CASE
STUDY
21
Dilemmain China
Google's
JaneStuartBaker
andLuTang
This case explores whether we should use one set of universal ethics that is
applicable to all cultures or multiple ethical standards situated in the diverse legal,
cultural, and social contexts of various nation states. In an era of globalization,
it raises questions about how global companies should deal with conflifring
ethical views from divergent stakeholders around the world. The case also seeks
to examine the dilemmas of aligning organizational values and practices in other
parts of the world that may not share such ethics.
,Tl
I he process of globalization is fundamentally changing the ways corporations do business
today (Castells,1996). While there is a lack of consensus on the causes, conceptualization,
and effects of globalization, Held, McCrew, Goldblatt, and Perraton (1999) identified rhe
following four aspects as its defining characteristics:(1) the extensity of the networks that
connect different countries, people, and organizations in the world; (2) the intensity of the
interaction in these networks; (3) the speed with which information, capital, people, and
products move around the globe, and (4) the impact of these trends on different communities.
Within the or$anizational realm, scholars have been examining two concurrent trends
by which globalization has affected today's organizations: convergence and divergence
(Stohl,2O01). The convergence approach emphasizes how the social, economic, and
technological infrastructures of the global market lead organizations to operate and communicate similarly in the global context. On the other hand, the divergence perspective
focuses on the heterogeneity of organizational practices that are brou$ht about because of
different cultures around the world. At the center of this tension is the dialectical relationship between globalization and localization. Great attention has been paid to examining
how today's organizations $lobalize or localize their practices and communication to be
successful in this new era of globalization.
As corporations are increasingly integrated into the global marketplace, stakeholders
such as governments, international non$overnmental organizations, errployees, and customers have scrutinized the ethics applied to their practices. The concept of ethics is problematized by globalization as different cultures bring different concepts of ethics (Scherer
& Palazzo,2008). What constitutes ethical practices for today's corporations? Should there
285
-.-1>-
286
PARrvr couRAGE
be one set of universal ethics that is applicable to all cultures or multiple ethical standards
situated in the different tegal, cultural, and social contexts of different nation-states? How
should global companies deal with conflicting ethics and requirements from their different
stakeholders around the world? Should they adhere to their own ethical standards developed in the context of their home country and culture or adapt their ethical standards to
meet the local social and legal environments?
Caught in this dilemma is Google, the largest search engine in the world. Google has no
doubt influenced our use of the Internet as a source ol information. According to market
research source Experian Hitwise (2010), Google accounted for over 7O% of total Internet
searches in the United States during June 2010. Along with the success of its business,
Coogle has presented itself as a highly ethical company. lts corporate philosophy features
t h e s t a t e m e n t , " Y o u c a n m a k e m o n e y w i t h o u t d o i n g e v i l " ( G o o g l e ,2 0 1 1 ) .
Despite Google's official stance toward this philosophy, the company's behaviors p e c i [ i c a l l y .t h e 2 0 0 6 l a u n c h o f i t s C h i n a - b a s e d s e a r c h e n g i n e , G o o g l e . c n - h a s d r a w n
skepticism from human rights organizations and the U.S. government. Since the launch,
Google has conceded to China's censorship laws by agreeing ro filter out politically sensitive terms, such as Falun Gong, democracy, and Tiananmen, from its search results. Human
rights activists and political leaders have, in turn, accused Google of betraying its espoused
ethical standards by ignoring the value of freedom of expression and information access.
In the years that have followed, Google has responded in various ways, shifting its rhetorical strategies as it has attempted to address changing needs.
Google has not laced such ethical challenges alone. Technology firms such as Yahool,
Microsoft, Cisco Systems, and Sun Microsystems have all faced similar criticisms by con,
gressional leaders and human rights organizations, who criticized the technology companies lor lacking integrity and urging them to take a stand for human rights when doing
business abroad. While the ethics of any of these companies would be worth further examining. Coogle presents a particularly interesting case because the company has staunchly
detended its business practices as ethical in spite of opposition by some stakeholders.This
case introduces the controversy around Goo$le's China-based search en$ine Goo$le.cn and
how Google and different stakeholders have addressed and negotiated this controversy.
