Weighing Google's China decision

March 26, 2010
Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Conundrums of what to do when personal convictions collide with profit potential are playing out in full color in Google’s decision this week to pull out of China and the subsequent developments of other companies considering similar action.

Google’s decision was heavily influenced by co-founder Sergey Brin, who has a better understanding than most Americans of what it’s like to live under an oppressive government. Anti-Semitism in Russian prevented Brin’s father from following his dream of becoming an astrophysicist, so his father immigrated to the U.S. and becoming a math professor.

Operating in China felt too much like Russia, Brin told The Wall Street Journal. See the story here.

Google, which said it was hacked in China, isn’t the only company reevaluating its ties with growing giant. GoDaddy and Network Solutions, both of which register domain names, say they’re leaving China, too. An article about their decisions is here. And Dell is considering plunking a hardware factory in India instead of China over security issues.

Google’s stature as an authority on Internet neutrality got a boost from the China decision, and eventually will result in profits outweighing the potential it had in China, says Scott Kennedy, director of Indiana University’s Research Center for Chinese Politics and Business, which analyzes the world’s interaction with Chinese politics and economy.

Google's decision also sits fine with Ed Wheeler, president and CEO of Christian Theological Seminary in Indianapolis.

Wheeler agrees with Kennedy that executives seldom make decisions without considering their own convictions. While Google was losing valuable trade secrets to the hackers, Brin’s convictions also are consistent with Google’s motto of “Do no evil,” which in the case of China meant severing ties in order to protect individual rights, particularly those of political dissidents.

Wheeler, in fact, believes that executives occasionally need to take a stand against a corporate culture that drifts into moral hazards. Wall Street would be a different place today had more execs bucked the tide several years ago, he reminds.

Still, Wheeler adds, “Ethical decisions are rarely in black and white. Most decisions are in shades of gray.”

How do you feel about Google’s decision? What about the broader point of weighing personal convictions against potential profit when the two are in conflict?
 

ADVERTISEMENT
  • Google's Motto
    Even though Google's motto is: "Do No Evil". it is a matter of interpretation. What one perceives as Not evil another may see it as evil.

    For instance, in some cultures, it is wrong for a woman to show an skin. While in our culture, it is a different story. On a similar note, China may have their reasons for censorship while we have our first amendment to protect our freedom of speech. In Google's case, content is their form of speech and they are an US company and probably feels that it is evil to censor the content in which they provide. If one plans on providing a product or service within a country, they would have to abide by the social rules and governmental laws set aside by the local government and society at hand.

    I agree with Google's decision, but I may just be looking at it through the USA Lense.
  • aww hell...
    ...who cares anyway, China OWNS the US anyway ever since Bush indebted every man, woman and child for many generations to the Communist Chinese govt., and to think it was all to finance his illegal wars and tax cuts for the rich...aaah, is this a great country or what?!
  • Wyith Inc and DomainAvenue.com will take up where GoDaddy & NetworkSolutions left off...
    Wyith is a long established Hong Kong company that will bring any US or European company's China based (and viewable) website to fruition. Anyone wishing a Chinese website, contact me at: ruthie@ditucci.com - We are "OPEN" for business and accept requests on a 24/7 basis. We do not observe day time or night time hours. If you're awake - we're ready to take your Website order.

Post a comment to this blog

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in IBJ editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
  1. As I understand it, the idea is to offer police to live in high risk areas in exchange for a housing benefit/subsidy of some kind. This fact means there is a choice for the officer(s) to take the offer and receive the benefit. In terms of mandating living in a community, it is entirely reasonable for employers to mandate public safety officials live in their community. Again, the public safety official has a choice, to live in the area or to take another job.

  2. The free market will seek its own level. If Employers cannot hire a retain good employees in Marion Co they will leave and set up shop in adjacent county. Marion Co already suffers from businesses leaving I would think this would encourage more of the same.

  3. We gotta stop this Senior crime. Perhaps long jail terms for these old boozers is in order. There are times these days (more rather than less) when this state makes me sick.

  4. One option is to redistribute the payroll tax already collected by the State. A greater share could be allocated to the county of the workplace location as opposed to the county of residency. Not a new tax, just re-allocate what is currently collected.

  5. Have to agree with Mal Burgess. The biggest problem is massive family breakdown in these neighborhoods. While there are a lot of similiarities, there is a MASSIVE difference between 46218 and 46219. 46219 is diluted by some stable areas, and that's probably where the officers live. Incentivizing is fine, but don't criticize officers for choosing not to live in these neighbor hoods. They have to have a break from what is arguably one of the highest stress job in the land. And you'll have to give me hard evidence that putting officers there is going to make a significant difference. Solid family units, responsible fathers, siblings with the same fathers, engaged parents, commitment to education, respect for the rule of law and the importance of work/a job. If the families and the schools (and society) will support these, THEN we can make a difference.

ADVERTISEMENT