Ethics Matters
Part II: Google vs. China
What’s Google’s Cost to take Down the Great Firewall?
John D. Copeland
J.D., LL.M., Ed.D.
Editor’s note: This is the second of a two-part series on Google’s refusal to censor the
Web in China.
Google angered China’s government by refusing to continue censoring the Web
as required by Chinese business regulations. China’s leaders now threaten to ban Google
from China. Google says it may voluntarily abandon the Chinese market.
So far, the Obama administration and Congress refuse to intervene in the dispute
and support Google.
Google hoped that at least other internet companies would follow its lead in
fighting for freedom of expression and stop censoring on the Web.
Network Solutions did so and like Google rerouted its internet traffic through
Hong Kong.
GoDaddy.com showed some support for Google when it stopped selling domain
names in China.
Intel and Microsoft, however, refused to challenge China’s leaders. They
announced that their China business plans would not change and that both companies
would obey Chinese regulations. Microsoft released a tepid statement saying the
company would continue to encourage China’s government to stop censoring the Web.
Tom Online, the Hong Kong internet company owned by billionaire Li Kashing,
issued a statement criticizing Google’s refusal to honor Chinese’s internet regulations and
dropped its use of Google’s search engine.
Some financial analysts heavily criticized Google’s defiance of China’s
government and called its conduct counter-productive. They believe China’s leaders will
now take an even harder position on censoring the Web.
Critics note that China immediately got around Google’s refusal to censor Web
content. Using what it calls the “Great Firewall” China censors Google’s transmissions
back into China from Hong Kong.
Critics argue Google accomplished nothing while risking the loss of its China
mobile phone and software business partners. Google’s conduct also endangers possible
long-term revenue from China’s 720 million mobile phone users. Google also risks losing
out on China’s internet advertising market, a market expected to grow from its current
annual $3 billion in revenue to $220 billion by 2014. Google’s move to Hong Kong could
reduce the company’s market value by up to $15 billion.
Shaun Rein, founder and manager of the China Market Research Group, launched
the strongest criticism of Google. In a Forbes’ CEO Network article he called Google’s
conduct brazen and irresponsible. He says Google’s conduct threatens the company’s
investors with long-term financial damage.
Rein’s most startling, and bizarre claim, is that Google’s conduct equals an act of
war. He argues Google’s action threatens China’s stability and, in a global economy,
cutting off a search engine and e-mail is as serious as an oil blockade.
Google’s gains
Is Google’s defiance of China’s Web censorship merely quixotic without any
possible benefit to Google?
Zhang Shihe, a Chinese freelance journalist and activist, does not believe so. He
has called Google’s action a win for freedom of expression. Zhang says Google’s
disobedience of China’s censorship regulations will encourage the Chinese to demand
more freedom of expression. Already, Chinese internet users devise new ways to get
around China’s Great Firewall. Given the large number of Chinese internet users, the
government finds it impossible to censor all internet information.
Gartner Inc. financial analyst Whit Andrews sees Google benefiting from its stand
against China’ censors. Andrews has stated Google now has irreproachable proof of its
editorial objectivity. He believes the respect Google gained offsets any potential financial
losses. Google clearly showed more courage in confronting China over internet freedom
than its rival businesses and the U.S. government.
Google’s executives and investors hope Andrews is right. Google deserves a
reward for putting ethics and its support for freedom of expression over profits.
Unfortunately, the U.S. government refuses to do the same or cannot because of
our crippling debt that China finances.
John D. Copeland, J.D., LL.M., Ed.D., is an executive in residence at The Soderquist
Center for Leadership and Ethics and a retired professor of business at John Brown
University. He is also a Kallman executive fellow at the Center for Business Ethics at
Bentley University in Waltham, Mass. He can be reached at [email protected].