Excerpts from Google's official statements, such as company blo$s and testimonies before
t h e U . S .S e n a t ea n d C o n g r e s s a
, r e p r e s e n t e dt o b r i n g t o l i g h t t h e e t h i c a l d i l e m m a s t h e c o m pany has faced between 2006 and 2010.
T H EL A U N CO
HFG O O G L E . C N
On January 27. 2006. Google published a blog explaining that Chinese users of Google.com
were experiencing slow and often unavailable service. The blog stated that Coo$le was not
proud of the service it was able to provide and argued for the need to create a local search
engine, Google.cn,based in China. The company acknowledged that Chinese law would require
that search results on this local version of Goo$le be censored,which would violate the company's commitment to free inforrnation access.Nonetheless, Goo$le used the blog as a forum
for aligning the decision to launch Google.cn with the fulfillment of its corporate mission:
W
m
mi
ar(
Go
sev
qu
this
ma
int€
On
Intern
schola
freedo
Schra
prese
b a s e dr
a busi
rnChi
Chines
Ope
to ha
mark
searc
(and1
Howe
i t sC h i n
There
Chin
beca
to pro
ethic
cultur
its mis
Intern
not all
would
aseto
consid
CASESTUDY21
cal standards
How
L-states?
heir different
idards develstandards to
ioogle has tro
ing to market
total Internet
'its
busrness,
rphy features
's
behavior.r-has drawn
r et h e l a u n c h ,
l i t i c a l l ys e n s i : s u l t sH
. uman
( its espoused
natlon access.
ng its rhetorirch as Yahool,
cisntsby conotogy compas when doing
further examhas staunchlY
leholders.This
Google.cnand
is controversy.
monies be[ore
r m a st h e c o n l -
of Google.com
)oogle was not
: a local search
v would require
iolatethe cotnrlog as a forum
te mlsslon.
Google'sDilernnrain China
287
We ultimately reachedour decisionby askingourselveswhich coursewould
most effectivelyfurther Goo$le'smissionto organizethe world's information and
rnake it universallyusefuland accessible.
Ot put simply: how can we provide the
greatestaccessto information to the greatestnumber of people?
Filteringour searchresultsclearly compromisesour mission.Failin$to offer
Googlesearchat all to a fifth of the world's population,however,does so far more
severely.Whether our critics agreewith our decisionor not, due to the severe
quality problemsfacedby usersrying to accessGoogle.comfrom within China,
this is preciselythe choicewe believewe faced.By launchingGoo$le.cnand
making a major ongoinginvestmentin peopleand infrastructurewithin China.we
intend to changethat. (Mclaughlin,2006)
O n F e b r u a r y 1 5 . s h o r t l y a f t e r t h e o f f i c i a l l a u n c h o f G o o g l e . c n t, h e C o n r m i t t e eo n
I n t e r n a t i o n a lR e l a t i o n so f U . S .C o n g r e s sh e l d a h e a r i n g i n w h i c h p r i v a t e c o m p a n i e s .
s c h o l a r s ,a n d g o v e r n m e n tl e a d e r sw e r e i n v i t e d t o m a k e s t a t e m e n t sr e g a r d i n gI n t e r n e t
I ' r e e d o mi n C h i n a a n d t h e r o l e s t o b e p l a y e d b y A m e r i c a n t e c h n o l o g y f i r m s . E l i o t
S c h r a g e .G o o g l e ' sv i c e p r e s i d e n t f o r c o r p o r a t e c o m m u n i c a t i o n a n d g u b l i c a f f a i r s .
p r e s e n t e da t e s t i m o n yt h a t f u r t h e r r a t i o n a l i z e dC o o g l e ' sd e c i s i o nt o l a u n c h t h e C h i n a b a s e ds e a r c h e n g i n e .S c h r a g e( 2 0 0 6 ) f i r s t d e f e n d e dG o o g l e ' si n t e r e s t i n m a i n t a i n i n g
a b u s i n e s sr e l a t i o n s h i pw i t h C h i n a a n d e x p l a i n e dt h a t G o o g l eh a d l o s t m a r k e t s h a r e
i n C h i n a b e c a u s eo f i t s c o m m i t m e n t t o m a i n t a i n i n g t h e u n c e n s o r e dG o o $ l e . c o mi o r
C h i n e s eu s e r s :
Operatinqwithout a local presence,Google'sslownessand unreliabilityappears
to havebeen a major-perhaps the major-factor behind our steadilydeclining
market share.Accordingto ttrird-partyestimates.Baidu has gone from 2.5% oi the
s e a r c hm a r k e ti n 2 O O 3t o 4 6 % i n 2 0 0 5 ,w h i l e G o o g l eh a s d r o p p e dt o b e l o w 3 0 %
land falling).
