google ethics case study

The Google Case: When Law and Ethics Collide

A fundamental precept for international companies is compliance with the law of the nation in which they do business.

About the Author

Case Study on Google’s Code of Ethics

Categories: Code of Ethics Corporate Social Responsibility Google

About this sample

Words: 1597 |

Published: Dec 3, 2020

Words: 1597 | Pages: 4 | 8 min read

You have good faith intentions
You believe that a violation of laws or ethical guideline has occurred
You believe that the action of reporting will aid the company to comply with the relevant laws and regulations.
Alphabet. (2019). Google’s code of conduct. Retrieved from https://abc.xyz/investor/other/google-code-of-conduct/
Murphy, D.E. (2004). The federal sentencing guidelines for organizations: A decade of promoting compliance and ethics 87 (2).
Nathani, S., & Chande Y. (2014). Rewarding whistle-blowers: Arguments for and against. Indian Business Law Journal. Retrieved from <a>https://www.vantageasia.com/rewarding-whistleblowers-arguments-for-and-against/

Cite this Essay

Let us write you an essay from scratch

450+ experts on 30 subjects ready to help
Custom essay delivered in as few as 3 hours

Get high-quality help

Dr Jacklynne

Verified writer

Expert in: Business

+ 120 experts online

By clicking “Check Writers’ Offers”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy policy . We’ll occasionally send you promo and account related email

No need to pay just yet!

Related Essays

3 pages / 624 words

1 pages / 489 words

2 pages / 864 words

2 pages / 823 words

Remember! This is just a sample.

You can get your custom paper by one of our expert writers.

121 writers online

Case Study on Google’s Code of Ethics Essay

Still can’t find what you need?

Browse our vast selection of original essay samples, each expertly formatted and styled

Related Essays on Google

In her thought-provoking book, "Plato at the Googleplex: Why Philosophy Won't Go Away," Rebecca Newberger Goldstein integrates the timeless inquiries of ancient philosophy with today's technological advancements. The work [...]

Porter, M. E. (2008). The five competitive forces that shape strategy. Harvard Business Review.Hill, T., & Westbrook, R. (1997). SWOT analysis: It's time for a product recall. Long Range Planning.Google Investor Relations. [...]

Google has been a dominant force in the global technology industry, with a significant presence in various countries, including Russia. However, Google's dominance in the Russian market has been challenged by an antitrust [...]

Google is one of the most prominent and innovative companies in the world, known for its groundbreaking products, services, and work culture. With a focus on attracting and retaining top talent, Google has developed a [...]

Corporate culture usually relates to share company or organization goal, same expectation, attitudes, and practices that characterize of a corporation and outline its nature. It is often rooted with an organization’s structure, [...]

Google Chrome is a freeware web browser developed by Google. Released in September 2008, for Microsoft Windows, and was later ported to Linux, macOS, iOS and Android. Google Chrome is also the main component of Chrome OS, where [...]

Get Your Personalized Essay in 3 Hours or Less!

We use cookies to personalyze your web-site experience. By continuing we’ll assume you board with our cookie policy .

Instructions Followed To The Letter
Deadlines Met At Every Stage
Unique And Plagiarism Free

Harvard Business School →
Faculty & Research →
March 2020 (Revised August 2020)
HBS Case Collection

Culture at Google

Format: Print
| Language: English
| Pages: 34

About The Author

Nien-he Hsieh

Related work.

Faculty Research
Culture at Google By: Nien-hê Hsieh, Amy Klopfenstein and Sarah Mehta

Want to create or adapt books like this? Learn more about how Pressbooks supports open publishing practices.

11.1 Decision-Making Culture: The Case of Google

Figure 11.1

Wikimedia Commons – public domain.

Google (NASDAQ: GOOG) is one of the best-known and most admired companies around the world, so much so that “googling” is the term many use to refer to searching information on the Web. What started out as a student project by two Stanford University graduates—Larry Page and Sergey Brin—in 1996, Google became the most frequently used Web search engine on the Internet with 1 billion searches per day in 2009, as well as other innovative applications such as Gmail, Google Earth, Google Maps, and Picasa. Google grew from 10 employees working in a garage in Palo Alto to 10,000 employees operating around the world by 2009. What is the formula behind this success?

Google strives to operate based on solid principles that may be traced back to its founders. In a world crowded with search engines, they were probably the first company that put users first. Their mission statement summarizes their commitment to end-user needs: “To organize the world’s information and to make it universally accessible and useful.” While other companies were focused on marketing their sites and increasing advertising revenues, Google stripped the search page of all distractions and presented users with a blank page consisting only of a company logo and a search box. Google resisted pop-up advertising, because the company felt that it was annoying to end-users. They insisted that all their advertisements would be clearly marked as “sponsored links.” This emphasis on improving user experience and always putting it before making more money in the short term seems to have been critical to their success.

Keeping their employees happy is also a value they take to heart. Google created a unique work environment that attracts, motivates, and retains the best players in the field. Google was ranked as the number 1 “Best Place to Work For” by Fortune magazine in 2007 and number 4 in 2010. This is not surprising if one looks closer to how Google treats employees. On their Mountain View, California, campus called the “Googleplex,” employees are treated to free gourmet food options including sushi bars and espresso stations. In fact, many employees complain that once they started working for Google, they tend to gain 10 to 15 pounds! Employees have access to gyms, shower facilities, video games, on-site child care, and doctors. Google provides 4 months of paternal leave with 75% of full pay and offers $500 for take-out meals for families with a newborn. These perks create a place where employees feel that they are treated well and their needs are taken care of. Moreover, they contribute to the feeling that they are working at a unique and cool place that is different from everywhere else they may have worked.

In addition, Google encourages employee risk taking and innovation. How is this done? When a vice president in charge of the company’s advertising system made a mistake costing the company millions of dollars and apologized for the mistake, she was commended by Larry Page, who congratulated her for making the mistake and noting that he would rather run a company where they are moving quickly and doing too much, as opposed to being too cautious and doing too little. This attitude toward acting fast and accepting the cost of resulting mistakes as a natural consequence of working on the cutting edge may explain why the company is performing much ahead of competitors such as Microsoft and Yahoo! One of the current challenges for Google is to expand to new fields outside of their Web search engine business. To promote new ideas, Google encourages all engineers to spend 20% of their time working on their own ideas.

Google’s culture is reflected in their decision making as well. Decisions at Google are made in teams. Even the company management is in the hands of a triad: Larry Page and Sergey Brin hired Eric Schmidt to act as the CEO of the company, and they are reportedly leading the company by consensus. In other words, this is not a company where decisions are made by the senior person in charge and then implemented top down. It is common for several small teams to attack each problem and for employees to try to influence each other using rational persuasion and data. Gut feeling has little impact on how decisions are made. In some meetings, people reportedly are not allowed to say “I think…” but instead must say “the data suggest….” To facilitate teamwork, employees work in open office environments where private offices are assigned only to a select few. Even Kai-Fu Lee, the famous employee whose defection from Microsoft was the target of a lawsuit, did not get his own office and shared a cubicle with two other employees.

How do they maintain these unique values? In a company emphasizing hiring the smartest people, it is very likely that they will attract big egos that may be difficult to work with. Google realizes that its strength comes from its “small company” values that emphasize risk taking, agility, and cooperation. Therefore, they take their hiring process very seriously. Hiring is extremely competitive and getting to work at Google is not unlike applying to a college. Candidates may be asked to write essays about how they will perform their future jobs. Recently, they targeted potential new employees using billboards featuring brain teasers directing potential candidates to a Web site where they were subjected to more brain teasers. Each candidate may be interviewed by as many as eight people on several occasions. Through this scrutiny, they are trying to select “Googley” employees who will share the company’s values, perform at high levels, and be liked by others within the company.

Will this culture survive in the long run? It may be too early to tell, given that the company was only founded in 1998. The founders emphasized that their initial public offering (IPO) would not change their culture and they would not introduce more rules or change the way things are done in Google to please Wall Street. But can a public corporation really act like a start-up? Can a global giant facing scrutiny on issues including privacy, copyright, and censorship maintain its culture rooted in its days in a Palo Alto garage? Larry Page is quoted as saying, “We have a mantra: don’t be evil, which is to do the best things we know how for our users, for our customers, for everyone. So I think if we were known for that, it would be a wonderful thing.”

Based on information from Elgin, B., Hof, R. D., & Greene, J. (2005, August 8). Revenge of the nerds—again. BusinessWeek . Retrieved April 30, 2010, from http://www.businessweek.com/technology/content/jul2005/tc20050728 _5127_tc024.htm ; Hardy, Q. (2005, November 14). Google thinks small. Forbes, 176 (10); Lashinky, A. (2006, October 2). Chaos by design. Fortune , 154 (7); Mangalindan, M. (2004, March 29). The grownup at Google: How Eric Schmidt imposed better management tactics but didn’t stifle search giant. Wall Street Journal , p. B1; Lohr, S. (2005, December 5). At Google, cube culture has new rules. New York Times . Retrieved April 30, 2010, from http://www.nytimes.com/2005/12/05/technology/05google.html ; Schoeneman, D. (2006, December 31). Can Google come out to play? New York Times . Retrieved April 30, 2010, from http://www.nytimes.com/2006/12/31/fashion/31google.html ; Warner, M. (2004, June). What your company can learn from Google. Business 2.0, 5 (5).

Discussion Questions

Do you think Google’s decision-making culture will help or hurt Google in the long run?
What are the factors responsible for the specific culture that exists in Google?
What type of decision-making approach has Google taken? Do you think this will remain the same over time? Why or why not?
Do you see any challenges Google may face in the future because of its emphasis on risk taking?

Share This Book

Original Article
Open access
Published: 19 December 2017

GOOGLE: a reflection of culture, leader, and management

Sang Kim Tran 1 , 2

International Journal of Corporate Social Responsibility volume 2 , Article number: 10 ( 2017 ) Cite this article

428k Accesses

13 Citations

4 Altmetric

Metrics details

This paper provides a viewpoint of the culture and subcultures at Google Inc., which is a famous global company, and has a huge engineering staff and many talented leaders. Through its history of development, it has had positive impacts on society; however; there have been management challenges. The Board of Directors (BoDs) developed and implemented a way to measure the abilities of their managers, which helped to identify problems. This paper will analyze the case study of Harvard Business Review, Oxygen Project, and clarify the management problem in Google’s organization. It will also compare Google with Zappos, a much smaller organization, and present how the BoDs of Zappos assesses its culture and subcultures. In this paper, we will recommend eight important points to building an organizational culture that is positive for stable growth of a company. We believe that much of what be learned could be useful to other business leaders, regardless of company scale.

Introduction

In a large society, each company is considered a miniature society (Mawere 2011 ). Similar to large societies with large cultures, small societies also need to build their own cultures. A culture is influenced by many factors and determines if it is a great culture. Corporate culture requires both the attention to the efficiency of production and business and to the relationship among people in the organization closely (Bhagat et al. 2012 ). Regardless if it is a large or a small organization, it must encounter issues of cooperation among individuals and groups. There are many factors leading to the success of business process re-engineering in higher education (BPR), the main four elements are culture, processes, structure, and technology. Culture is listed as number one (Ahmad et al. 2007 ). Hence, culture becomes the most important factor to the success of the development of a business. Organizational culture is the set of shared beliefs (Steiber and Alänge 2016 ), values, and norms that influence the way members think, feel, and behave. Culture is created by means of terminal and instrumental values, heroes, rites and rituals, and communication networks (Barman n.d. ). The primary methods of maintaining organizational culture are through the socialization process by which an individual learns the values, expected behaviors, and necessary social knowledge to assume their roles in the organization. In addition, (Gupta and Govindarajan 2000 ) and Fig. 1 in (Ismail Al-Alawi et al. 2007 ) illustrates that culture was established by six major factors, such as information systems, people, process, leadership, rewarding system, and organization structure. Therefore, there is a wide variety of combined and sophisticated cultures in the workplace, especially in big corporations like Google, Facebook, Proctor & Gamble, etc. Each organization tends to have a common goal, which is to create a culture that is different from other companies and to promote their teams to be creative in developing a distinctive culture (Stimpson and Farquharson 2014 ). Clearly, we can see that Google’s culture is different than others. What makes this company unique and different from others, as well as the dominant cultures and subcultures existing at this company? How do leadership behaviors impact the organizational culture? By operating a case study of a Harvard Business Review to analyze its organizational culture, subsequently, having compared it with Zappos’ culture, this paper will clarify the similarities and differences in managing organizational cultures between them and consider whether the solutions for the problems can be applied to other business models, and for tomorrow leaders or not?

Trends of using product by information searching

Company overview

This part shows how Google became famous in the world and its culture and subcultures made it a special case for others to take into consideration. Google is one of the few technology companies which continue to have one of the fastest growth rates in the world. It began by creating a search engine that combined PageRank system, developed by Larry Page (ranking the importance of websites based on external links), and Web search engine, created by Sergey Brin (accessing a website and recording its content), two co-founders of the company (Jarvis 2011 ; Downes 2007 ). Google’s achievements absolutely do not come from any luck. Google has made extra efforts in creating an index of a number of websites, which have been up to 25 billion websites. This also includes 17 million images and one billion messages to Usenet group (Downes 2007 ). Besides searching for websites, Google users are able to search for PDF files, PostScript, documents, as well as Microsoft, Lotus, PowerPoint and Shockwave files. Google processes nearly 50% of search queries all over the world. Moreover, it is the number one search option for web users and is one of the top five websites on the Internet, which have more than 380 million users and 28 billion visits every month, and more than 50% of access from countries outside the US (Desjardins 2017 ). Google’s technology is rather special: it can analyze millions of different variables of users and businesses who place advertisements. It then connects them with millions of potential advertisements and gives messages of advertisement, which is closest to objects in less than one second. Thus, Google has the higher rate of users clicking advertisements than its opponent Yahoo, from 50 to 100%, and it dominates over 70% market share of paid advertisements (Rosenberg 2016 ). Google’s self-stated mission: “to organize the world’s information and make it universally accessible and useful (Alves n.d. ).” Nowadays, it is believed that people in the world like “Google” with words “the useful-lively information storage”.

