Apple's big bet on consumer trust and privacy

The Apple Watch understandably took the limelight at Apple's big launch event today. But what is becoming increasingly clear is that to really understand the company we need to see it as so much more than simply a technology company. And we have to look beyond its products, however alluring they might be.

Nowhere is this more evident than in the area of corporate responsibility. For much of the past few years, the corporate responsibility community has been focusing hard on Apple's product supply chain. And for good reason, with a spate of labour violations plaguing the company (most recently from the BBC in December last year) despite some impressive commitments to responsible sourcing. But with the launch of the Apple Watch and its extended capabilities for health monitoring, research and diagnosis, along with the rapid growth of its Apple Pay system, it is the company's capabilities in data management and security that will likely define its reputation for corporate responsibility over the next decade.

As Tim Crook noted at the launch, the Apple Watch is "the most personal product we've ever made". It is not only wearable but collects real time data on users' health and fitness, enables them to make contactless payment direct from their financial services provider, and provides the possibility for a host of other applications relying on personal data. Keeping all of this data private and secure is going to be a big test for the company. Their success now will rely just as much on maintaining the trust of their consumers as it will on wowing them with cool new gadgets.

Apple is not alone in this of course. Other technology companies such as Facebook, Sony, Microsoft and Google have already learnt to their cost the necessity for maintaining the confidence of their customers in terms of privacy and security. Apple has had its own scares with breaches of its iCloud service, but its exposure to data security risks are only going to accelerate now that it is going increasingly personal. Apple is now not just in the technology industry but also in financial services and health services where the privacy and security concerns are accentuated even further.

Apple is making a big bet on consumer trust because it has a strong reputation for digital security already (say, compared to Microsoft) and it has less of the challenges in managing privacy compared to some of its others competitors. This is because it does not rely on ad revenue (and therefore intimate knowledge of its consumers) to drive profitability, unlike say, Google and Facebook. So it is already out ahead in many important respects. Whether it can maintain that pole position will remain to be seen. But what is clear is that Apple's reputation for corporate responsibility, and indeed its success in personal devices and services more generally, will increasingly be won and lost in the area of consumer trust and privacy rather than product design and execution alone.

Image copyright Martin Hajek. Reproduced under Creative Commons Licence. 

How Apple and Facebook have taken gender discrimination to a new level

Over the last week or so we have seen a vibrant debate unfolding after the announcement of Apple and Facebook’s latest benefit: Female employees can store and freeze their eggs on the company’s dime so that they can postpone pregnancy beyond the phase where they might want to just focus on their careers.

I put the case up for debate in my undergraduate classes on business ethics this week. It was a fascinating experience. To start, we assessed the upshot. There is a surge of female professionals who attempt at pregnancy in their forties and thus a surge in in-vitro fertilization and a host of other avenues to late motherhood luckily provided by progress in obstetrics these days. But there is also a fair number of women who just have to suck it up that by the time they can put their head around having babies, that ship has sailed.

Here, such an offer seems to be a big benefit. You can progress in an environment where your commitment to the job is 24/7 – like your male colleagues – and still enjoy motherhood at a later stage. And your babies will be built out of genetic material that is as good as it would have been had you dared at the impossible of merging both, career and motherhood. This policy indeed provides women with more options, more choice to freely decide what to do with their lives, their careers and their aspirations at the personal level.

But upon further scrutiny, my students unearthed three major problems. The first is fairly obvious: what is offered as an ‘option’ by the company may quickly become the ‘default’. What will happen now at Google if a 32 year old women tells her boss she wants to go on maternity leave? Given the options, she makes a statement clear and loud that she prefers her personal priorities over the company’s. In organizations, rules prescribe roles. This new option potentially excludes motherhood from what a ‘high potential’, future executive at Google should prioritize in her most fertile years.

A second focus of discussion turned out to unveil the unsaid. What about the male role in child bearing and rearing? The tacit assumption of such a policy seems to be that not a single of Apple or Facebook’s male employees will ever need similar help or support in his career because of having children. In some ways then the policy just reflects rather problematic gender stereotypes: mothers get distracted from their careers by having children; fathers just carry on as if nothing has happened. Yes, there are different biological constraints on women; but having and rearing a child also totally involves the father – unless he is a complete moron (or Google and Facebook’s model employee?). Fair enough, Facebook also extends an option to male employees to freeze their sperms: after all, a significant threat to post-40 pregnancy is not the female egg, but increasingly the deterioration of male sperm at that age. But the message is the same: postpone that baby business!

Which leads to a third objection which cuts to a deeper level. The age between 25 and 35 for a woman is the phase where biologically motherhood is the most likely. It is also the phase where most women are at the prime of their adulthood: mature enough to make tough life choices on partners and lifestyles, but also vibrant and physically energetic enough to dedicate full energy to their pursuits. By offering this option, aren’t Apple and Facebook just saying: ‘Give us the best years of your life, your kids can put up with whatever is left of you at a later stage’?

One of my students put it more bluntly: ‘If you translated this policy to other forms of discrimination in the workplace, such as racial discrimination, this would amount to saying to black people: “Look, you are very welcome here, but just to make it easier, we offer you this cream that will make your skin as white as everybody else’s here.”’ This new benefit essentially offers to a woman to be just like her male colleagues, happily stripped of all her female ‘impediments’. In some ways, that is gender discrimination at its worst.

Apple and Facebook deserve praise to recognize a common and pressing problem. Admittedly, they have policies regarding maternity benefits and childcare that are better than most other American companies. But the moral imagination they applied to this particular solution falls short of the creativity that made them billion dollar companies. If they are willing to throw $20,000 at the problem, why not offer more choice to both female and male employees? The women  (and men) contributing to the company are not just ‘human resources’ ready for maximum exploitation.

DM

Artwork by Keoni Kabral, reproduced under the Creative Commons License.

The “IT-Industrial Complex”

A while ago we commented on whistleblowing in the context of Edward Snowdon’s revelation of the current practices of the NSA. The entire story though is much bigger and has been ongoing for a while now. Just Monday this week, Glenn Greenwald’s partner got detained at London’s Heathrow Airport in a rather unusual manner. Greenwald, as most of us will know, is the journalist who was contacted by Snowdon and has been publishing the crucial pieces of Snowdon’s material in The Guardian.

