M6M7 Learning Community
“Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.”
– George Santayana
WE’VE HAD A GOOD SUCCESS RATE ON THIS ASSIGNMENT. PLACE THIS ORDER OR A SIMILAR ORDER WITH PapersSpot AND GET AN AMAZING DISCOUNT”
Global Technology Concerns. The subject of the third case study analysis is Google’s actions in China. Please read the following article, Why Google Quit China – And Why It’s Heading Back. (https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2016/01/why- google-quit-china-and-why-its-heading-back/424482) And, listen to the instructor video posted in the discussion thread below.
Transcultural 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 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 in order to support human rights and provide some standard for ethical transactions?
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
WE’VE HAD A GOOD SUCCESS RATE ON THIS ASSIGNMENT. PLACE THIS ORDER OR A SIMILAR ORDER WITH PapersSpot AND GET AN AMAZING DISCOUNT”
The very essence of Google is a violation of Human Rights. Their business is based around an algorithm that records peoples search history. This gets put into a loop that guesses what your preferences are. They say this is to better serve their customers and link them to the information they want. This is however a virtual wiretap that can be used in unethical ways. Companies will sell this information to other countries or businesses. For example, Facebook sold their user’s data to England and claimed it was to better serve its user’s needs. This is not only a huge violation of human rights; it is also treason. This information can be used against the United States and endanger its citizens. My suggestion is to keep business and information in America. The Chinese Government treats their own people poorly and as it states in American Factory; Social and Cultural Docs: Video time: 1:14:15 Quote from Jeff, Fuyao President: “We need to use our wisdom to guide them and help them; because we are better than them”. Doing business overseas is disenfranchising the American People. The Fuyao Glass Company in Ohio is a great example of how this laziness is hurting Americans. In another part of the documentary American employees are worried because the Chinese are dumping illegally into the USA sewer system without consequence. Whether its their information or labor; the American People are being sold to China. This is an example of why the Federalists had a good idea about a Congressional Bank. It forced rich People to invest in the
well-being and economy of the USA. Instead rich People make as much money as possible regardless of the consequences or lack thereof. User’s information is seen as a commodity and stored in various warehouses world-wide for future exploitation. The best thing is to use another search engine that is more responsible with its user’s data. Bribes are a thing of the past and not as common as they used to be. These Companies usually have an extensive team of lawyers and any perks are usually done through legitimate contracts. The most unethical example as far as bribes is Google getting a license to do whatever they want and gain billions a year in Government contracts. The USA endorses this in exchange for User information. The actual business deals themselves are in effect bribes because they control the influence of another party through kickbacks. Transcultural global ethics is being ignored because China doesn’t have respect for our customs or values. This is portrayed very well in the Fuyao video because it shows Americans trying to understand China and work together. China on the other hand uses the opportunity to belittle and disparage Americans. The business is spilling over from China and is overwriting American values. Civil Rights already in place are being ignored and the environment isn’t respected. When the USA has cities like Detroit in such a state of disrepair; it really isn’t appropriate to outsource to China. Utilitarianism was violated due to the most people being harmed for the rich elitist of society while deontology was also violated due to Companies that aren’t loyal to the USA.
References
Bogner, Steven, Reinhart, Julia. (2019). American Factory; Social and Cultural Docs: Higher Ground Productions. Waddell, Kaveh. (2016). Why Google Quit China-and Why It’s Heading Back: The Atlantic
McCombs School of Business, (2020). Ethics Unwrapped: University of Texas at Austin
WE’VE HAD A GOOD SUCCESS RATE ON THIS ASSIGNMENT. PLACE THIS ORDER OR A SIMILAR ORDER WITH PapersSpot AND GET AN AMAZING DISCOUNT”
Thank you for your post and comments. When you think about a global business, such as Google, to what extent does it project US values and to what extent does it need to adapt its policies and practices to the markets in which it operates? Is there a
balance here between commercial requirements and the need to uphold what might be seen as ‘western’ ethical standards against a different way of doing business?
Will
WE’VE HAD A GOOD SUCCESS RATE ON THIS ASSIGNMENT. PLACE THIS ORDER OR A SIMILAR ORDER WITH PapersSpot AND GET AN AMAZING DISCOUNT”
The best way I can describe it to you is that, Google is a Government compliant agency. Therefor Google adheres to Government demands but misrepresents themselves to the populace. They are Government contracted and serve the purpose of tracking user information. As far as Google is concerned, Ethics isn’t really involved. Instead they are more concerned with expansion and Government kickbacks. This is all displayed in their procedure from the initial article: Waddell, Kareh. (2016).
Why Google Quit China-and Why Its Heading Back: The Atlantic. They do what they are told in accordance to Government entities to make as much money as possible. The last question was what I was trying to demonstrate with my earlier post about Fuyao. The business policies and requirements are linked to Government and politics. The more our 2 Nations get deeper into business and commercial requirements, our ethics will have to change to meet each-others needs. Chinese businesses bring their values and they expect results. If you watch the video about the Fuyao Glass Company on Netflix, you can see how they break the American Spirit and have no respect for our People. Bringing in Eastern values is hampering Western values and demoralizing the USA. We have our own way of doing things that can be seen in a documentary called Koyaanisqatsi. There is a part called “The Grid-Assembly Line” where it shows Americans of all races stamping out cars like nothing else. It will bring a tear to your eye to see what we can do together in the USA. This film was shot in the 80s so what happened and when did American labor become less valuable? Our Western ethics will work but we have to give incentives to do so. It is really odd that
| China is taking precedence over Detroit. Detroit was the wealthiest city in America in the 50s and has just been forgotten. Businesses go to China for a better deal and cheaper labor. China is getting richer and richer and now are starting to buy us out. We need to stop it by higher taxes for overseas companies and tax breaks for areas like Detroit. Even if we can’t work as fast as the Chinese, our Western individuality will create more imagination thereby creating higher technologies. This all needs to be done to simply make the statement that the stamp of the USA means it’s the best. They need to get out of here so we can do things our way. If our work is slower but of higher quality then we still win. If we put America first and get everyone on the same track, we can be the best in the World again.
