Journal of Business Ethics

, Volume 85, Issue 4, pp 453–478 | Cite as

Google, Human Rights, and Moral Compromise

  • George G. BrenkertEmail author


International business faces a host of difficult moral conflicts. It is tempting to think that these conflicts can be morally resolved if we gained full knowledge of the situations, were rational enough, and were sufficiently objective. This paper explores the view that there are situations in which people in business must confront the possibility that they must compromise some of their important principles or values in order to protect other ones. One particularly interesting case that captures this kind of situation is that of Google and its operations in China. In this paper, I examine the situation Google faces as part of the larger issue of moral compromise and integrity in business. Though I look at Google, this paper is just as much about the underlying or background views Google faces that are at work in business ethics. In the process, I argue the following: First, the framework Google has used to respond to criticisms of its actions does not successfully or obviously address the important ethical issues it faces. Second, an alternative ethical account can be presented that better addresses these ethical and human rights questions. However, this different framework brings the issue of moral compromise to the fore. This is an approach filled with dangers, particularly since it is widely held that one ought never to compromise one’s moral principles. Nevertheless, I wish to propose that there may be a place for moral compromise in business under certain conditions, which I attempt to specify.


censorship China Google human rights moral compromise 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Amnesty International 2006 Undermining Freedom of Expression in China. London: Amnesty International UKGoogle Scholar
  2. Anonymous 2006a The Party, the People and the Power of Cyber-talk. The Economist 379: 27–30Google Scholar
  3. Anonymous: 2006b, ‘Amnesty International Blasts Yahoo, Microsoft, Google for China Dealings’, July 21, 2006
  4. Anonymous: 2006c, ‘Internet Censorship in the People’s Republic of China’, Downloaded September 22, 2006
  5. Barnett, R.: 2005, ‘How Business Ethics Failed Corporate America’, November 3, 2005
  6. Benditt, T. M.: 1979, ‘Compromising Interests and Principles’, in J. R. Pennock and J. W. Chapman (eds.), Compromise in Ethics, Law and Politics, NOMOS XXI (New York University Press, New York), pp. 26–37Google Scholar
  7. Benjamin M. 1990. Splitting the Difference: Compromise and Integrity in Ethics and Politics. Lawrence, KS: University of Kansas PressGoogle Scholar
  8. Bridis, T.: 2006, ‘Brin Says Google Compromised Principles’, Downloaded September 21, 2006
  9. Bowden, T. A.: 1999. ‘Blacklists are not Censorship’,
  10. Business Leaders Initiative on Human Rights: n.d., ‘A Guide for Integrating Human Rights into Business Management’, Accessed September 22, 2006
  11. Business and Human Rights Resource Center: 2006, ‘Google Response Regarding Amnesty International Action on Censorship in China’, Accessed February 25, 2008
  12. CNN: 2006, ‘Web Firms Criticized over China’, July 20, 2006
  13. Congressional Executive Commission: 2006, ‘Freedom of Expression, Speech and the Press’, Accessed May 8, 2008
  14. De George, R. 1991 Green and Everybody’s Doing It. Business Ethics Quarterly 1(1): 95–100CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. De George R. T. 1993 Competing with Integrity in International Business. New York: Oxford University PressGoogle Scholar
  16. De George R. T. 1999 Business Ethics. Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-HallGoogle Scholar
  17. Delaney, K. J.: 2006, ‘Google to Launch Service in China’, Wall Street Journal, January 25, p. B2Google Scholar
  18. Donaldson T. 1989. The Ethics of International Business. New York: Oxford University PressGoogle Scholar
  19. Donaldson T., T. W. Dunfee 1999. Ties that Bind. Boston: Harvard University PressGoogle Scholar
  20. Green R. M. 1991. When is “Everyone’s Doing It” a Moral Justification? Business Ethics Quarterly 1(1): 75–93CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Halfon M. S. 1989. Integrity: A Philosophical Inquiry. Philadelphia: Temple University PressGoogle Scholar