While in essence the ongoing revelations have the political sphere as the key target, it now more and more emerges that the role of private businesses is far bigger than so far known. From the perspective of scholars interested in business ethics then this case, as it unfolds, raises some rather daunting questions, which – besides being troubling from a normal citizen’s point of view – offer some challenging questions for further research.

1. A new industry

Ever since the Washington Post published Top Secret America we are aware of the fast growing security industry which was created by the US Government in the aftermath of the terror attacks of 2001. What was not that clear is however how far the reach of this industry has gone.

The fact that phone companies provide their records to the NSA, that in principle all our email traffic is public and stored somewhere - just to name a few aspects - takes the entire debate to a new level. It now emerged that in fact most wireless phone providers, many internet service providers (including Google and Facebook) share data with the NSA, as do many classic IT hard- and software producer such as Apple and Microsoft.

When these revelations were made it was conspicuous to see the rather muted reaction of these companies. For long we thought that Google, certainly in their varied approaches to Chinese censorship struggled for an ethical approach here; with regard to their own government though very little of these, in essence similar, concerns obviously played a role. The main defense of these companies overly seems to be the need of compliance. While that argument might carry some way, it is not understandable how for instance Apple, who as a ‘footloose’ company manages to deal with ‘compliance’ to tax legislation in very creative ways just caves in with regard to the privacy of their ‘users’ when the NSA asks for access to their accounts.

So what we see here is not only the emergence of a new industrial sector, which combines rather diverse set of companies (see the list of companies in Top Secret America); it is also not clear anymore where the lines between private business and public administration/government lie. After all Snowdon himself was employed by a private company many of us would primarily remember as a strategy consulting firm (Booz Allen Hamilton). While the blurring of lines between sectors is nothing new, the level and dimensions of the 'securocracy' currently dismantling in front of our eyes in the context of the NSA takes it clearly to a new level.

2. The business model and its ethical implications

Ethical issues in the IT industry have garnered attention for a while in business ethics. Given the numerous court cases, for instance Google and Facebook had to weather recently in the US and Europe it is clear though, that with the growth of the internet and the degree, to which the internet is morphing into a social space, many more questions will arise.

Given that we now know that Google, Facebook, Apple and others are not only basically supplying the government with information but have been monitoring, searching, and organizing our data all long it raises some new questions. In particular it raises the question about the very essence of their business model from an ethical perspective.

Lets stick to the Facebook example. We are told that basically the company will make its money through advertising. Looking at the pathetically annoying adds on our Facebook feeds, for instance, the question really is whether this is the whole story? $800bn for some potentially ingenious advertising platform?

As Facebook ‘users’ we know that we are not their customers. We are their suppliers. What they ultimately want to ‘sell’ is information. This, rather than advertising, is ultimately the business case. This similarly applies to Google, Yahoo, Apple and other who store and ‘use’ many of the data we create through our various internet usages. Most of it is ‘free’ so far, yet still these companies are worth billions of dollars.

This raises some questions, which admittedly can easily be confounded with conspiracy theories. The most important of which is that under the post 9/11 legislation the ‘harvesting’ of our data which for long had been prohibited, is now in full swing. These companies are not primarily in the business of social media, web search or email hosting – they are sources of data about the most intimate details of our lives. While this was always clear to those who bothered to read the small print of the ‘Terms and Conditions’ of these companies, it emerges more and more that this is not just material of value for marketing purposes.

Just today we read in The Guardian that in fact many IT companies such as Facebook, Google, Yahoo, and Microsoft made millions out of providing the NSA with our data. The euphemistic term for this is to see it as a reimbursement for ‘compliance costs’ – but from the perspective of those companies’ CFOs, what else is this other than ‘revenue’? This is certainly the first hard proof that there are clear financial ties between the US government and these companies. But could this also be another hint at what the real business model of these companies is about?

3. The Political role of business

That corporations are political actors in societal governance beyond their direct economic role is by now well established. Looking at the IT-industrial complex though adds some aspects. First, and very much on the surface, it strikes one to see the close ties between senior executives in the industry and the current US government. Eric Schmidt (Google CEO) had and still has key roles in the Obama administration to the degree Google has been called the 'Halliburton of the Obama Administration'; Sheryl Sandberg (Facebook CFO) worked for years in Washington, most notably with Larry Summers.

These are just two examples. Looking at the ferocious reaction to whistleblowers recently, one cannot overlook the commonality of interests between the US ‘government’ and the IT industry. Obama winning a second election was seen by many as a proof that maybe – despite of new campaign financing laws for corporations – business influence on politics is limited and that money alone cant buy campaigns and determine election outcomes. But maybe Obama’s re-election is just THE showcase of what ‘Citizens United’ has done: it got the very president elected whose campaign was crucially supported by Silicon Valley, but whose government now appears to be all long deeply engaged and intermingled with this new industrial network.

As business ethics scholars we see here a new opportunity for research. It is foremost about understanding the structure and value creation models of this industry. But it is also about evaluating the implications of these changes for our democracy, for how society is governed and what the rights and status of citizens in this context morphs into. In short, it is a research field rife with ethical question and issues.

Artwork by Susanne Waldau-te Brake, reproduced under the Creative Commons License

Top 10 Corporate Responsibility Stories of 2011

It's that time of year again when we consider the big news events around corporate responsibility during the past twelve months. It has undoubtedly been a significant year, with some stories potentially having a huge impact on future corporate responsibility practice or government policy. Nuclear accidents, protests galore, high level corruption - there's been a lot of ugliness again this year. But sometimes you've got to go down before you can go up. Let's hope 2011 will be looked back on as the year that business finally woke up to the new realities of corporate responsibility.

1. Fukushima nuclear disaster
As with the BP oil leak in 2010, no corporate responsibility story dominated the media in the same way that Fukushima did. And for good reason. The world's second worst nuclear disaster (after Chernobyl) slammed home just how risky the nuclear industry could be. Tokyo Electric Power (TEPCO), the company operating the plant, has had to shoulder a lot of the blame for its shoddy risk management, poor planning and siting, falsified safety records, governance procedures, and lots more besides. Its now mired in debt, awaiting either nationalization or a government bail-out. Japanese regulators meanwhile failed in providing adequate oversight, in large part due to overly cosy relations with the energy industry. Not surprising then that Fukushima also had huge impacts more broadly, most notably in a massive swing away from nuclear in the clean energy debate. Germany for one has made a 180 degree switch away from nuclear. Really this was the mother of all corporate responsibility disasters in 2011.

