itself has been an example setter in the corporate world with respect to social responsibilities, ethical principles and sustainability practices. In the last three years, Google Inc. as a globally recognized organization has donated more than USD 353 million in the form of grants across the world and has also donated more than USD 3 billion in free applications, advertisements and products. The employees of Google Inc. have volunteered almost 6200 days of the total employment time in order to contribute to the non-profit based activities and organizations across the globe. The way of conducting the business and contributing to the communities and societies has established Google Inc. as one of the most reliable and ethical companies in the world (Christian Aid, 2003, p.45). The business statement of Google Inc. itself represents the level of responsibility that the company tries to take with respect to the society and community in which it operates. The business statement of “Don’t be evil” reflects the aim of Google Inc. to conduct its global operations in a way such that it does not harm any entity of the planet (Lantos, 2001, p.91). However, the company has faced a unique type of corporate social responsibility issues in its operations in China. Google Inc. discovered that the Chinese government was trying to hack the electronic main accounts of the Google users through a targeted and sophisticated cyber-attack. Google Inc. accused the Chinese government of hacking into the Google email accounts of many businesses with the aim of tracking the activities of certain human right activists in the country (Valor, 2010, p.144). According to some reports from the media, Google Inc. was not the only organization that was targeted for extracting information on the human rights activities in the country. Other big companies like Yahoo, Cisco and Adobe were also similarly hacked by the Chinese government. According to the Chinese government, this action of ethical hacking was ethical because all the companies operating in a country have to abide by the existing controls of the state on the cyberspace operations and activities. The record of hacking of the personal electronic mail accounts of the human rights activities was an unethical practice as per the view of the company but was correct as per the state laws. Task B Since the time Google had entered China, it faced a number of conflicts while maintaining its sustainable and ethical business policies in China. The existing state controls of China were difficult to adhere to by Google Inc. because adhering to these state laws meant a diversion from the ethical philosophy of the business. The sophisticated cyber-attacks on the content properties of Google Inc. was considered to be a direct blow on the sustainability practices of Google and as such Google opted for the moral decision of moving out of the country. Despite the high level of unethical practices and the continuous exposure of the consumer data to third parties, if Google Inc. decided to stay in China, then the moral and ethical perspectives of the company would have to be compromised to a high extent. The motto of Google has always been “Don’t be evil” which the company has followed in all its business activities and business decisions. Therefore, in the situation of the crisis in China, the company had to choose between the options of being morally correct and of being able to generate high profits in an immensely potential market like the Chinese market (Muchlinski, 2011, p.314). Google Inc. faced a tough decision of balancing the main mission of the company to ensure and provide safe services for all the Google users and the needs of the stakeholder groups of the company. The company recognized that to continue ensuring safe services to the users and keep up the ethical and responsible image, it had to shut down its operations in China including the Google Inc. server and the physical offices in the country (China CSR, 2010, p.2). The decision was difficult as moving out of China meant that the company would lose on a major emerging market, thereby sacrificing a significant revenue stream. On the other hand, continuing its operations in China, despite the ethical conflicts, would have meant that the company was sacrificing on the basic positive philosophy and was ready to compromise on the level of ethical principles (Utting, 2005, p.44). Though, China was a high potential market for Google Inc, yet in China, the situation of the ethical issues faced by Google in China. Google Inc. chose to behave in a socially responsible manner and move out of China as a reaction to the un-consented activities of the Chinese government. However, most stakeholders are of the view that Google had a long term strategic view in mind while making this major decision. The company was already a giant in the world of technology and it had sufficient resources and capabilities to penetrate the market and have greater market share in few years (Rushton, 2012). Nevertheless, the company chose to close its operations as a part of its long term strategic management to ensure having adequate sustainable competitive advantage in its global operations through the maintenance of the positive image of the brand. Task C Censorship of Google Inc. in China has been one of the biggest and most critical dilemmas that have been faced by the company in its history. The disclosure and transparency policies and practices followed in China were significantly different from the ones traditionally followed by Google Inc. in its home country. The management including the