Predominant culture at Google

The dominant culture in the organization depends on the environment in which the company operates the organization’s objectives, the belief system of the employees, and the company’s management style. Therefore, there are many organizational cultures (Schein 2017 ). The Exhibit 3.1 at page 39 in (Schein 2009 ) provides what culture is about. For example, employee follows a standard procedure with a strict adherence to hierarchy and well-defined individual roles and responsibilities. Those in competitive environments, such as sales may forget strict hierarchies and follow a competitive culture where the focus is on maintaining strong relationships with external parties. In this instance, the strategy is to attain competitive advantages over the competition. The collaborative culture is yet another organizational way of life. This culture presents a decentralized workforce with integrated units working together to find solutions to problems or failure.

Why do many large companies buy its innovation? Because its dominant culture of 99% defect-free operational excellence squashes any attempts at innovation, just like a Sumo wrestler sitting on a small gymnast (Grossman-Kahn and Rosensweig 2012 ). They cannot accept failures. In fact, failure is a necessary part of innovation and Google took this change by Oxygen Project to measure the abilities of their multicultural managers. This means that Google itself possesses multiple different cultures (see Google’s clips). Like Zappos, Google had established a common, organizational culture for the whole offices that are distinctive from the others. The predominant culture aimed at Google is an open culture, where everybody and customer can freely contribute their ideas and opinions to create more comfortable and friendly working environment (Hsieh 2010a ).

The fig. 2 .1 in chapter two of (Schein 2009 ) and page 17 in part one of (Schein 2017 ) provide us three levels of culture which are Artifacts, Espoused values and Underlying assumptions helping us to understand the culture at Google. At page 84, in (Schein 2009 ), the “artifacts” are identified such as dress codes, level of formality in authority relationships, working hours, meeting (how often, how run, timing), how are decisions made, communication, social events, jargon, uniforms, identity symbols, rites and rituals, disagreements and conflicts, balance between work and family . It seems that Google is quite open in these artifacts by showing a respect for uniform and national culture of each staff individually and giving them the right to wear traditional clothes.

Ad Blocking Incidence

Working at Google, employees enjoy free food served throughout the day, a volleyball court, a swimming pool, a car wash, an oil change, a haircut, free health care, and many other benefits. The biggest benefit for the staff is to be picked up on the day of work. As assessed by many traffic experts, the system set up by Google is considered to be a great transport network. Tad Widby, a project manager and a traffic system researcher throughout the United States, said: “I have not seen any larger projects in the Bay Area as well as in urban areas across the country” (Helft 2007 ). Of course, it is impossible for Google to “cover up the sky”, so Yahoo also started implementing the bus project for employees in 2005. On peak days, Yahoo’s bus also took off. Pick up about 350 employees in San Francisco, as well as Berkeley, Oakland, etc. These buses run on biofuels and have Wi-Fi coverage. Yet, Danielle Bricker, the Yahoo bus coordinator of Yahoo, has also admitted that the program is “indirectly” inspired by Google’s initiative (Helft 2007 ). Along with that, eBay recently also piloted shuttle bus transfers at five points in San Francisco. Some other corporations are also emerging ideas for treatment of staff is equally unique. Facebook is an example, instead of facilitating employees far from the workplace; it helps people in the immediate neighborhood by offering an additional $10,000 for an employee to live close to the pillar within 10 miles, nearby the Palo Alto Department (Hall 2015 ).

When it comes to Google, people often ask what the formula for success is. The answer here is the employees of Google. They create their own unique workplace culture rules to create an effective work environment for their employees. And here are the most valuable things to learn from Google’s corporate culture (Scott 2008 ) that we should know:

Tolerate with mistakes and help staff correct

At Google, paying attention to how employees work and helping them correct mistakes is critical. Instead of pointing out the damage and blaming a person who caused the mistake, the company would be interested in what the cause of the problem was and how to fix it as quickly and efficiently as possible.

Also as its culture, we understand that if we want to make breakthroughs in the workplace, we need to have experimentation, failure and repeat the test. Therefore, mistakes and failures are not terrible there. We have the right to be wrong and have the opportunity to overcome failure in the support of our superiors and colleagues. Good ideas are always encouraged at Google. However, before it is accepted and put into use, there is a clear procedure to confirm whether it is a real new idea and practical or not?

Exponential thought

Google developed in the direction of a holding company - a company that does not directly produce products or provide services but simply invest in capital by buying back capital. In the company, the criteria for setting the ten exponential function in lieu of focusing only on the change in the general increase. This approach helps Google improve its technology and deliver great products to consumers continuously.

Of course, every company wants to hire talented people to work for them. However, being talented is an art in which there must be voluntary work and enthusiasm for the work of the devotees. At page 555 in (Saffold 1988 ) illustrated that distinctive cultures dramatically influencing performance do exist. Likewise, Google, Apple, Netflix, and Dell are 40% more productive than the average company which attracts top-tier employees and high performers (Vozza 2017 ). Recognizing this impact, Google created a distinctive corporate culture when the company attracted people from prestigious colleges around the world (West 2016 ; Lazear and Gibbs 2014 ).

Build a stimulating work environment

When it comes to the elements that create creativity and innovation, we can easily recognize that the working environment is one of the most important things. Google has succeeded in building an image of a creative working. Google offices are individually designed, not duplicated in any type of office. In fact, working environment at Google is so comfortable so that employees will not think of it as a working room, with a full area of work, relaxation, exercise, reading, watching movies. Is the orientation of Google’s corporate culture to stimulate creativity and to show interest in the lives of employees so that volunteers contribute freely (Battelle 2011 )?

Subculture is also a culture, but for a smaller group or community in a big organization (Crosset and Beal 1997 ). Google, known as the global company with many more offices, so there are many subcultures created among groups of people who work together, from subcultures among work groups to subcultures among ethnic groups and nations, multi-national groups, as well as multiple occupations, functions, geographies, echelons in the hierarchy and product lines. For example, six years ago, when it bought 100 Huffys for employees to use around the sprawling campus, has since exploded into its own subculture. Google now has a seven-person staff of bicycle mechanics that maintains a fleet of about 1300 brightly-colored Google bikes. The company also encourages employees to cycle to work by providing locker rooms, showers and places to securely park bikes during working hours. And, for those who want to combine meetings with bike-riding, Googlers can use one of several seven-person (Crowley 2013 ).

Leadership influences on the culture at Google

From the definition of leadership and its influence on culture; so what does leader directly influence the culture existed? According to Schein, “culture and leadership are two sides of the same coin and one cannot understand one without the other”, page three in (Schein 2009 ). If one of us has never read the article “Google and the Quest to create a better boss” in the New York Times, it is listed in a priority reading. It breaks the notion that managers have no change. The manager really makes a difference (Axinn 1988 ; Carver 2011 ). In fact, a leader has a massive impact on the culture of the company, and Google is not an exception. The leaders of Google concerned more about the demands and abilities of each individual, the study of the nature of human being, an appreciation their employees as their customers. At Google, the founders thought they could create a company that people would want to work at when creating a home-like environment. It is real that they focus on the workplace brings the comfort to staff creatively and freely (Lebowitz 2013 ).

In my opinion, a successful business cannot be attributed solely from a single star; that needs the brightness of all employees. It depends very much on the capacity and ability to attract talented people. It is the way in which the leader manages these talents, is the cornerstone of corporate culture. One thing that no one can deny is that a good leader must be a creator of a corporate culture so that the employees can maximize capabilities themselves (Driscoll and McKee 2007 ; Kotter 2008 ).

To brief, through the view of Google’s culture, BoDs tended and designed to encourage loyalty and creativity, based on an unusual organizational culture because culture is not only able to create an environment, but it also adapts to diverse and changes circumstances (Bulygo 2013 ).

Company growth and its impact

“Rearrange information around the world, make them accessible everywhere and be useful.” This was one of the main purposes set by Larry Page and Sergey Brin when they first launched Google on September 4th, 1998, as a private company (Schmidt and Rosenberg 2014 ). Since then, Google has expanded its reach, stepped into the mobile operating system, provided mapping services and cloud computing applications, launched its own hardware, and prepared it to enter the wearable device market. However, no matter how varied and rich these products are, they are all about the one thing, the root of Google: online searching.

1998–2001: Focus on search

In its early years, Google.com was simply one with extreme iconic images: a colorful Google logo, a long text box in the middle of the screen, a button to execute. One button for searching and the other button are “I’m feeling lucky” to lead users to a random Google site. By May 2000, Google added ten additional languages to Google.com , including French, German, Italian, Swedish, Finnish, Spanish, Portuguese, Dutch, Norwegian and Danish, etc. This is one of the milestones in Google’s journey into the world. Google.com is available in over 150 languages (Scott 2008 ; Lee 2017 ).

2001–2007: Interface card

A very important event with Google around this time was the sale of shares to the public (IPO). In October 2003, Microsoft heard news of the IPO, so it quickly approached Google to discuss a buyout or business deal. Nevertheless, that intention was not materialized. In 2004, it was also the time when Google held a market share of 84.7% globally through collaboration with major Internet companies, such as Yahoo, AOL, and CNN. By February 2004, Yahoo stopped working with Google and separately stood out for engine search. This has led Google to lose some market share, but it has shown the importance and distinctness of Google. Nowadays, the term “Google” has been used as a verb just by visiting Google.com and doing an online search (Smith 2010 ). Not stopping at the homepage search, Google’s interface tag began to be brought to Gmail and Calendar with the links at the top of the page. Google homepage itself continues to use this style.

In 2006, Google also made an important acquisition to buy YouTube for $1.65 billion (Burgess and Green 2013 ). However, the company decided to keep YouTube as a separate brand and not to include it in Google Video search. Thanks to the backing of an Internet industry giant, YouTube has grown to become the world’s largest online video sharing service (Cha et al. 2007 ).

2007–2012: Navigation bar, Google menu, Google now

Google began to deploy a new navigation bar located at the edge of the screen. It includes links to a place where to look for photos, videos, news, maps, as well as buttons to switch to Gmail, Calendar, and other services developed by the company. In the upper left corner, Google added a box displaying Google + notifications and user accounts’ image. Google Now not only appeared on Android and it’s also brought to Chrome on a computer as well as iOS. All have the same operating principle, and the interface card still appears as Android it is.

2013–2014: Simplified interface

Google has moved all of the icons that lead to its other applications and services to an App Drawer button in the upper right hand, at the corner of the screen. In addition, Google.com also supports better voice search through the Chrome browser. Google has experimented with other markets, such as radio and print publications, and in selling advertisements from its advertisers within offline newspapers and magazines. As of November 2014, Google operates over 70 offices over 40 countries (Jarvis 2011 ; Vise 2007 ).

2014–2017: Chrome development and facing challenges

In 2015, Google would turn HTTPS into the default. The better website is, the more users will trust search engine. In 2016, Google announced Android version 7, introduced a new VR platform called Daydream, and its new virtual assistant, Google Assistant.

Most of Google’s revenue comes from advertising (Rosenberg 2016 ). However, this “golden” business is entering a difficult period with many warning signs of its future. Google Search is the dominant strength of Google and bringing great revenue for the company. Nonetheless, when Amazon surpassed Google to become the world’s leading product in the search engine in last December, this advantage began to wobble. This is considered a fatal blow to Google when iOS devices account for 75% of their mobile advertising revenue (Rosenberg 2016 ).

By 2016, the number of people installing software to block ads on phones has increased 102% from 2015. Figure 1 illustrates that by the year’s end, about 16% of smart phone users around the world blocked their ads whilst surfing the web. These were also two groups having the most time on the Internet, high-earners and young people; however, these people have disliked ads (see Fig. 1 ).

Figure 2 shows the young people have the highest ad blocking rates. It is drawing a gloomy picture for the sustainable development of the online advertising industry in general and Google in particular. Therefore, in early 2017, Google has strategies to build an ad blocking tool, built into the Chrome browser. This tool allows users to access ads that have passed the “Coalition for Better Ads” filter so as to limit the sense of discomfort (see Fig. 2 ).

For the company impact, the history shows that speedy development of Google creates both economic and social impacts to followers in a new way of people connection (Savitz 2013 ). In this modern world, it seems that people cannot spend a day without searching any information in Google (Chen et al. 2014 ; Fast and Campbell 2004 ), a tool serves human information seeking needs. Even though when addressing this paper, it is also in need the information from Google search and uses it as a supporting tool. Nobody can deny the convenience of Google as a fast and easy way to search (Schalkwyk et al. 2010 ; Jones 2001 ; Langville and Meyer 2011 ).

Research question and methodology

In order to get the most comprehensive data and information for this case analysis, a number of methods are used, including:

Research data and collect information were mostly from the Harvard Study (Project Oxygen), which has been selected because it is related to the purpose of our study.

Data collection and analysis has been taken from Google Scholar and various websites related researches. We look at the history of appearance, development, and recognize the impacts of this company, as well as the challenges and the way the Board of Directors measures the abilities of their manager when the problem is found.