However,Schrage(2006)alsoacknowled$edthat the company'sdesireto cotr-rpete
with
i t s C h i n e s ec o u n t e r p a r t lsi k e B a i d uc r e a t e da n e t h i c a ld i l e m m a :
f h e r e i s n o q u e s t i o nt h a t , a s a m a t t e r o f b u s i n e s sw
, e w a n t t o b e a c t i v ei n
C h i n a . . . I t w o u l d b e d i s i n $ e n u o r r tso s a y t h a t w e d o r r ' t c a r e a b o u t t h a t
b e c a u s eo, f c o u r s e ,w e d o . W e a r e a b u s i n e s sw i t h s t o c k h o l d e r sa, n d w e w a n t
t o p r o s p e ra n d g r o w i n a h i g h l y c o r n p e t i t i v ew o r l d . A t t h e s a m e t r m e ,a c t i n g
e t h i c a l l y i s a c o r e v a l u e f o r o u r c o m p a n y ,a n d a n i n t e g r a lp a r t o f o u r b u s i n e s s
c u l t u r e .O u r s l o w n e s sa n d u n r e l i a b i l i t yh a s m e a n t t h a t G o o g l ei s f a i l i r r gi r r
i t s m i s s i o n t o m a k e t h e w o r l d ' s i n f o r m a t i o na c c e s s i b l e
and usefulto Chinese
I n t e r n e tu s e r s .O n l y a l o c a l p r e s e n c ew o u l d a l l o w G o o g l et o r e s o l v el n o s t , i f
n o t a l l , o f t h e l a t e n c ya n d a c c e s si s s u e s B
. u t t o h a v ea l o c a l p r e s e n c ei n C h i n a
w o u l d r e q u i r eG o o g l et o g e t a n I n t e r n e tC o n t e n tP r o v i d e rl i c e n s e ,t r i g g e r i n g
a s e t o f r e g u l a t o r yr e q u i r e m e n t st o f i l t e r a n d r e m o v el i n k s t o c o n t e n t t h a t i s
c o n s i d e r e di l l e g a l i n C h i n a .
288
PART VI coURAGE
Schrage (2006) then framed Google's dilemma in terms of two choices:
[ 1] stay or-rtof China , or [2] establish a local presence in China-either of which
would entail some degree of inconsistency with our corporate mission. In assessing
these options, we looked at three fundamental Google commitments:
a. Satisfy the interests of users,
b. Expand access to information, and
c. Be responsive to local conditions.
Based on the previous considerations, Schrage presented Google's decision. which
entailed three parts. First. the company had opted to launch Google.cn and censor the
search results accordinq to Chinese law. Second, Goo$le had begun to disclose the fact that
it was filtering the results "in a step toward greater transparency." Third, Google had promised not to launch a Chinese version of Gmail and Blogger so that tlre company would not
be faced with requests by China's government to release private and confidential information sent arrd posted by users.
Despite Coogle's attenrpts to align its br-rsinesspractices and ethical standards, represenlatives of human rights organizations presented a very different picture of Intentet access
in countries such as China. Timothy Kumar of Amnesty lnternational directly accused
technology companies of complying with foreign governments' censorship laws at the
e x p e n s eo f h u m a n r i g h t s .
