Google’s Philanthropic Journey, Essay Example

Google’s decision to become a for-profit entrant on the market has received controversial response from various stakeholders. In a prominent article of The New York Times (Hafner), the step to make Google.org a for-profit organization was called Google-way of exercising philanthropy. The author states that as a for-profit charity, the organization would be able to directly fund start-ups and engage in agreements with venture capitalists. The decision can also affect shareholders of Google, as the tax documents of Google.org will be held private, reducing the transparency of the organization.

Tax lawyers also question the feasibility of the project, stating that the founders of the parent company, Google.com might decide to take back profits at any time. On the other hand, the profitability of research projects launched by Google.org, such as the economic car are not likely to generate return on investment in a couple of years. Likewise, the return timescale for scientific research for detecting signs of epidemics are not likely to result in a sale of a patent in a few years to generate billions of dollars.

Lim (2007) analyzed the incorporation form of Google from the legal perspective. While non-profit organizations enjoy tax advantages in the United States, for-profit ones do not. Donors can apply for tax deduction if they donate for non-profit organizations, while they cannot if they fund a for-profit entity, like Google.org. From this perspective, going for the “for-profit” status does not make economic sense.

The author argues that the reason behind the decision is that “the traditional benefits of nonprofit status do not create significant value, because they would either

come with costly restrictions, or would be superfluous given Google’s needs. (Lim, 2007, p. 29.) When funding innovative projects, research and approaching venture capitalists, Google needed flexibility; something that for-profit status would not have provided. Further, this way, Google.org could generate losses and shield profits; something that is not allowed in the non-profit world. A non-profit status comes with several restrictions; for example, the organization needs to operate strictly for charitable purposes, therefore, it is likely that through the connections and collaborative projects that Google.org proposed, it would not have qualified for tax debates anyway. Further, it would need to pay taxes on unrelated business income, making accounting hard to see through and complicated. Therefore, even though for-profit status reduces transparency, it makes accounting easier for Google.

In order to carry out the proposed long-term innovative projects, Google.org will need to influence the public and engage in lobbying (Lim, 2007, p. 38). This restriction would impact the outcome of the projects and create a risk on the founding company’s reputation, negatively impacting shareholders’ interest.

Overall, I think that Google.org should operate as a non-profit organization that is funded by Google.com. This way transparency would be more simpler to achieve. From a shareholder perspective, however, I would prefer for-profit entry in order to benefit from positive impact of the project on the company’s reputation. The projects are goals worthy of an international charity organization, and they have little to do with Google’s for-profit operations. Therefore, in my opinion, Google could set up collaboration with charities and other non-profit organizations, NGO-s as a non-profit charity than a for-profit entrant of the market.

Employee Privacy and Ethical Issues

In the case detailed in the discussion question, there are three, contradicting interests featured. The first interest is of the employees whose privacy should be protected, according to the company’s policy and ethical guidelines. The second interest is of the bank; by breaching employee privacy requirements, it can face legal cases, lawsuits, suffer reputation loss and – as a result – profit loss as well. The third interest is mine; I, as a personnel director,  would like to have a work environment that is free from conflicts. I can get into trouble with the president, which would affect my yearly evaluation, career development and support from colleagues. I can also worsen my work relationship with the director, which will affect my job.

I would explain the director that the president is the head of the organization that has made the company’s policy. Therefore, it is not likely that he would intentionally breach the code. I would also remind the director that – just like me – he has also been warned about trying to resolve conflicts before turning to the president. Therefore, contacting him would affect his career just as much as mine, and there would be no winners in the case whatsoever. I would try to resolve the problem by explaining how the company and his position would be affected if somebody uncovered that the documents were copied. I would also offer that I would take overtime to meet him after office hours – after getting relevant authorization – in the personnel office to allow him to look over the files.

In this situation, I would need to make a decision based on the company’s and my personal ethical principles. While it is not likely that anybody would find out that I copied the files, it would be a great personal risk and a breach of the policy. This decision could affect my career as a personnel manager, as well as the organization if the breach became public. I would try to compromise on the time, but would not let the files leave the office. I would need to consider how employees would be affected if their personal and employment performance information got into the hands of unauthorized personnel. As long as the files are in my office, I am responsible for the integrity of the information, however, if they leave the personnel department, I have no control over what happens to them.

A privacy in the workplace is a right of all employees of the organization. According to Westerholm (2011),  “Privacy may be invaded and confidentiality violated by revealing or releasing information that can be used to identify or expose a person to unwanted or even hostile reactions or responses from others”. Privacy in the workplace, therefore, is individual employees’ right to the integrity of their personal information and their rights to get the information protected from unauthorized access. That is the reason why company policies need to be created, monitored and adhered to by all employees. Information needs to be used for the purpose it was obtained for, and kept only for as long as necessary. Personal information, medical, performance and family records should only be shared with departments whose work is relevant to the issue. Therefore, privacy in the workplace is a measure that is based on ethical and moral principles to provide protection for all employees from exposing confidential information to unauthorized people and to restrict access to private records within the organization.

References

Hafner, K. (2006) Philanthropy Google’s way: Not the usual. The New York Times. Published: September 14, 2006

Lim, C. (2007) Google.org, for-profit charitable entity: Another smart decision by Google? 17 Ks. J. L. & Pub. Pol’y 28 (Fall 2007)

Westernholm, P. (2011) Ethical issues: Information and confidentiality. in 19. Ethical Issues, Coppée, Georges H., Editor, Encyclopedia of Occupational Health and Safety, Jeanne Mager Stellman, Editor-in-Chief. International Labor Organization, Geneva