Analyzing: It was begun by considering expectations from the Harvard Study. Subsequently, considering the smaller organization (Zappos) in comparison of how its cultures and subcultures are accessed as well. Since then, the paper has clarified the management problem that Google and Zappos confront and deal with it so as to help other businesses apply this theoretical practice and achieve its goal beyond expectations.

In our paper, we mainly use the inductive method approach by compiling and describing the other authors’ theories of corporate culture, especially Google and Zappos in merging and comparing, analyzing them and making our own results.

From the aspects of the research, the questions are suggested as below:

What is the most instrumental element found from the Harvard study?

Is there any difference and similarity between a huge company and a smaller enterprise in perspective of culture and subculture?

What makes Google different from others, the dominant cultures as well as subcultures existing? How do leadership behaviors impact on the organizational culture?

How organizational culture impacts on business achievements?

The Harvard study

Project oxygen summary.

This project began in 2009 known as “the manager project” with the People and Innovation Lab (PiLab) team researching questions, which helped the employee of Google become a better manager. The case study was conducted by Garvin (2013) about a behavior measurement to Google’s manager, why managers matter and what the best manager s do. In early days of Google, there are not many managers. In a flat structure, most employees are engineers and technical experts. In fact, in 2002 a few hundred engineers reported to only four managers. But over time and out of necessity, the number of managers increased. Then, in 2009, people and team culture at Google noticed a disturbing trend. Exit interview data cited low satisfaction with their manager as a reason for leaving Google. Because Google has accessed so much online data, Google’s statisticians are asked to analyze and identify the top attributes of a good manager mentioned with an unsolved question: “Do managers matter?” It always concerns all stakeholders at Google and requires a data-based survey project called Project Oxygen to clarify employees’ concern, to measure key management behaviors and cultivate staff through communication and training (Bryant 2011 ; Garvin et al. 2013 ). Research −1 Exit Interviews, ratings, and semiannual reviews. The purpose is to identify high-scoring managers and low-scoring managers resulted in the former, less turnover on their teams, and its connection (manager quality and employee’s happiness). As for “what the best managers do”, Research-2 is to interview high and low scoring managers and to review their performance. The findings with 8 key behaviors illustrated by the most effective managers.

The Oxygen Project mirrors the managers’ decision-making criteria, respects their needs for rigorous analysis, and makes it a priority to measure impact. In the case study, the findings prove that managers really have mattered. Google, initially, must figure out what the best manager is by asking high and low scoring managers such questions about communication, vision, etc. Its project identifies eight behaviors (Bulygo 2013 ; Garvin et al. 2013 ) of a good manager that considered as quite simple that the best manager at Google should have. In a case of management problem and solution, as well as discussing four- key theoretical concepts, they will be analyzed, including formal organizational training system, how culture influences behavior, the role of “flow” and building capacity for innovation, and the role of a leader and its difference from the manager.

Formal organizational training system to create a different culture: Ethical culture

If the organizational culture represents “how we do things around here,” the ethical culture represents “how we do things around here in relation to ethics and ethical behavior in the organization” (Key 1999 ). Alison Taylor (The Five Levels of an Ethical Culture, 2017) reported five levels of an ethical culture, from an individual, interpersonal, group, intergroup to inter-organizational (Taylor 2017 ). In (Nelson and Treviño 2004 ), ethical culture should be thought of in terms of a multi-system framework included formal and informal systems, which must be aligned to support ethical judgment and action. Leadership is essential to driving the ethical culture from a formal and informal perspective (Schwartz 2013 ; Trevino and Nelson 2011 ). Formally, a leader provides the resources to implement structures and programs that support ethics. More informally, through their own behaviors, leadership is a role model whose actions speak louder than their words, conveying “how we do things around here.” Other formal systems include selection systems, policies and codes, orientation and training programs, performance management systems, authority structures, and formal decision processes. On the informal side are the organization’s role models and heroes, the norms of daily behavior, organizational rituals that support or do not support ethical conduct, the stories people tell about the organization and their implications for conduct, and the language people use, etc. Is it okay to talk about ethics? Or is ethical fading the norm?

The formal and informal training is very important. The ethical context in organizations helps the organizational culture have a tendency to the positive or negative viewpoints (Treviño et al. 1998 ). The leader should focus on providing an understanding of the nature and reasons for the organization’s values and rules, on providing an opportunity for question and challenge values for sincerity/practicality, and on teaching ethical decision-making skills related to encountered issues commonly. The more specific and customized training, the more effective it is likely to be. Google seemed to apply this theory when addressed the Oxygen Project.

How culture influences behavior

Whenever we approach a new organization, there is no doubt that we will try to get more about the culture of that place, the way of thinking, working, as well as behavior. And it is likely that the more diverse culture of a place is, the more difficult for outsiders to assess its culture becomes (Mosakowski 2004 ).

Realizing culture in (Schein 2009 ) including artifacts, espoused valued and shared underlying assumptions. It is easier for outsiders to see the artifacts (visual objects) that a group uses as the symbol for a group; however, it does not express more about the espoused values, as well as tacit assumptions. In (Schein et al. 2010 ), the author stated: “For a culture assessment to be valuable, it must get to the assumptions level. If the client system does not get to assumptions, it cannot explain the discrepancies almost always surface between the espoused values and the observed behavioral artifacts” (Schein et al. 2010 ). Hence, in order to be able to assess other cultures well, it is necessary for us to learn each other’s languages, as well as adapt to a common language. Moreover, we also need to look at the context of working, the solution for shared problems because these will facilitate to understand the culture better.

According to the OCP (Organizational Culture Profile) framework (Saremi and Nejad 2013 ), an organization is with possessing the innovation of culture, flexible and adaptable with fresh ideas, which is figured by flat hierarchy and title. For instance, Gore-Tex is an innovative product of W. L. Gore & Associates Inc., considered as the company has the most impact on its innovative culture (Boudreau and Lakhani 2009 ). Looking at the examples of Fast Company, Genentech Inc., and Google, they also encourage their employees to take challenges or risks by allowing them to take 20% of their time to comprehend the projects of their own (Saremi and Nejad 2013 ). In (Aldrich n.d. ), it is recorded that 25%–55% of employees are fully encouraged and giving a maximum value.

The famous quote by Peter Drucker , “Culture eats strategy for Breakfast” at page 67 has created a lot of interest in (Manning and Bodine 2012 ; Coffman and Sorensen 2013 ; Bock 2015 ). Despite we all know how important culture is, we have successively failed to address it (O'Reilly et al. 1991 ). The organizational research change process from the view of Schein ( 2009 ); it is a fact that whenever an organization has the intention of changing the culture, it really takes time. As we all acknowledge, to build an organizational culture, both leader and subordinate spend most of their time on learning, relearning, experiencing, as well as considering the most appropriate features. Sometimes, some changes are inevitable in terms of economic, political, technological, legal and moral threats, as well as internal discomfort (Kavanagh and Ashkanasy 2006 ; Schein 1983 ). As the case in (Schein 2009 ), when a CEO would like to make an innovation which is proved no effective response, given that he did not get to know well about the tacit implications at the place he has just come. It is illustrated that whatsoever change should need time and a process to happen (Blog 2015 ; Makhlouk and Shevchuk 2008 ). In conclusion, a new culture can be learned (Schein 1984 ), but with an appropriate route and the profits for all stakeholders should be concerned by the change manager (Sathe 1983 ).

It is true that people’s behavior managed by their types of culture (Kollmuss and Agyeman 2002 ). All tacit assumptions of insiders are not easy for outsiders to grasp the meaning completely (Schein 2009 ). It is not also an exception at any organization. Google is an example of the multicultural organization coming from various regions of the world, and the national or regional cultures making this multicultural organization with an official culture for the whole company.

In this case, the organizational culture of Google has an influence on the behaviors of manager and employee. In addition, as for such a company specializes in information technology, all engineers prefer to work on everything with data-evidence to get them involved in the meaningful survey about manager (Davenport et al. 2010 ). Eventually, Google discovered 8 good behaviors of manager, which effect to the role of “flow” also (Bulygo 2013 ; Garvin et al. 2013 ).

The role of the “flow” and building capacity for innovation

More and more people are using the term of “patient flow”. This overview describes patient flow and links to theories about flow. Patient flow underpins many improvement tools and techniques. The term “flow” describes the progressive movement of products, information, and people through a sequence of the process. In simple terms, flow is about uninterrupted movement (Nave 2002 ), like driving steadily along the motorway without interruptions or being stuck in a traffic jam. In healthcare, flow is the movement of patients, information or equipment between departments, office groups or organizations as a part of a patient’s care pathway (Bessant and Maher 2009 ). In fact, flow plays a vital role in getting stakeholders involved in working creatively and innovatively (Adams 2005 ; Amabile 1997 ; Forest et al. 2011 ). An effective ethical leader must create flow in work before transfer it to employees for changing the best of their effort to maintain, keep and develop “flow” in an engineering job, which job be easier to get stress. Definitely, Google gets it done very well.

Acknowledgements

Thanks to the knowledge from my Master course, a credit of managing culture which helps me to write this paper. The author also gratefully acknowledges the helpful comments and suggestions of the reviewers and Associate Professor Khuong- Ho Van, who provided general technical help that all have improved the article.

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Center for Predoctoral Training, Vietnam National University–HCMC, Quarter 6, Linh Trung Ward, Thu Duc District, Ho Chi Minh, HCMC, Vietnam

Sang Kim Tran

Department of Research, Galaxy, 4/62 Nguyen Thi Minh Khai, Hoa Lan 1, Thuan Giao Ward, Binh Duong, 820000, Viet Nam

You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

The completed paper is solely written by the corresponding author.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Sang Kim Tran .

Ethics declarations

Competing interests.

I obviously inform that there is not any competing interest to this paper.

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License ( http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ ), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article.

Tran, S.K. GOOGLE: a reflection of culture, leader, and management. Int J Corporate Soc Responsibility 2 , 10 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1186/s40991-017-0021-0

Download citation

Received : 16 May 2017

Accepted : 15 November 2017

Published : 19 December 2017

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1186/s40991-017-0021-0

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

Organizational culture
Management style
Oxygen project

Conferences
Last updated May 2, 2021
In AI Origins & Evolution

Google’s Ethical Dilemma

Published on March 20, 2021
by Sejuti Das

Google removed “don’t be evil” from its code of conduct in the first half of 2018. In retrospect, the move anticipated the sequence of events culminating in the firing of Google’s leading ethical AI researchers, Timnit Gebru and Margaret Mitchell .

It all started with Gebru & Mitchell’s paper on the dangers of large language models like GPT-3 and BERT . The paper spotlighted these language models’ perils, including environmental costs, financial costs, opportunity cost, and the risk of biases like racism, stereotyping, wrongful arrests, etc. Gebru popped the critical question, “how big is too big”, much to Google’s disgruntlement.

The conversations around ethics are gaining traction as AI and ML usher in the fourth industrial revolution. Google’s indiscriminate firing of Gebru and Mitchell drew flak from the industry . In related news, a conference on AI transparency, FAccT, recently ended its sponsorship relation with Google .

Why Should Google Be Concerned?

Google has been investing heavily in machine learning and sponsoring some of the key ML conferences worldwide. It’s in the best interest of tech companies like Google to be in good terms with researchers, industry experts, and academics to push R&D and innovations with new tech. The recent controversies have forced researchers and stakeholders to rethink their partnership with the tech giant, introducing frictions in the company’s progress on machine learning research.

Case in point — a research fellow at the Center for Applied Data Ethics, told the media how the controversy “undermines all of the company’s research.” He believes Google has its task cut out to win back its credibility from researchers, inside and outside the company.

Another expert from New York University’s AI Now institute said, while “academic norms” are key to these machine learning researches, Google has always prioritised “bottom line” over “knowledge production.”

Scott Niekumte , the director of a robotics lab at the University of Texas at Austin, boycotted Google’s recent workshop, saying the tech giant needs to strictly reconsider its stance on ethics. Else it will lead to more academics, researchers and experts severing their partnership with Google.

Hadas Kress-Gazit, a robotics professor at Cornell University , has been vocal about his disapproval of Google’s policies. In a recent tweet, he spoke about his withdrawal from the Google ML and Robot Safety Workshop.

This is an email I sent this morning (a 🧵) Subject: Canceling my participation in Google Machine Learning and Robot Safety Workshop 1/n — Hadas Kress-Gazit 🪷 (@HadasKressGazit) March 12, 2021

This isn’t the first time Google has come under scrutiny for its AI tech and ethical issues. In 2015, the company was interrogated for its racist Photos app, which later got blocked. In 2018, the company employees protested against the Pentagon using its technology to analyse drone images to target ISIS. Google, soon after that, r eleased a set of ethical principles on AI use. However, the recent conflicts exposed the faultlines in Google’s commitment to responsible AI.

Besides researchers and academics, the US Congress has asked Google to explain the firing of Gebru. In turn, this forced Google and other tech companies to reconsider algorithm accountability and ways to mitigate the bias involved. Earlier this year , Google, Facebook and Open AI were issued warning to set standards on ethical AI before launching products.

Inarguably, Google’s reputation has taken a hit in the wake of recent controversies. Especially, the biases in machine learning technology have been in the eye of the storm. The sacking of Google’s AI lead has forced the entire industry to put forward their views on equitable regulations for artificial intelligence . On the other hand, Marian Croak’s appointment as the new AI lead and Sundar Pichai’s memo to the employees post Gebru’s firing signal a change in tack in Google’s approach towards promoting equity and diversity inside the company.

📣 Want to advertise in AIM? Book here

ethical controversy , firing Margaret Mitchel , Timnit Gebru Layoff

The Persistent Problem Of Cultural Discrimination In AI Datasets

Following the investment, the money will ultimately flow back to NVIDIA as OpenAI purchases more compute resources to train its next frontier model.