2. The 'Occupy' movement
Starting with Los Indignados in Spain, gradually hitting the headlines with Occupy Wall Street, and then turning into a global phenomenon, the Occupy Movement thrust social equity and democracy into the corporate responsibility debate like never before. We've had anti-capitalism protests before, but the Occupy Movement took a much more focused aim at the titans of the financial sector, and kept an unlikely conversation going for months. The challenges the unruly movement posed for business may not always have been crystal clear, but they've struck such a chord with the general public, and even among senior business leaders, that they can't just be ignored. Demands for tax justice, banking regulation, and more controls on corporate political influence have all received a fillip by the movement. Who know's? Maybe in time, the legacy of Occupy for corporate responsibilty may even surpass that of Fukushima.

3. News International phone hacking scandal
Few corporate responsibility stories can claim the scalp of an entire business, but the closing of the UK newspaper the News of the World, and the arrest of its editor, Rebekah Brooks, in July of 2011 showed just how significant the phone hacking story surrounding News International had become. When the story also took the scalp of the UK's most senior police officer, and landed veteran media mogul Rupert Murdoch in a Parliamentary inquiry, the reverberations were felt near and far. We like our journalists to pursue truth. But when they cross the line and illegally tap the private phones of bereaved families, it's clearly time for a clean up in the media. On the bright side, the story was broken, and vigorously investigated over several years, by the Guardian newspaper. So while we may not trust journalists all that much any more (if we ever did), the story also demonstrated the importance of a strong and independent media as a corporate responsibility watchdog.

4. FIFA's corruption own-goal
2011 was a bad year for integrity in sport. The Pakistani cricket betting scandal, the Sumo wrestling bout-fixing revelations, the Penn State University football coaching sex abuse case, the continued flow of scandals convulsing the Chinese Football Association and the Turkish Football Federation - few sports or countries have managed to come out looking clean. But rising above them all has been the FIFA corruption story, which more than any other sporting corruption story of 2011, demonstrated not just how deeply ingrained corruption is in sport but even how much it is embedded in sporting management and administration. The scandal has been rumbling on at least since 2010 when allegations about bought votes in the 2018 and 2022 World Cup hosting competition started pouring in. After bribery allegations, resignations, and an unopposed re-election of beleaguered FIFA chair Sepp Blatter, the organization finally looked to be getting itself back on track with an internal inquiry and a life-ban for the President of the Asian Football Confederation. But FIFA's proposed roadmap for tackling its integrity problems fell far short of the root and branch surgery that was necessary, and the recent withdrawal of Transparency International from the reform process demonstrates that the FIFA leadership still don't understand the basic principles of ethics management. Students of corporate responsibility need no better case study of how to get it all so wrong.

5. Raj Rajaratnam's insider trading trial
No list of corporate responsibility stories is complete without a big fish being caught. In 2010 we saw the sacking of HP CEO Mark Hurd for expense claims fraud. This year, we had a two-for-price-of-one bonanza with the trial of former hedge fund boss Raj Rajaratnam giving us a guilty verdict, 11 years in jail and a $10m fine for insider trading .... plus the charging of his friend and former McKinsey head Rajat Gupta with securities fraud for passing on insider information to Rajaratnam. As the New York Times said: "it was the longest-ever prison sentence for insider trading, [and] a watershed moment in the government’s aggressive two-year campaign to root out the illegal exchange of confidential information on Wall Street."

6. UBS and the not so 'rogue' trader
Another big story of personal ethical failure was the revelation back in September that UBS trader Kweku Adoboli had managed to lose the company a staggering $2.3bn in authorized trading. With a loss that big, this one makes the list on scale alone. But the real story here was not so much the ethical failings of Adoboli himself (though that clearly was one of the issues at play here), but the failure of UBS to manage the problem before it got out of hand, and the inherent risk-taking at the heart of the financial services industry. In desperate need to repair its flagging reputation, UBS subsequently accepted the resignation of its CEO and installed a new leader with a mandate to move into less risky and less complex investment banking.

7. Twitter revolutions and Blackberry riots
You know when your reputation is in good shape when you get associated with progressive political revolutions like the Arab Spring. After a government telecom crackdown in Egypt, companies like Twitter and Google found themselves center stage in the flourishing revolution. Switch to the ever declining fortunes of Canadian tech pioneers RIM and their Blackberry device, and all you get is an association with mindless looting in London. But whichever way you cut it, 2011 will indelibly be marked as the year that tech companies realized that for better or worse, social protest - and government response to protest - was an inevitable part of their business. Message to CR department: write a policy.

8. Michael Porter's popularization of 'Creating Shared Value'
It was certainly not the most popular article among CSR commentators, but Porter and Kramer's piece in the January issue of the Harvard Business Review on 'Creating Shared Value' has probably done more to get corporate responsibility issues into the boardroom than anything else written this year. Sure, it's simplistic, derivative, and takes cheap shots at a version of CSR that most us don't even recognize. But it's also compelling, endearingly positive, and says a lot of things that most of us have been trying to say for years without anyone taking much notice. Plus it couldn't be more prescient with its "capitalism is under siege" motif. Oh, and Michael Porter said it. So it must be true. Take it from us, CSV is here to stay.

9. Facebook's privacy adventures
There was little doubt back in January that Facebook would probably be hitting a whole bunch of corporate responsibility snags during the year. Once you get so big and popular, it is inevitable that the critics will start sharpening their knives. Greenpeace pushed hard on the coal powered energy issue and eventually scored a well-earned success. But the big issue dogging Facebook in 2011 was privacy. The tech giant wasn't alone since privacy and security continued to afflict a number of companies especially with the shift to cloud computing. But Facebook's privacy battles stand out simply because they affect so many of us and therefore mark the front line of the personal privacy battles with tech companies and regulators. Remarkably, despite a surge of criticism the company initially managed to stave off too big a hit on its business during the year. But last month's settlement with US regulators saw Facebook accused of "unfair and deceptive practices" and resulted in the company facing an extraordinary obligation to submit to independent privacy audits for the next 20 years. And late in December the Irish data protection commissioner gave Facebook 6 months to comply with a raft of new privacy measures for all of its non US and Canadian users. As a result the company has started adopting a far more conciliatory tone with its critics but the road ahead will be marked by yet more battles as we gradually move to some kind of a post-privacy future.

