Surname 12
Name
Tutor
Course
Date
Google in China
Google Company is widely known for its internet service provision services. The ability of the company to provide esteemed services to its customers has seen to it the expansion of the company to many parts of the world. In 2000, the Google Company entered the Republic of China by developing a version of Google search engine that made use of Chinese language. Though the home page was based in the United States of America, Chinese citizens could make a request from their home. Though the requests were made from China, the useful search engine promptly responded to them. By basing its operation headquarters in America, the search engine did not experience censorship law set by the Chinese government. The censorship law required Total Corporation of the internet service providers in ensuring that information that could cause chaos to the Chinese government is scraped off the web pages.
The Chinese version did not last for long since in 2002 the site was shut down by the Chinese government for not adhering to censorship law. Following the shutdown of the website, college and university student from China were unable to access any information from the Google’s China version search engine. Since Google wanted to maintain competition with the China’s search engine Baidu, Google in the year 2006 decided to launch a Chinese website (www. Google.cn) and agreed to censor the content of the launched website through the installation of filters given the name the great firewall of China (Mitchell, Weaver & Carlson p.268).
Concerning Chinese government, the undesired content that the government of China wanted not to get to its citizens were for instance, any information regarding democracy, freedom-related issues or religion that pertained information related to support of religious cult. Additionally, the government of China did not expect the website to provide information that showed anti-government protest. Talking of anti-government related protest, the site was restricted from displaying any information that regarded Tiananmen Square (Tan, Justin, and Anna E. Tan, p. 472). However, Google accepted the Chinese conditions to ensure its survival in the Republic of China and maintain its competition with Baidu, and the company received criticism from human right groups for not making information concerning human rights available in their web pages. A conflict of ideologies occurred between Google users in China, the government, and the other human rights activities. Following the disputes between Google Company and the expectations that the users had on the company a case erupted.
The conflict arising, in this case, is all because of Goggle’s slogan “don’t be evil” which required the Google Company to provide unbiased information to its user and its mission statement. The underlying Goggle’s mission statement is to organize world information and make it accessible to its user across the world. By abiding by China’s stipulations, Google Company undermined its work since the Google users in China accessed limited information from Google search engine. From my perspective censoring, information is an act that displays Google as a company running astray from its mission of providing free information to its user (Tan, Justin, and Anna, p. 473). The fact that Google admitted that launching the Google.cn was problematic further proves the running failure of Google to accomplish its mission. Though it presented no choice for the Google Company, the company could have devised a better option solving its problems with the Republic of China government. For instance, they could have reopened the site initially closed by the Chinese government.
A cultural perspective viewpoint of a matter requires an individual to give views of the topic in question-based on the belief, practices, and inherited aspects of a particular community setup. In this context, the Chinese government did not allow sensitive information sharing through the internet. The scenario of not allowing all information to be displayed in this respect can be considered as the cultural of China. The primary company objective was providing all kind of information to citizens of China. Though the enterprise mission requires the company to provide all sort of information to its users, it is a paramount perception of international companies to comply with the laws of the nation in which the company in question wants to operate in.
In consideration of Google’s mission statement and the underlying rules and regulation that concerns Internet service providers (ISPs), a case of ethical dilemma was witnessed. The difficulty in this scenario came out due to the contradiction of Google’s global ethical standards precisely no censorship of information the company provides through the internet and the expectation of Chinese government specifically the Chinese state censoring rule. With reference to Google’s urge of maintaining its competitive state in the technology business, Google submitted to the Chinese government expectations by accepting to eliminate the links, which the Chinese authority felt were objective.
After receiving high rates of criticisms from the human right activities for depriving Chinese citizens the right to access unbiased information Google Company resolved not comply with Chinese government since in a standing media restriction that the Chinese government had put in place were so demanding. Even though the Google Company had resolved to escalate its operations in China, Google had to reconsider its decision following the fact that China presented the best market for the company (Tan, Justin, and Anna, p. 476). After weighing profits it gathered from its operation on China, the company was once again ready to continue its operations in China. The reality that China is an enormous state growing rapidly and provided an enormously significant market for Google Company made the Vice President Elliot Schrage, to have the will of carrying on with the company’s operations in China region. Additionally, the president felt that since Google’s key competitors Yahoo and Microsoft MSN were already in China, then the company would continue to provide internet services to the Chinese.
