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.

Public Position on Corporate Responsibility

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.

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.

Conclusion

The discussion here demonstrates that in the face of a globally shifting market context, maintaining a balanced code of ethics can be extremely difficult. An emphasis on Corporate Social Responsibility such as that demonstrated by Microsoft and Google, however, can help sustain a positive image, favorable media portrayal, and strong relationships with all manner of business associates. Both companies illustrate that CSR is not merely a moral posture but a strategic asset — one whose value is tested most acutely when commercial ambitions collide with complex political and cultural realities. The lessons drawn from their experiences provide a useful framework for any corporation seeking to navigate the modern global marketplace with both integrity and effectiveness.

Works Cited

Amaria, K. (2007). Giving and reaping… Microsoft's CSR offensive. Digicom 4 Social Change.

Baker, M. (2006). Google's growing pains. Mallenbaker.net.

China CSR. (2010). Google faces corporate social responsibility problem in China. ChinaCSR.com.

Cockaday, J. (2004). CSR, Google and philanthropy. Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR).

Environmental Leader (EL). (2009). Microsoft cutting CSR PR budget. EnvironmentalLeader.com.

Google. (2010). Corporate social responsibility. Google.com.

Google-Watch. (2006). And then there were four. Google-watch.org.

Hillis, S. (2007). Microsoft moves to polish tarnished public image. Advanced Network.

Kegel, D. (2006). Corporate ethics. Kegel.com.

McHugh, J. (2005). Google vs. evil. Wired.

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