Firms as Diplomats

Google’s motto has always been “Do no evil.” However, there is a perception in business that “do no evil” translates into “make no profit”—and thus that no corporation would actually prioritize humanitarian ideals over moneymaking. However, Google’s removal of its business from China bucks this contention and reflects what I hope to be a growing trend in business. It behooves us, as consumers and world citizens, to note this trend. Some corporations gross more annually than small countries, and they are thus as important as many nations in the sphere of international relations. Therefore, there exists a real possibility that corporations could be new arbiters for human rights.

In the twentieth century, firms also played a gigantic role in deciding domestic policy and international resolutions. However, these decisions were made not infrequently against benevolent political ideologies. For example, the U.S. government supported the interests of the United Fruit Company in the massacre of Santa Marta in 1928. To promote the interest of the UFC, the U.S. instructed the Colombian president to comply with orders to forcibly increase worker productivity. Such examples abound from Latin America, Africa, and India. But you don’t need a history lesson in colonization.

Google’s move is also praiseworthy because its commodity—information—is especially valuable. While Chinese citizens could live without tangible products, such as Levi jeans or mangos, to deny world citizens ideas is both economically and intellectually deleterious. Our fellow humans—the average person is a Chinese subsistence farmer—must be allowed the freedom of expression. Nothing should prevent world citizens from engaging in active dialogue across borders.

Of course, Google’s moral high ground benefits from the fact that it sells a high-concept unmanufactured product. It may be a little harder for a manufacturing company like Nike to make a similar move, given the fact that many such companies employ low-paid factory workers who earn pennies a day. For example, a 2008 National Labor Committee report called into question the new Sesame Street dolls, which were allegedly made under sweatshop conditions. Just recently, the NLC released a report on the abject conditions in a Reebok sweatshop in San Salvador. According to the report, workers are paid ten cents for each eighty-dollar jersey they make. Unfortunately, the NLC notes that this pay only “amounts to twenty three percent of the basic subsistence need for food, housing, health care, and clothing for an average sized family of four”. In such cases, a move against China’s human rights violations risks coming off as hypocrisy.

Nevertheless, it is the duty of all firms, especially ones who traffic in information, to make strong statements against tyrannical censorship and inequality. Business is now intrinsic to all human creations, from this newspaper to the roads we drive. By cutting funds to information-filtering states corporations send a message unmatched by governments.

Businesses have historically done one thing: business. That Google has even insinuated at moving towards ethical principles over profit is cause for humanity to take a deep breath of rejoice. Unfortunately for Chinese citizens, Google rests low on CNN Money’s Fortune 500 list of America’s largest corporations —a mere 117th. This trend toward ethics over profit needs to continue expanding to bigger economic powerhouses, to reverberate the message throughout the world.

More than sanctions, International Criminal Court threats, or World Bank and United Nations action, today businesses can do the best job of advocating for human rights. In acting on this principle, Google demonstrates its commitment to a fairer world. It has shown that besides selling a highly effective search engine, it can also sell egalitarian ideas.

Frank D. Maldonado ’13, a Crimson editorial writer, lives in Pennypacker Hall.