The act of carrying on with Google’s operation in China would necessitate Google to self-censor its internet content in response to meeting the expectation of the communist Chinese government. Following the underlying challenge (overlooking the company’s mission), a better half of the company’s stakeholder felt that subjecting the company to communist Chinese government presented a grave danger to the society than the potential gain that the company would enjoy from operating in China. In conjunction with the issue between the administration and the United State Google based company, an issue had been raised by the Google users in China. The users felt that the speed in which Google results were obtained had dropped at a much high rate since user request had to pass through complicated, great firewall censoring system of China.
Addressing the issues of stakeholders involved in Google China case requires prior clarification of who is regarded as a stakeholder. A business definition of stakeholder argues that stakeholder is a collective term used to refer to a group of people who have benefits or losses from a business operation. Stakeholders are divided into two primary groups that are internal stakeholders and external stakeholder. The internal stakeholders comprise of business owners, customers, and clients of a company, employers, and deliverers of the enterprise. On the hand, external stakeholders also referred to as secondary or peripheral stakeholders comprises of courts, governments, competitors and the general public and the society (Tan, Justin, and Anna, p. 477). Following the definition provided, the case of Google in China has its stakeholders consisting of three groups that are Google, Chinese administration and lastly China citizens who formed the group of service receivers of Google cooperation. The groups mentioned in the case show the mutual relationship and dependency of each other. Benefits realized by the three groups show either direct or indirect link to all the stakeholders involved in the case.
To start with, if the communist Chinese government did not control Google’s provision of information, the service receivers would have fully enjoyed the benefit of utilization of the Google search engine. With no regulations customers, most of them college and university students could have stood a chance to seek any information they wanted from Google freely. Thus the students who are comprised the internal stakeholders were negatively affected since they did not access the information they required from the internet. Additionally, for the insensitive information, it took considerable long wait time thus a consumer used a longer time when searching for any information since the search had to pass through complex chain firewall for censoring purposes.
On contrary to the student’s adverse effects of Chinese regulation, the government experienced full benefits since inappropriate information could not find its way to the citizens. Being an external stakeholder, the government was not that affected by the case of Google in China. Moreover, the government was assured of full control of China region because no acts of activism could be transacted through the internet (King, Gary, Jennifer Pan, and Margaret E. Roberts, p. 326). The last stakeholder in the case involving internet service provider is the Google Company itself. Following the definition provided earlier, Google stood in the primary stakeholder position in the case under consideration. Like the service receiver, Google too was subjected to an adverse effect. The first major impact that the Google faced was the inability to deliver quality services to its customers. Secondly, by complying to the restrictions that the Chinese government had issued, it meant that the company would be operating against its code of ethic (consolidation of information on worldwide basis and making the information available to users in need of.
Additionally, it is a fact that some Google users were not aware of the restriction that the government had put in place for Google Company operating in China. The fact that the users had no prior information concerning the restriction made these clients feel that services provided by Google Company were insufficient a scenario that ruined Google’s operation in China. What the customers failed to is that it is not Google’s fault but the act of the government. A general consideration of the implication that China restriction to the Google company indicates that the only beneficially from the law was the Chinese government. Following this fact, it is true that Chinese government was hiding some critical information that in a way might be containing malicious operations to its citizens (Mitchell, Weaver & Carlson p.268). In my opinion, the government’s action was a direct deprivation of human rights of access to information.
Different issues show a direct connection with the Chinese government act of restricting how its citizens would be accessing information from the internet. The major issue in the Google in China case is depriving the Chinese nationals their right of accessing information in an unbiased manner. As a matter of facts, the problem of denying the citizens this right brings out all the other issues that arise in this case. For instance, the subject of ruining Google’s reputation in China come about after users who were not aware of government‘s limitation on Google. The fact that primary objective of Google expanding its services to China was to ensure survival in the competitive business of providing internet services, the company should focus on possible alternatives to curb the underlying problem.
To enhance succeed in China business, Google should focus on having stakeholder management that fit each group of stakeholder that is government and customers or service receivers. According to Mitchell, Weaver & Carlson (p.274), stakeholder management denoted as SM implies to ethical enterprise governance that gives a chance to all stakeholder to have equal benefits in agreement with the speaker’s right. In most cases, stakeholder’ benefits s are formulated by customs, testimonies or laws. Stakeholder management works hand in hand with Win- Win tactic, which is a decision is making process in which stakeholders get generous and blameless benefits.