Several international companies provide Internet services in CIrina, and marry
have headquarters within the Unitetl States.Some of these companies, includin$
Cisco Systems and Sun Microsystems, have helped to build the infrastructure that
makes Internet censorship possible while others, including Yahool, Microsoft. and
C o o g l e a r e i n c r e a s i n g l yc o m p l y i n g w i t h g o v e r n m e n t d e r n a n d s t o a c t i v e l y c e n s o r
Chinese users by lilniling the inforrlation they call access.(Kurnar, 2006)
Speaking directly to Google, Kumar drew attention to the recent launch of the comp a n y ' s C h i n e s e s e a r c h e n g i n e . Q u o t i n g S e c r e t a r y C e r r e r a lI r e n e K h a n , K u m a r p o i n t e d
o u t d i s c r e p a n c i e sb e t w e e n G o o g l e ' sp r a c t i c e s i n C h i n a a r r d i t s s t a t e d c o r l m i t m e n f t o f r e e
information access:
(2006)t
defens
lAnl
Chin
that
at th
is Gc
disc
sysi
the (
inclt
resu
Chi
But
you
to gt
aroL
THEENDO
DesPt
Googl
humar
Coo$l
ing ttr
v i c eP
to con
if the
requir
On
l-aw I
relati
W h e t h e r s u c c u m b i n g t o d e m a n d s f r o m C h i n e s eo i i i c i a l s o r a n t i c i p a t t n g
g o v e r n r n e n t c o n c e r n s , c o m p a n i e s t h a t i m p o s e r e s t r i c t i o n st h a t i r r f r i n g e o n h u m a n
'Ihe
r i g h t s a r e b e i r r $e x t r e r n e l y s h o r t - s i g h t e d .
a g r e e r r e n t st h e i n d u s t r y e n t e r s i u r o
w i t h t h e C h i n e s eg o v e r n m e n t , w h e t h e r t a c i t o r w r i t t e n , g o a g a i n s tt h e I T i n d u s t r y ' s
claim that it promotes the right to freedom ol informarion of all people, at all
times, everywhere. (Kumar, 2006)
Tom Malirrowski.representativefor Hurnan RightsWatch,another influential human
rights organization.also protestedthe actionsof technologyconipanies.In Malinowski's
ethics
tion I
Cens
Th
is
ln
Ih
tri
C A S ES T U D Y2 l
'which
:I ASSESSINg
c i s i o n ,w h i c h
n d c e n s o rt h e
ie the factthat
glehadpromlny would not
n t i a li n f o r m a rrds,represenlternetaccess
'ectlyaccused
ip lawsat the
G o o g l e 'D
s i l e m m ai r r C h i n a
289
(2006)testimony,he presentedcommon argumentsmade by the Internetcorporationsin
defenseof censorshipand then attackedthem:
[An] argumentmade by some cornpaniesis that censorshipis acceptableif'
ChineseInternetusersare honestlytold what is happening.This is the argument
that Googleis making,becausethe ChineseGoogtesite includesa disclaimer
at the bottom informin$ usersthat some information is bein$ censored.But
is Googlereally being honestand open about what it is doing?Googleis not
disclosinga crucial piece of information--it is not saying how its censorship
systemworks. Ir is not telling userswhat rnaterial-what sites,words, and ideasthe Chinesegovernmentis tellin$ it to block. fAnother] argument that companies,
including Google,make is that the sitesthey removefrom their searchengine
resultsare in any caseblockedby the Chinesegovernment,and thus that their
Chineseusersare not being deniedanything to which they previouslyhad access.
But this is not entirely true. If you punch in the words "human rights" on Coogle,
you wilt find links to literally millions of websites.from the home pagesof NGOs.
to governmentsites,to newspapers.univr:rsities,
and blogs in scoresof countries
a r o u n dt h e w o r l d .
THEENDOFCENSORSHIP?
many
rcludinq
cturethat
osoft.and
y censor
')
Despite the challerrging remarks made by human rights organizations at the hearing,
Google went about businessas usual unti{ 2010, when an attack on Grnail accounts of
human riQhts activists in China forced executives to change strategies. On January 12,
Google's senior management published a blog entry in response to these attacks. announci n $ t h e c o r n p a n y ' s p l a n t o e r r d t h e c e n s o r i n g o i s e a r c h r e s u l t s .D a v i d D r u m m o n d , s e n i o r
vice president of corporate developrnent, stated, "We have decided we are no lon$er willing
r of thecomumar pointed
rtmentt.oFree
to continue censoring our results on Google.cn" and indicated that Goo$le would exit China
i f t l r e C h i n e s eg o v e r n r n e n tw o u l d n o t a g r e et o l o o s e n i t s I n t e r n e t c e n s o r s h i p a n d f i l t e r i n g
r e q u i r e m e n t s( D r u r n m o n d , 2 0 I O a ) .