10. The tar sands failed ethical makeover
The year started with the Canadian Environment Minister seeking to make the seemingly indefensible case that the tar sands were an ethical source of oil because they came from a democratic country that respected human rights. The argument was designed to influence US and European policy makers in the run up to critical energy decisions during 2011 such as the controversial Keystone XL Pipeline plan which was designed to bring oil sands crude directly into the US, and the European Commission's deliberations over whether to label tar sands oil as a "dirty fuel" due to its higher carbon intensity. So far the Canadian government and the oil sands producers have failed to win the argument with the Keystone decision being postponed by President Obama and the EC approving the dirty fuel label, which also then attracted further backing from a similar initiative in the State of California. Recently the story has spiraled into the more absurd territory of a banana boycott. The announcement by fruit company Chiquita to reduce their use of tar sands oil in its fleet sparked a concerted campaign by Ethicaloil.org to boycott Chiquita for discriminating against Canada's "ethical oil". You couldn't make this stuff up.

Looking at the two stories book-ending our top ten - the seriousness of a world of nuclear disaster and increasingly dirty sources of conventional energy (such as the tar sands and gas fracking) - not to mention the erosion of privacy, a crisis in capitalism and the never ending scourge of corruption that populate the middle order, it is clear that the corporate responsibility stakes have never been higher. Next year promises to be more of the same.

Photo by IAEA Imagebank. Reproduced under Creative Commons Licence

Will privacy and security be critical differentiators in cloud computing?

The debut this week of Google's new web-only Chromebook laptop, coming hot on the heels of Sony's massive data security breach just a few weeks ago suggests that data security is becoming increasingly critical for the success of technology companies. Google, no stranger to accusations over infringements of privacy, is upping the ante with the release of a computer that, rather than running software and storing files on its own hard drive, will instead rely predominantly on cloud computing. Yes, that means everything that you'd usually keep stored on your laptop will actually be held somewhere in a vast data center run by Google ... and of course, everything that you do can be tracked and recorded because you're signed-in and doing it online.

Although the Chromebook itself may not become quite the challenger to Microsoft and their Windows operating system that Google hopes it will be, the shift to cloud computing (which anyone using Picasa, Google Docs, Dropbox or numerous other applications is already very much part of) is sure to continue apace. But cloud computing raises a number of troubling ethical issues. On the one hand there are the environmental problems associated with running servers capable of storing such huge amounts of data. And then, of course, there are the privacy and data security issues that are faced by any company storing so much personal data online.

In recent weeks, consumers have been made all too aware of these privacy and security issues because of several high profile data disasters. Last month, for example, Amazon, which has been a leader in cloud computing, was forced to shut down its service for several days. A number of companies using its services were paralyzed and some even lost potentially valuable data. Then Sony's travails with hackers reached a new zenith when the company was forced to concede that more than 20,000 of users of its online gaming system had their financial details stolen. Osama bin Laden even got in on the action when a swath of spam Facebook messages purporting to be photos and videos recording the death of the former Al Qaeda leader turned out, according to the Financial Times, to be malicious malware designed to phish for passwords and financial data from infected computers. Ironically, even as we tried to publish this post, Blogger experienced a service disruption that meant that we were unable to publish for more than 24 hours. So much for the instantaneity of social media! All of this added up to bad news for technology companies looking to convince customers of the safety and security of their products and services.

This then raises the question of whether data security and privacy protection will increasingly become critical areas of competition between leading technology companies, especially those relying on cloud computing, rather than just being a kind of necessary evil for everyone concerned. Microsoft, whose operating systems and internet software had long been plagued with security problems, certainly seemed to be thinking this way when it launched its Windows 7 operating system. The company has long been compared unfavourably in terms of security to Apple's Mac OS - but appears to have regained some ground with its latest version. But as more and more personal data moves to the cloud, and companies like Facebook and Google become increasingly involved in recording, using and selling data related to our usage stats and preferences, this is likely to affect a wider range of companies ... and potentially in an even more significant way. Yesterday's revelations that Facebook employed a leading PR company to plant negative stories in the media about Google's privacy policies gives some indication of just how high the stakes are becoming. And nothing focuses corporate attention more than the threat of multiple lawsuits, which is the latest ignominy faced by Sony in the fall-out from its hacking attack.

Despite all this, there are still reasons to doubt whether security and privacy will ever become major differentiators in the battle for technology market share. Unlike speed, performance and design, security is a tricky intangible that is difficult to evaluate up front. And besides, despite their criticisms of technology companies, most end users in practice tend to display a fairly carefree disregard for security issues, and even for their own privacy protection. After all, how many people actually read all of those terms and conditions when they download another Facebook app or install a new piece of software? With commercial users the equation is different, of course, but for the average Joe, security is a concern but not one that yet impacts significantly on their technology choices.

In the end, a better way of looking at this might be for technology companies to start looking at privacy and security as pre-competitive issues. That is, rather than competing on the quality of their privacy protections, why not collaborate with one another to improve standards across the industry. After all, a major hack at Sony, an outage at Amazon, or a spate of malware at Facebook threaten the reputation for security across the board not just for the individual company that is targeted. Problems at one company can spell reputational damage for the industry as a whole. Sure, healthy competition can drive innovation in new security systems. But so too can healthy cooperation. And in the long run it might just be more effective, and provide a better service for skeptical consumers unsure of how far they want to put their trust in tech companies.

Picture by samplereality. Reproduced under Creative Commons licence.