Google’s strength as an internet service provider is based on its central role of making whatever kind of information a user request available in the minimum time possible. Following the fact that Google’s duty is the company’s strength all that Google needs to do is retaining this power by making sure that its search engine satisfies Chinese customers (King et al. p.342). When making maintain it duty, Google should make sure it sternly complies with and does not violate policies and limitations or measures, for example, the law of censorship and great firewall given by Chinese government. At the same time, Google should establish communication systems that will enable them to reach their Chinese clients. Once Google reaches their service receivers, the enterprise should make it known to the customers that its service is sufficient but the customers are unable to access the information they require due to the restriction issued by the Chinese government.
According to Tan, Justin, and Anna, (p.475), with the aim of making customers understand the underlying conditions; Google should program the Chinese website such that if a client wishes to gain entry in a restricted website, a dialogue box appears informing the user that the government has limited the site. On the government side, Google should prove to the Chinese government that it has adhered to the censorship laws. With the aim of determining its interest with the Chinese government and its citizens, Google should put in consideration moving its service to China. The move of establishing a service base to China would play a significant role in boosting up the competence of its search engine services. Other roles that setting a Google base in China are for instance solving the blockage problem instituted by the Chinese government through the Great Firewall
After Google had realized that its customers in China were not getting the information they needed from the Google search engine, it called upon the Google management to come up with a redirecting service. The service was effective since after a Google user make a request from a restricted website (Google.cn); the designed redirect service could take a user to Google.com.hk (the Hong Kong version of Google that offers uncensored results) (Tan, Justin, and Anna, p.470). After China government had realized the tactic that Google Company was using, it threatened not to renew Google’s license to provide internet services in the region.
From the alternative provided about the underlying Google in China case, I feel that the best choice that the company should apply is Stakeholder management. This decision should be applied in conjunction with Win-win strategy. The reason why I feel this stakeholder management should use is that this alternative involves one on addressing of the current problem with all stakeholder involved in an underlying problem giving views on how the challenge should be solved. By involving the government and the citizens in solving the case between itself and the government, Google stood, a chance of either convincing the government to reduce its restriction or making the citizens understand that it is not Google’s fault by failing to provide a certain type of information to its clients.
Additionally, the stakeholder management approach is the best alternative since through it, each class of stakeholder in a case is ensured to get an equal share of the benefits realized from an individual business transaction. In this case, Google through practicing stakeholder management would have fulfilled its purpose of not being evil. The government on its side is ensured that a better revenue since Google could have paid more taxation for displaying broad scope of information (Tan, Justin, and Anna, p.470). Lastly, users are ensured all type of information thus enjoying full utilization of the Google search engine
The choice of using the stakeholder management in as an alternative solution to the underlying problem is supported by different theories that apply in the business work and wise decision making in life. To start with, organization and management theory denoted OMT cultivates the application of aspiring robust theoretical. Following that stakeholder management involves bringing together all stakeholders involved in a particular business activity, OMT supports it since it promotes and develops a community of good-wishers, through this, and the government will understand the needs of its citizens. Through understanding the needs of its citizens, the government is likely to remove the restriction it has on Google.
Additionally, stakeholder management involves making a decision that in a way might have some negative outcome to some stakeholder. With this consideration, the theory of utilitarianism applies. Regarding this theory, an ethical decision is one that is associated with beneficial effects to people. With reference to, this theory if the overall outcome, an activity bears more positivity than its negatives then this decision is considered ethical. In our case, through stakeholder management, Google should ensure that the government realizes its action is unethical since it bears adverse effects to the users. The only beneficially of the restriction that the Chinese government had applied was the government itself. Service receivers were the most affected since they could not access the sites they wished.
Works cited
King, Gary, Jennifer Pan, and Margaret E. Roberts. “How censorship in China allows government criticism but silences collective expression.” American Political Science Review 107.02 (2013): 326-343.
Lee, Jyh-An, Ching-Yi Liu, and Weiping Li. “Searching for Internet freedom in China: A case study on Google’s China experience.” Cardozo Arts & Entertainment Law Journal 31.2 (2013).
Mitchell, R. K., Weaver, G. R., Agle, B. R., Bailey, A. D., & Carlson, J. “Stakeholder agency and social welfare: Pluralism and decision making in the multi-objective corporation.” Academy of Management Review 41.2 (2016): 252-275.
Tan, Justin, and Anna E. Tan. “Business under threat, technology under attack, ethics under fire: The experience of Google in China.” Journal of business ethics 110.4 (2012): 469-479.
.