O n M a r c h 2 n d , a t t h e U S . S e n a t eh e a r i n g o n G l o b a l I n t e r n e t F r e e d o m a n d t h e R u l e o f
Law, Nicole Wong. vice president and deputy general counsel of Coogle, redefined the
)n nurnan
rters Into
industry's
at all
e n t i a lh u m a n
Malinowski's
relationship between business and ethics. While irr the 2006 testimony, business and
ethics were framed as contradicting each other, at least in the context of Coogle's operat i o t t i n C h i n a . C o o g l e ' s2 0 1 0 t e s t i m o n y p o s i t i o n e d t h e t w o a s i n d i s p e n s i b l e t o o n e o t h e r .
C e n s o r s h i pc o u l d i n d e e d h u r t b u s i n e s sa n d h u m a n r i g h t s s i m u l t a n e o u s l y :
-lhe
debate on lnternet censorship is, of course, not only about human rights. At
issue is the continued economic growth spurred by a free and globally accessible
lnternet. . . . When a foreign government pursues censorship policies in a nranner
that favors dornestic Internet cornpanies, this goes against basic international
trade principles of non-discrimination and maintaining a level playing field. t,ocal
290
PART VI COURAGE
competitors gain a business advantage, and consumers are deprived of the ability
to choose the best services for their needs. And when a government disrupts
an Internet service in its entirety-e.$., blockin$ an entire website because of
concerns with a handful of user-generated postings-the government is restricting
trade well-beyond what would be required even if it had a legitimate public policy
justification for the censorship. (Wong, 2010)
Wong (2010) also reiterated Internet censorship as a global problem and called for the
collaboration of the U.S. government and corporations in promoting an international code
of conduct to respond to foreign governments who demanded censorship:
Ultimately, governments that respect the right to online free expression should
work together to craft new international rules to better discipline government
actions that impede the free flow of information over the Internet. We need
forward-looking rules that provide maximum protection against the trade barriers
of the new technology era. On the multilateral human rights front, enforcing and
supporting the mechanisms of the International Covenant on Civil and Political
Rights and others under the UN system (e.g.,the UN Human Rights Committee)
to demand accountability from governments for Internet censorship is helpful. At
the very least, these mechanisms can be better used to shine light on government
abuses.
Beginning March 23rd, Google.cn visitors were automatically redirected to the uncens o r e d G o o g l e . c o m . h k .D r u m m o n d c o m m e n t e d o n t h i s n e w a p p r o a c h :
We believe this new approach of providing uncensored search in simplified
Chinese from Coogle.com.hk is a sensible solution to the challenges we've facedit's entirely legal and will meaningfully increase access to information for people
in China. We very much hope that the Chinese government respects our decision,
though we are well aware that it could at any time block access to our services.
We will therefore be carefully monitoring access issues, and have created this
new web page, which we will update regularly each day, so that everyone can see
w h i c h G o o g l e s e r v i c e sa r e a v a i l a b l ei n C h i n a . ( D r u m m o n d , 2 0 1 0 b )
Various human rights organizations. such as Human Rights Watch, now praised Google
for its stance on censorship and freedom of expression and urged other Internet companies to follow in Google's footsteps. Human Rights Director Arvind Ganesan declared the
following:
Google's decision to offer an uncensored search engine is an important step to
challenge the Chinese government's use of censorship to maintain its control over
its citizens.
This is a crucial moment for freedom of expression in China, and
the onus is now on other major technology companies to take a firm stand against
censorship. (Human Rights Watch, 2010)
Hc
any r
an at
"Goo
Chin;
A REVIS
InaJ
tOWa
opera
had re
hk, th
contin
It's
rhe
WC
ren
pag
witl
cen
one
Goo
had inr
based r
but wo
Coogle
MOVINGTO
SOCIALRE
Google
taneou
be inte
when tl
in the L
adaptec
about G
CASESTUDY2l
ability
)ts
of
stficting
c policy
alled for the
ational code
:lould
nent
ed
) barriers
ring and
rtiticat
nlttee)
elpful. At
vernmenl
to the uncen-
fied
've
faced-or people
r decision,
;ervices.
rd this
ne can see
praisedGoogle
lternet comPaLndeclared the
step to
ontrol over
l h i n a ,a n d
and against
Coogle'sl)ilerrimain China
297
However,other commentatorswere less optimistic that Google'sdecisionwould have
any real impact on improvinghuman rights regardinginformation access.Cynthia Wong,
an attorney at the Center for Democracyand Technology in Washin$ton responded.
