Ethical Challenge Analysis of Google

Ethical Challenge Analysis: Google

Nature of the Ethical Dilemma

At the heart of Google’s culture is the motto “Do no evil.” This motto is the motivating value for many of the company’s workers, so it was no surprise when workers protested Google’s contract with the Pentagon to provide AI analytics for the Pentagon’s drone technology as part of Project Maven. Employees were upset that their company appeared to be violating the core value of “do no evil”—their reasoning was that Pentagon drones would likely be used in warfare, and would likely lead to the killing of innocent men, women and children, as routinely happens according to various news reports. Employees protested. Google’s CEO therefore had a choice to make: commit to the Pentagon contract and betray his worker’s sense of the company’s most important value, or abandon the partnership with the Pentagon and satisfy employees. Being a public company, Google’s CEO was also aware that shareholders had a stake in the equation: government contracts can often be lucrative and good for business—so turning one down would mean a loss of revenue for the company, which could hurt shareholder value. Then again, if he really stood by the company’s motto, he also had to think about stakeholders in places like the Middle East, where drones were often used to deliver explosive payloads. What if, thanks to Google’s work, these drones did end up killing or wounding innocent civilians? Google’s CEO, therefore, had multiple considerations to make: employees were not happy about the contract, but having a good relationship with the Pentagon could be good for business; shareholders had to be thought of, but so too did the possibility that there could be real life or death implications for people in other parts of the world based on Google’s work on Project Maven. Should the CEO betray the company’s culture and employees’ sense of the company’s main value by abandoning the principle of “do no evil” in order to satisfy shareholders and develop a business relationship with the Pentagon?

Primary Stakeholders

The primary stakeholders in this issue were the employees, the CEO, the Pentagon, shareholders, and the communities that might be impacted by the use of the drone technology in other parts of the world. The employees’ interest in the issue was that the decision to work with the Pentagon on Project Maven appeared to them to violate the code of ethics that they signed onto at Google, which was to “do no evil.” In short, they felt that the company was asking them to violate the very principle that the company sought to promote in the workplace culture.

The CEO’s interest in the issue was that, as head of the company, he had to make the final decision. He could understand the employees’ point of view, but he also had to consider business strategy, shareholders, and what the real values of the company were. This issue would set a precedent one way or the other, so it was important to make the right call.

The Pentagon’s interest in the issue was that it wanted to work with Google to get the project up and running. Tasked with providing defense systems for the country, it wanted Google’s analytics team to provide services that would make this possible. The Pentagon was eager to work with the best, and its choice was Google.

Shareholders are always pleased when a company obtains contracts that will help to increase revenue, because it means there is more profit to go around. Therefore, shareholder interest in this issue was mainly financial and focused on their return on investment. If the contract was retained, it would likely mean a greater return on their investment. If it was abandoned, it could hurt Google’s revenue and limit its potential for growth in the future—especially if there would be no more contracts with the Pentagon, which always has a lot of money to spend.

Civilian communities’ interest in the issue is that anything that could potentially harm or kill them is bad. If Google is assisting in the development of technology that could harm or kill them, then there is every reason to view Google as immoral. These communities could assert their objections by turning against Google products or boycotting the company outright.

In terms of power relation to this issue, the CEO has the most power as it is his call and he makes the decision about whether to go forward with the contract or to abandon it. The employees are next in line in terms of power. While they do not get to make the final decision, they wield influence and can put pressure on the CEO by staging walk-outs, threatening to quit, using social media to spur a backlash against the company, or even engaging in sabotage. Unhappy employees can be a real danger for managers who are not careful. Shareholders follow employees in terms of influence; while they cannot “walk out” they can vote with their money; if they are not happy with what the CEO is indicating he will do, they can dump their shares and drive the price of the stock down, which in turn hurts the company’s ability to raise capital later on if it sees a need to do so. Then there is the Pentagon: it is a customer, but potentially a long-term customer. If Google wants to have a good relationship with the Pentagon, the Pentagon can put pressure on the CEO to accept the contract—otherwise the Pentagon might choose to look elsewhere in the future, leaving Google out of the mix of preferred companies to work with. Finally, there are the communities: they have the least power but are ostensibly the most vulnerable, as the final product out of Project Maven would impact them the most. They have little sway in this issue aside from getting on social media to get the issue trending and to raise awareness about the potential violation of Google’s code of “do no evil” ethics.

Actions Taken in Response

The CEO of Google decided to appease employees and end the contract with the Pentagon. However, the CEO also visited the Pentagon in person a few months later in order to salvage the business relationship. Workers were satisfied that their company was committed to its core value of “do no evil” and that the contract with the Pentagon to take part in Project Maven was not continued. Employees were happy about this, as were communities.

However, shareholders and the Pentagon were less pleased. If employees had felt betrayed by the contract, shareholders and the Pentagon felt betrayed by its abandonment. A business’s priority toward shareholders is to increase revenues and grow the value of the stock; its priority toward customers is to deliver on promised goods. The Pentagon expected Google to keep working on the contract, and shareholders expected the company to grow their wealth by making good business strategy decisions that would maximize their return on investment. The abandonment of the contract with the Pentagon was seen as a misstep by these two groups of stakeholders.

Utilitarian, Rights and Justice Perspectives

The utilitarian perspective says that the right course of action is that which achieves the greatest common good. The rights perspective considers the rights of individuals as the most important issue. The justice perspective is concerned with making sure everyone is treated equally and no one group is marginalized or undervalued in comparison to another. All three perspectives would say that the CEO of Google made the right decision.

First, the common good consideration of the utilitarian perspective would focus on what would provide the most happiness to all. Obviously Google has a lot of shareholders and depends upon satisfied customers for staying in business. However, it also depends on communities being happy with its products and services, and it cannot function without satisfied workers. Without workers supporting its projects, Google cannot satisfy shareholders or customers at all. So employees really do matter and so do the communities that they support. By satisfying workers and communities, Google correctly identified the greatest common good—and although this decision dissatisfied shareholders and the Pentagon, the company could make it up to them with future projects that would bring in revenue as well; in short, all was not lost on that end. But if Google had not sought to satisfy workers and communities it would have been akin to shooting itself in the foot; its future as a company that people wanted to work for and that communities wanted to support would be in jeopardy.

From the rights perspective, it is also clear that the CEO made the correct decision: the rights of communities to live without fear is important and so too is the right of employees to insist that the company that provides them with the values and code of ethics to work by also supports and acts according to that same code. To violate these rights of workers and communities would be to violate its own reason for existing.