References References: Bogner, Steven, Reinhart, Julia. (2019). American Factory; Social and Cultural Docs: Higher Ground Productions. Waddell, Kaveh. (2016). Why Google Quit China-and Why It’s Heading Back: The Atlantic McCombs School of Business, (2020). Ethics Unwrapped: University of Texas at Austin https://cloud.google.com/security/compliance/services-in-scope/ Reggio, Godfrey. (1982-1983). Koyaanisqatsi: Institute for Regional Education
|
|||
|
|
WE’VE HAD A GOOD SUCCESS RATE ON THIS ASSIGNMENT. PLACE THIS ORDER OR A SIMILAR ORDER WITH PapersSpot AND GET AN AMAZING DISCOUNT”
|
||
WE’VE HAD A GOOD SUCCESS RATE ON THIS ASSIGNMENT. PLACE THIS ORDER OR A SIMILAR ORDER WITH PapersSpot AND GET AN AMAZING DISCOUNT”
Cultural Issues.
In the United States Coast Guard, we had a culture of Always Ready. That meant that any situation could occur while we were at sea and we could determine a way to address it successfully to complete the mission and save lives or capture the bad guys. It was always assumed that we would never endanger our crew’s lives beyond what could be done – but there were always inherent risks in everything we did.
One of our most problematic ethical dilemmas was what to do with a Commanding Officer who ran his or her ship aground. Was it ethical to hold that CO accountable and discipline them or even take them to a court-martial for unnecessarily endangering their crew’s lives or losing their ship? Or was it acceptable that they were taking calculated risks in a culture that emphasizes being Always Ready – Semper Paratus – to complete the mission in all circumstances.
For this ethical dilemma, it was generally acceptable to use a Fairness and Justice approach to the problem. The person investigating the incident and the Senior Officer who was to make the final judgment towards the CO would look at similar situations and provide like punishment or accountability for similar cases. In one incident, I was the Investigating Officer for a CO who ran her ship aground while chasing a drug smuggler near the Bahamas Banks. The smuggler had a shallow draft vessel and quickly ran across the banks where he could go and the cutter could not. The CO chased the smuggler using what she believed was accurate navigation means to keep her from going aground. However, there was a misreading of the danger bearing and she did touch bottom doing about $200K in damage to the cutter’s propellers. My investigation revealed that she was doing her job and there is a cost of doing business when aggressively chasing drug smugglers. A new Admiral to the Drug smuggling waters of the Caribbean disagreed with me and said that there was never an excuse for running a vessel aground. The convening officer agreed with my findings and punished the CO with a remark in her fitness report regarding poor judgment. But she did not lose her command and was able to recover from the incident to go on to a very successful career.
In another case, I touched bottom near a dock in San Juan, Puerto Rico when an uncharted debris dumping of tons of concrete was piled up near the dock. I was exonerated from the incident when it was discovered that no announcement of the uncharted concrete dumping was made. Of course, we immediately sent out a Notice to Mariners about the shallow spot near the dock and no other ships touched it. I did zero damage to the ship. However, we did immediately report the incident, conducted a complete investigation and made sure no damage was done by using Navy divers to examine the ship’s hull.
In the final case I will describe, a very well-known and well-liked CO ran his ship aground, abandoned his ship and it sunk on the Great Lakes. The circumstances were strange on how all of this happened. It was Christmas Eve and the CO was trying to get his crew home for Christmas. They had one more buoy to service before they could go home – and they decided to do the work well past midnight in order to get home in the early morning. They could have waited until daylight to service the buoy – but they wanted to get home early, so they worked the buoy while they were tired and it was very dark. After working the buoy and placing it back on station, the CO and all the experienced sailors went to the mess deck for coffee and to celebrate while a freshly qualified, inexperienced Officer was left in charge of the ship’s navigation. The young officer made a mistake and went on the wrong side of the buoy, which caused the ship to hit a rock and a small hole was made in the side of the ship. Seawater came in – but that can be controlled using the ship’s pumps and a patch. We practice that all the time. However, on this ship, the last time they ran a damage control drill was over a year ago (so much for Semper Paratus). Despite their lack of training and practice, the ship’s crew was actually doing very well on fighting off the seawater and they were pumping out more water then was coming in. The patch was in place and all was well. Then the CO decided that they had fought long enough and everyone was tired – so he decided to abandon ship and have everyone get in the small boats and allow the cutter to sink. He felt like they had fought the ship long enough even though his damage control personnel were telling him they were actually winning the fight. Most of the ship obeyed the abandon ship message – but a few brave sailors continued to keep the pumps going and making sure the patch stayed in place. Upon abandoning ship, the CO reported such to his Admiral ashore. When the Admiral asked if everyone had departed the ship, the CO replied that a few crew members had remained aboard and were still fighting to keep the ship afloat. The admiral ordered the CO to immediately return to the ship and try to keep it from sinking. If a few crew members believed that they could save the ship, then the whole crew ought to be there to help them. By the time they returned to the ship, the anchors that were set to keep the ship from getting closer to the rocks were not holding because the crew had abandoned their stations and were not tending them when the CO ordered the abandon ship. Therefore, the ship was getting pushed closer to the rocks and the crew had not gotten the engines back online to keep the ship from going onto the rocks. Once the crew was back on board, it was too late. The ship had gotten too close to the rocks and several small holes were being punched into the hull. The crew attempted to patch these holes – but the ship kept being pushed onto the rocks and more holes kept punching through the hull. Eventually, the pumps could not keep up and the CO ordered another abandon ship. This time it was because the water coming in exceeded the water being pumped out. And this time, the CO was the last to leave the ship. After everyone had departed the ship, it took about two minutes for the ship to sink and slide down a steep slope into very deep water. No lives were lost. The CO claimed victory since no one lost their lives and they remained safe. The Admiral had a different view. The CO was court-martialed for failure to keep his ship ready (no drills for the past year) and endangering his crew. He served time in Leavenworth Prison.
process under the law. The ethical theory of Fairness and Justice (Gilbert, 2016) is what I would use to analyze this. Similar situations need to be treated fair but impartial to the individual. Each situation you described is different in the events leading up to the incidents, so therefore they need to be treated differently when dealing with punishment for them.
The first situation you described is one that I would agree was the cost of doing business in a dangerous profession. From what you described, there was no neglect on the CO’s part, so therefore it needs to go down as you said “part of the job”. Use the information gathered from this and learn from it so others don’t make the same mistake in that area. This situation was constrained by the Admiral’s comment that there are never any excuses. I am glad that justice prevailed in this situation.
The second situation should have had Army Engineer Divers inspect for damage. That was the biggest mistake any CG Captain can make. Just kidding, I think the outcome on this was both fair and just for the situation. The Army had a similar situation a few years back where the boat captain ran his vessel aground. During the investigation, it was found that the charts that were provided to the captain were not updated. The boat captain was found to not be at fault for the incident and no charges were brought against him. All the charts were then updated with the proper ones.