"Goo$le'smove is really commendablebut I don't think it will have a major impact on
China'ssystemof filtering"(Farrell,2010).
A REVISED
APPROACH
I n a J r r n e 2 8 . 2 O l O .b l o g , G o o g l e a n n o u n c e d t h a t i t w a s r e s c i n d i n g o n i t s s t r o n g p o s i t i o n
toward redirecting users of Google.cn to Coogle.com.hk. Believing that the renewal of its
operating license was at stake, representativesposted a blog exptaining that the conrpany
had relaxed its policy and that instead of automatically redirecring users to Coogle.com.
hk, they would be taken to a landing page, at which tilne they would be given the option to
continue on to the censored Goo$le.crror opt for the uncensored Coogle.corn.hk:
It's clear from conversations we have had with Chinese government offidals that
they find the redirect fto the uncensored Coogle.hk] unacceptable-and that if
w e c o n t i n u e r e d i r e c t i n $u s e r s o u r I n t e r n e t C o n t e n t P r o v i d e r l i c e n s e w i l l n o t b e
renewed . . . we have started taking a small percentage of [users] to a landind
page on Google.cn rhat tinks to Google.com hk . . which we can provide locatly
w i t h o u t f i l t e r i n g T h i s a p p r o a c h e n s u r e sw e s t a y t r u e t o o u r c o n r m i t n r e n t n o t t o
censor our results on Goo$le.cn and gives users access to all of our services from
o n e p a g e .( D r u m m o n d , 2 0 1 0 c )
Coogle updated its blog on Jtrly 9, 2010, to announce that the Chinese government
h a d i n d e e d g r a n t e d i t s r e q u e s t f o r a r e n e w a l o [ t h e I n t e r n e t c o n t e n t p r o v i d e r ( l C P )l i c e n s e
based on the condition that userswould not automatically be directed to Coogle.cotn.hk
b u t w o u l d b e g i v e n t h e c h o i c e b e t w e e n t h e l l o n g K o n $ v e r s i o n o f G o o g l ea n d t h e c e n s o r e d
GooQle.cn.
MOVINGTOWARD
A THEORETICAL
APPROACH
OFCORPORATE
SOCIAL
RESPONSIBILITY
Google's move demonstrates its atrempt to be accountable to multiple stakeholders simultaneously. 1-he cornpany's initial decision to launch the China-based search engine can
be interpreted as the company's attempt to be accountable to its shareholders. However,
when this practice attracted criticism from other stakeholders, such as the gerreral public
in the United States,human rights organizations, arrd the U.S. $overnment, rhe colnpany
adapted both its business and rhetorical strategies to respond to these stakeholders. How
about Google's users in China? What has the cornpany done to be accountable to thern?
292
PART VI COURAGE
In examining Google's practices and rhetoric regarding Internet censorship, the company appeared to face several dilemmas. Carroll (1991) proposed a widely used model
describing corporations' social responsibility. At the most basic level, the corporation
should focus on economic $oals: maximizing profits, minimizin$ losses,and streamlinin$
[or e[[iciency. At the legal level, corporations are ensuring that while they are maximizing
profits they are also abiding by local, state, and national laws and working cooperatively
with regulatory agencies to avoid engaging in practices that society considers wrong. At the
legal level. the business is iulfilling its contract with society but going no further. The third
level focuses on the corporation's ethical responsibilities to its stakeholders and to society
to produce goods and services that do not cause harm and that are produced through fair
and just means. At this level, the corporation chooses not to engage in certain practices
even though they may be legal if doing so would cause societal harm. Carroll's model
depicts the highest set of goals as philanthropic pursuits. These transcend mottos such as
Goo$le's well-known "Don't be evil" mantra and actually improve society, the community.
or the environment in ways that transcend the core service or goods that the business provides. ln managing the controversy around lnternet censorship, Coogle addressed several
levels of social responsibility in Carroll's model, namely economic responsibility, legal
r e s p o n s i b i l i t y ,a n d e t h i c a l r e s p o n s i b i l i t y
One challenge Google faced was how to make compatible its economic, legal, and ethical goals. In particular, Google sought to increase profits by exploiting the vast market in
C h i n a b u t a l s o f e l t b o u n d b y t h e e t h i c a l r e s p o n s i b i l i t yo f a d h e r i n g t o v a l u e s s u c h a s h u m a n
rights and freedom of expression. Another dilemma that Google faced was deciding how
best to manage the contradiction between its ethical standards for lnternet freedom with
calls for censorship frorn the Chinese government.