Board of Directors of Google saw this issue as a prominent one that needed to be solved immediately in a way that it helped to save the ethical image of the company (Fassin, 2012, p.60). The Vice President of Global Communications and Public Affairs of Google Inc. Elliot Schrage focused on the corporate mantra of Google Inc. which was “Don’t Be Evil” and stated that this mantra was an admonition that reminded the company and all its stakeholder groups that they have to consider the ethical and moral implications of all the business and corporate decisions that the decision makers of the company take. According to him, on one hand the company had to act honorably and follow the policies and rules of China but on the other hand it had to provide the users an unbiased access to the content of the web. He further elaborated that these two objectives were not compatible and therefore the company had to take a bold stance to decide on its future strategy (Palacios, 2014, p.212). The management of Google chose not to compromise on the issue and makes a trade-off between the solutions. Instead the management and all the stakeholder groups were focused on taking a decision that added to the halo effect for the company regarding its corporate social responsibility and governance. Many analysts are of the view that the decision of Google Inc. moving out of China was driven by some kind of financial interest of the company (Van de Velde, Vermeir & Corten, 2010, p.90). The competitors of Google in China like Baidu, called the move of Google to remove its operations from China to be hypocritical. The competitors of Google argued that Google decided to extract its operations from China because it was unable to reap as much financial benefits as was expected from the foreign expansion and because it faced tough competition from the existing companies like Baidu. This may be assumed to be true to a certain extent because according to the reports of the market research companies. The market share of Google in China was only 15-20% as compared to that of the local search engine companies like Baidu which was around 60-70% (Amalric & Hauser, 2008, p.95). The relative failure of Google Inc. in the Chinese market was identified to be a stronger reason for Google moving out of China than the reason of the ethical and social issues arising in the country. Task D It may seem very easy for corporations to implement socially and ethically responsible practices in their operations. However, the global operations of multinational are confronted with a number of issues and constraints like conflicting interests and varying country specific laws which acts as a hindrance for the consistent performance of multinational companies (Quazi, 2003, p.14). In overall, the image of Google Inc. with respect to corporate social responsibility and corporate governance is extremely positive. The company experiences a halo effect in its positive image due to which the stakeholder groups are often forced to see the company at its best (Márquez & Fombrun, 2005, p.255). Governance is a dimension of corporate social responsibility in which Google has always been a strong contender for the leadership position. Thus, Google being a leading multinational company should focus on prioritizing on their goals which are based on ethical justification so that it can continue maintaining an adequate level of competitive sustainable advantage (Holliday, Schmidheiny & Watts, 2002, pp.115-116). References Amalric, F. & Hauser, J. (2008). Economic Drivers of Corporate Responsibility Activities. Journal of Corporate Citizenship, 20(1), 27-38. China CSR. (2010). Google Faces Corporate Social Responsibility Problem in China. Retrieved from http://www.chinacsr.com/en/2010/01/13/6953-google-faces-corporate-social-responsibility-problem-in-china/. Christian Aid (2003). Behind the Mask: The Real Face of Corporate Social Responsibility. Retrieved from http://www.humanrights.ch/upload/pdf/050816_csr_behindthemask_2004.pdf. Fassin, Y. (2012). The Reasons Behind Non-Ethical Behavior in Business and Entrepreneurship. Journal of Business Ethics. 60(3): 265-279. Holliday, C., Schmidheiny, C. & Watts, P. (2002). Walking the Talk: The Business Case for Sustainable Development. Sheffield: Greenleaf Publishing. Lantos, G.P. (2001).The boundaries of strategic corporate social responsibility. Journal of Consumer Marketing, 18(7), 595-630. Márquez, A. & Fombrun, C. J. (2005). Measuring Corporate Social Responsibility. Corporate Reputation Review, 7(4), 304-308. Muchlinski, P. T. (2011). Human Rights and Multinationals: Is there a Problem? International Affairs, 77(1), 31-48. Palacios, J. J. (2014). Corporate citizenship and social responsibility in a globalized world. Citizenship Studies, 8(4), 383-402. Quazi, A. M (2003). Identifying the determinants of corporate managers’ perceived social obligations. Management Decision, 41(9), 822-831. Richter, J. (2001). Holding Corporations Accountable: Corporate Conduct, International Codes, and Citizen Action. London: Zed Books. Rushton K. (2012). Business Ethics: a sustainable approach. Business Ethics. A European Review, 11(2), 137-139. Utting, P. (2005). Corporate responsibility and the movement of business. Development in Practice, 15(3-4), 375-388. Valor, C. (2010). Corporate Social Responsibility and Corporate Citizenship: Towards Corporate Accountability. Business and Society Review, 110(2), 191-212. Van de Velde, E., Vermeir, W & Corten, F. (2010). Corporate social responsibility and financial performance. International Journal of Business in Society, 3(1), 29-138. Read More