The third incident you described was difficult to stomach. There was negligence on the ship’s CO part for sure and I agree with the punishment he received. I like how you said that he was well-liked, but unfortunately, that should not be considered when making a judgment on this incident. John Rawls stated that there is bias when making decisions like this. He stated that one must put themselves behind a veil of ignorance in order to make the fair and just decision on how to handle the outcome for the CO (Gilbert, 2016). Removing the bias and looking at the events in a factual way makes this outcome just and fair. The CO was given a mission and he failed to do the duty that was expected of him.
V/R Bryan
References
Gilbert, J. (2016). Ethics for managers: Philosophical foundations and business realities (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Routledge, Taylor & Francis.
WE’VE HAD A GOOD SUCCESS RATE ON THIS ASSIGNMENT. PLACE THIS ORDER OR A SIMILAR ORDER WITH PapersSpot AND GET AN AMAZING DISCOUNT”
Bryan – I laughed at your joke on the Army divers. I must tell you though that Army divers and Army boat drivers are some of the most professional and amazing people with whom I have worked. I had a terrible case in Haiti where a ferry boat had sunk alongshore. The shoreline was extremely steep and the ferry was sitting along the steep bank about 75 feet down. I could not maneuver my 210 foot Coast Guard cutter into a position to anchor over the ferry and support the Army divers who came to assist in helping get the bodies of the people who had sunk with the ferry. I attempted to support them from my small boats, but the boats were inadequate to provide all the support for all the equipment needed. Therefore, an Army, 157 foot, construction boat came from Panama to assist. The Warrant Officer who operated the boat was amazing to maneuver in rapid currents to put out three anchors and be directly over the ferry wreck. It was perfect to support the divers who then were able to release the bodies in the ferry. We were able to deliver those bodies to the families who had closure on their loved ones and were able to provide them good burials. My hat is off to the Army for showing me how to be the best at ship maneuvering. R/ Mark Kern
I think the only CO that got what they deserved was the guy who went to Leavenworth. I believe there should be evenly applied punishment that is proportional to the offense. I was taken to Captain’s Mast for fixing a string of lighting in my boats bathroom without the right paper work. Nothing I did was unsafe, my XO during my XOI even admitted what I did was what he would do if he were working on a light in his home. However, I did break the rules, I failed to follow a written order and so I got busted down a rank and they took half my paycheck for two months. For fixing a light. Just to make sure that’s clear, the lights worked afterwards, it was just a lose wire. So this was not even like hitting something, and there being no damage. My actions made the boat more functional, a net gain. So I got my career stunted, my family had to do without half a paycheck for two months and the boat goat a little more fixed all so the CO could make a point. Now in these cases, people ran their boats aground and I’m supposed to think that they don’t deserve to be fired and thrown into a career killing, yet safe billet where they can’t risk anymore lives and millions of
dollars of assets. I would decide a different ethical outcome and punish these COs like a CO of a submarine or aircraft carrier would be if they ran into something. They’d be relieved of their command and sent to pilot a desk for a few years, on top of the negative administrative remarks. The culture shouldn’t vary from ship to ship or even squadron to squadron (or however the Coasties organize it) there should be a uniform understanding that boats belong in the water, not on land, and it’s not ok to beach your vessel. They call it a Uniform Code of Military Justice for a reason. Just for context Article 110: Improper Hazarding of Vessel, caries a maximum punishment of death if the act is found to be willing and wrongful.
WE’VE HAD A GOOD SUCCESS RATE ON THIS ASSIGNMENT. PLACE THIS ORDER OR A SIMILAR ORDER WITH PapersSpot AND GET AN AMAZING DISCOUNT”
Nathan – If it is of any consolation, I would not have given you any punishment at Captain’s Mast. Dismissing the case with a warning would have been sufficient to get the point across that rules need to be followed. Sorry that happened to you. I do not think it was fair. R/ Mark Kern
| right to freedom of speech which is the first amendment as stated in the article. So for people in other countries to not have the same right as people in the united states is different and these internet companies need to be aware of that when it comes to google giving other counties access to their browser. Usually when it comes to big name companies they have a set of good talented lawyers who are good at their jobs. So when it comes to bribes these lawyers take care of it and make sure things get done the proper way so the company doesn’t take a hard negative impact.
Waddell Kaveh; Why Google Quit China— and Why It’s Heading Back; January 19, 2016
|
||
|
|
WE’VE HAD A GOOD SUCCESS RATE ON THIS ASSIGNMENT. PLACE THIS ORDER OR A SIMILAR ORDER WITH PapersSpot AND GET AN AMAZING DISCOUNT”
Yesterday
Isaiah – Do you think it was ethically correct for Google to hand over their files on what people said to the Chinese authorities? It may be true that China law said the State has a right to see what you are saying or searching for on the Internet. Did Google have the right or ethical authority to refuse to abide by that Chinese law? Google executives knew that if they turned over all this information, certain Chinese people may be persecuted and jailed because of their beliefs or searches on political issues, freedoms and Western cultures. R/ Mark Kern
|
|
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?
The article provided for this week’s reading would indicate the Google (at least in China) has taken a position that they will defer business growth for Human Rights advocacy. Per this weeks article, following an attack in 2010, the company intentionally drove search results in China to an unfiltered engine in Hong Kong, knowing full well that this would end with them ceasing business in China (Waddell, 2016). This demonstration and loss of potentially billions in revenue would lead one to believe that Google holds Human Rights and ethical business practice in high regards all the time.
Further reading into the subject of Google business in China turned up alternate points of view on the matter. Ross LaJeunesse a former executive with Google left the company amidst a transition as he states from a company that held human rights as a top priority to one that is now exploring market opportunities and growth. Specifically, in China, the project, named ‘Dragonfly’ is set to launch in China. This is a censored version of the Google search engine that will meet the requirements of the Chinese government (Tiku, 2020). If true this would be an example of how Google has not been consistent with its own application of human rights policies. Specifically, dealings with the Chinese government which has a long documented history of human rights violations.
Other implications for Google and other large tech firms is dealing with government and military parties using their technology in weapons systems development. There is argument to be made that technology companies selling their goods to military organizations to carry out attacks on other persons would go in the face of a human rights approach to business.
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 in order to support human rights and provide some standard for ethical transactions?
One good place to start would be identifying the ISO certifications that are applicable to the business they are entering.