Egypt and the revolutionaries with MBA degrees

Like many of you we have been glued at times to the TV screens these last days. Seeing the masses assembling on Tahrir Square in Cairo asking for a peaceful transition to democracy in one of the biggest Arab nations is something of a watershed. For too long we in the West were just used to taking for granted that, well, if it comes to politics, the Arab world is a wholly different story. And the botched attempts to parachute ‘democracy’ into Afghanistan and Iraq seemed to underline this notion.

But now, the chips on the table seem to be mixed for a whole new round. This being a business ethics blog, lets first work through some of those issues with regard to recent developments in Egypt. Let’s look at the upshot. The current revolution would not have been possible without new media –or social networking companies. Twitter, Google, Facebook were instrumental in coordinating, organizing and network the protest movement. All of which, of course, are private companies.

We think it’s a good time to give Google some credit – especially as we have taken them to task in some of or our earlier blogs every now and then. One of their executives actually became a leader in the movement, which so far has shown little signs of a coordinated effort. Google – symbolically represented by Wael Ghonim, their marketing executive for the Middle East, has become a pivotal player in the ‘revolution’ in Egypt. The support of social media has been vital – even after the Egyptian government closed down internet communication. It was then when Twitter opened the ‘SayNow’ feature, allowing sending messages via telephone. As Ghonim pointed out himself in an interview with ABC's 60 Minutes program, much of the pressure to free him from his 12 days in solitary confinement by the Egyptian police came from his employer Google itself. All in all then, we have seen private businesses ‘enabling’ civil and political rights, much along the lines of one our most cited papers.

In a similar vein, some companies have also collected some shame. Vodafone’s network was used by the existing Egyptian authorities to send compulsory messages to their users in support of the system. Vodafone’s explanations do not sound very convincing. When has a major multinational accepted an abuse of their assets lately? Looking at the way Vodafone has managed its business so far, not at least the vociferous determination it applied to their takeover of Mannesmann in Germany years ago, their complicity in this approach sounds less than convincing. Framing themselves as a helpless victim just doesn’t wash.

Leaning back and comparing the current uprising in Egypt (and other Arab countries) to, say the fall of Communism in Eastern Europe 20 years ago, there are some remarkable differences now. Apart from such accidental leaders like Wael Ghonim – who does not intend to play a bigger role in Egyptian politics and just wants to go back to work – it really was a ‘leaderless rebellion’. No particular persons, organisations, ideologies or religious groups can be identified to have fuelled the process. Ghonim told ABC’s 60 Minutes program that ‘we don’t understand politics’. He is not a trade unionist (like Poland’s Lech Walesa), nor a writer or artist (such as the Czech Vaclav Havel), but a marketing executive with an MBA from the American University in Cairo. The MBA as a degree which provides skills for being a revolutionary? – who would have thought!

The success of the movement seems to lie in a combination of people agreeing on a minimal demand (to get rid of Mubarak) and a new set of very efficient tools (social media) to coordinate this effort. Internet and mobile communication played a pivotal role, not at least also because it allowed considerable exchange of knowledge and experience among a global group of activists in Tunisia, Serbia and the US. Pragmatism and access to new forms of information sharing seem to be the two crucial ingredients of this latest revolution.

This said, some big questions however are yet to be answered. First, will this movement spread? Today’s news from Iran, Yemen, Bahrain seem to point in this direction, but it appears that those regimes tend to be more ready and unequivocal in their resort to using force against the protesters. The second question of course points to – however spectacular the fall of Mubarak by peaceful means may be – what will succeed these regimes? To build democracy will take time and allowing people elections is just a first step. Signs are that the new Egyptian politics stays on its pragmatic course: Where else have we ever seen the revolutionaries coming back to their square of victory and, after their job of toppling the regime was done, cleaning up with broom and shovel the garbage left behind by peaceful protest?

Photo by Ahmad Hammoud. Reproduced under Creative Commons Licence

Business ethics more culturally significant than CSR ... but not everywhere

'Business ethics' and "corporate social responsibility" are two terms that are often used interchangeably, but at the same time represent somewhat different lenses on business practice. Ethics, of course, is always concerned with norms and values, and is basically about what is right and wrong. CSR on the other hand may be about these things, but doesn't have to be - lots of people take a purely economic or strategic approach to CSR without any real consideration of the normative dimensions. CSR is also, as might be expected, a lot more business-friendly than business ethics. In fact, people often tend to use CSR when they're talking about the good things companies are doing, and business ethics (or a lack of them) when talking about the bad things they do. There are other differences too, but we'll save the definitional niceties for another day.

The point is that the term you use is not always just arbitrary. And the two have a very different heritage even if they have broadly similar concerns. As a professor of business ethics (Crane) and a professor of corporate social responsibility (Matten), and co-authors of textbooks on both subjects, we often get asked which is the most important, which is the most popular subject at university, and why we do we need more than one term to describe the same thing? So we were pleased to discover the new gizmo from Google that lets you easily and quickly do a simple analysis of the cultural significance of different words and phrases. The Ngram viewer from Google Labs plots the incidence of specific terms over the last 200 years in more than 5 million digitally scanned fiction and non-fiction books. It may not let you do anything very sophisticated from a research point of view, but it is incredibly easy and fun to use.

So we plugged "business ethics", "corporate social responsibility" in, and for good measure added "corporate responsibility" and "sustainable business". The results, shown above, relate to books published in English from 1900 to 2008 (the last year provided by the data). As you can see, CSR only really emerged post 1960, whilst business ethics has enjoyed more than a century of cultural dominance, with particular peaks around the crash and depression of 1929-1930, and the financial scandals of 2000. And CR was actually a preferred term to CSR in books until around 2001.

By the looks of things, the dominance of business ethics could be coming to an end though. CSR and corporate responsibility have become increasingly more used - especially in the last decade which has seen an exponential growth in their incidence. Saying that, we'll see if the most recent financial scandals see another resurgence of business ethics post 2008 as the last data points on the graphs might seem to suggest.

An interesting feature of the tool is that you can distinguish between books published in English in the US and books published in English in the UK (as well as books published in non-English languages). And here, we were intrigued to see that in UK publications, CSR has already overtaken business ethics as you can see in the graph below.

In fact, in UK books, business ethics in general has not achieved anything like the cultural significance it appeared to in the first graph. Until the early1980s corporate responsibility was actually the dominant term.