Software-Engineers-Have-to-Upskill-Faster-Than-Anyone-Else (1)

Top Editorial Picks

Finacus Solutions and pi-labs Develops World’s First eKYC Solution Resistant to Deepfake Frauds Tanisha Bhattacharjee

Andrew Ng and Yann LeCun Joins Korean National AI Committee As Advisors Tanisha Bhattacharjee

Reliance Jio Announces Free Cloud Storage with Jio AI-Cloud Tanisha Bhattacharjee

Apple, NVIDIA in talks to Raise Funding for OpenAI Aditi Suresh

Infosys, NVIDIA Introduce Generative AI Powered Telco Solutions Vidyashree Srinivas

Subscribe to The Belamy: Our Weekly Newsletter

Biggest ai stories, delivered to your inbox every week., "> "> flagship events.

Discover how Cypher 2024 expands to the USA, bridging AI innovation gaps and tackling the challenges of enterprise AI adoption

DOJ’s Google Monopoly Case Explained With Six Key Documents

By Leah Nylen

The most damning evidence in the US antitrust trial against Alphabet Inc. ’s Google that concluded in Washington this week came not from the parade of witnesses from Apple Inc. , Microsoft Corp. and other companies, but from internal documents.

During the 10-week trial, the Justice Department used emails, slides and other records to illustrate how Google’s lavish payments to other companies ensured its search engine became the preselected option almost everywhere people access the internet.

Antitrust enforcers allege that Google illegally maintained a monopoly over search, where it controls nearly 90% of online queries, through those payments to smartphone makers, web browsers and wireless carriers. That dominance allowed Google to raise prices on advertisers without consequences, they argue, and delay innovations and privacy features that consumers want when they search online.

The fate of the world’s fourth-largest company is now in the hands of US District Court Judge Amit Mehta , who delayed closing arguments until May and likely won’t have a ruling for several months. If he finds Google violated antitrust law, another proceeding will determine remedies — including a possible breakup of the company.

The 10-week trial featured testimony from Apple executives, Google Chief Executive Officer Sundar Pichai and Microsoft CEO Satya Nadella . But major revelations came in the internal documents and emails, only a small portion of which have been made public.

Here are six documents that best illustrate the Justice Department’s case:

1) Google spends $26 billion to be the default

Google pays other companies to set its search engine as the default by sharing a portion of the money it makes through advertising. The exact percentage differs between contracts and Google has maintained both the rate and amount it pays to particular companies is confidential.

Being the default search engine gives Google access to more data than its rivals, allowing it to improve its algorithms and results and making it even harder for competitors to attract users.

Mehta allowed the Justice Department to reveal how much the company has paid overall by year — in 2021, it paid $26.3 billion out of the $146.4 billion earned from search advertising, or roughly 18%. The number has increased since 2014, when it paid $7.1 billion of $46.8 billion it brought in via search advertising, or about 15%. The Justice Department alleges Google’s growing payments for its default status demonstrate how important they are to its continued dominance in search.

For comparison, the market capitalization of Warner Bros Discovery Inc. , Delta Air Lines Inc. and 215 other companies in the S&P 500 Index are lower than Google’s 2021 default payments. According to the International Monetary Fund , 97 countries in the world including Haiti, Albania and Nicaragua also have a smaller gross domestic products than that.

Google’s biggest payment every year is to Apple: Google’s CEO testified in a separate antitrust trial that the payment was “well over $10 billion” last year. Both Google and Apple have objected to revealing details about the agreement publicly, though a witness accidentally disclosed that the search giant pays out 36% of revenue made from search advertising on Macs, the iPhone and iPads.

Google argues that the payments help support the Android ecosystem , which competes against Apple’s iPhone. And rivals like Microsoft have long paid for their products to be pre-installed and set as the default on computers.

2) Google makes more than $100 billion from search ads

Google’s search advertising – the text and shopping promotions that appear at the top of a results page in response to user queries – are the company’s most lucrative business. About two-thirds of Google’s total revenue comes from search ads, executives testified at the trial, amounting to more than $100 billion in 2020.

Michael Roszak, a Google finance executive, prepared notes for a 2017 speech that the Justice Department alleges offers insight into how the company’s employees see competition. He wrote that search advertising is a lucrative business model only rivaled by criminal drug or contraband operations. Google has the luxury of being able to ignore demand pressures and focus on the supply side, or advertising revenue, he wrote.

Witnesses from JPMorgan Chase & Co. , Home Depot Inc. , Expedia Inc. and Booking Holdings Inc. testified at the trial about the importance of Google’s search ads to reach consumers. Several said the costs of their search ads on Google have ballooned in recent years as the company changed the rules for auctions used to set pricing. And they don’t have good alternatives to Google — the first place many people go to start looking for something online.

Google argued that Roszak’s notes were only part of a training and don’t represent the company’s views. It also contests the idea that its search advertising is a “must-have,” arguing that it competes with Amazon.com Inc. , Meta Platforms Inc. and ByteDance Ltd. ’s TikTok.

3) Google’s most important default deal is with Apple

Google first entered into a deal to be the default search engine in Apple’s Safari browser in 2002. Today that’s the most important of Google’s default deals, since it sets the search engine for the iPhone, the most-used smartphone in the US.

The most recent iteration – negotiated in 2016 between Pichai and Apple dealmaker Eddy Cue – includes a provision that the two would “support and defend” the pact against antitrust scrutiny.

Notes from a 2018 meeting between Pichai and Apple CEO Tim Cook shown in court said of Google’s collaboration with Apple on search: “Our vision is that we work as if we are one company.” That line raises red flags for antitrust enforcers since Google and Apple are each other’s biggest rivals in the smartphone industry and should be competing.

When he testified in late October, Google’s Pichai said he doesn’t recall making that statement and that the company fiercely competes with Apple even though they are partners on search.

4) Being the default matters because most people don’t switch

Google’s default position on a web browser or mobile phone discourages people from switching to rival search engines, the Justice Department alleges.

And Google is very aware of the value of that key position. In 2007, Google chief economist Hal Varian called the default home page a “powerful strategic weapon in the search battle.” In 2014, Google determined that Android users “rarely stray away from pre-loaded apps.” And in 2015, Google described potentially losing the deal with Apple for it to remain the default search engine on Safari browsers as a “code red.”

The government’s main economic witness – Massachusetts Institute of Technology’s Michael Whinston – calculated that Google’s agreements lock-up about 50% of the search queries made in the US. (That number doesn’t include another 20% of US searches made through Google’s Chrome browser, which has its search engine as the default.)

Using information on when people have shifted their defaults – such as when Apple dropped Google Maps as its default service on iPhones in favor of its own app – he calculated that about 33% of all US searches will always go to the default. That means a rival search engine could only ever hope to garner about 17% of US search traffic because of Google’s deals.

Google’s economic expert Kevin Murphy contested this calculation, arguing that Whinston was wrong to use the Apple Maps example for his calculations. He also contested the idea that Google’s contracts lock-out competitors since companies like Microsoft and Yahoo could compete for the default themselves.

5) “Google is magical” because user data fuels search

Search engines rely on users to improve their results. Eric Lehman, a 17-year Google veteran who worked on search ranking, gave presentations internally on how the company’s search engine works titled “Google is magical.”

The “key” to Google’s magic is the user information that flows back to the search engine, according to Lehman. “As people interact with search, their actions teach us about the world,” he wrote. “For example, a click might tell us that an image was better than a web result.”

Google logs that information – not just what a user clicks on, but how far they scroll down a page or across a carousel, whether their mouse hovers over a specific result and some other details like the person’s location.

“The source of Google’s magic is this two-way dialogue with users,” Lehman’s presentation concludes. “With every query, we give some knowledge and get a little back.”

The Justice Department argues that Google’s contracts ensure not only that its search engine gets the most user data – 16 times as much as its next closest competitor — that data stream also keeps its rivals from improving their search results and competing effectively, enforcers say.

Google rejects the idea that user data is necessary for a search engine today because of advances in technology. Lehman and other Google witnesses have testified that user interaction information is less crucial because of the improvements that can be gained from artificial intelligence and machine learning.

6) Google told employees what not to say

Google was founded in 1998, one month before the Justice Department’s famed antimonopoly trial against Microsoft. In part because of that, the company has long been concerned about antitrust scrutiny, so much so that the Justice Department alleges it taught employees to “Communicate with Care” – adding lawyers to email chains in order to shield discussions from government review and avoiding certain words in written communications.

In one company presentation , Google employees were instructed not to use terms like “crush,” “kill,” “hurt” or “block” when talking about rivals. They should also avoid “lock-in,” “market,” “bundle” or “tie.” And when discussing competitors, they should include a lot of them. “If you really need to list a group of competitors in a particular area, list as many as possible (or make clear that it’s a partial list). It’s just wrong to say that we’re dominant in or control any line of business.”

The Justice Department alleges that these actions may have hidden evidence that could have proven Google’s alleged antitrust violations.

Google denies that it sought to hide evidence, saying that it legitimately encouraged employees to seek legal guidance on complex legal or regulatory issues. The communications guidelines sought to offer best practices for dealing with confidential or sensitive topics.

--With assistance from Davey Alba .

To contact the reporter on this story: Leah Nylen in Washington at [email protected]

To contact the editors responsible for this story: Sara Forden at [email protected]

Elizabeth Wasserman

Learn more about Bloomberg Law or Log In to keep reading:

Learn about bloomberg law.

AI-powered legal analytics, workflow tools and premium legal & business news.

Already a subscriber?

We need your support today

Independent journalism is more important than ever. Vox is here to explain this unprecedented election cycle and help you understand the larger stakes. We will break down where the candidates stand on major issues, from economic policy to immigration, foreign policy, criminal justice, and abortion. We’ll answer your biggest questions, and we’ll explain what matters — and why. This timely and essential task, however, is expensive to produce.

We rely on readers like you to fund our journalism. Will you support our work and become a Vox Member today?

Google says it’s committed to ethical AI research. Its ethical AI team isn’t so sure.

Six months after Timnit Gebru left, Google’s ethical artificial intelligence team is still in a state of upheaval.

by Shirin Ghaffary

Six months after star AI ethics researcher Timnit Gebru said Google fired her over an academic paper scrutinizing a technology that powers some of the company’s key products, the company says it’s still deeply committed to ethical AI research. It promised to double its research staff studying responsible AI to 200 people , and CEO Sundar Pichai has pledged his support to fund more ethical AI projects. Jeff Dean, the company’s head of AI, said in May that while the controversy surrounding Gebru’s departure was a “reputational hit,” it’s time to move on .

But some current members of Google’s tightly knit ethical AI group told Recode the reality is different from the one Google executives are publicly presenting. The 10-person group, which studies how artificial intelligence impacts society, is a subdivision of Google’s broader new responsible AI organization . They say the team has been in a state of limbo for months, and that they have serious doubts company leaders can rebuild credibility in the academic community — or that they will listen to the group’s ideas. Google has yet to hire replacements for the two former leaders of the team. Many members convene daily in a private messaging group to support each other and discuss leadership, manage themselves on an ad-hoc basis, and seek guidance from their former bosses. Some are considering leaving to work at other tech companies or to return to academia, and say their colleagues are thinking of doing the same.

“We want to continue our research, but it’s really hard when this has gone on for months,” said Alex Hanna, a researcher on the ethical AI team. Despite the challenges, Hanna added, individual researchers are trying to continue their work and effectively manage themselves — but if conditions don’t change, “I don’t see much of a path forward for ethics at Google in any kind of substantive way.”

A spokesperson for Google’s AI and research department declined to comment on the ethical AI team.

Google has a vast research organization of thousands of people that extends far beyond the 10 people it employs to specifically study ethical AI. There are other teams that also focus on societal impacts of new technologies, but the ethical AI team had a reputation for publishing groundbreaking papers about algorithmic fairness and bias in the data sets that train AI models. The team has lent Google’s research organization credibility in the academic community by demonstrating that it’s a place where seasoned scholars could do cutting-edge — and, at times, critical — research about the technologies the company develops. That’s important for Google, a company billions of people rely on every day to navigate the internet, and whose core products, such as Search, increasingly rely on AI .

While AI has the world-changing potential to help diagnose cancer , detect earthquakes , and replicate human conversation , the developing technology also has the ability to amplify biases against women and minorities , pose privacy threats , and contribute to carbon emissions . Google has a review process to determine whether new technologies are in line with its AI principles, which it introduced in 2018 . And its AI ethics team is supposed to help the company find its own blind spots and ensure it develops and applies this technology responsibly. But in light of the controversy over Gebru’s departure and the upheaval of its ethical AI team, some academics in computer science research are concerned Google is plowing ahead with world-changing new technologies without adequately addressing internal feedback.

In May, for example, Google was criticized for announcing a new AI-powered dermatology app that had a significant shortcoming : It vastly underrepresented darker skin tones in its test data compared with lighter ones. It’s the kind of issue the ethical AI team, had it been consulted — and were it not in its current state — might have been able to help avoid.

The misfits of Google research

For the past several months, the leadership of Google’s ethical research team has been in a state of flux.

In the span of only a few months, the team — which has been referred to as a group of “friendly misfits” due to its status-quo-challenging research — lost two more leaders after Gebru’s departure. In February, Google fired Meg Mitchell , a researcher who founded the ethical AI team and co-led it with Gebru. And in April, Mitchell’s former manager, top AI scientist Samy Bengio, who previously managed Gebru and said he was “stunned” by what happened to her, resigned . Bengio, who did not work for the ethical AI team directly but oversaw its work as the leader of the larger Google Brain research division, will lead a new AI research team at Apple .

