1. Core responsibility vs. social responsibility
Google Inc., a widely-known public company, offers an extensive range of products and
services. But they all revolve around one goal: to help people access free,usable and reliable
information efficiently. At the same time, the company also proclaims its commitment to social
responsibility. Therefore,it created Google.org, the “corporate umbrella” that houses philanthropic
activities aimed to tackle global issues. Yet Google.org’s philanthropic role poses a problem: it is
causing Google to diverge from the company’s core mission as the organizer and supplier of
information.
Google’s strong social commitment and its consequences
Brin and Page, Google’s cofounders, believe that their business should play an active role in
the global community. They accordingly live up to their pledge of “making the world a better place”
by adopting the proactive stance in corporate social responsibility. Google.org therefore surpasses the
basic CSR’s approach of mere awareness and consideration for social welfare; it is a large-scale
initiative that reflects Google’s strong involvement in the community. Yet, no matter how committed
a firm is to its CSR, an important question to always ask ourselves is: to what extent should we be
involved in social concerns? In this case, Google’s high degree of social and environmental activism
is causing it to diverge from its central role in the market.
Deviating from the business’ key task leads to serious implications. In today’s competitive
business environment, it is crucial for firms to stay focused on their core competencies. Google’s core
competency is its technology to organize the world’s information into a universally useful and
accessible form: this is Google’s unique strength that differentiates the company and gives it a
competitive advantage over its rival firms. Brin and Page,during the initial public offering, confirms
the importance of committing to the company’s “intense and enduring interest”, which is to help
people find information efficiently. But Google’s social activism is undermining its own core belief.
Firms need to spend time and resources in developing their core competencies so that they remain at
the top in what they do. The more resources Google spends on other activities, the less it has left to
2. cultivate its main skills and the less effective it will be at generating revenue with them. Therefore,the
survival of businesses does not only depend on searching and creating a core competency but also on
sustaining that unique strength in the face of competitors. Google’s divergence from its main task and
hence its core competency is risk the company’s ability to strengthen its competitive advantage.
Further consequences
Google.org already comprises of significant financial outlays, totaled to a 7 figure amount.
It has made grants to numerous nonprofit institutions and seeded severalfor-profit companies linked
to its philanthropic objectives. Moreover, because Google.org incorporates the for-profit status, it is
subjected to the usual taxes. But Google Inc. not only has to pay tax for any funds given to
Google.org but also for Google.org’s income tax. In addition, Dr. Larry Brilliant, the executive
director of Google.org, has hired content experts in specific fields and assigned Google managers to
each team. Google.org is therefore using both human and financial resources from the parent
company to aid in its philanthropic activities.
Google.Inc’s expenses incurred by Google.org, combined with the prevailing trend of
rising cost in all of Google’s operative areas, are undesired results for the shareholders. In regards to
this, it is possible that the shareholders of Google might someday object, especially if the company
goes through an economic downturn and that money is needed to support the company. A firm does
not only have responsibility to the environment and society but also to the shareholders as well.
Hence,the divestment of resources away from the main business and rise in costs questions the
company’s obligation to act in the best interests of shareholders.
3. Alternatives
I) Incorporate Google Inc’s information technology
To bridge the gap between the roles of Google Inc and Google.org, Dr.Brilliant can use
Google’s strength in information and technology to build products that address global issues. For
example, Google.org can serve as an information platform that supplies information about various
issues such as education, health and sanitation. In addition, it can also create programs that assess
disease outbreaks and activity. This way,Dr.Brilliant can take advantage of all the resources
available, including Google’s information pool and technological expertise. Rather than relying
solely on funds to achieve social change, Google.org can increase its world impact by using the power
of information. Moreover, it is an opportunity for the firm to develop on its core competency and
relate to its main mission of providing information.
A drawback to this strategy is the high level of financing required in implementing the
softwares to collect, analyze and present the information. The firm will also need to hire additional
technical staffs to succeed in this new field. This translates to even more expenses,in addition to the
already large number of grants and seed money for start-up companies, which conflicts with the
shareholders’ best interests.
II) Place Google.org as a program under Google Inc
Another alternative is to establish Google.org not as a separate entity but as a program
directly under Google Inc. and reduce its social contributions. For example, Dr. Brilliant can cut back
on the amount of grants and minimize the level of lobbying. By curtailing the scale of Google’s
philanthropic activities and involvement in social responsibility, the firm can therefore focus mainly
on its core role. Another advantage is the reduction in tax expenses that will please the shareholders.
If Google.org is no longer a separate entity, then Google Inc. will no longer have to pay taxes for
financing Google.org.
4. A downside to this option is that Google.org’s business executions will be impeded by the
huge bureaucratic structure of the company. Moreover, the hope for Google.org to “exceed Google
itself in terms of overall world impact” will be hard to achieve if the firm cannot liberally pursue its
philanthropic role.
III) Use only Google.Inc’s core competency
An extreme form of the first alternative is to end all of Google.org’s activities that are not
related to Google’s main expertise in information and technology. This means to eliminate all grants,
lobbying, and partnering activities and only to provide information and build programs on global
issues. In doing so, Google.Inc and Google.org are no longer distinct in terms of how they
accomplish their goals; they are both providers of information. Not only that Google.org can converge
with Google.Inc’s main role, it can also strengthen the corporation’s core competency even more. In
addition, shareholders will be satisfied from the significant cutback in expenses.
Choosing this option drastically reduces Google.org’s philanthropic activities and therefore its
world impact on global issues. Moreover, by using only the company’s information platform and
programs, which is considered as Google products, some people will perceive Google’s intent to be
self-serving; that the company engages in social activities merely to enhance its public image and to
meet corporate interests more than society’s interest.
Recommendation
The most effective solution will be combining the current activities of Google.org with
Google’s expertise in information and technology. Dr. Brilliant should use all of Google Inc’s
resources - financial, human and technological – to create a usefuland applicable information
platform. Here are a few products that can be developed: a website that provides information about
social issues (as stated earlier); soft-wares that assess current global crises such as oil spills and
earthquakes; tools that detect trends such as the level of energy consumption and flu activity.
5. By making all these information available, Google.org can influence individuals and
communities to advocate for change. Hence, Dr. Brilliant will be fulfilling Google’s desire to “apply
innovation and significant resources to the largest of the world’s problem”. He will also be bringing
Google.org closer to its founding goals: to make a difference and create impact on a large scale.
In addition, Google’s adoption of an unorthodox business model – the for-profit
philanthropy model – already shed light on its integrative way of thinking. Then why not step further
in the integrative stance to come up with a solution to this problem? By incorporating information and
technology into the company’s philanthropic activities, Dr. Brilliant can leverage and combine two
distinct goals – Google’s core mission to provide information and its desire to actively engage in the
community. Hence,this strategy solves the problem of Google diverging away from its main
responsibility.
In essence,while Google.org has been able to help numerous non-profit institutions, its
greatest impact should come if it attacked the social issues in ways that make the most of Google’s
strengths in technology and information. Lots of philanthropists have lots of money to spend on
solving social problems. But it’s not the amount of money that makes an effective philanthropist; it’s
the know-how – the strengths of our other resources that help us decide where to donate that money.
Therefore, Google.org should focus on problems where information aggregate and innovative
technology can bring key insights to move them toward new solutions.
Homework Help
https://www.homeworkping.com/
Math homework help
https://www.homeworkping.com/
Research Paper help