Trans-cultural global ethics always maintains the value of human rights. Have Google’s operations been consistent with the value of human rights? What example can you give to support your position?
Google, as a global technology company specializing in internet-related products and services, indicates its commitment to operate within transcultural global ethics to promote human rights. This commitment is evident in its vision, which is about developing services that improve the lives of people who use its services and products. Of importance is the fact that Google claims to be guided by the Universal Declaration of Human Rights that establishes human rights standards. More so, Google confirms that it adheres to Global network Initiative principles and the United Nations Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights (Google, n.d). While this commitment is enshrined in Google’s business policy, it is not automatic that Google will advance human rights in all of its operations. Google has not been consistent with the value of human rights as it is more concerned with enhancing its profitability at all costs. Google’s project dubbed ‘Dragonfly,’ which is an effort to come up with a censored search engine seems to contradict human rights principles. According to Salinas & D’Onfro (2018), Google’s employees even wrote an open letter to the company claiming that the company emphasizes more on profits as compared to values. In the same breath, US politicians and human rights groups weighed on the issue and termed it as a violation of human rights by limiting the information they can access.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
Google is in the internet business, but many global operations include sourcing supplies that are sold elsewhere. What suggestions would you have for an organization that is seeking to enter the global market for sourcing products and services to support human rights and provide some standard for ethical transactions?
Google, as a company with a global presence, would require outsourcing supplies and workforce to adhere to trans global business regulations that are aligned to human rights. The company ought to determine the business standards that are in place and how they align with the promotion and maintenance of human rights. Some of the nations that Google would do business with may have no regard for human rights concerning labor and business laws. It is possible that without the right human rights frameworks and guidelines, Google’s overseas employees entrusted with its operations would be subjected to harsh working conditions and poor remuneration. In such a case, Google would have to come up with its own human rights policies that align with global human rights standards and enforce them. The best option to inform Google’s outsourcing decision is the Global Network Initiative (GNI), a non-government organization that protects internet users’ privacy and censorship. According to Global Network Initiative (2018), it has improved its policies to meet global ICT regulatory demands that focus on promoting privacy and free expression of internet users As an internet business Google would require to align to GNI updated policies to ensure that its employees and information do not get unnecessary scrutiny or repression. Of importance, here is the need for Google to manage its operations rather than entrusting this role to authoritarian governments that could interfere with human rights.
What role do bribes play in conducting business overseas? Are technology companies, which are eager to gain market share in growing economies, at risk of violating the provisions of the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act?
Bribery is a source of concern for global companies that are interested in expanding their businesses to countries with weak legal, political, and economic frameworks. Corrupt governments that are eager to get direct foreign investments may allow international companies to set up businesses in these countries without even fulfilling the requirements. At this point, it is essential to understand that governments are required to conduct extensive research to establish if foreign companies have complied with ethical, environmental, and legal standards. Bahoo et al. (2019) determine that in corrupt environments, international companies could skip all this scrutiny by bribing relevant authorities to be cleared. Technology companies such as Google, which are eager to expand into foreign nations, are not immune to corruption, which places citizens at risk. While the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act prohibits US companies from bribing foreign officials to secure business deals, it is not automatic that bribery will not come up. Developing nations offer a broader market for technology but, at the same time, condone corruption as the only way to get ahead in business. In such a case, technology companies may find themselves compromising their values to acquire a stake in the vast technology market.
References
Bahoo, S., Alon, I., & Paltrinieri, A. (2019). Corruption in international business: A review and research agenda. International Business Review, 1-24. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ibusrev.2019.101660
Global Network Initiative. (2018, June). 2017 Annual Report: Reinforcing a Global Standard. https://globalnetworkinitiative.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/06/GNIAnnualReport2017.pdf
Google. (n.d). Human Rights. https://about.google/human-rights/
Salinas, S., & D’Onfro, J. (2018, November 27). Google employees: We no longer believe the company places values over profits. CNBC. https://www.cnbc.com/2018/11/27/read-google-employees-open-letter-protesting-project-dragonfly.html