In mid-February, Google appointed Marian Croak , a former VP of engineering, to be the head of its new Responsible AI department, which the AI ethics team is a part of. But several sources told Recode that she is too high-level to be involved in day-to-day operations of the team.

This has left the ethical AI unit running itself in an ad-hoc fashion and turning to its former managers who no longer work at the company for informal guidance and research advice. Researchers on the team have invented their own structure: They rotate the responsibilities of running weekly staff meetings. And they’ve self-designated two researchers to keep other teams at Google updated on what they’re working on, which was a key part of Mitchell’s job. Because Google employs more than 130,000 people around the world, it can be difficult for researchers like the AI ethics team to know if their work would actually get implemented in products.

“But now, with me and Timnit not being there, I think the people threading that needle are gone,” Mitchell told Recode.

Do you work at Google and have thoughts on what’s going on? Please email Shirin Ghaffary at [email protected] to reach her confidentially. Signal number available upon request by email.

The past six months have been particularly difficult for newer members of the ethical AI team, who at times have been unsure of who to ask for basic information such as where they can find their salary or how to access Google’s internal research tools, according to several sources.

And some researchers on the team feel at risk after watching Gebru and Mitchell’s fraught departures. They’re worried that, if Google decides their work is too controversial, they could be ousted from their jobs, too.

In meetings with the ethical AI team, Croak, who is an accomplished engineering research leader but who has little experience in the field of ethics, has tried to reassure staff that she is the ally the team is looking for. Croak is one of the highest-ranking Black executives at Google, where Black women only represent about 1.2 percent of the workforce. She has acknowledged Google’s lack of progress on improving the racial and gender diversity of its employees — an issue Gebru was vocal about while working at Google. And Croak has struck an apologetic tone in meetings with staff, acknowledging the pain the team is going through, according to several researchers.

But the executive has gotten off on the wrong foot with the team, several sources say, because they feel she’s made a series of empty promises.

In the weeks before Croak was appointed officially as the lead of a new Responsible AI unit, she began having informal conversations with members of the ethical AI team about how to repair the damage done to the team. Hanna drafted a letter together with her colleagues on the ethical AI team that laid out demands that included “structural changes” to the research organization.

That restructuring happened. But ethical AI staff were blindsided when they first heard about the changes from a Bloomberg article .

“We happen to be the last people to know about it internally, even though we were the team that started this process,” said Hanna in February. “Even though we were the team that brought these complaints and said there needs to be a reorganization.”

“In the very beginning, Marian said, ‘We want your help in drafting a charter — you should have a say in how you’re managed,’” said another researcher on the ethical AI team who spoke on the condition of anonymity for fear of retaliation. “Then she disappeared for a month or two and said, ‘Surprise! Here’s the Responsible AI organization.’”

Croak told the team there was a miscommunication about the reorganization announcement. She continues to seek feedback from the ethical AI team and assures them that leadership all the way up to CEO Sundar Pichai recognizes the need for their work.

But several members of the ethical AI team say that even if Croak is well-intentioned, they question whether she has the institutional power to truly reform the dynamics at Google that led to the Gebru controversy in the first place.

Some are disillusioned about their future at Google and are questioning if they have the freedom they need to do their work. Google has agreed to one of their demands, but it hasn’t taken action on several others: They want Google to publicly commit to academic freedom and clarify its research review process. They also want it to apologize to Gebru and Mitchell and offer the researchers their jobs back — but at this point, that’s a highly unlikely prospect. (Gebru has said she would not take her old job back even if Google offered it to her.)

“There needs to be external accountability,” said Gebru in an interview in May. “And maybe once that comes, this team would have an internal leader who would champion them.”

Some researchers on the ethical AI team told Recode they are considering leaving the company, and that several of their colleagues are thinking of doing the same. In the highly competitive field of AI, where in-demand researchers at top tech companies can command seven-figure salaries , it would be a significant loss for Google to lose that talent to a competitor.

Google’s shaky standing in the research community

Google is by far one of the largest funders of research in the tech industry — it spent more than $27 billion on research and design last year, which is larger than NASA’s annual budget .

But the controversies surrounding its ethical AI team have left some academics questioning its commitment to letting researchers do their work freely, without being muzzled by the company’s business interests.

Thousands of professors, researchers, and lecturers in computer science signed a petition criticizing Google for firing Gebru, calling it “unprecedented research censorship.”

Dean and other AI executives at Google know that the company has lost trust in the broader research community. Their strategy for rebuilding that trust is “to continue to publish cutting-edge work” that is “deeply interesting,” according to comments Dean made at a February staff research meeting . “It will take a little bit of time to regain trust with people,” Dean said.

That might take more time than Dean predicted.

“I think Google’s reputation is basically irreparable in the academic community at this point, at least in the medium term,” said Luke Stark, an assistant professor at Western University in Ontario, Canada, who studies the social and ethical impacts of artificial intelligence.

Stark recently turned down a $60,000 unrestricted research grant from Google in protest over Gebru’s ousting. He is reportedly the first academic to ever to reject the generous and highly competitive funding.

Stark isn’t the only academic to protest Google over its handling of the ethical AI team. Since Gebru’s departure, two groups focused on increasing diversity in the field, Black in AI and Queer in AI, have said they will reject any funding from Google . Two academics invited to speak at a Google-run workshop boycotted it in protest . A popular AI ethics research conference, FAccT, suspended Google’s sponsorship .

And at least four Google employees , including an engineering director and an AI research scientist , have left the company and cited Gebru’s firing as a reason for their resignations.

Of course, these departures represent a handful of people out of a large group. Others are staying for now because they still believe things can change. One Google employee working in the broader research department but not on the ethical AI team said that they and their colleagues strongly disapproved of how leadership forced out Gebru. But they feel that it’s their responsibility to stay and continue doing meaningful work.

“Google is so powerful and has so much opportunity. It’s working on so much cutting-edge AI research. It feels irresponsible for no one who cares about ethics to be here.”

And these internal and external concerns about how Google is handling its approach to ethical AI development extend much further than the academic community. Regulators have started paying attention, too. In December, nine members of Congress sent a letter to Google demanding answers over Gebru’s firing. And the influential racial justice group Color of Change — which helped launch an advertiser boycott of Facebook last year — has called for an external audit of potential discrimination at Google in light of Gebru’s ouster.

These outside groups are paying close attention to what happens inside Google’s AI team because they recognize the increasing influence that AI will play in our lives. Virtually every major tech company, including Google, sees AI as a key technology in the modern world. And with Google already in the political hot seat because of antitrust concerns, the stakes are high for the company to get this new technology right.

“It’s going take a lot more than a PR push to shore up trust in responsible AI efforts, and I don’t think that’s being officially recognized by current leaders,” said Hanna. “I really don’t think they understand how much damage has been done to Google as a respectable actor in this space.”

Artificial Intelligence
Technology & Media

Today, Explained

Understand the world with a daily explainer plus the most compelling stories of the day.

This is the title for the native ad

Google (Alphabet) Stakeholders & Corporate Social Responsibility

Google (Alphabet) implements stakeholder management and a corporate social responsibility (CSR) strategy through various programs and policies. The company’s corporate citizenship approach focuses on addressing the customers of Google’s online services and consumer electronics. Alphabet has other businesses, programs, and projects, such as its energy sustainability project for ecological concerns. However, the company’s social responsibility activity revolves around Google and its corporate citizenship efforts that were already in existence before the business was reorganized to become Alphabet Inc. For example, Google’s energy projects for its data centers are part of this CSR strategy. Thus, Alphabet’s corporate social responsibility strategy and policies are primarily based on the operations of Google, although other subsidiaries also benefit in terms of corporate citizenship.

Google’s corporate social responsibility programs support business goals and strategies. Corporate citizenship and business ethics objectives span across multiple industries and markets, considering that Alphabet provides computer software and hardware, including consumer electronics; digital advertising services; cloud computing services; and online digital content distribution, including video streaming. CSR initiatives address stakeholders to contribute to the attainment of the goals of the corporate mission statement and corporate vision statement of Google (Alphabet) .

Stakeholders in Google’s (Alphabet’s) Business

Google’s stakeholders are grouped based on shared interests. Alphabet’s social responsibility programs are designed for these stakeholder groups, most of which are linked to operations in the consumer electronics and online advertising industries. Google considers the following stakeholder groups:

Users of online services (e.g., Google Search), consumer electronics (e.g., Pixel), etc.
Advertisers and other customers

Governments

Communities.

The list above is arranged to indicate the importance of stakeholders based on Alphabet’s corporate social responsibility efforts. These stakeholders push for the satisfaction of their interests, such as privacy in using Google’s products. Users are the most significant in terms of their effect on Google’s business.

Users: Google’s Top-Priority Stakeholders

Users are individuals and organizations that use Alphabet’s products, such as Google Search, Google Maps, and Google Drive. The importance of users as stakeholders is emphasized in Google’s business philosophy, which states, “Focus on the user and all else will follow.” These stakeholders have diverse interests based on their needs and preferences in using the company’s technologies. For example, users of Google Search are interested in instant access to information. Users of Google Maps are interested in accurate maps and directions. Common interests among Alphabet’s stakeholders in this group include privacy and security of personal or sensitive information. Corporate citizenship also extends to the effects of the technology company’s products on users’ lives. For instance, users want to minimize or remove the negative effects of Google’s services on personal privacy. These concerns influence Alphabet’s corporate social responsibility strategy.

In satisfying the interests of users as top-priority stakeholders, Google has various corporate citizenship initiatives, policies, and rules. These CSR initiatives have the objective of ensuring that the corporation generates profits, remains legally compliant, satisfies end-users, and contributes to users’ communities. Alphabet’s corporate social responsibility strategy provides users with tools and options to protect their data and give them peace of mind when using the company’s services.

Through Google, Alphabet applies rules for ensuring that advertisements have minimal impact on user experience. Another technology-based corporate social responsibility approach to address this stakeholder group is the set of security checks for users’ website passwords through Google Chrome. This initiative strengthens Alphabet’s business and protects users and their sensitive information. Furthermore, extending beyond the core of the business, the company’s corporate citizenship initiatives include services that disseminate valuable information to users during pandemics, earthquakes, and other emergencies. Alphabet provides this service through Google. Also, students can avail Google Store discounts, which are a corporate social responsibility approach that helps students and supports the business at the same time.

These corporate social responsibility programs agree with Google’s (Alphabet’s) generic strategies for competitive advantage and strategies for intensive growth . The programs support business profitability and address the concerns of end-users as stakeholders. Google’s corporate social responsibility strategy have some similarities to those of competitors, like the online advertising operations of Facebook and eBay ; the consumer electronics businesses of Apple , Samsung , Microsoft , and Sony ; the on-demand video streaming operations of Amazon , Disney , and Netflix; and the Internet connection services of Verizon . In this regard, Alphabet’s corporate citizenship represents industry best practices. However, CSR program implementations are specific to the company’s technological assets. For example, information dissemination is easily achieved through Google and its global customer base. Compared to Alphabet, many competitors do not have comparable online reach for immediate global information dissemination in support of their own corporate social responsibility strategies.

Employees are stakeholders affecting Alphabet’s CSR programs. Employees are interested in competitive compensation, rewarding experiences in working for the technology company, and proper work-life balance. People want to work for Google because the company is perceived as one of the best employers. However, many large technology corporations compete in the labor market, resulting in workers’ considerable bargaining power. Thus, Alphabet’s corporate social responsibility strategy strives to attract and retain workers by promoting desirable work conditions that benefit employees at work and outside the workplace.

To address the interests of employees as a stakeholder group, corporate citizenship efforts include Google’s (Alphabet’s) competitive compensation, incentives, and benefits. Google’s creative workplace designs and flexible workflows also benefit the business while providing positive experiences among employees. Some of the company’s facilities allow workers to exercise and play games while sharing ideas with each other, in support of an enjoyable work-life balance and technological innovation in the business. These workplace characteristics are based on Google’s (Alphabet’s) organizational culture or corporate culture , which facilitates programs in this aspect of corporate social responsibility.

Initiatives for corporate social responsibility depend on Google’s (Alphabet’s) organizational structure or corporate structure . For example, the company’s divisions and teams maintain processes that enable employees to achieve their desired work-life balance, while contributing to the growth of the technology business. Also, Alphabet’s company structure promotes the sharing of ideas that can be used for corporate citizenship programs. Thus, business structure influences corporate social responsibility success for stakeholders in Google’s information technology operations.

Google employees’ interests as stakeholders are also addressed through Alphabet’s human resource management, including job design, as well as training and performance management. Through HRM practices, the company approaches the work aspect of the work-life balance, while indirectly contributing to the life aspect of this balance. For example, Google’s recruitment, selection, and retention policies are designed to satisfy employees’ concerns, including those beyond the workplace. Thus, the information technology company has a holistic corporate social responsibility strategy for employees.

Advertisers

Google’s success partly depends on the firm’s corporate social responsibility efforts for satisfying advertisers as a stakeholder group. Advertisers are Alphabet’s main revenue source through Google’s operations. These stakeholders are interested in effective services, such as online advertising campaigns, and the protection of their respective brands and businesses.

Google’s corporate social responsibility strategy addresses this stakeholder group through tools and measures alongside digital advertising services. For example, the company’s advertising network of websites and mobile apps allows advertisers to reach their target customers. This network has security measures, such as automatic detection of invalid clicks on ads. These invalid clicks are ignored to protect advertisers from unfair or unwarranted ad spending. Moreover, Google has policies for disabling ad displays on webpages that have controversial content, to protect advertisers’ brands. Thus, Alphabet’s operations include advertising services, as well as measures pertaining to corporate social responsibility, specifically brand and business protection for the stakeholder group of advertisers.

