Question description

Case Questions 1. Why do you think so many American citizens and lawmakers reacted negatively to Google’s decision in 2006? 2. Does the fact that Google is an Internet company change societal expectations of it with regard to information openness? 3. Was Google facing an ethical dilemma (values in conflict) in 2006? 4. Analyze the dilemma from consequentialist, deontological and virtue ethics perspectives. Based upon your analysis, what do you think is the right thing to do? Do you agree with Google’s CEO that the company made “a principled decision?” Why or why not? 5. Google’s motto is “Don’t Be Evil.” What does that mean? And, how does it apply in this situation? Is the company living up to its motto? Is it a good motto? 6. Consider Google’s other values related to democracy, not doing evil, focusing on the user, providing information, etc. Can Google do business in China and maintain these ideals? If so, how? If not, why not? 7. In defense of its 2006 decision, Google said that it complies with the law in countries where it does business. But, the author of a book on IBM and the holocaust says that IBM used the same defense in the 1930s, when it provided Adolf Hitler with the tools to keep “the wheels of the Holocaust running on time.” The author says “[they] want to be good Americans in the U.S. and good collaborators in China. They want it both ways but there are certain things we must not do” (Page, 2006). (This needs an appropriate citation. I’m assuming that it’s a reference to an Edwin Black book, called IBM and the Holocaust, but the authors need to confirm.) Do you agree with the company’s stance? If so, what changed in 2010? 8. Google and other companies routinely comply with government rules to censor other types of material, especially pornography, but also hate speech and other moral matters, such as sexual images in Islamic countries. Are some forms of censorship acceptable? If so, where/how would you draw the line? 9. Tom Donaldson rejects ethical relativism (“when in Rome”) and ethical absolutism (insisting on the same exact standards everywhere for every situation). Instead, he recommends that companies operating overseas adopt an ethical threshold, based upon core values, such as the golden rule and respect for human rights. Those must then be translated into specific guidelines. Do you think Google’s 2006 operating standards were consistent or inconsistent with Donaldson’s recommendations? If you were going to recommend a set of standards for Google, what would they say and why? 10. Every transcultural set of ethics standards for global business practice includes the principle of human rights. For example, the UN global compact says that companies should protect internationally proclaimed human rights and not be complicit in human rights abuses. The Caux Roundtable Principles state that businesses should contribute to human rights in the countries in which they operate. Is Google’s behavior consistent with these expectations? Do you agree that the company “negotiated away users’ human rights” in 2006? 11. What about the company’s threat to pull out of China in 2010, if its users could not conduct censorship free searches? Do you agree with it? If so, why was it the right decision at that moment? How might it affect other companies doing business in China? Does it change how you think about the company’s original decision?