These could include ISO 9000 for quality assurance, 14000 for environmental standards, and 19600 for compliance management. Although the ISO is not a government run organization, it is accepted in over a 100 nations and gives a common ground for business in international markets to be on the same page with many facets of the marketplace (Ferrell, 2016). Further the company needs to develop its own written policy on human rights and ethics. Then communicate this to its employees, customers, etc. When faced with ethical dilemmas having an already thought out strategy for answering those challenges will make it easier to have a consistent approach. This approach was discussed in one of the earlier GVV Pillar videos, in which the suggestion was made to write out answers to tough questions, so thought was put into ethical predicaments before they came up. This makes it easier to stay on the
ethical track. Lastly, the company should include in that policy a system to either reward (Financially?) or recognize good ethically and human rights decisions.
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?
Bribes play several roles in doing business overseas. The Harvard Business Review article gives an estimate of $400 billion per year in kickbacks. Activities including paying off local government officials, perimeters, and change of local law. All of these activities by some companies are seen as a means of entering a market. The HBR article further discusses how competitive businesses often look at bribery as a built in cost, because “everybody is doing it” (Montero, 2018). The FCPA was issued in 1977 to make it unlawful for certain persons within publicly traded companies to bribe foreign officials to obtain or retain business.
Technology companies would be at risk of violating this, as many technology companies are global and growing rapidly. For example the SEC webpage provides a listing of companies that have paid finds associated with FCPA violations. This list from 2019 includes: Microsoft Corporation, Cognizant Technologies, and Mobile Tele systems (Russian communications company). With such reach and need to open markets overseas, technology companies could find it easy to use bribery to get local laws changed to allow for delivery of their product.
Reply to ethics about CO ethical decisions.
I agree with and understand the decisions that were made for all three situations regarding the CO’s. The main item that sticks out to me, is that the last individual who ended up serving time, made several bad decisions leading up to the outcome and loss of his vessel. Not training his personnel and putting them at risk of their lives resides on the CO. This is akin to a fire chief allowing his Firemen to not train and all and then asking to keep his job when every house they tried to save burned down. The item that really sticks out to me in that example is that the CO did not have the leadership that when he sounded the first abandon ship, the CO did not ensure that all personnel exited.
References
Ferrell, O. C., & Ferrell, L. (2016). Ethics and Social Responsibility in Marketing Channels and Supply Chains: An Overview. Journal of Marketing Channels, 23(1/2), 2–10. https://doi.org/10.1080/1046669X.2016.1147339 (https://doi.org/10.1080/1046669X.2016.1147339)
| Montero, D. (2018). How Managers Should Respond When Bribes Are Business as Usual. Harvard Business Review Digital Articles, 6–10.
Tiku, N. (2020, January 2). A top Google exec pushed the company to commit to human rights. Then Google pushed him out, he says. Retrieved February 18, 2020, from https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2020/01/02/top-google-exec-pushed- company-commit-human-rights-then-google-pushed-him-out-he-says/ Waddell, K. (2016, January 19). Why Google Quit China-and Why It’s Heading Back. Retrieved February 17, 2020, from https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2016/01/why-google-quit-china-and-why-its-heading-back/424482/ (https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2016/01/why-google-quit-china-and-why-its-heading-back/424482/)
|
||
|
|
WE’VE HAD A GOOD SUCCESS RATE ON THIS ASSIGNMENT. PLACE THIS ORDER OR A SIMILAR ORDER WITH PapersSpot AND GET AN AMAZING DISCOUNT”
Timothy – I viewed Dragonfly as a way to comply with the Chinese government to follow their laws in revealing and allowing the monitoring of user accounts in China. The way the system worked was that Chinese users cannot gain access to certain information or knowledge that accessing such information would result in the Chinese government arresting those users. Dragonfly allowed Chinese users certain access to Google information without endangering them to arrest and persecution by the Chinese government. Is that not the ethical thing to do? Isn’t providing some access to information better than providing no access? R/ Mark Kern
|
|
Professor Kern and Class,
I personally believe in “most” of the verdicts that were levied on the different CO’s in the boat damage cases. I don’t believe the first CO should have had negative repercussions. There is a risk and a cost of doing business, but that’s simply how the military works. While $200k certainly is a lot of money, the US spends upwards of $1.4million on every tomahawk missile fired. I have personally thrown more than $200k of equipment in the dumpster because we had to empty a space we used for storage for a huge ship-wide inspection. I was one of 15 throwing equipment away. I believe that the cost of successfully catching the drug smuggler and not having to pay for further operations against the individual is worth the risk of the $200k. The second CO did the right thing by notifying everyone else of the concrete. There was no way to have avoided the incident, so the CO handled it responsibly. The third CO deserves a lot of time in Leavenworth. There were so incredibly many things that the CO did wrong. I wouldn’t be surprised if the CO was drunk. Abandoning your crew who are successfully saving YOUR ship is overwhelmingly arrogant and selfish, and without a doubt conduct unbecoming of an officer.
I don’t believe Google’s operations have always been consistent with human rights. I think that when they shifted their services to Hong Kong in a direct opposition to China, they were doing the right thing for human rights. There are two ways to look at them moving back to China. From one ethical standpoint, Carroll’s CSR pyramid puts profitability as the most important foundation of a business. Google services offered in China would no doubt make them a ton of money for their employees and shareholders. China has a huge population. However, they would be forced to comply with China’s anti-human rights policies. In a way this would be agreeing to and condoning China’s actions. However, I don’t think its ethically wrong for Google to enter China. No doubt China has some sort of search engine in place that’s already following the censorship rules. Google is just doing the capitalistic thing and presenting competition for profit. If human right are already being violated in China, giving them a better search engine, censored or not, isn’t a political statement.
My suggestion would be to do proper research into different countries’ values before you do business with them. Have a rigid set of values for your company as well. If those human rights issues align between your business and an interested country, then you will have a prosperous and smart business relationship. I would suggest not doing business if you think a countries morals and values are opposed to your business’.
It seems in the current global economy, bribes are hugely important in business. Bribing government officials seems to be the current par for business worldwide. I believe that in a capitalistic sense, bribes should be unnecessary in a worldwide economy, especially for companies trying to get an in with growing economies in other countries. A capitalistic view would say that the best product would make the most headway and earn the most business from growing countries. I believe that bribes would be implemented by the runner ups. Hypothetically, let’s say Google is thee best search engine around and Bing is the second best. Bing might pay a bribe to a government official to keep Google out of the growing country until Bing is already the staple in every household.
Christian
References:
Waddell, K. (2016, January 19). Why Google Quit China-and Why It’s Heading Back. Retrieved from https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2016/01/why-google-quit-china-and-why-its-heading-back/424482/ (https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2016/01/why-google-quit-china-and-why-its-heading-back/424482/)
Brenkert, G.G. Google, Human Rights, and Moral Compromise. J Bus Ethics 85, 453–478 (2009). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551- 008-9783-3
Transcultural 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?