Looking then to US books (see below), we can see that it is here that business ethics particularly stands out - albeit with a mid 1970s blip when corporate responsibility overtook it. Even as late as 2008, business ethics still dominates by quite a gap, although this is clearly narrowing over time.

The US emphasis on individual ethics versus the European focus on system-level responsibilities is something we've discussed at some length in our Business Ethics textbook. Plus the UK has been very much at the vanguard of the CSR movement. So these graphs don't come as a complete surprise. Still, it's interesting to see the data set out so starkly. That said, there are clearly some limitations to the Ngram methodology, as has been widely discussed. Still, there is clearly food for thought in here. And, of course, we're sure there are a whole lot of other corporate responsibility analyses that can be conducted with the tool. Do let us know of any interesting ones you come across.

Top 10 Corporate Responsibility Stories of 2010

Mermaids protesting the BP oil spill. Photo by Johnathaneric.

 It's been a big year for corporate responsiblity. A huge oil spill, continued ructions in the financial sector, landmark decisions in the courts, and a new dawn for online companies around human rights issues. It is never easy to pick the most important stories of the year. Some get huge coverage simply because they feature big brand companies. Some hardly even scratch the public consciousness despite having major implications. In other cases, it can be difficult to determine accurately what their long-run significance will be.

But here in the Crane and Matten control room, we've put our heads together to come up with what we regards as the top 10 corporate responsibility stories of the year. These are the events that we think will have the most lasting impact on the field. But it was a hard choice - narrowly missing the cut were the 10 year anniversary of the Global Compact, the FIFA World Cup corruption scandal, Unilever's "Sustainable Living" plan, Apple's labour violations, Wal-Mart's latest announcements on sustainable agriculture, Jerome Kerviel's massive fine, and American Apparel's rollercoaster ride through 2010, among others.

But, hey, not everyone can be a "winner". So if you think we're worng, or if we've missed off your biggest story of the year, do let us know. And while you're at it, take a moment to complete our poll on the right to help us find the top stories according to our readers.Here, though, is our top 10.

1. BP's oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico
Deepwater Horizon was one of the world's largest ever oil spills, and understandably this story absolutely dominated 2010. Not only did it put a final nail in the coffin for BP's once vaunted sustainability reputation, but it heralded a major rethink about the viability of deep sea drilling. BP didn't cover itself in glory by failing to come up with a realistic remedy until far too late - and ended up picking up most of the tab, thereby putting paid to the usual assumption that pollution is simply an 'externality' of business. Really, this was the mother of all corporate responsibility crises in 2010.  

2. Google's battle for free speech
Google's withdrawal from China at the beginning of the year was a landmark decision in the battle for free speech on the web. A real clash of titans, no other story this year illustrated better the clash between government and big business around human rights issues. But Google's subsequent legal problems in Italy, where senior executives were convicted of privacy violations, demonstrated just how complicated this battle is going to be. 

3. WikiLeaks publication of the embassy cables
Who knows where this one will end up, or just what its long term significance will be for corporate responsibility? But it's hard to deny its significance as a major turning point in the fight for greater government transparency, and the contested role of the media and NGOs in bringing confidential information into the public realm. Heralded by some as the first great cyber war, the WikiLeaks maelstrom inevitably catapaulted online companies into the fray with predictably unpredictable results.   

4. Citizens United decision
The only court case to make it into the Top 10,  but according to President Obama the 5-4 decision by the US Supreme Court in Citizen's United vs Federal Election Committee "reversed a century of law" and "opened the floodgates" for corporations to play an ever greater role in US politics. According to the ruling, companies and other special interests can now spend as much as they like on influencing the outcome of elections. And why? Because despite their vast resources, companies should have rights to free speech on political matters the same as any other citizen. An historic ruling.

5. Toyota’s product safety recall
This case grabbed a lot of headlines in 2010, mostly because of the very scale of the recall and Toyota's previously unblemished safety reputation. This was a huge embarrasment for the Japanese car maker and showed up serious problems in the firm's management culture.

6. Bank bonuses 
Bank bonuses stayed in the headlines during 2010. Despite continued economic problems, huge public bailouts in Greece and Ireland, persistent unemployment, and widespread austerity measures, some banks managed to award bigger bonuses in 2010 than ever before.  No surprise that the public stayed angry with a bonus culture apparently so far removed from their day-to-day problems. But European regulators finally seemed to get the message with new guidelines released at the end of the year that looked set to dramatically change the bonus landscape across the entire continent.

Butcher in Haiti with food vouchers used to stimulate trade. Photo by DFID

7. Corporate response to the Haiti earthquake 
Few stories better illustrated the precarious role of business in international development than the corporate response to the Haiti earthquake back in January. The arrival of cruise ships full of vacationers represented for many the unacceptable face of corporate insensitivity and amoral consumerism. Yet, few denied that business had to be an essential ingredient in getting the stricken country back on its feet again. 

8. Greenpeace campaign against Sinar Mas palm oil 
Greenpeace won Ethical Corporation's campaigner of the year in 2010 for its work in combating deforestation. This was exemplified in the NGO's campaign against Indonesian palm oil producer Sinar Mas which saw them force Unilever, Nestle and others to cease buying from the company during the year. Greenpeace's spoof ad on YouTube for the Nestle chocolate bar Kit Kat went viral demonstrating how campaigners were effectively harnessing social media for anti-corporate protest. 

9. HP's termination of CEO Mark Hurd
Hewlett Packard has had its ethical ups and downs over the years, but few expected the company to follow through quite so severely when CEO Mark Hurd was found to have made fraudulent expense claims to cover up a relationship with a female contractor. Rejecting Hurd's offer to pay back the $20,000 he'd received for the claims, the highly regarded leader was ousted by the board for failing to live up to the company's code of conduct. This was an impressive commitment to ethical rules by anyone's standards. However, it angered many who thought the company was shooting itself in the foot. A tumbling stock price and Hurd's instatement at competitior Oracle showed how much pain there could be in doing the right thing.

