Google Case Study as the

Google Case Study As the global economy becomes more of a reality, and as various developing countries increase the amount of business they do with developed countries, many cultural issues arise. Doing business is not the same worldwide, and as citizens of a global village, we must realize that there are different cultural norms and behaviors that are acceptable in some countries, unacceptable in others, and even expected in some. International companies are being pressurized by different groups of people, mainly from their stakeholders, regarding social and ethical issues.

Issues revolving around what the United States government calls "bribery" may indeed be part of doing business, yet cause us to ask: "Is it moral or not, when trading in a foreign country, to participate in immoral actions to survive"? Morality is typically the standard that a group has about what is right and wrong -- good and evil -- permissible or unacceptable.

As trade barriers are falling around the globe, differences in morality are gaining more interest domestically regarding such issues as human rights, political behavior or even environmental conservation (Deming, 2006). For Google, the idea of morality when dealing with China came to a head in 2009, with a January 12, 2010 decision that they would adopt a "new approach to China." The issue was a series of highly sophisticated and target attacks on corporate infrastructures, specifically at Chinese human-rights activists using Gmail. As many as 30 corporations were also victim.

and, atypically, Google was blunt, with the discussion rising to the level of Secretary of State Hillary Clinton. The moral issue is rather simple -- the solution is not. Google cannot morally allow its platform or software to be used to subjugate or harm others. It may need to remain neutral regarding a country's political leanings, but any potential revenue stream, and certainly China boasts a great potential, is negated if the rest of the world sees Google as a company that knowingly allowed cyber-terrorism to occur.

Additionally, Google cannot exist on the global platform if there are any hints of overt censorship (See: "Google vs. China," 2010; "A New Approach to China." 2010). 2. The issue of censorship, whether self- or governmental in China is larger than simply a corporate decision on the part of Google. Respecting governmental policy can, in some cases, be linked to an immoral outcome. This is really an ethical approach to utilitarianism -- do the ends justify the means, or is the path along the way of primary importance.

In general, utilitarianism is an ethical system most often attributed to John Stuart Mill and Jeremy Bentham, both 19th century social philosophers commenting on conditions arising from the Industrial Revolution. Utilitarianism holds that the most ethical thing one can do is any action that will maximize the happiness within an organization or society. Actions have quantitative outcomes and the ethical choices that lead to the "greatest good for the greatest number" are the appropriate decisions, even if that means subsuming the rights of certain individuals.

It is considered to be a consequential outlook in the sense that while outcomes cannot be predicted the judgement of an action is based on the outcome -- or, "the ends justify the means" (Robinson and Groves, 2003). For Google, then, the issue at its core was to continue allowing censorship of Chinese issues based on governmental regulations, or simply state, we will no longer censor anything, and if that means not doing business in your country, so be it.

If we replace China with Fascist Germany, for instance, and go back in time 60 years, would anyone question the morality of a search engine Internet company refusing to allow anti-Jewish materials to be distributed on its platform? The issue is similar -- Good knew, and therefore had the moral obligation, to "do no evil" and refrain from allowing an immoral act to occur. Additionally, the Internet.