Corporate citizenship affects business performance in the face of the strong competitive force determined in the Five Forces analysis of Google (Alphabet) . Advertisers may be more attracted to service providers that have better corporate social responsibility programs. In this regard, Google’s (Alphabet’s) marketing mix (4Ps) is essential to communicating to customers about how the advertising business addresses corporate citizenship concerns.

Since it went public in 2004, Google (now Alphabet) considers investors as a major stakeholder group influencing its corporate social responsibility activities. Investors are interested in the company’s profitability and growth beyond its current information technology products and markets, which mainly revolve around Google’s operations. This stakeholder group is important to the company’s corporate citizenship because investors determine the capital available to Alphabet’s business.

Alphabet’s corporate social responsibility strategy focuses on developing technologies with high business potential. For example, the subsidiary, DeepMind, focuses on artificial intelligence that can be integrated into the company’s current technologies, including Waymo’s autonomous driving technology and Google’s Search service. These products’ usefulness makes them popular and profitable, thereby satisfying the financial interests of the stakeholder group of Alphabet’s investors. In addition, research and development strategies contribute to the company’s approach to its corporate social responsibilities. These R&D strategies aim to provide useful products that are profitable, while also solving problems relevant to Alphabet’s corporate citizenship. For example, through Google, the company provides open-source access to the TensorFlow software library for artificial intelligence. This open-source access gives additional tools for developers outside the company, improves the software library, and enhances the company’s products.

In planning for corporate social responsibilities, the business strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, and threats shown in the SWOT analysis of Google (Alphabet) are accounted for. For example, the profitability of new artificial intelligence technology depends on the response of competitors, including technology firms that have their own artificial intelligence projects that are competitive threats in the industry.

Other business aspects that affect the stakeholder group of investors include Google’s (Alphabet’s) operations management . Operations management effectiveness determines business process efficiencies, which translate to the technology corporation’s productivity and profitability. Also, Google’s inventory management policies affect efficiencies that enable the satisfaction of corporate social responsibilities.

Governments are stakeholders of Google’s information technology business. Governments enforce regulations that affect Alphabet and its subsidiaries. For example, the European Union’s data protection regulations limit the amount and kind of data that online companies can collect from end-users or customers. In the context of Google’s corporate social responsibility strategy, these stakeholders are interested in business compliance with all regulatory requirements, and the company’s contribution to economic development.

Google’s business philosophy states, “You can make money without doing evil.” With this philosophy, the digital advertising corporation ensures compliance with regulatory requirements. Alphabet aligns its corporate citizenship with regulations to strengthen its brand image. Corporate social responsibility programs and regulatory compliance are publicly stated on the company’s websites to inform stakeholders, and to show customers that the company fulfills its part in contributing to society.

Communities, as stakeholders in Alphabet’s business, are an extension of users or customers who access Google’s technologies and online services. Communities socially influence customers’ and investors’ responses to Alphabet Inc. The company’s corporate social responsibility strategy supports communities through technologies and financial assistance.

Communities are interested in direct and indirect benefits from Alphabet. These benefits include charity programs, philanthropic activities, employment opportunities, and ecological policies for environmental protection. Such a diversity of benefits means that Alphabet and its subsidiaries employ various corporate citizenship approaches to meet the interests of the stakeholder group of communities. However, Google typically focuses on financial and technological approaches.

Alphabet’s corporate social responsibility strategy directly and indirectly satisfies communities’ concerns. Google.org has charity programs that provide grants and investments for community development. Google.org aims to address climate change, public health issues, and poverty. Also, Alphabet indirectly addresses the working conditions of suppliers’ employees through the Google Supplier Code of Conduct, which pertains to employment practices and occupational health and safety affecting workers and communities.

Google’s (Alphabet’s) CSR Performance in Addressing Stakeholders’ Interests

Alphabet’s corporate citizenship strategy directly and indirectly satisfies the interests of stakeholder groups. The bulk of this strategy focuses on financial assistance and information technologies, especially through Google. This corporate social responsibility strategy aligns with the trends and issues affecting the industry, such as those identified in the PESTEL/PESTLE analysis of Google (Alphabet) . Considering ecological trends influencing international markets, the information technology business has green energy initiatives to address climate change. Alphabet also funds community development to address social and economic trends.

The centrality of information technologies in the company’s business processes means that corporate social responsibility programs also tend to involve or revolve around these technologies. Google’s sustainable energy plans focus on its data centers’ energy requirements. Information dissemination to support communities during disasters also involves Google’s online products. Therefore, Alphabet’s corporate citizenship efforts maximize the utility and benefits of the company’s technological resources, while addressing business ethics and the interests of various stakeholder groups.

Alphabet Inc. – Form 10-K .
Borenstein, B. E., & Taylor, C. R. (2023). The effects of targeted digital advertising on consumer welfare. Journal of Strategic Marketing , 1-16.
Google – Building a More Inclusive Society .
Google – Building a More Inclusive Workplace .
Google – Digital Wellbeing – Overcoming Technology Challenges .
Google – Our Goals for Sustainable Operations .
Google – Ten Things We Know to be True .
Google Crisis Response – Forecasting and Alerts .
Google.org – Philanthropic Funding & Nonprofit Fellowships .
Jahan, S. A., & Sazu, M. H. (2023). Role of IoTs and analytics in efficient sustainable manufacturing of consumer electronics. International Journal of Computing Sciences Research, 7 , 1337-1350.
U.S. Department of Commerce – International Trade Administration – Software and Information Technology Industry .
Zaman, R., Jain, T., Samara, G., & Jamali, D. (2022). Corporate governance meets corporate social responsibility: Mapping the interface. Business & Society, 61 (3), 690-752.
This article may not be reproduced, distributed, or mirrored without written permission from Panmore Institute and its author/s.
Educators, Researchers, and Students: You are permitted to quote or paraphrase parts of this article (not the entire article) for educational or research purposes, as long as the article is properly cited and referenced together with its URL/link.

Ethics Cases
Markkula Center for Applied Ethics
Ethics Resources

Find case studies and scenarios on a variety of fields in applied ethics.

Cases can also be viewed by the following categories:

For permission to reprint cases, submit requests to [email protected] .

Looking to draft your own case studies? This template provides the basics for writing ethics case studies in technology (though with some modification it could be used in other fields as well).

A fitness tracker aimed at children raises issues of design ethics, incentives, and more.

Six case studies explore how accessibility intersects with health care, education, and workplace ethics. The cases serve as a foundation for difficult dialogues, in-class discussions, or workshops and should be used by stakeholders involved in disability advocacy, education, health care, and policy-making.

AI-generated text, voices, and images used for entertainment productions and impersonation raise ethical questions.

The importance of academic institutions in shaping the societal narrative is increasingly showcased by constant media exposure and continuous requests for social commentary. This case study outlines effective methodologies of leadership, ethics, and change management within an organization, for the purpose of motivating and engaging stakeholders to empathize with and carry out a shared directive.

How might news platforms and products ensure that ethical journalism on chronic issues is not drowned out by the noise of runaway political news cycles?

Ethical questions arise in interactions among students, instructors, administrators, and providers of AI tools.

In water rights discussions, there is an ethical responsibility to include Indigenous people in both conversations and legislation decisions.

In this business ethics case study, Swedish multinational company IKEA faced accusations relating to child labor abuses in the rug industry in Pakistan which posed a serious challenge for the company and its supply chain management goals.

A dog may be humanity’s best friend. But that may not always be the case in the workplace.

A recent college graduate works in the finance and analytics department of a large publicly traded software company and discovers an alarming discrepancy in sales records, raising concerns about the company’s commitment to truthful reporting to investors.

McCombs School of Business

Español ( Spanish )

Videos Concepts Unwrapped View All 36 short illustrated videos explain behavioral ethics concepts and basic ethics principles. Concepts Unwrapped: Sports Edition View All 10 short videos introduce athletes to behavioral ethics concepts. Ethics Defined (Glossary) View All 58 animated videos - 1 to 2 minutes each - define key ethics terms and concepts. Ethics in Focus View All One-of-a-kind videos highlight the ethical aspects of current and historical subjects. Giving Voice To Values View All Eight short videos present the 7 principles of values-driven leadership from Gentile's Giving Voice to Values. In It To Win View All A documentary and six short videos reveal the behavioral ethics biases in super-lobbyist Jack Abramoff's story. Scandals Illustrated View All 30 videos - one minute each - introduce newsworthy scandals with ethical insights and case studies. Video Series

Case Study UT Star Icon

The FBI & Apple Security vs. Privacy

How can tech companies and government organizations strike a balance between maintaining national security and protecting user privacy?

In December 2015, the FBI attained the iPhone of one of the shooters in an ISIS-inspired terrorist attack that killed 14 people in San Bernardino, California. As part of the investigation, the FBI attempted to gain access to the data stored on the phone but was unable to penetrate its encryption software. Lawyers for the Obama administration approached Apple for assistance with unlocking the device, but negotiations soon broke down. The Justice Department then obtained a court order compelling Apple to help the FBI unlock the phone. Apple CEO, Timothy Cook, publicly challenged the court in an open letter, sparking an intense debate over the balance between maintaining national security and protecting user privacy.

Apple and its supporters, including top technology companies such as Google and Facebook, made the case on several fronts that the court order threatened the privacy of all individuals. First, according to Apple, the order effectively required the company to write code, violating its First Amendment right to free speech by forcing the company to “say” something it did not want to say. Previous court cases had already established computer code as legally protected speech. Second, such a backdoor, once created, could fall into the wrong hands and threaten the privacy of all iPhone owners. Finally, it would set a dangerous precedent; law enforcement could repeatedly require businesses such as Apple to assist in criminal investigations, effectively making technology companies an agent of government.

Representatives from both sides of the political aisle offered several arguments in favor of the Justice Department’s efforts and against Apple’s stance. Their central claim was that the U.S. legal system establishes constraints on the government’s access to private information which prevent abuse of search and surveillance powers. At the same time, the law still allows authorities to gain access to information that facilitates prevention and prosecution of criminal activities, from terrorism to drug trafficking to child pornography. Critics of Apple also rejected the slippery slope argument on the grounds that, if Apple cooperated, it could safeguard the code it created and keep it out of the hands of others, including bad actors such as terrorists or criminal groups. Moreover, Apple was accused of being too interested in protecting its brand, and even unpatriotic for refusing to comply with the court order.

Ultimately, the FBI dropped the case because it was able to circumvent the encryption on the iPhone without Apple’s help.

Discussion Questions

1. What harms are potentially produced by the FBI’s demand that Apple help it open an iPhone? What harms are potentially produced by Apple’s refusal to help the FBI?

2. Do you think Apple had a moral obligation to help the FBI open the iPhone in this case because it involved terrorism and a mass shooting? What if the case involved a different type of criminal activity instead, such as drug trafficking? Explain your reasoning.

3. Apple argued that helping to open one iPhone would produce code that could be used to make private information on all iPhones vulnerable, not only to the American government but also to other foreign governments and criminal elements. Do you agree with Apple’s “slippery slope” argument? Does avoiding these harms provide adequate justification for Apple’s refusal to open the phone, even if it could reveal crucial information on the terrorist shooting?

4. Politicians from across the political spectrum, including President Obama and Senator Ted Cruz, argued that technology preventing government access to information should not exist. Do you agree with this limit on personal privacy? Why or why not?

5. Ultimately, the FBI gained access to the iPhone in question without the help of Apple. Does this development change your assessment of the ethical dimensions of Apple’s refusal to help the FBI? Why or why not? Should the FBI share information on how it opened the iPhone with Apple so that it can patch the vulnerability? Explain your reasoning.

Incrementalism

Referred to as the slippery slope, incrementalism describes how we unconsciously lower our ethical standards over time through small changes in behavior.

Bibliography

Apple Fights Order to Unlock San Bernardino Gunman’s iPhone http://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/18/technology/apple-timothy-cook-fbi-san-bernardino.html

How they line up on Apple vs. the FBI https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/business/fbi-apple/

Why Apple Is Right to Challenge an Order to Help the F.B.I. http://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/19/opinion/why-apple-is-right-to-challenge-an-order-to-help-the-fbi.html

Apple’s Rotten Core: CEO Tim Cook’s Case for Not Aiding the FBI’s Antiterror Effort Looks Worse than Ever http://www.wsj.com/articles/apples-rotten-core-1456696736

Obama, at South by Southwest, Calls for Law Enforcement Access in Encryption Fight http://www.nytimes.com/2016/03/12/us/politics/obama-heads-to-south-by-southwest-festival-to-talk-about-technology.html

U.S. Says It Has Unlocked iPhone Without Apple http://www.nytimes.com/2016/03/29/technology/apple-iphone-fbi-justice-department-case.html

Business Law and Corporate Ethics

Business law and corporate ethics are fundamental components of successful business operations. A thorough understanding of legal principles and regulations informs ethical decision-making, promoting a culture of accountability and transparency. Effective management of contract disputes, compliance with laws and regulations, and stakeholder expectations are vital aspects of business law. Corporate ethics involves more than just compliance, requiring a deep commitment to doing what is right. By integrating ethics into daily operations, businesses can foster a positive impact on society and mitigate risk. As we explore the intricacies of business law and corporate ethics, the importance of these concepts becomes increasingly clear.

Table of Contents

Understanding Business Law Basics

At its core, business law comprises the vast array of rules, regulations, and standards that govern commercial transactions and activities, providing a framework for businesses to operate within. This complex and multifaceted field spans various aspects, including contract law, tort law, and regulatory compliance. A fundamental understanding of business law is crucial for companies to navigate the complexities of commercial transactions and minimize the risk of disputes.

