Google, Human Rights, Corporate Social Responsibility

Some time ago, I wrote a little bit about why I thought that corporations should do more than simply not do evil. Here is the full post, which began with Google but didn't really use Google as the model of a corporation that needed to do more. Though I certainly could have done so, I went with Microsoft and Cisco in China, and -- of course -- Shell in Nigeria. In the end, I said:

We can insist that corporations not do evil and that they avoid assisting those who do evil. Trying to do nothing when evil is happening — the position of not taking a position, like Cisco and Microsoft when it comes to Chinese repression — is insufficient. Even if it’s not actively doing evil, it clearly lends support to those who do.

Yesterday's big news from Google requires a mention, then. When Google first began operating in China, the company drew substantial fire for its decision to side with the Chinese government on the question of internet censorship. After a cyberattack that no one is saying originated with the Chinese government but no one is saying didn't originate with the Chinese government, Google announced that it "was no longer willing to censor results on its Chinese-language search engine and would discuss with Chinese authorities whether it could operate an uncensored search engine in that country." According to Google, the main goal of the attack seemed to be accessing the email accounts of Chinese human rights activists.

'These attacks and the surveillance they have uncovered -- combined with the attempts over the past year to further limit free speech on the web -- have led us to conclude that we should review the feasibility of our business operations in China.'

The long and short of the matter is something I hope will resonate with other corporations: going into business with countries that routinely and systematically abuse the human rights of their citizens actually turns out to be a bad business decision.

Full article here.

(via).