  22. Hampshire S. 1983. Morality and Conflict. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University PressGoogle Scholar
  23. Human Rights Watch: 2006, ‘Race to the Bottom’, Vol. 18, No. 8(C) (August), Accessed May 8, 2008
  24. Internet Society of China: 2002, ‘Public Pledge of Self-Regulation and Professional Ethics for China Internet Industry’, Accessed August 14, 2006
  25. Joint NGO Letter in Response to Interim Report: 2006, Accessed May 8, 2008
  26. Kavka G. S. 1983. When Two ‘Wrongs’ Make a Right: An Essay on Business Ethics. Journal of Business Ethics 2: 61–66CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Khan, I.: 2006, Amnesty International Letter to John Ruggie (April 27, 2006)Google Scholar
  28. Kirby, C.: 2005, ‘Chinese Internet vs. Free Speech. Hard Choices for U.S. Tech Giants’, San Francisco Chronicle, Downloaded August 28, 2006
  29. Kirchgaessner, S.: 2006, ‘Yahoo Wants United Front on China Censorship’, (February 13, 2006.,s01=1.html
  30. Kuflik, A.: 1979, ‘Morality and Compromise’, in J. R. Pennock and J. W. Chapman (eds.), Compromise in Ethics, Law and Politics, NOMOS XXI (New York University Press, New York), pp. 38–65Google Scholar
  31. Leisinger, K.: 2006, ‘On Corporate Responsibility for Human Rights’, Basel (April)Google Scholar
  32. Ma, Y.: 2006, ‘Google “Congress and Hypocrisy’’, Accessed February 25, 2008
  33. Paine, L. S.: 1994, ‘Managing for Organizational Integrity’, Harvard Business Review March–April, 106–117Google Scholar
  34. Pan, P. P.: 2006, ‘The Click that Broke a Government’s Grip’, Washington Post February 19, p. A01Google Scholar
  35. Parr, M.: 2006, ‘Google’s China Problem and China’s Google Problem’, New York Times Magazine (April 23, 2006), pp. 64–71, 86, 154, 155, 156Google Scholar
  36. Pennock, J. R. and J. W. Chapman (eds.): 1979, Compromise in Ethics, Law and Politics, NOMOS XXI (New York University Press, New York)Google Scholar
  37. Principles of International Law Recognized in the Charter of the Nürnberg Tribunal and in the Judgment of the Tribunal: 1950, Accessed April 13, 2008
  38. Rand A. 1964. The Virtue of Selfishness. New York: The New American Library, IncGoogle Scholar
  39. Rasch, M.: 2005, ‘Human Rights and Wrongs Online’,
  40. Reporters Without Borders: 2006a, ‘Google Launches Censored Version of Its Search-Engine’, Downloaded January 25, 2006
  41. Reporters Without Borders: 2006b, ‘Joint Investor Statement on Freedom of Expression and the Internet’, Accessed February 25, 2008
  42. Rudolf, G.: 2003, ;Censorship of the Internet’, (July 18, 2006)
  43. Santoro M. A. 1998. Engagement with Integrity: What We Should Expect Multinational Firms to do About Human Rights in China. Business & the Contemporary World X(1), 25–54Google Scholar
  44. Schrage, E.: 2002, ‘Why CSR is a Corporate Governance Challenge’, Ethical Performance (October 1, 2002)Google Scholar
  45. Schrage, E.: 2006, ‘Testimony of Google Inc. Before the Subcommittee on Asia and the Pacific, and the Subcommittee on Africa, Global Human Rights, and International Operations’, Accessed February 15, 2006 (11 pages)
  46. Sher G. 1981. Subsidized Abortion: Moral Rights and Moral Compromise. Philosophy & Public Affairs 10(4): 361–372Google Scholar
  47. Solely L. 2002. Censorship, Inc. New York: Monthly Review PressGoogle Scholar
  48. Smith, C.: 2006, ‘Internet Should not Become Tool of Repression, Lawmaker Says’, Accessed February 25, 2008
  49. Thompson, C.: 2006, ‘Google’s China Problem (and China’s Google Problem)’, The New York Times (April 23)Google Scholar
  50. UN Global Compact: n.d., ‘The Ten Principles’, Accessed May 8, 2008
  51. UN Global Compact/Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights (UNHCHR): 2004, Embedding Human Rights in Business Practice (New York)Google Scholar
  52. Vogel D. 2006. The Market for Virtue. Washington, DC: The Brookings Institution PressGoogle Scholar
  53. Walzer M. 1973. Political Action: The Problem of Dirty Hands. Philosophy & Public Affairs 2(2), 160–180Google Scholar
  54. Williams B. 1972. Morality: An Introduction to Ethics. New York, Harper and RowGoogle Scholar
  55. Williams B. 1985. Ethics and the Limits of Philosophy. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University PressGoogle Scholar
  56. Wu, T.: 2005, ‘The Filtered Future’, Accessed February 25, 2008

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.WashingtonU.S.A.

Personalised recommendations