CSR at Microsoft and Google: A Comparative Analysis

Introduction: CSR and the New Corporate Model

The historical model for America's mega-corporations centered on profitability while largely dismissing any interest in humanitarian, social, or community-based issues. The 1990s marked a point of divergence for many of the new-model corporations that would drive both innovation and corporate growth. As Microsoft and Google rose from rogue startup firms to industry pace-setters, they also altered the approach taken by larger corporations toward Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR). Whether sincere or postured, such companies would make a number of extra-curricular goals — concerning education, environment, charitable donations, and innovative programs for advancing societies — a central part of their respective identities and declared missions. This discussion measures that approach, which became a major trait of many tech firms dominating the economic landscape over the past two decades, as channeled through such self-declaredly ethical firms as Microsoft and Google.

Before entering into a more detailed discussion on the approaches taken by Microsoft and Google toward Corporate Social Responsibility, it is important to identify what is meant by this terminology. CSR generally refers to the prioritization of ethical practices, corporate citizenship, and participation in humanitarian endeavors on the part of a privately owned or publicly traded company. The notion of Corporate Social Responsibility does not simply dictate that a company will behave according to a defined and clearly stated code of ethical prerogatives; it further holds that a company will perceive and act according to the idea that positive CSR denotes positive functionality and sound operational orientation. This definition comports with the discussion here on Google and Microsoft, both of which have come to concretely attach the imperatives of CSR to broader organizational goals. Indeed, where this impacts efficiency, consumer advocacy, innovation, environmentalism, retention of personnel, public relations, and reputation, Corporate Social Responsibility may be said to be one of the determinant factors in a company's long-term viability.

Public Position on Corporate Responsibility

Both Microsoft and Google have vociferously laid claim to their respective contributions to communities and societies as evidence of their dedication to CSR goals. A discussion of Microsoft reinforces the degree to which the software giant views CSR as an important part of its identity. Microsoft has spent billions on supporting claims of its CSR efforts and on broadcasting the details of those claims before the general public and its key stakeholders. According to EL (2009), "it's estimated that Microsoft spends up to $15 million annually on PR support for its CSR efforts" (EL, 1).

This is because Microsoft, as well as its primary charitable appendage, the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, has considered public relations to be one of the more effective ways of proliferating information on its environmental and charitable values to other parts of the corporate world. In this way, Microsoft also contributes to the broader perception of CSR as being an inherent and valuable part of a firm's operation, with its dissemination of information on its own efforts suggesting the economic value of sounder corporate social policies.

Google is a slightly younger and, until recently, less permeating firm. However, this changed significantly within just a decade, with Google coming almost to be seen as synonymous with web searching. As the portal to the internet, it is an extremely powerful controller of information, communication, knowledge, and commerce. Therefore, how this company is perceived may have a significant impact on the way the public views this highly entrusted and empowering role. As its presence throughout the global tech community has expanded, so too have its efforts to present itself as an inherently charitable organization. Accordingly, Cockaday (2006) reported that "Google.org is the umbrella term for Google's philanthropic efforts, which includes the work of the Google Foundation and some of Google's internal corporate philanthropy. The organisation focuses on several areas including global poverty, health, energy and the environment and has made over $7m (£4m) in investments and grants to date" (p. 1).

Still, both Microsoft and Google have encountered a great many challenges to their declared value systems as they have entered into a complex global marketplace. For example, Microsoft "has recently introduced an intriguing not-for-profit plan called Microsoft Unlimited Potential. The goal is to at the very least double the number of people who are currently online by 2015, from 1 to 2 billion, by ensuring that the poorest people in various nations have access to computers" (Amaria, 1). This has required it to partner with nations such as China, which is frequently accused of widespread human rights violations.

A similar dilemma has confronted Google. With respect to that criticism, consider the claims of the most prominent group working in this capacity: Google-Watch. The online watchdog is devoted to deconstructing the impact that the search engine has on the patterns of web usage. As Google-Watch (2006) finds, "the privacy struggle, which includes both the old issue of consumer protection and this new issue of government surveillance, means that the question of how Google treats the data it collects from users becomes critical. Given that Google is so central to the web, whatever attitude it takes toward privacy has massive implications for the rest of the web in general, and for other search engines in particular" (Google-Watch, 1).

Because of this position as a leader and singular force in the industry, Google has sustained much criticism for failing to establish a standard that meets the approval of more protective privacy advocates. This is demonstrated by the privacy debates that arose as Google traveled to Chinese markets. These attempts, and the controversy they produced, illustrate the difficult place in which the company uniquely finds itself. From its own perspective, Google's role as a gatekeeper for knowledge and information has required it to face complicated questions that are defining the way peoples and publics use the internet. However, this power is checked by the ideological and practical implications of working across myriad different governmental systems and cultures — as has been Google's more recent preoccupation. In such contexts, its highly prized philosophy must come face-to-face with entrenched politics and socioeconomic alignments and, as seen in China, must be somewhat compromised in order to answer to the company's overarching ethical imperative.

