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. Kent's done a good job of putting together some good guests, intelligence and irreverence without the inane chatter of the other two shows. JMV is unlistenable, mostly because he doesn't do his homework and depends on non-sports stuff to keep HIM interested. Query and Shultz is a bit better, but lack of prep in their show certainly is evident. Sterling obviously workes harder than the other shows. We shall see if there is any way for a third signal with very little successful recent history to make it. I always say you have to give a show two years to grow into what it will become...

  2. Lafayette Square, Washington Square should be turned into office parks with office buildings, conversion, no access to the public at all. They should not be shopping malls and should be under tight security and used for professional offices instead of havens for crime. Their only useage is to do this or tear them down and replace them with high rise office parks with secured parking lots so that the crime in the areas is not allowed in. These are prime properties, but must be reused for other uses, professional office conversions with no loitering and no shopping makes sense, otherwise they have become hangouts long ago for gangs, groups of people who have no intent of spending money, and are only there for trouble and possibly crime, shoplifting, etc. I worked summers at SuperX Drugs in Lafayette Square in the 1970s and even then the shrinkage from shoplifting was 10-15 percent. No sense having shopping malls in these areas, they earn no revenue, attract crime, and are a blight on the city. All malls that are not of use should be repurposed or torn down by the city, condemned. One possibility would be to repourpose them as inside college campuses or as community centers, but then again, if the community is high crime, why bother.

  3. Straight No Chaser

  4. Seems the biggest use of TIF is for pet projects that improve Quality Of Life, allegedly, but they ignore other QOL issues that are of a more important and urgent nature. Keep it transparent and try not to get in ready, fire, Aim! mode. You do realize that business the Mayor said might be interested is probably going to want TIF too?

  5. Gary, I'm in complete agreement. The private entity should be required to pay IPL, and, if City parking meters are involved, the parking meter company. I was just pointing out how the poorly-structured parking meter deal affected the car share deal.

ADVERTISEMENT