10. India's 2G licence scandal
OK, so actually this happened in 2008, but it was only in the closing months of 2010 that the full extent of the 2G telecom spectrum licences scandal began to be revealed. In what some have called India's biggest scandal since independence, Telecommunications Minister Andimuthu Raja was forced to resign over allegations that he lost the Indian Government some $38 billion in revenues using an opaque permit system that was riven with corruption. Leaked tapes of secret phone calls with corporate lobbyists have poured oil on the fire. This could yet become India's Enron moment.

So that's our Top 10 for 2010. Doesn't make for particularly edifying reading, but it hasn't been all bad. In amongst the scandals and corruption there have been some genuine cases of ethical leadership in 2010, where companies like Google and HP have had to make some hard ethical choices that have cost them dear. No ne said corporate responsibility was easy.

Google in China (cont'd)

We have blogged in the past a couple of times about Google’s business operations in China and in the fresh from the press 3^rd Edition of our book we have an entire case (in Chapter 5) on the issue. In recent weeks this story has gotten a new instalment with Google’s reaction to hacker attacks on their Chinese based servers.

On the surface, Google’s decision to leave China and to base their operations in Hong Kong (which is not subject to the same censorship as mainland China) might make good business sense. After all China contributes only an estimated 1-2% to Google’s overall turnover and the attacks on their source code by (allegedly government employed ) Chinese hackers touches on vital commercial secrets of the company. And much of the lamented censorship in fact can also be seen as nothing more than a thinly disguised effort by the Chinese to favor local competitors against foreign providers, most notably the Chinese engine Baidu.

However, last week’s edition of the German magazine DER SPIEGEL raises some interesting further aspects of the case: ‘For the first time a Western company has dared to openly criticise Beijing’s comprehensive control of the Internet as a trade barrier and to draw consequences.’ The magazine in fact sees Google’s stance as nothing less than a new phase in geopolitics: ‘Now there is war: Google against China, a new transnational superpower against another new superpower which uses ... decades old means of power and oppression. The soft power of a gigantic agglomeration of knowledge faces the hard power of a classic nation state.’

This provides a remarkable context for Google’s recent decision. By relocating their operations they have done what many heads of state have not dared to raise with similar clarity: that censorship is fundamentally opposed to the core values of most Western democracies and that the Chinese approach, to put it neutrally, is not compatible with it. Given the substantial reactions to Google’s decision by their Chinese customers and supporters one could argue that Google has attempted something similar to those who gathered on Tiananmen Square 21 years ago (hence the title of DER SPIEGEL).

In this context it is largely irrelevant whether Google’s decision was just a sound business proposition. Even if so, it shows how globalization has transformed private companies in political players on the world stage. Though in all fairness, there is also ample ground to admire Google’s decision from an ethical perspective. After all, China remains a huge future market for internet services. As Google co-founder Sergey Brin said in an interview in DER SPIEGEL, his decision was also informed by his experiences of government harassment and violence growing up in the Soviet Union. So the Google case will continue to showcase some of the basic insights of business ethics: to marry ethical and economic constraints is a struggle and the choice is rarely between the good and the evil option, rather than between the lesser of two evils or the best of two good options.

Photo reproduced under Creative Commons license.

More on Google's growing political influence

When we reported yesterday on Google's recent spat with China we pointed to the growing political influence and power that the company was wielding. Anyone that takes on the Chinese Government must be pretty sure their political muscle.

One of our readers helpfully pointed us to a story by Chris O'Brien that ran in the Mercury News over the weekend, which throws more light on this trend, indicating how Google's spend on lobbying in Washington DC had mushroomed in recent years. O'Brien writes:

"In just five years, the search engine giant has gone from almost no presence in Washington to spending more money on lobbying than all but one other Silicon Valley company in 2009. And in the past three months, Google topped all other valley spenders."

The charts produced by the Mercury News show just how steep this curve has been, and how its lobbying expenditures are even starting to catch up with its fellow technology giants Microsoft and IBM:


The fact of Google's activities in DC is hardly surprising, but it is nice to get some detail behind the company's changing political status .... and to see just how much the company now sees policy makers as a key stakeholder. In a companion piece, O'Brien also takes a look at the changing face of the types of issues Google is lobbying on, and at some of the revolving doors between Google and the US government in terms of staffing. As he makes clear though, this is pretty much par for the course for a major multinational corporation - the point is not that Google is different (as it often likes to claim) but that it is essentially much the same. The big difference though is the speed of change, and the readiness with which Google has equipped itself for dealing with its political context - or as economists like to call it, the 'non-market environment'.

When we looked into our crystal ball at the beginning year, it looked likely that 2010 would be a pivotal year for Google in terms of corporate responsibility issues. There is every chance that with its growing power and the major impact it is having on industries such as media and publishing, a backlash could easily start to take off. However, the behind the scenes lobbying and the putative game-changing in China suggest that Google is reading the signs and seeking to head-off the critics before they can build up momentum. Getting this one right could be critical.


Figure copyright Mercury News

Google vs China: upping the ante on industrial espionage

One of the big business ethics stories of the last month has been Google's announcement in mid January of a 'new approach to China' following reported attacks on the company's IT infrastructure from inside the country. Google's announcement spoke of targeted attacks on the email accounts of known human rights activists, both within and outside China, as well as other security breaches of Google and 'at least 20 other large companies'. Whilst the announcement of this degree of hacking would have been cause for concern, the explicit link to the surveillance of advocates of human rights in China was positively incendiary. Google was not just talking about regular industrial espionage here but about state-sponsored spying for political purposes. So suddenly the company had launched itself into a diplomatic row - albeit one between a company and a government - rather than its usual commercial scrapes.

The announcement didn't just make the headlines because of Google's allegations though. The company dropped another huge bomb by declaring that it would no longer continue to operate a censored version of its search engine in China - despite being required to by the Chinese authorities. 'Over the next few weeks' the company announced, 'we will be discussing with the Chinese government the basis on which we could operate an unfiltered search engine within the law, if at all. We recognize that this may well mean having to shut down Google.cn, and potentially our offices in China.'

Since the furor over Google's announcement blew up a couple of weeks ago, numerous commentators have offered their view on what's going on. Many have focused on Google's ongoing troubles in securing in market leadership in China, (suggesting that the human rights concerns have been used as a smokescreen behind which to withdraw gracefully from a commercial failure), while some have presented it as a belated switch to principled behavior. Some have even reckoned that Google is using the publicity around the announcement to build awareness and brand loyalty in China. Working out the motivations of the company in picking such a huge fight in one of the world's most important markets is never going to be easy.