Coogle has clearly faced ongoing difficulties during its tenure in China. No choice has
been straightforward, and with every decision the company has made, it has risked alienating one group of stakeholders in order to satisFyanother. The case highlights the importance
of attending to multiple definitions of ethical responsibility simultaneously and the inherent
difficulties in doing so. Moreover, organizations face new obstacles when seeking to apply
ethical standards from their local culture in an international settin$, as such standards are
not always held universally. Organizations such as Google must be mindful of these challenges not only because of how they mi$ht affect their reputation and business but also rn
the ways they impact the people they purport to serve through their corporate missions.
REFEREN
Carroll
of
Castell
Drumft
hfl
Drumn
Re
Drumm
go(
Irxperia
201
sea
Farrell,
Scir
mo
Google
col
H e l d ,D
and
Human
Ret
gov
Kumat I
the
Con
DISCUSSION
QUESTIONS
Malinow
Asit
D i d C o o g l e m a k e t h e r i g h t c h o i c e i n i t i a l l y - t o l a u n c h G o o g l e . c na n d c e n s o r t h e
search results?
ope
McLaugf
goo
FIow has Google's rhetoric regarding ethics, human rights, and business changed
over time?
3
What perspective(s)on ethics form the basis for Google's decisions?
A
Does Google's rhetoric match its behavior? What implications does this have for
GooQle?For Chinese users ol its services?
Scherer,
A.M
(pp
Schrage
pac
Con
C A S ES T U D Y2 l
, the comsed model
lrporatlon
^eamlining
laximizing
)peratively
ong. At the
r. The third
1 to socletY
hrough fair
n practices
oll's rlodel
.tos such as
)ommunity,
rsinessProlsed several
ibility, legal
a l ,a n d e t h i ;t market in
h a sh u m a n
:ciding how
eedom with
> choice has
skedalienat: imporlance
the inherent
dng to apply
itandardsare
f these chalssbut also tn
: missions.
G o o g l e 'D
s r l e m m ai n C h i n a
293
5. What responsibilities
do companieslike Googlehave in promoting human righrs
internationally?
6. Is it ethicalfor Googleto baseits decisionregardingcensorshipon what competitors like Yahooland Microsoftare doing?
7. How important is it for an organizationto standby its values,evenwhen they
clashwith the localvaluesof a foreignnation in which the organizationis
operating?
REFERENCES
Carroll,A B.(1991) Thepyramidofcorporatesocialresponsibility: Towardthemoral management
o f o r q a n i z a t i o n a l s t a k e h o l d e r s .B u s i n e s sH o r i z o n s . 3 1 . i 9 - 4 8 .
C a s t e l l s .M . ( 1 9 9 6 ) . T h e r i s e o f t h e n e t w o r k s o c i e t y . M a l d e r r , N l A : B l a c k w e l l .
D r u t n m o n d . D . ( 2 0 1 0 a ,J a n u a r y l 2 ) A n e w a p p r o a c h t o C h i n a . [ W e b l o g c o m m e n t ] . R e t r i e v e d f r o m
h t t p : / / g o o g l e b l o g . b l o g s p o t . c o m / 2 0I 0 / 0 I / n e w - a p p r o a c h - t o - c h i n a . h t m l
Drummond. D. (20l0b, March 22). A new approach to China: An update. [Weblrg commentl.