In the time of big data and technological advances human rights need to be assessed for what it is. When we talk about google, we are talking about the leader in search engines used by millions. In this scenario Google chose not to be a part of oppressed China. Google’s move to pull the plug in China is an extreme example of the kinds of decisions Internet companies operating abroad are often up against: If they want to do business, they have to abide by local laws, which can include restrictions on speech (Waddell, 2016). In my opinion the human rights deal with basic human needs, but rights that governments give people such as freedom of speech vary from country to country. If companies want to operate in other countries then they should abide by the countries rules it is pretty simple, as long as the governments rules arent violating basic human needs. To say Google is violating basic human rights by abiding by the countries laws is the same as saying the countries laws are violating basic human rights, and in this case freedom of speech is not a basic human right in certain countries.
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 in order to support human rights and provide some standard for ethical transactions?
Companies looking to source supplies should make sure places that are the source have ethical practices such as; fair wages, fair employment, and economical restriction on waste and pollution. A good example is companies moving to China for source of manufacturing due to China’s low costs, but this was mainly due to the low wages that were being paid to employees. This is an example of unethical business practices by the Chinese government.
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?
Bribes can occur in any company and in my opinion are a reflection of the company’s leadership. According to research into dozens of bribery cases and five years of reporting on four continents, bribery happens because executive believe that their competitors are using bribery as a tool to get ahead, so they must too (Montero, 2018). Since there is no minimum amount of accepting a bribe all companies are at risk of violating the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act. The virtue theory of ethics is at plat in all of these situations, companies not only need to do what is right they need to train employees to do so as well.
References:
Montero D. (2018) Harvard Business Review. How Managers Should Respond When Bribes are Business as Usual. Retrieved from: https://eds-a-ebscohost-com.vlib.excelsior.edu/eds/pdfviewer/pdfviewer?vid=1&sid=0c36a743-e1d8-487a-8d40- acf3c9ba63c5%40sdc-v-sessmgr03
Waddell K. (2016) The Atlantic. Why Google Quit China -and Why It’s Heading Back. Retrieved from: https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2016/01/why-google-quit-china-and-why-its-heading-back/424482/
WE’VE HAD A GOOD SUCCESS RATE ON THIS ASSIGNMENT. PLACE THIS ORDER OR A SIMILAR ORDER WITH PapersSpot AND GET AN AMAZING DISCOUNT”
Classmates,
Transcultural 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?
I would say Google and many other companies have not been consistent with human rights. Google and others allowing governments to censor and repress the human rights of their people is unethical in the same way that allowing someone to assault another person when they have the means to stop them is also being unethical.
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 in order to support human rights and provide some standard for ethical transactions?
For global operations sourcing out of other countries I would suggest that a basic level of human rights are acknowledged such as fair pay for labor and health requirements while working. Other rights and benefits can be controversial about what is required of the employer such as taking advantage of the local economy, age of workers, and treatment of workers, but they still need to be considered on a global scale.
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?
| I would imagine bribes pay a large part in conducting business in general, whether legal or not. A “legal” form of bribery could be as simple as higher pay for allowing the business to run there or better benefits to the local people. The boundaries of what is or isn’t a bribe can be difficult to establish in global economies. I think technology companies are just as at risk of violating FCPA as any other global company.
Chace References: Waddell, K. (2016). Why Google Quit China—and Why It’s Heading Back. Retrieved from https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2016/01/why-google-quit-china-and-why-its-heading-back/424482/
|
||
|
|
Chace – Your points about global human rights are interesting to me. While every country has a right to make their own laws, does every country have a right to treat humans so differently regarding human rights and freedoms? Is there a list of global human rights and freedoms that you believe should be adhered to by all nations? What would it be? R/ Mark Kern
|
|
This question has taken me to many websites looking for an answer. From the research I have found, Google is at least on the surface is consistent with the value of human rights. There was a project though they were working on back in 2018 called Project Dragonfly which was going to be used in China that would conform to the country’s strict laws on censorship. This project, had it actually been launched, would have me say that Google is not conforming to the value of human rights. The public found out about this and Google has since shut down the project (Su, 2019). This project would have put Google back into the Chinese market which could have increased its customer base exponentially. To me, it is confusing as to why Google would consider this after being a member of the Global Network Initiative which would have called them out on this project (About GNI, 2020).
What suggestions would you have for an organization that is seeking to enter the global market for sourcing products and services in order to support human rights and provide some standard for ethical transactions?
I would consider following the guidelines that are laid out by organizations such as the GNI and the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights documents. Both of these along with ISO participation would help lay the groundwork for a successful venture in the global market. The ISO breaks the standardization down into different standards that would cover many different areas of the business, unlike the GNI which focuses mainly on the flow of information.
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?
Bribes play a larger role in conducting business overseas than many would realize. The way we see business is what we perceive when we drive down our streets at home. I have dealt with foreign governments and seen the way business is conducted there. It can be grossly different than the way we do business here in America. Local politicians in foreign countries sometimes see what the law calls bribery just a normal way to conduct business. The US has outlawed business from accepting bribes while doing business outside of the United States but they are allowed to accept facilitating payments which to me seems like small bribes. I would say that most businesses that do business in foreign countries are at risk of violating the FCPA provisions, not just the technology companies.
References:
Ferrell, O. C., & Ferrell, L. (2016). Ethics and Social Responsibility in Marketing Channels and Supply Chains: An Overview. Journal of Marketing Channels, 23(1/2), 2-10. Retrieved from https://doi.org/10.1080/1046669X.2016.1147339 (https://doi.org/10.1080/1046669X.2016.1147339)
Gilbert, J. (2016). Ethics for managers: Philosophical foundations and business realities (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Routledge, Taylor & Francis.