Three things that have particularly stood out for us though in all this are these, and we think they offer some salutary lessons for the brave new world of business ethics that is starting to emerge.

1. Google the 'political corporation'. Google clearly feels big enough and powerful enough to pick a fight with one of the most powerful governments in the world.... over human rights. On the one hand, this is great in that it means that we don't have to just rely on the government to protect our human rights. Some big companies (whatever their motivations may be) may also be willing to do some of the heavy lifting from time to time (at least when when it suits them). In some of our writings, we've refereed to this as the corporate administration of citizenship rights (yes, not the catchiest phrase we'll admit, but it does the job). On the other hand, isn't this an issue that national governments - especially the US Government - should be leading on, rather than, as Hilary Clinton did, simply backing-up Google once it has broken cover. Still, whatever one thinks about this Google is clearly feeling big and important ... and perhaps also starting to feel the heat that comes with such size. It could just be getting in quick before the ethical backlash over its mammoth reach begins in earnest. With its fingers in all kinds of free speech, privacy and intellectual property issues, Google is fast becoming the essential political corporation of the 21st century.

2. One step forward, two steps back for the Global Network Initiative. The global what??! If you've not heard of it, well you're not alone. In the latest bout of Google vs China, the initiative hardly even scored a mention in the media storm. However, the GNI was launched back in 2008 to much fanfare, and was promoted as the new approach that internet companies were going to deal with censorship issues after getting their knuckles rapped by the US government for bowing to the Chinese government's demands. Well, the 'new approach' before the latest new approach of course. As a partnership between Google, Microsoft, Yahoo and a score of NGOs and academic institutions, the GNI held out considerable promise for delivering a more responsible approach to a tricky ethics problem that frankly, was not going to go away fast. Fast forward to January 2010 and GNI advocates could well point to Google's announcement as proof that the initiative is starting to have a significant effect. After all, one if its members is making a major song-and-dance about its commitments to internet freedoms. The trouble is though, no one at Google thought to mention the GNI, or suggested that it played a role in its decision. More worryingly, one of Google's main partners in the initiative, Microsoft, publicly criticized the company for it stand in China. Oops, hardly a hallmark of a strong partnership.

3. Industrial espionage goes up a level. First, spies worked for governments, just like in the old movies. Then they worked for companies ... in fact just like in the (new) movies, such as the 2009 Julia Roberts' release Duplicity. But some of the big news stories now in industrial espionage involve both companies and governments. It's a kind of semi-industrial espionage. The Google story was just the latest and best known incident of this government-business espionage, but clearly its becoming an increasingly prominent feature of the contemporary business landscape. Just this last weekend, the Sunday Times in the UK reported on a leaked British security service document accusing China of bugging, bribing, and blackmailing UK business executives in an attempt to secure commercial secrets. Notably though, here the warning came not from a multinational corporation, but from the national security service (the irony of MI5 warning against spying was not lost on many of the newspapers' readers who commented on the story). Either way though, as these incidents suggest, the stakes being played in industrial espionage have been significantly raised. The question, of course, is how best to respond ... and whether governments or companies should be leading the line.


Photo by Mykl Roventine. Reproduced under Creative Commons Licence

A step forward for technology companies and internet freedoms

If you've been following, as we have, the story of internet companies being implicated in human rights abuses around privacy and freedom of expression - see one of our earlier blogs here - then you'll be interested to see that Yahoo, Microsoft and Google, three of the companies most in the firing line on these issues, have launched a new multi-stakeholder program, the 'Global Network Initiative' aimed at tackling the problem.

This has come in a little under the radar, as there has not been much news of these developments in the business press leading up to the launch, but it appears to have arrived as a pretty well worked out program. With a tagline of "Protecting and Advancing Freedom of Expression and Privacy in Information and Communications Technologies", the initiative is a partnership between tech companies, human rights groups, academic institutions, and other institutions involved in media and communications freedoms. It has a set of principles, guidelines on implementation, including a commitment to human rights impact assessments, and a built-in review process. Most importantly, there is also a commitment to institute independent monitoring of companies' compliance with their commitments (though not, as far as we can tell, a commitment to report publicly).

It is, it has to be said, a difficult area to navigate for technology companies. Dealing with overseas governments can raise a host of problems that they are ill prepared to deal with, especially when they are operating overseas through a subsidiary or joint venture. So the initiative is certainly welcome. It establishes a clear framework for action that should make a meaningful difference to decision makers inside the organizations concerned. Of course, the devil will be in the detail of how such principles will be realized in practice. Especially interesting in this respect for us are the commitments to actively lobby governments to shift their expectations and demands:

"Participating companies will encourage governments to be specific, transparent and consistent in the demands, laws and regulations (“government restrictions”) that are issued to restrict freedom of expression online.

Participants will also encourage government demands that are consistent with international laws and standards on freedom of expression. This includes engaging proactively with governments to reach a shared understanding of how government restrictions can be applied in a manner consistent with the Principles.

When required to restrict communications or remove content, participating companies will:

• Require that governments follow established domestic legal processes when they are seeking to restrict freedom of expression.
• Interpret government restrictions and demands so as to minimize the negative effect on freedom of expression.
• Interpret the governmental authority’s jurisdiction so as to minimize the negative effect on to freedom of expression."

There are so many tricky details in that one passage alone, but it is heartening to see that the participants seem to be fully aware of the complications. As the Wall Street Journal blog, China Journal, put it:

For the most part, however, members decided not to include specific rules on issues such as where to host servers — outside servers can keep data out of problematic territories — because they felt that fast-changing technology might make them quickly irrelevant.

“The idea is that we believe the guidelines will need to be reviewed, and we will have to revise them as we take into account the actual experience,” says Sharon Hom, the executive director of Human Rights in China, which also helped develop the framework over two years. “It envisions an ongoing process of learning and sharing best practices,” she says.

So, there is still a lot to work out as the initiative unfolds. Let's just hope that Microsoft, Yahoo and Google can stay friends long enough to do all that mutual learning and sharing before they fall out with one another again...