Retrieved fronr http://googleblog.blogspot.conr/2010/03/new-approach-to-china,update.htrll
Drummond, D. (2010c, June 28). An update on Chirra. lweblog comment]. Retrieved from http:/i
g o o g l e b l o g . b l o g s p o t . c o m / 2 010 / 0 6 / u p d a t e - o n - c h i n a . h t m l
l:xperian Hi(lvise. (2OlO\. Experian Hitwise reports Bing share of searches increcses 7 percent for June
2010 lData filel. Retrieved lrom http:/iwww.hitwise.com/us/press-center/press,releases/googles e a r c h e s - j u n -l O i
f ' a r r e l l , M . B . ( 2 0 1 0 . M a r c h 2 5 ) . G o o g l e C h i n a m o v e p u t s p r e s s L r r eo n M i c r o s o f t . Y a h o o . C h r i s t i d n
Science Monitor. Retrieved irom http.//wwrvcsmonitor.com/tiSA/2010/0325r/Google-Chinam o v e ' p u t s - p r e s s u r e -o n - M i c r o s o f t - Y a ho o
Google. (2011).Our philosophy. Ten things we know to be true. Retrieved from http://www.google.
c o m / c o r p o r a t e / t e n t l r i n g s .h t n r l .
H e l d , D . , N 4 c c r e w A . . G o l d b l a t t . D . , & P e r r a t o n , J . ( 1 q 9 9 ) . G l o b a l t r a n s f o r m a t i o n s : P o l i t i c s .e c o n o r n i c s ,
and culture. Stanford, CA. Stanford Universlty Press.
Human Rights watch. (2010, March 22). China. Goottle decision shows government intransigence.
Retrieved frorn http:llwww.lrrw.orglen/newsl20t0/03l22lcltina-eoogie-wirhdrawal-showsg o v e f l) m e n t - i n t r a n s i g e n c e .
Kurnar, T. (2006, February l5). kstimony of Amnesly International before the Subcommittee on Asia and
the Pacit'ic.and the Subcomntittee on Africa, Global tltnnan Rights. and Internatiortttl Operati,tns.
Courrnittee orr lnternational Relations. United StatesHouse ol Representatrves
Malinowski, T. (2006, February '15). Tbstintony oJ Hurnan Rights Watch before the Subcommittee on
Asia artd the Pacific, and tht' Subcomntittee on Africa, Global Human Rights, and International
) n s o trh e
O p e r a t i r . ; n sC
. o m l n i t t e e o n I n t e r n a t i o n a l R e t a t i o n s ,U n i t e d S t a t e s H o t r s e o f R e p r e s e n t a t i v e s .
Mcl.aughlirt. A. (2000, January 27). Google in Chirn. [Weblog comment]. Retrieved frorn http.//
lschan$ed
g o o g l e b l o g . b l o g s p o t . c o m / 2 0 0 6 / OI / g o o g l e - i n - c h i n a .h t r n l
Scherer. A. C., & Palazzo, G. (2008). Globalization and corporate social responsibility. In A. Crane,
A.McWillianrs.J Moon.&.D.S.Siegel (Eds.),rhcOxJordhuttdbctctkoJcorpomtesocialrespctnsibility
s have for
(pp. 413-431). New York: Oxford University Press.
Schrage. E. (2006. February l5t. Testimony of Google Inc. before the Subcotnmittee on Asia and the
Pacific. und the Subcommittee on Africa, Global Human Rigltrs, and [tlternatiotlal Operations.
C o t n t l i t t e e o n l n t e r n a t r o n a l R e l a t i o n s . L l n i t e d S t a t e sH o u s e o f R e D r e s e n t a t i v e s .
294
PARrvr couRAGE
communication.ln F. M.Jablin & L. Putnam (Eds.),Ihe
Stohl,C. (2001).Globalizingorganizational
new handbookof organizationalcommunication:Advancesin theory,research,a.ndmethods(pp.
323-378).ThousandOaks,CA:Sage
Wong, N. (2010, March 22). kstimony of Google,Inc. United States Senate Hearing on Global
Internet Freedomand the Rule of Ldrv.Retrievedfrom http://judiciary.senate.gov/pdfllO-O3pdf
O2wong%27 sTestimony.
Spe
7
p
c
t,
lt
HOSPICE
C
Health
access
debate
us aga
In actu
this ca
care se
not pa
Ironica
enhan
policy
munitl
Hos
patien
ance, I
to Mec
cial re
consec
Case Studies in
ORGANIZ.ATIONAL
COMMUNICA'rION
Ethical Perspectives and Practices
r"'.*nk
"tr
#&- ulr 1
Editedov Steve
May
The University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill
0sncr
I
I
Los AngelesI LondonI New Delhi
SingaporeI WashingtonDC