Contract disputes are a common occurrence in business, often arising from misunderstandings or breaches of contractual obligations. In such cases, business litigation may be necessary to resolve the dispute and protect the interests of the parties involved. Effective management of contract disputes requires a deep understanding of contractual terms, as well as the legal framework governing commercial transactions. By grasping the basics of business law, companies can better navigate the complexities of contract disputes and business litigation, ensuring that their commercial activities are conducted in a legally sound and compliant manner.

Corporate Ethics in Practice

In the pursuit of long-term success, businesses must integrate corporate ethics into their daily operations, fostering a culture of accountability and transparency that permeates every level of the organization. This requires moral leadership that sets the tone for ethical behavior, ensuring that employees understand the importance of upholding the company's values and principles. Effective corporate ethics in practice involve more than just compliance with laws and regulations; they require a deep commitment to doing what is right, even when it is difficult or unpopular.

Stakeholder expectations play a significant role in shaping corporate ethics in practice. Businesses must consider the needs and concerns of their stakeholders, including customers, employees, investors, and the broader community. By prioritizing stakeholder expectations, companies can build trust and credibility, enhance their reputation, and ultimately drive long-term success. A well-implemented corporate ethics program can help businesses navigate complex ethical dilemmas, mitigate risk, and create a positive impact on society. By integrating corporate ethics into their daily operations, businesses can reap the rewards of a strong reputation, improved relationships, and sustained success.

Compliance and Regulatory Issues

In the domain of compliance and regulatory issues, businesses must navigate a complex landscape of laws, regulations, and standards that govern their operations. Effective management of this environment requires a thorough analysis of the regulatory landscape, proactive legal risk management, and the establishment of clear compliance officer roles. By understanding and addressing these key aspects, organizations can guarantee adherence to relevant laws and regulations, thereby minimizing the risk of non-compliance and its associated consequences.

Regulatory Environment Analysis

The regulatory environment in which businesses operate is shaped by a complex web of laws, regulations, and standards that dictate the minimum acceptable standards of conduct and practice. This environment is constantly evolving, and businesses must stay informed to remain compliant. Government policies and industry standards play a significant role in shaping the regulatory environment. Government policies provide the framework for regulations, while industry standards provide guidelines for best practices.


Government Policies	Laws and regulations enacted by the government	Dictates minimum standards of conduct and practice
Industry Standards	Guidelines for best practices within an industry	Influences business operations and decision-making
International Agreements	Agreements between countries that impact business operations	Affects business strategy and global expansion

A thorough analysis of the regulatory environment is vital for businesses to identify potential risks and opportunities. By understanding the regulatory landscape, businesses can develop strategies to comply with regulations, mitigate risks, and capitalize on opportunities. This analysis is pivotal for businesses to maintain a competitive edge and guarantee long-term sustainability.

Legal Risk Management

Effective legal risk management is crucial for businesses to navigate the complex regulatory landscape, as non-compliance can result in severe reputational, financial, and operational consequences. To mitigate these risks, companies must adopt a proactive approach to identifying and evaluating potential legal risks. This involves conducting thorough risk evaluations to identify areas of vulnerability and prioritizing mitigation strategies accordingly. Litigation strategies should also be developed to address potential legal disputes, ensuring that the company is prepared to respond effectively in the event of legal action.

An exhaustive legal risk management framework should be integrated into the company's overall governance structure, with clear policies, procedures, and accountability mechanisms in place. This includes establishing a robust compliance program, conducting regular audits and monitoring, and providing training and education to employees on legal and regulatory requirements. By adopting a proactive and integrated approach to legal risk management, businesses can minimize the risk of non-compliance, reduce the likelihood of legal disputes, and protect their reputation and bottom line.

Compliance Officer Roles

Beyond mere risk identification, companies must designate a dedicated compliance officer to oversee and implement regulatory compliance measures, verifying that legal requirements are met and potential issues are addressed proactively. This officer plays a vital role in developing and maintaining a compliance program that is tailored to the organization's specific needs and risk profile.

The compliance officer's responsibilities include:

Developing and implementing compliance policies and procedures
Conducting regular compliance audits and risk assessments to identify areas for improvement
Providing training and guidance to employees on compliance matters, verifying that they understand their roles and responsibilities in maintaining a culture of compliance

Effective officer empowerment is critical to the success of a compliance program. This involves providing the compliance officer with the necessary authority, resources, and support to carry out their duties effectively. By doing so, companies can guarantee that their compliance metrics are met, and their regulatory obligations are fulfilled. A well-empowered compliance officer can help organizations navigate the complex regulatory landscape, minimize the risk of non-compliance, and promote a culture of ethical behavior.

Ethics in the Workplace Culture

Nearly 75% of employees consider ethics in the workplace culture to be a critical factor in their job satisfaction and overall performance. This underscores the significance of fostering an ethical work environment where employees feel valued, respected, and motivated to contribute to the organization's success. A workplace culture that prioritizes ethics guarantees fair treatment of all employees, promoting a sense of trust, inclusivity, and equality. In such an environment, employees are more likely to adhere to a moral compass, making decisions that align with the organization's values and principles. This, in turn, enhances their job satisfaction, productivity, and overall well-being. Additionally, an ethical workplace culture encourages open communication, accountability, and transparency, which are vital for building strong relationships with stakeholders, including customers, investors, and partners. By prioritizing ethics in the workplace culture, organizations can reap numerous benefits, including improved employee engagement, increased customer loyalty, and enhanced reputation.

Legal Ramifications of Unethical Behavior

Noncompliance with ethical standards can precipitate a cascade of legal consequences, exposing organizations to reputational damage, financial penalties, and even criminal liability. Unethical behavior can lead to legal action, resulting in severe financial consequences that can be detrimental to a company's bottom line. In addition, criminal liability can be imposed on organizations and their executives, leading to fines, imprisonment, or both.

Some of the legal ramifications of unethical behavior include:

Financial Consequences : Fines, penalties, and restitution can result in significant financial losses, damaging a company's profitability and reputation.
Criminal Liability : Executives and organizations can face criminal charges, leading to imprisonment and fines, as well as damage to their professional reputation.
Legal Action : Unethical behavior can lead to lawsuits, regulatory actions, and other legal proceedings that can be time-consuming, costly, and damaging to a company's reputation.

It is vital for organizations to prioritize ethical behavior and comply with legal standards to avoid these legal ramifications. By doing so, companies can maintain a positive reputation, avoid financial consequences, and guarantee a culture of integrity and accountability.

Building Trust Through Transparency

In the domain of corporate ethics, building trust through transparency is vital for fostering a positive reputation and ensuring long-term success. This can be achieved by implementing clear communication strategies, making ethical decisions, and promoting accountability throughout the organization. By embracing these principles, businesses can establish a culture of transparency, thereby enhancing stakeholder trust and confidence.

Clear Communication Matters

Transparent communication is a cornerstone of trust-building in business, as it fosters an environment of openness, accountability, and mutual understanding. When communication is clear and concise, it promotes a culture of transparency, where stakeholders feel informed and valued. This, in turn, builds trust and credibility, vital for successful business relationships.

Effective communication involves more than just conveying information. It requires:

Crisp language : avoiding jargon and technical terms that may confuse or intimidate others
Active listening : paying attention to the concerns and needs of stakeholders, and responding appropriately
Regular updates : keeping stakeholders informed of progress, changes, and decisions that affect them

Ethical Decision Making

Ethical decision making is rooted in a commitment to transparency, which fosters an environment of trust and accountability by guaranteeing that stakeholders are informed and involved in the decision-making process. This commitment is vital for building trust and credibility with stakeholders, including employees, customers, and investors. When organizations prioritize transparency, they demonstrate a willingness to be accountable for their actions and decisions.


Moral Compass	Guides decision making with a sense of right and wrong
Ethical Lens	Examines decisions through a lens of fairness and justice
Transparency	Guarantees stakeholders are informed and involved in decision making
Accountability	Holds individuals and organizations responsible for their actions

Accountability in Action

By prioritizing transparency in decision making, organizations can demonstrate accountability in action, thereby fostering an environment of trust and credibility with stakeholders. This is achieved when leaders exhibit moral courage, taking ownership of their actions and decisions, and being willing to explain and justify them to stakeholders. Transparency breeds trust, which is vital for building strong relationships with customers, investors, and employees.

To cultivate accountability in action, organizations can:

Establish clear policies and procedures that outline decision-making processes and guarantee consistency
Encourage open communication and feedback mechanisms, allowing stakeholders to voice concerns and opinions
Hold leaders and employees accountable for their actions, recognizing and rewarding ethical behavior and addressing unethical conduct

Sustainable Business Practices Matter

Companies that prioritize sustainable business practices are better positioned to mitigate long-term risks and capitalize on emerging opportunities, ultimately driving business success and contributing to a more resilient global economy. By integrating green initiatives into their operations, companies can reduce their environmental footprint, minimize waste, and optimize resource allocation. This not only helps to mitigate the risks associated with climate change and environmental degradation but also enhances their reputation and brand value.

Moreover, embracing social responsibility is a critical component of sustainable business practices. This involves adopting policies and practices that promote fair labor standards, community engagement, and philanthropy. By doing so, companies can foster a positive work environment, build trust with stakeholders, and contribute to the well-being of local communities. As consumers increasingly expect companies to prioritize social and environmental responsibility, adopting sustainable business practices is no longer a choice but a necessity for long-term success. By prioritizing sustainability, companies can create value for both their shareholders and the broader society, ultimately contributing to a more equitable and prosperous world.

Frequently Asked Questions

Can a company's mission statement override its legal obligations?.

A company's mission statement, while guiding its values and goals, cannot override its legal obligations. Mission creep can lead to ethical dilemmas, but legal compliance takes precedence, ensuring that moral principles are upheld without compromising regulatory requirements.

Are Whistleblowers Protected From Retaliation in All Industries?

Whistleblowers are protected from retaliation in most industries, but industry exemptions exist. Anonymous reporting mechanisms can facilitate disclosures, yet varying laws and regulations govern protections, leaving some whistleblowers vulnerable to retaliation.

Do Corporate Ethics Apply to Small Businesses and Startups?

Small businesses and startups, driven by a strong moral compass, establish a distinct business identity by embracing corporate ethics, ensuring responsible practices and fostering a positive reputation, even in the absence of regulatory pressures.

Can a Company Be Held Liable for an Employee's Wrongdoing?

A company can be held liable for an employee's wrongdoing under certain circumstances, specifically if employer negligence or vicarious liability are established, where the employer's actions or inactions contribute to the employee's misconduct.

Are There Legal Consequences for Not Having a Corporate Ethics Policy?

In the absence of a corporate ethics policy, organizations may face legal repercussions, including fines and reputational damage, due to inadequate ethics oversight and policy enforcement, highlighting the importance of establishing a thorough ethics framework.

UNLOCK YOUR COPY

ASU workgroup addresses ethical questions about the use of AI in higher ed

A robotic arm reaches out from the left side of the image to touch a human arm with tattoos reaching from the right of the image. The orientation is a nod to Michaelangelo's "The Creation of Adam."

Photo credit: Cottonbro Studio

As artificial intelligence becomes more ubiquitous in our everyday lives, the AI and Ethics Workgroup at Arizona State University's Lincoln Center for Applied Ethics is working to establish ethical guidelines and frameworks for the deployment of AI technologies.

Composed of experts from a variety of fields, the workgroup is dedicated to navigating the complex ethical challenges arising from rapid advancements in AI. The group published their first white paper earlier this month, which focuses on the use of AI tools in higher education.

The workgroup’s co-chairs are Sarah Florini, the associate director of the Lincoln Center and an associate professor of film and media studies, and Nicholas Proferes, an associate professor for ASU’s School of Social and Behavioral Sciences .

Florini and Proferes shared some insights into their workgroup’s research process and their publication, “AI and Higher Education: Questions and Projections.”

Note: Answers have been edited lightly for length and/or clarity.

Question: Why is it critical that academics begin asking questions about AI in higher ed? Why now?

Florini : Historically, when technology has radically reshaped our lives, it has had as much to do with cultural processes as with technological innovation. New technologies don’t have inherent, predetermined outcomes. Every new technology is accompanied by a period where, as a society, we negotiate its meaning, its value and how it might fit into our world. We’re in this moment right now with AI. And it is crucial that those of us in higher education be active participants in shaping the future of AI in a way that is beneficial to our students, our community and society (at) large.

Proferes: As we sit on the cusp of more widespread AI adoption in higher ed, we have a brief window where we can take a step back and be (reflective) — not just about AI, but also about a lot of practices in the academe. This is a moment for us to collectively ask: “What do we value in the educational enterprise, and how can we use AI, with moral wisdom, to help us achieve those values?” As a scholar of technology and society, I think it’s incredibly important for us to think through and understand the tradeoffs that any new technology presents, and to understand that there are always tradeoffs.

Q: What do the stories about AI in popular culture and the news media tell us about the way these emerging technologies are being adopted and used?

Florini : I think they tell us more about our cultural (imagination) than about real-world adoption and use. Popular culture and the news media are key terrains for negotiating how new technologies will be understood and integrated into our lives. They can work to naturalize particular ways of thinking about these technologies. And that doesn’t always match the reality of day-to-day use. For example, there is growing evidence suggesting that AI might actually create more work instead of reducing it. Despite utopian and dystopian sci-fi narratives or new media predictions about how AI will revolutionize every aspect of society, the on-the-ground reality is often more nuanced and far more mundane.

