This case study analysis examines Google's threatened exit from the Chinese market following the discovery of sophisticated hacking attempts on its systems in early 2010. The paper explores stakeholder reactions to Google's ultimatum — that it would cease operations in China unless it could run Google.cn without censorship — and evaluates arguments for and against withdrawal. Drawing on a Harvard Business School case study, the analysis concludes that Google should prioritize its core mission of making information universally accessible over short-term commercial gain, and recommends exiting the Chinese market if the government refuses to permit uncensored operations.
When Google detected an extremely high level of attempted hacking on its computer systems, it issued an online memo indicating its possible exit from the Chinese market. The Wall Street Journal captured this aptly in its headline for the edition of January 13, 2010: "Google Warns of China Exit after Hacking." Based on evidence gathered, it appeared that the attacks had been directed at gaining access to the email accounts of human rights activists in China. According to Google, the attacks had been unsuccessful. The company, however, acknowledged the difficult balancing act it had been required to manage ever since entering the Chinese market. Operating in China had required careful consideration of the information made available to Chinese users, given the extensive censorship and limitations on information access imposed by the government.
Quelch and Jocz (2010, p. 1) highlighted this by noting that Google, coming from a position of unwillingness to continue participating in information censorship — particularly in light of these hacking attempts and increasing restrictions on free speech on the internet — had decided to engage the Chinese government in deliberations about running Google.cn without censorship. Failure to reach agreement on this condition would result in the company's exit from the market.
Reactions to Google's possible exit from China were varied. Stakeholders held different opinions: some agreed with and praised the move, while others foresaw a significant loss of business opportunity.
Robert Enderle of the Enderle Group argued that if China refused Google's terms, the company would effectively lock itself out of one of the most rapidly expanding markets in the world (Quelch and Jocz, 2010, p. 4). Jonathan Zittrain of Harvard University termed the move brilliant, stating that it supported the free and open dissemination of information rather than restricting it according to undesirable and capricious government standards (Quelch and Jocz, 2010, p. 4).
U.S. companies largely remained silent on the issue, declining to acknowledge that they too had been subject to these hacking attempts. The U.S. government was similarly hesitant to take a strong stance. Google could therefore draw little comfort from these stakeholders and would need to stand on its own — either defending its position or continuing to accede to China's demands.
"Mission-based case for exiting Chinese market"
Blogger Xiang Ligang argued that leaving the Chinese market would deal a major blow to Google's global strategy and affect its future strategic positioning. However, based on Google's stated commitment to placing principle before profit — as articulated in its memo — the decision to leave China remains justified. As Google cannot fulfill its mission in China under the current government's stance, it should develop a clear exit strategy and implement it accordingly.
Leslie Harris of the Centre for Democracy and Technology praised Google for taking a stand against a government that was undermining the corporation's core values and threatening its customers' privacy and security. In the long run, a company must stand for more than its bottom line. Google's experience in China illustrates the broader tension between commercial expansion and ethical commitments. Google must uphold the same values across all the markets in which it operates, and if it is unable to do so, it should exit that market.
Google's situation in China presented a fundamental conflict between commercial opportunity and corporate integrity. The hacking incidents and ongoing internet censorship in China made it impossible for Google to operate in alignment with its mission. While the financial cost of leaving one of the world's largest and fastest-growing markets is considerable, the company's long-term credibility and ethical standing demanded that it prioritize principle over profit. Exiting China, should negotiations fail, was the appropriate and necessary course of action.
Quelch, J. A., & Jocz, K. E. (2010). Google in China. Harvard Business School.
You’re 83% through this paper. Sign up to read the remaining 1 section.
Sign Up Now — Instant Access Already a member? Log inAlways verify citation format against your institution’s current style guide requirements.