Global Network Initiative. (2014). Public Report on the Independent Assessment Process for Google, Microsoft, and Yahoo. Washington DC: Global Network Initiative. Retrieved from https://globalnetworkinitiative.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/10/GNI- Assessments-Public-Report.pdf (https://globalnetworkinitiative.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/10/GNI-Assessments-Public- Report.pdf)
Montero, D. (2018). How Managers Should Respond When Bribes Are Business as Usual. Harvard Business Review Digital Articles, 6-10. Retrieved from https://eds-a-ebscohost-com.vlib.excelsior.edu/eds/pdfviewer/pdfviewer? vid=4&sid=fa579fd1-08a2-468e-8f37-5803ad749a3b% 40sessionmgr4008 (https://eds-a-ebscohost- com.vlib.excelsior.edu/eds/pdfviewer/pdfviewer?vid=4&sid=fa579fd1-08a2-468e-8f37-5803ad749a3b%40sessionmgr4008)
Su, J. (2019). Confirmed: Google Terminated Project Dragonfly, Its Censored Chinese Search Engine. Retrieved from Forbes: https://www.forbes.com/sites/jeanbaptiste/2019/07/19/confirmed-google-terminated-project-dragonfly-its-censored-chinese-search- engine/#4c0fc6797e84
(https://www.un.org/en/universal-declaration-human-rights/)
Waddell, K. (2016). Why Google Quit China-and Why It’s Heading Back. Retrieved from The Atlantic: https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2016/01/why-google-quit-china-and-why-its-heading-back/424482/ (https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2016/01/why-google-quit-china-and-why-its-heading-back/424482/)
WE’VE HAD A GOOD SUCCESS RATE ON THIS ASSIGNMENT. PLACE THIS ORDER OR A SIMILAR ORDER WITH PapersSpot AND GET AN AMAZING DISCOUNT”
We all see the world from our own perspectives and what we understand as human rights are entitled to all human beings, in spite of race, sex, ethnicity, nationality, religion, language, and so on. “Human rights include the right to life and liberty, freedom from slavery and torture, freedom of opinion and expression, the right to work and education, which everyone is entitled to these rights, without discrimination” (United Nations, 2020). I do believe that google violated the human right of freedom of opinion and expression, as well as going against their mission statement, “organize the world’s information and make it universally accessible and useful” (Comparably, 2020). By doing business with China they were clearly going against human rights and their mission because they conformed to China’s censorship policies and filtered search results, just to be able to do business in their country (Waddell, 2016).
Google as a company pride themselves on being innovative and a progressive company as they make clear in their vision statement ,“to provide access to the world’s information in one click” (Comparably, 2020), which the laws of China would not allow. The suggestions I would have for an organization seeking to enter the global market for sourcing products and services in order to support human rights with a standard for ethical transactions, would be learning how the laws of the different countries have, and find the middle ground on what products don’t violate those laws. Another suggestion would be to find local companies that have the potential or already providing services and ethically open to growth.
The role bribes have in the corporate world is always going to be profit driven. Bribery is unethical behavior which causes a number of problems all credited to business bribery. Other than it being illegal, all countries have laws in place to prohibit bribery which if a company is engaging in bribery is expose momentous legal risks to all parties involved in the company (Lumen Learning, 2020). Other rules/ regulations that are circumvented by bribery usually have a purpose. Giving of bribes may create a culture of corruption in the foreign country, laws such as the US Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA) were created to prevent such acts of corruption. “The FCPA applies only to bribes paid (or offered) to foreign government officials to obtain or retain business or to develop an unfair competitive advantage” (Lumen Learning, 2020), which technology companies that are eager to gain market shares in growing economies could be at risk of violating if bribery was used as a way of staying ahead of the competition. A corporation that is accused or convicted may suffer a serious public relations backlash. But at the end of the day it is up to the individuals managing the company to direct the company’s moral compass, because a business is neither good or bad, it’s the individuals running it responsibility on how its ran.
References
Comparably. (2020). Google Mission, Vision & Values. Retrieved from comparably.com: https://www.comparably.com/companies/google/mission
Lumen Learning. (2020). Curruption in Internal Business. Retrieved from lumenlearning.com: https://courses.lumenlearning.com/suny-good-corporation-bad-corporation/chapter/10-corruption-in-international-business/
United Nations. (2020). Human Rights. Retrieved from un.org: https://www.un.org/en/sections/issues-depth/human-rights/
Waddell, K. (2016, January 19). Why Google Quit China—and Why It’s Heading Back. Retrieved from theatlantic.com: https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2016/01/why-google-quit-china-and-why-its-heading-back/424482/
|
|
||
|
|
Steven – Take a closer look at bribes. I have worked in third world countries where the only way that police officers and customs officials survive is through the bribes they receive on a routine, expected basis. It is part of the culture of that country. To not pay the bribes deprives that official of an expected pay that his country’s authorities feel they would receive. It hurts the individual and their families. Their nation considers bribes as part of their compensation. Without the bribe money, there is not sufficient pay for the police or customs officials to stay with their job. There is no question that in a Western world’s or U.S. sense, bribes are wrong. However, when bribes are the normal, expected way of doing business and the reason why customs or police officials accept their jobs, is it ethically correct to refuse those bribes? R/ Mark Kern
|
|
WE’VE HAD A GOOD SUCCESS RATE ON THIS ASSIGNMENT. PLACE THIS ORDER OR A SIMILAR ORDER WITH PapersSpot AND GET AN AMAZING DISCOUNT”
Transcultural 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?
I think Googles action in leaving China have hurt human right. Censorship in a lot of place is very oppressive. “If these companies do whatever they’re capable of doing to publicize that their content is being screened, monitored, and sometimes censored by governments, I think there’s a really good argument that maintaining a social-media presence is inherently a liberalizing force,”
(Waddell K.). If Google would have applied Utilitarian theory it would have been clear that being in China would have benefited more people then not being there. I seems that pulling out was paramount to a child having a tantrum to later learn they were wrong and that they needed what they got upset about.
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 in order to support human rights and provide some standard for ethical transactions?
I would recommend starting with Global Network Initiative (GNI) to find out more detail and get the frame work in place up front. This will lay a nice foundation. I would also recommend implementing a standard from International Organization for Standardization. This would provide a guide for ethical standards and compliance.
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?
Bribes play a major roles in conducting business overseas. “according to the World Bank, roughly one-third of firms around the world use kickbacks, paying an estimated total of $400 billion a year.” (Montero) In a lot of countries bribe are common place. Technology companies are at great risk of vacillating the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act. “Since 1977, the anti-bribery provisions of the FCPA have applied to all U.S. persons and certain foreign issuers of securities.” (FOREIGN) Many companies put speed and profit over doing the ethical thing. And since most companies don’t factor in the possible schedule delays, it is easy for employees to rationalize paying bribes to keep process moving.