Proferes : Rather than focus on specific success stories or doomsday stories about AI, I’d argue we need to pay attention to the function that stories about technology have in our lives. Stories about technology help create a kind of order for our world. They do this by enabling and limiting ways of “seeing” a given technology’s role in society and its future possibilities. Stories help shape how a given technology becomes part of our systems of goals, values and meaning. In a way, they serve as a kind of collective sensemaking guide. I think it’s really important that folks critically engage stories about AI and think about how these stories might shape our dispositions, particularly in higher ed.

Q: What can educators and institutions start doing today to instill more responsible, ethical adoption of AI-related technologies?

Florini : Get involved and participate in the conversations surrounding these technologies. We all need to be part of the efforts to shape how they will be integrated into colleges and universities. The terrain around AI is moving quickly, and there are many stakeholders with diverging opinions about the best course of action. We all need to be developing a critical understanding of these technologies and contributing to the process of determining how they align with our values.

Proferes : Have conversations with your community. Not just your peers, but with every stakeholder who might be impacted. Create spaces for that dialogue. Map out what the collective core values you want to achieve with the technology are, and then develop policies and procedures that can help support that.

But also, be willing to revisit these conversations. Very often with tech development, ethics is treated as a checkbox, rather than an ongoing process of reflection and consideration. Living wisely with technology requires phronesis, or practical wisdom. That’s something that’s gained over time through practice. Not a one-and-done deal.

Q: How does the workgroup plan to contribute to future discussions of AI at ASU?

Florini : In addition to several more white papers exploring AI and higher education, we hope to facilitate and anchor conversations about AI and ethics. Not only does ASU strive to innovate, but it is also deeply committed to doing so in principled and ethical ways. Being at the forefront of AI and higher education, ASU is uniquely poised to grapple with the hard questions of when and how to use these technologies, to determine best practices, and to create a model for the more effective and principled uses of AI at universities and colleges.

Proferes : In addition to the white paper we just published, we have a number of different white papers in the works that, we hope, will serve as tools to help further conversations about what ethical implementation of AI can look like, not just here at ASU, but across higher ed more broadly. ASU is so far ahead of the curve in so many ways, and we think that the conversations we are having here will also start showing up elsewhere.

More Science and technology

Man wearing glasses working on equipment

New technology developments to help surgeons save lives

How many heart surgeries are performed each year worldwide? What about colonoscopies?In the United States alone, more than 900,000 heart surgeries are performed each year. Around the globe, 17.9…

Jayesh Nagpal holds a controller to help train a robot.

Dirty, dull or dangerous: Using AI to teach robots to do the jobs we don’t want

Fantasy writer Joanna Maciejewska recently took to the social media site X to opine, “I want AI to do my laundry and dishes so that I can do art and writing, not for AI to do my art and writing so…

Mosaic image of the moon taken with the Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter Cameras

ASU teams up with industry for moon rover project to advance lunar exploration for NASA Artemis missions

Arizona State University continues to advance its presence in the commercial space sector, building strategic partnerships with industry leaders to drive innovation and discovery. Recently, NASA…

IMAGES

Study Pdf 120612
How To Identify Ethical Issues In A Case Study
Ethical Issues and Principles
Business Ethics Case Study Example In Powerpoint And Google Slides Cpb
Ethics Case Study
Ethics Case Study

VIDEO

Ethics Case Study A Government Officers Dilemma
Ethics Case Study
ETHICS CASE STUDIES-Ethical Dilemmas in Corporate HR Management|LECTURE-3|UPSC CSE MAINS|LevelUp IAS
Ethics
Ethics Case Study: 3- Media Ethics
Ethics Case Study (Responsibility, Accountability) Paper 📝 leak (Answer writing✍️✍️✌️📝💁)

COMMENTS

PDF Google's Search for Solutions to Privacy Issues
Google's bottom line. Google promotes the model as a win-win; the company makes a profit and customers get more bang for their advertising buck. Google leverages its various product offerings to provide a variety of attractive advertising options. Companies can choose to have their ads displayed as "sponsored links" alongside search
The Google Case: When Law and Ethics Collide
The Google Case: When Law and Ethics Collide. By Ben W. Heineman Jr. January 13, 2010. A fundamental precept for international companies is compliance with the law of the nation in which they do ...
We read the paper that forced Timnit Gebru out of Google. Here's what
On the evening of Wednesday, December 2, Timnit Gebru, the co-lead of Google's ethical AI team, announced via Twitter that the company had forced her out.. Gebru, a widely respected leader in AI ...
Case Study on Google's Code of Ethics
An essay example that analyzes Google's code of ethics (COE) in relation to corporate social responsibility (CSR), legal compliance, and ethical culture. It also discusses the advantages and disadvantages of whistleblowing and the U.S. Sentencing Guidelines.
Culture at Google
Abstract. Beginning in 2017, technology (tech) company Google faced a series of employee-relations issues that threatened its unique culture of innovation and open communication. Issues included protests surrounding Google's contracts with the U.S. government, restrictions of employee speech, mistreatment of contract and temporary workers ...
11.1 Decision-Making Culture: The Case of Google
To promote new ideas, Google encourages all engineers to spend 20% of their time working on their own ideas. Google's culture is reflected in their decision making as well. Decisions at Google are made in teams. Even the company management is in the hands of a triad: Larry Page and Sergey Brin hired Eric Schmidt to act as the CEO of the ...
Google's Dragonfly: The Ethics of Providing a Censored Search Engine in
In 2018, a Google employee leaked that the world's largest search engine was attempting to provide its service to China censored by the Communist Party. Google employees demanded explanations, protested, and even resigned over the secret Project Dragonfly. One whistleblower was motivated by moral concerns and lack of public scrutiny: "I'm against large companies and governments ...
Google's Handling of the "Echo Chamber Manifesto"
Sundar Pichai, Google's CEO, released a statement explaining the decision to fire Damore. Pichai's statement points out that some of Damore's criticisms of Google's attempts at creating a truly diverse culture are valid, but the memo violated parts of the company's code of conduct "by advancing harmful gender stereotypes in our ...
GOOGLE: a reflection of culture, leader, and management
This project began in 2009 known as "the manager project" with the People and Innovation Lab (PiLab) team researching questions, which helped the employee of Google become a better manager. The case study was conducted by Garvin (2013) about a behavior measurement to Google's manager, why managers matter and what the best manager s do.
Google's Ethical Dilemma
Google removed "don't be evil" from its code of conduct in the first half of 2018. In retrospect, the move anticipated the sequence of events culminating in the firing of Google's leading ethical AI researchers, Timnit Gebru and Margaret Mitchell. It all started with Gebru & Mitchell's paper on the dangers of large language models like GPT-3 and BERT.
Google is trying to end the controversy over its Ethical AI team. It's
Hours after Google tried to turn the page on a months-long controversy over the abrupt departure of one leader of its Ethical AI team, the other leader said she was fired. The announcement quickly ...
The ethical dimensions of Google autocomplete
The epistemological and ethical function of Google's results has been discussed widely in search engine studies (see Halavais, 2018: 35, Introna and Nissenbaum, 2000: 169, and Hillis et al., 2012: 182), but such discussions rarely focus on the influence of Autocomplete in determining a user's query.
Opinion
There is a plausible ethical case for working on Project Maven. Advertisement Project Dragonfly, the censored search engine Google reportedly offered to Chinese authorities, raises a different set ...
DOJ's Google Monopoly Case Explained With Six Key Documents
Judge not expected to decide case until at least next year. The most damning evidence in the US antitrust trial against Alphabet Inc. 's Google that concluded in Washington this week came not from the parade of witnesses from Apple Inc., Microsoft Corp. and other companies, but from internal documents. During the 10-week trial, the Justice ...
Google says it's committed to ethical AI research. Its ethical ...
by Shirin Ghaffary. Jun 2, 2021, 3:20 PM PDT. Google's ethical AI department has been in a state of flux since the company fired Timnit Gebru, the team's former leader. Kimberly White/Getty ...
PDF GOOGLE IN CHINA
the entire document and attribute the source: The Kenan Institute for Ethics at Duke niversity. Business Ethics In early 2006, search-engine giant Google struck a deal with the People's. Republic of China and launched Google.cn, a version of its search engine run by the company from within China. Launching Google.cn
Why Can't We Be Friends? A Case-Based Analysis of Ethical Issues with
Case Study Three: The Googling Program Director. A residency program director is overwhelmed with resident applications. He has started to search applicants on Google to learn about their online identities. He discovers that a few of the students applying to his program have photos in their Facebook profiles that show them in an unflattering light.
Case Studies
Ethics Unwrapped offers more than 70 cases that explore ethical dilemmas in various fields and contexts. However, none of the cases specifically address Google's ethical issues or challenges.
Google (Alphabet) Stakeholders & Corporate Social Responsibility
Google's corporate social responsibility programs support business goals and strategies. Corporate citizenship and business ethics objectives span across multiple industries and markets, considering that Alphabet provides computer software and hardware, including consumer electronics; digital advertising services; cloud computing services; and online digital content distribution, including ...
Case Analysis
Case study of the ethical concerns about recent projects Google is working on. Final paper of the class project. running head: case analysis: google case ... Issues The ethical issues of this case is Google's work in China, the protection of employees accused of sexual harassment, and the tracking of peoples private information. ...
Ethics Cases
Ethical Considerations for Disability Advocacy, Representation, and Access. Six case studies explore how accessibility intersects with health care, education, and workplace ethics. The cases serve as a foundation for difficult dialogues, in-class discussions, or workshops and should be used by stakeholders involved in disability advocacy ...
The FBI & Apple Security vs. Privacy
Apple and its supporters, including top technology companies such as Google and Facebook, made the case on several fronts that the court order threatened the privacy of all individuals. First, according to Apple, the order effectively required the company to write code, violating its First Amendment right to free speech by forcing the company ...
Ethics: A Case Study from Fluency
Ethics: A Case Study from Fluency. Goldfarb, Robert. Plural Publishing, Nov 1, 2005 - Medical - 227 pages. A 1939 master's thesis that has become known as the "Tudor study" prompted Dr. Goldfarb and others to revisit the ethical consideration of this study as a means of exploring ethical issues in clinical and research practices in speech ...
A Case Study for Using AI Tools to Develop Training Materials for High
A Case Study for Using AI Tools to Develop Training Materials for High Consequence Industries. ... Google Scholar. Chermack T. J., Kasshanna B. K. (2007). ... Ethics and Information Technology, 26(2), 38. Crossref. Web of Science. Google Scholar. Jentsch F. (1996). Understanding of aviation safety pictograms among respondents from Europe and ...
Business Law and Corporate Ethics
A well-implemented corporate ethics program can help businesses navigate complex ethical dilemmas, mitigate risk, and create a positive impact on society. By integrating corporate ethics into their daily operations, businesses can reap the rewards of a strong reputation, improved relationships, and sustained success. Compliance and Regulatory ...
ASU workgroup addresses ethical questions about the use of ...
As artificial intelligence becomes more ubiquitous in our everyday lives, the AI and Ethics Workgroup at Arizona State University's Lincoln Center for Applied Ethics is working to establish ethical guidelines and frameworks for the deployment of AI technologies.. Composed of experts from a variety of fields, the workgroup is dedicated to navigating the complex ethical challenges arising from ...

The Google Case: When Law and Ethics Collide

About the Author

Case Study on Google’s Code of Ethics

Cite this Essay

Related Essays

Still can’t find what you need?

Related Essays on Google

Related Topics

Get Your Personalized Essay in 3 Hours or Less!

Culture at Google

About The Author

Nien-he Hsieh

11.1 Decision-Making Culture: The Case of Google

Discussion Questions

Share This Book

GOOGLE: a reflection of culture, leader, and management

Introduction

Company overview

Predominant culture at Google

Tolerate with mistakes and help staff correct

Exponential thought

Build a stimulating work environment

Leadership influences on the culture at Google

Company growth and its impact

1998–2001: Focus on search

2001–2007: Interface card

2007–2012: Navigation bar, Google menu, Google now

2013–2014: Simplified interface

2014–2017: Chrome development and facing challenges

Research question and methodology

The Harvard study

Formal organizational training system to create a different culture: Ethical culture

How culture influences behavior

The role of the “flow” and building capacity for innovation

Acknowledgements

Author information

Contributions

Corresponding author

Ethics declarations

Publisher’s Note

Rights and permissions

About this article

Share this article

Google’s Ethical Dilemma

Why Should Google Be Concerned?

Top Editorial Picks

Subscribe to The Belamy: Our Weekly Newsletter

DOJ’s Google Monopoly Case Explained With Six Key Documents

1) Google spends $26 billion to be the default

2) Google makes more than $100 billion from search ads

3) Google’s most important default deal is with Apple

4) Being the default matters because most people don’t switch

5) “Google is magical” because user data fuels search

6) Google told employees what not to say

Learn more about Bloomberg Law or Log In to keep reading:

Already a subscriber?

We need your support today

Google says it’s committed to ethical AI research. Its ethical AI team isn’t so sure.

The misfits of Google research

Google’s shaky standing in the research community

Most Popular

Today, Explained

This is the title for the native ad

More in Technology

Google (Alphabet) Stakeholders & Corporate Social Responsibility

Stakeholders in Google’s (Alphabet’s) Business

Governments

Users: Google’s Top-Priority Stakeholders

Advertisers

Google’s (Alphabet’s) CSR Performance in Addressing Stakeholders’ Interests

The FBI & Apple Security vs. Privacy

Discussion Questions

Related Videos

Incrementalism

Bibliography

Business Law and Corporate Ethics

Understanding Business Law Basics

Corporate Ethics in Practice

Compliance and Regulatory Issues

Regulatory Environment Analysis