Namely, Google's ideology — which sees it dedicated to providing a single, more powerful and thorough portal through which to navigate the internet — places it in a position of unparalleled challenge, made even more apparent as it attempts to enter the global market with consistency and mutual cultural and political respect. The relentless rise in internet use in China is forcing a redefinition of the World Wide Web. Censorship and content filtering have increasingly become the preferred strategies of the Chinese government, supplanting the self-defeating notion of denying internet access to citizens altogether. The result has been an adoption of a similar filtering posture by Google.

The controversy in China was highlighted most acutely by a groundbreaking decision made by the U.S. firm. Chinese citizens registered extensive objections to the observation that Google — the world's leading search engine provider and a major player in open-source technology development — was substantially filtered by Chinese government agencies. By preventing access to websites containing objectionable material, such as anti-government political rhetoric, popular resistance to the central government, pornographic content, or religious material, the Chinese authorities rendered Google a slower, less effective, and therefore increasingly unpopular service.

According to China CSR (2010), "Google's motto has always been 'Do No Evil' and the company is in a tough position as it balances the needs of its shareholders with its mission to ensure safe services for all its users. To this end, Drummond states: 'We recognize that this may well mean having to shut down Google.cn, and potentially our offices in China'" (China CSR, 1). This suggests that for both nations such as China and firms such as Google, the ambition of spreading technology globally as a social imperative often calls for a compromise of values. In Google's case, the determination was made that it would be more socially responsible to ensure some level of access to knowledge and information for the Chinese people — where at all possible — than to refuse any service entirely on account of governmental limitations. This demonstrates that the approach most aligned with CSR principles may vary depending upon cultural or philosophical intricacies. These intricacies require pragmatism from companies such as Google or Microsoft.

This has led to a significant din of criticism in the media for both companies. Baker (2006) reports that Google has worked hard to balance its entrance into the restrictive Chinese media market with its own values. Baker defends this balance by reporting that "the company's contention that it believes it furthers its mission more by being present in China than it does by not is at least a rational response to a set of unpalatable choices" (Baker, 1). Other sources have not been as forgiving, arguing instead that Google's censorship of its search results according to the demands of the Chinese government constitutes active participation in the repression of information freedom. This denotes that even where a company sincerely desires to behave in a responsible and socially conscious way, a certain scale of success can make that goal increasingly difficult to achieve.

Microsoft has received similar criticism for its attempts to enter the Chinese software market. However, the bulk of criticism directed at Microsoft by the media has concerned its monopolistic practices in the global software industry, with much coverage driven by the antitrust proceedings that ultimately sought to distribute the Microsoft empire into smaller units. Here, the public image of Microsoft came under scrutiny. Hillis (2007) reports on efforts by the software giant and its founder, Bill Gates, to soften the public image of a firm demonized for its monopolistic practices. Hillis reports that in addition to improving his public appearance and publishing defenses of his company, "Gates — the world's richest man with holdings in Microsoft worth about $68 billion as of Wednesday — has also stepped up the pace of charitable donations in recent months. Contributions to the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation set up by Gates and his wife top $20 billion. Coincidentally or not, on Tuesday, as the dust from the ruling was settling, the United Nations said the foundation was giving $57 million to help fight AIDS in four African countries" (Hillis, 1).

For its own part, Google has historically maintained a positive public image, with its explicit anti-evil policy initially earning it a great deal of positive recognition in the field. However, as it has grown enormously, it has become difficult to maintain both the reality of that practice and the public impression that the standard has been retained. So reports McHugh (2004), who notes that co-founder Sergey Brin has increasingly faced public scrutiny over inherently significant and complex philosophical questions about Google's role in defining how the internet is used. McHugh notes: "Don't be evil. Brin has had to refer back to those three words quite a bit over the past year. Governments, religious bodies, businesses, and individuals are all bearing down on the company, forcing Brin to make decisions that have an effect on the entire Internet. 'Things that would normally be side issues for another company carry the weight of responsibility for us'" (p. 1). It is thus that Google's public image has suffered, with critics from all quarters describing the company as invasive, violating of privacy, and helping to reinforce an economic hierarchy of visited sites on the web.

Both Google and Microsoft have approached their responsibilities to stakeholders as part of their respective CSR strategies. Microsoft has argued in favor of a proliferation of its software and its corporate presence on a global scale, despite the obstacles presented in contexts such as China. From its perspective, expanding its consumer base is tantamount to improving global access to computer technology. Moreover, it considers the interests of its investors to be critically important in protecting the bottom line, making profitability a major imperative. Significantly, Microsoft also presents itself as an extremely progressive employer. By its own report, "our 90,000 employees drive our business, and we have a responsibility to create a respectful and rewarding work environment for them" (Microsoft, 1).

Google, similarly, has a reputation for being among the best, fairest, and most generous employers. Google also takes a strong interest in assisting its business partners through certain charitable programs. For instance, "Google Grants is an in-kind donation program awarding free AdWords advertising to select charitable organizations. Since its inception, we have supported hundreds of organizations in advocating and promoting their causes, from animal rights and literacy to abandoned children and HIV education" (Google, 1).

Conclusion

Microsoft. (2010). Corporate citizenship. Microsoft.com.