References:
Ferrell, O. C., & Ferrell, L. (2016). Ethics and Social Responsibility in Marketing Channels and Supply Chains: An Overview. Journal of Marketing Channels, 23(1/2), 2-10. Retrieved from https://doi.org/10.1080/1046669X.2016.1147339 (Links to an external site.) (https://doi.org/10.1080/1046669X.2016.1147339)
FOREIGN CORRUPT PRACTICES ACT. Retrieved from:https://www.justice.gov/criminal-fraud/foreign-corrupt-practices-act
|
Montero D. (2018) Harvard Business Review. How Managers Should Respond When Bribes are Business as Usual. Retrieved from: https://eds-a-ebscohost-com.vlib.excelsior.edu/eds/pdfviewer/pdfviewer?vid=1&sid=0c36a743-e1d8-487a-8d40- acf3c9ba63c5% 40sdc-v-sessmgr03 (https://eds-a-ebscohost-com.vlib.excelsior.edu/eds/pdfviewer/pdfviewer? vid=1&sid=0c36a743-e1d8-487a-8d40-acf3c9ba63c5%40sdc-v-sessmgr03)
Waddell K. (2016) The Atlantic. Why Google Quit China -and Why It’s Heading Back. Retrieved from: https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2016/01/why-google-quit-china-and-why-its-heading- back/424482/ (https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2016/01/why-google-quit-china-and-why-its-heading- back/424482/)
|
||
|
|
Joseph – You have taken a different stand on Google’s decision to leave China than most of your classmates. However, I think you are onto something. There is an aspect of Google’s actions that I want you to comment upon too. I am concerned that Google staying in China and China’s laws that Google must allow the government’s monitoring and turn over user information to the government would lead to China authorities persecuting and arresting Chinese users for accessing certain information or knowledge. Are you concerned about this aspect of how the Chinese government would use information from Google? Isn’t this danger a good, ethical reason for Google to leave China? Why or why not? R/ Mark Kern
|
|
WE’VE HAD A GOOD SUCCESS RATE ON THIS ASSIGNMENT. PLACE THIS ORDER OR A SIMILAR ORDER WITH PapersSpot AND GET AN AMAZING DISCOUNT”
Transcultural 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?
Even though Google initially released in China with less restrictions and censoring, the government would not allow them to continue that way. I believe Google’s operations have been consistent with the value of human rights, and they have proven this by doing what it takes to be present – but also letting the users know that some of their content is being blocked when it is. “To that end, Google (https://www.google.com/transparencyreport/) , Facebook (https://govtrequests.facebook.com/) , and Twitter (https://transparency.twitter.com/) all publish a detailed annual transparency report, where they show the number and type of content- takedown or user-information requests they received, and the number they complied with, from each country where they operate.” (Wadell. 2016) In addition, even though many organizations will not put the time and funding into it, Google is one that works with the Global Network Initiative, which is a human rights organization that guides companies in how to handle these legal situations in the best way to benefit the organization, comply legally and still be available to their users.
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 in order to support human rights and provide some standard for ethical transactions?
An example of a significant miss in ethical decision making was when Apple decided to outsource production of the iphone to China. While Apple was very well aware of their own labor policies, they did not also consider the way the workers in China would be working as far as conditions, pay and hours in order to produce the large quantities of product they were demanding in a short time frame. “Foreign direct investment can be considered a direct effect of globalization. By Apple participating in FDI, it outsources jobs to China, were labor laws are in a less favorable position for workers. While Apple is not the only one, it is definitely one of the biggest offenders in recent history. At the release of the white Iphone 4, Apple wanted the company to produce white Iphones without any slow-down on the production of the normal Iphone 4. This in turn, created higher stress levels within the Foxconn employees, who already had to deal with horrible working conditions. In turn, many workers resorted to suicides; leading many to question the ethicality of the international world. Companies such as Apple, Sony, Microsoft and HP might follow the labor laws set in place within western countries, but most of the consumers who buy their products do not realize that this means nothing in the countries where the products they consume are made. Globalization, while pushing humanity as a whole towards the epitome of progress, has also
brought about a major negative implication into the world market- the promotion of unethical behavior towards the working class of developing nations.” (Vincente-Flores, 2014) I would suggest that organizations have dedicated staff members who specialize in global relations and deals to handle decisions like this. It would allow them to better research and understand the weight and impact of some of the decisions when dealing with foreign organizations and the differences in their operations and policies. They should be working to align those policies and beliefs as much as possible as partners of the organization can be seen as representing them in some ways.
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 concern when conducting business overseas because so many organizations have used it. It causes organizations to resort to bribery even when they know its wrong, because they feel it’s what others are doing and the only way to get the business ahead of someone else. It creates an unethical and unhealthy competition that is not based on what is best for either company involved in many cases. When you think about what organizations really want, its to be involved and to build a strong presence and relationship with organizations they partner with. According to Montero, organizations should be offering “a chance to participate in high-level discussions about the company’s commitment to the local community and to give that office a greater voice in shaping those decisions. Another is to offer to create more jobs or provide more training or technical service than your competitors are offering.” (Montero, 2018)
Sources:
Montero, D. (2018). How Managers Should Respond When Bribes Are Business as Usual. Harvard Business Review Digital Articles, 6–10.
Waddell, K. (2016, January 19). Why Google Quit China-and Why It’s Heading Back. Retrieved February 17, 2020, from https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2016/01/why-google-quit-china-and-why-its-heading-back/424482/ (https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2016/01/why-google-quit-china-and-why-its-heading-back/424482/)
Vincente-Flores, Eric Francisco (2014, June 5) Foxconn Case Study: A Look at Ethics in the Global Marketplace. Retrieved February 20, 2020, from http://pax.shc.edu/story/foxconn-case-study-look-ethics-global-marketplace (http://pax.shc.edu/story/foxconn-case-study-look-ethics-global-marketplace)
|
|
Kelly – I appreciate your sharing the issues on Chinese labor practices and international companies’ actions that led to grave consequences in the Chinese workforce. What are global companies to do with China? If they refuse to use Chinese labor, is that punishing the workers in China who do need the work in order to survive? What policies or demands are legitimate for international companies to make in order to use Chinese labor? R/ Mark Kern
|
|
Google and China
In the article “Why Google Quit China—and Why It’s Heading Back”, Kaveh Wadell informs that Google stopped operations in China due to concurrent cyber-attacks intended to cripple the organization’s operations. Despite the breaches, Google’s officials deemed it the most ethical decision to continue operations in the country so that internet users would not have to suffer (Waddell, 2016). For this to have been done, it proved significant for companies such as Google and Facebook to set rationales such as developing transparency reports which would augment the companies’ social media presence (Waddell, 2016). With such actions taken, I would assert that google endorses the value of human rights by warranting equitable access to information as well as by creating a transparency validation to govern its operations.
For companies intending to begin its operations in a new market, Rebecca MacKinnon asserts that it would be critical to perform a human rights impact assessment (Waddell, 2016). From such an evaluation, businesses would be more capable of examining immediate accountabilities to maintain human rights. In this sense, the business would be able to recognize possible ways of rights infringement and equally develop a human rights policy. Hence, the company would be expected to comply with ethical and cultural considerations of the same market which would ultimately make them attain a competitive advantage.
Bribes are useful to businesses, particularly when government officials are rewarded to do their jobs in an appropriate manner. Through such transactions, the payment acts as a means to facilitate certain procedures (Cuervo-Cazurra, 2015). Thus, companies may be eager to pay bribes and violate the provisions of the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act to increase their market share, such as with the case of Ericson (“Spotlight on Foreign Corrupt Practices Act,” n.d.). Accordingly, the telecommunications company attempted to bribe both the SEC and the DOJ with over $1 billion to resolve an initial bribe.
References
Cuervo-Cazurra, A. (2015). Corruption in international business. Journal of World Business, 51. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jwb.2015.08.015
Spotlight on Foreign Corrupt Practices Act. (n.d.). Retrieved from https://www.sec.gov/spotlight/fcpa/fcpa-cases.shtml
Waddell, K. (2016, January 19). Why Google Quit China—and Why It’s Heading Back. Retrieved from https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2016/01/why-google-quit-china-and-why-its-heading-back/424482/
V/r
| Timothy
|
||
|
|
WE’VE HAD A GOOD SUCCESS RATE ON THIS ASSIGNMENT. PLACE THIS ORDER OR A SIMILAR ORDER WITH PapersSpot AND GET AN AMAZING DISCOUNT”
Timothy – This human rights impact assessment seems to be a great idea. How does it actually work? What types of human rights questions or concerns does the assessment cover? Is it a standard set of questions or is it a general study that is conducted to see how the nation conducts its human rights laws, policies and procedures? What are some of the important things to consider and watch for in your mind in this assessment? In other words, if you were the HR Manager of the company, what issues would you think are the most critical to examine in the rights impact assessment and why? R/ Mark Kern
|
|
In a ethical stand point I feel Google did not uphold the values of human rights because freedom of speech as long as there is no call for violence I believe every human should have without restriction. In the case of Google working aboard with China they are given “access to a large number of Internet users, delivering them more information, and at the same time bolstering the company’s bottom line” (Wadedell, 2016, para. 24). Which I take as, if there is a profit to be made Google will bend its own ethics like having a freedom of speech platform and censoring the content to make it more available to people such as China. Human rights are “apply regardless of where you are from, what you believe or how you choose to live your life” (What are human right?, 2019, para. 1). So, even if its against the law in China for some content to be seen its still violating human rights that everyone deserves. Understandable Google is a company and its goal is to make profits, as their seeking to enter the global market they need to set clear boundaries for what they will bring to other countries. If by law certain issues are banded from the countries just make their platform basic as possible so
| they are not violating laws but keeping users’ values. I believe bribes play a huge role in companies trying to grow into overseas markets whether this is from kickbacks to actual shares in the companies. There is greed surrounding every company trying to grow into a larger franchise.
Reference
Waddell, Kaveh. (2016). Why Google Quit China-and Why It’s Heading Back: The Atlantic retrieved from https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2016/01/why-google-quit-china-and-why-its-heading-back/424482/ (https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2016/01/why-google-quit-china-and-why-its-heading-back/424482/) What are human rights? (19, June 19). Retrieved from https://www.equalityhumanrights.com/en/human-rights/what-are-human-rights
|
||
|
|
Keith – You are arguing an interesting point about human rights versus the rights of a country to take care of its citizens. Let’s bring this home to the U.S. Does the U.S. have a right to look at things that terrorist’s post on Facebook? If a non-U.S. citizen in the U.S. receives a Facebook message from outside this nation that denigrates American interests and condones the killing of Westerners, is that okay to be reported to the FBI? Or going to a more basic right of privacy, is it ethical for U.S. citizens to be searched when they return from travel to a country that has terrorist camps and it was reported that this U.S. citizen went to those terrorist camps? When is it ethical to invade human rights in order to protect others? R/ Mark Kern
|
|
The United Nations identifies Human rights as rights inherent to all human beings, regardless of race, sex, nationality, ethnicity, language, religion, or any other status. Human rights include the right to life and liberty, freedom from slavery and torture, freedom of opinion and expression, the right to work and education, and many more. The article present to read and many of the countries it touched upon are members of the UN, with China being apart of the UN since its founding. This presents a very skewed view to me in regards to what Google should or should not do in the countries it provides services to. On one hand I do not think any country should act as “world police” and should not interfere outside their own borders. On the other hand I find it humorous that China is a leading member of the UN yet does not hold the tenets of the UN to heart. I do believe Google has been consistent with the value of human rights because they identify well with the UN’s “Freedom of opinion and expression”, as well as “the right for education.” I think Google attempts to facilitate to the worlds human rights issues but is smart about it by working with some governments to still provide their product.
The advice I would give for any organization to break into the world market and sourcing products and services would be to have a strong moral and ethical bedrock for their company. Know your limits of what you can and cannot provide. Everything does not happen over night and many times you will be forced to work with people you do not agree with to get your message/product out. Make the country you are trying to court understand your moral and ethical values based on human rights. If all else fails don’t waste your time, people have a funny way of getting the information they desire and nothing is more taxing to a government than a well planned coup, because they have been used and abused.
Bribes can play a huge roll in a business deal overseas, although what one person views as a bribe, another my view as part of their culture. Gift giving may appear as a bribe but many cultures view it as socially normal, the same way I bring a bottle of liquor to a get together, its viewed as a “thank you for putting this together.” I think any business, regardless of practice, is at risk of violating the provisions of the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act depending on the view taken by officials. As stated earlier a custom and courtesy of gift giving at meetings may be misconstrued as a bribe when in reality it is showing respect. I do have to caveat that any form of liquid currency, access to company property (i.e. yachts, planes, etc) more than likely would and should be considered a bribe.
Waddell, Kaveh. (2016). Why Google Quit China-and Why It’s Heading Back: The Atlantic. https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2016/01/why-google-quit-china-and-why-its-heading-back/424482/ (https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2016/01/why-google-quit-china-and-why-its-heading-back/424482/)
United Nations. (2020). Human Rights. https://www.un.org/en/sections/issues-depth/human-rights/
(https://www.un.org/en/sections/issues-depth/human-rights/)
WE’VE HAD A GOOD SUCCESS RATE ON THIS ASSIGNMENT. PLACE THIS ORDER OR A SIMILAR ORDER WITH PapersSpot AND GET AN AMAZING DISCOUNT”
