Google's motto don't be evil

Running head: ETHICAL BUSINESS MANAGEMENT
Ethical Business Management
Name of the Student:
Name of the University:
Author’s Note:

2ETHICAL BUSINESS MANAGEMENT
Google has recently dropped its motto don't be evil. They have changed their motto
recently and have started with the revised document. This was mainly done in order to make sure
that they can bring some of the other change ages within their company culture. However, there
have been some of the other kinds of unethical activities that are taking place in this company.
Thus it can be said that Google was perhaps trying to soften their stances on the ethical code of
conduct.
Scharks and Masuda (2016) are of the opinion that Google has mainly changed this code
of conduct because they wanted to bring about some of the other kinds of changes within their
ongoing code of conduct. They have tried their level best to provide complete respect to each and
every employee that is working with them. Don't be evil has been one of their major code of
conduct since a very long time. This has been an 18-year long code of ethics that has been
followed by their company. Cassin and Syrotinski (2017) have also agreed that they don't be an
evil code of conduct has been helping the company to deal with the respect that they have
towards their users. This ethical code of conduct was mainly being used by the company in order
to provide proper protection to their users regarding the usage of their data, access to their
personal information, focusing on the needs and the demand.
However, they realized later that they need to bring some changes within their ethical
code of conduct as they have to also do the right thing. They also used this particular code of
conduct in order to treat their employees with proper respect. However, Rappold et al (2015)
have also stated that even after using this policy the company as not being able to provide
complete respect to all their employees. There were several complaints being raised by their
employees. It is really very unfortunate to see that the employees working in such a big tech

3ETHICAL BUSINESS MANAGEMENT
giant were unhappy due to the different unethical activities that were taking place within the
company.
There were also incidences where the female employees complained that they were not
being treated properly in the company. They complained about the fact that there were
discriminations being done between them and their male partners. They were often being
misbehaved in the company and there were also many discriminations being done among them in
terms of the salary. All these reasons were really concerning the management of the company.
Thus Google decided to work over their already existing code of conduct and make sure that they
are being able to come out with something new and in a changed version.
The company brought the new and the changed version of there Don't be an evil code of
conduct. The new and the revised form are known as the Google Code of Conduct. Files et al
(2017) are of the opinion that the changed version of this code of conduct is mainly because the
company wants to make sure that they are doing everything in a proper manner. The main
motive behind making this change is because of the fact that the company wanted to implement
the highest possible standards within their company couture. This is a good approach that has
been taken by the company. Scharks and Masuda (2016) have also agreed that this approach was
mainly taken by the company in order to give a boost to the standards of their ethics. They
wanted to make sure that they are being able to carry on with their day to day business in a
proper manner.
Thus, it be can be said that adopting this approach is not a risky approach for the
company as they started it with a good intention. The main intention of the company was to

4ETHICAL BUSINESS MANAGEMENT
make sure that they can add to the standards of their ethical conduct and set high inspirational
goals for their employees.
However, Trevino and Nelson (2016) are of the opinion that there are still several
questions that have been raised on the amendments that Google has made in their ethical code of
conduct. As per their revised and updated version that is The Google Code of Conduct, they will
always ask their employees to do that what is right. At the same time, there have been thousands
of resignations sue to several decisions that have been taken by the organization. Somerville et al
(2015) are of the opinion that Google refused to cut their entire tie with the US military. This
was disliked by many of the employees of the organization. The employees felt that the company
is not abiding by the new rules and regulations that they have started. In other words, they are not
being able to abide by the new rules that they have started. The employees felt that the refusal to
cut all their relations with the US Military showed that they are totally trying to defy their new
rules and regulations that they have started in their new ethical code of conduct.
About 3100 employees of Google made it a point that they do not want the company to
engage in any war with the military. The employees did not like the company to carry on with
their engagement and their involvement with the Project MAVEN as it really violated their ethic
and their newly made code of conduct. Controversial Pentagon program called Project Maven
was not being liked by any of the existing employees of the organization (Paschke and
Schäfermeier 2018).
Apart from this, it can also be said that with the starting of their new ethical rule that is
the Google Code of conduct the management also started overlooking many of their basic ethical

5ETHICAL BUSINESS MANAGEMENT
responsibilities. They were not allowing their employees to have the minimum basic privacy.
This is because of the fact that Google was tracking the locations of their users even when they
were actually keeping their location services switched off.
Rappold et al (2015) are of the opinion that even after altering the code of conduct the
employees or the managers of Google are not following the changes. This is creating a kind of
thought among the employee that Google is not taking all these changes seriously. It is for this
reason that the employees are left in an array of doubts and fears. Google's code of conduct has
not been updated since April 5, 2008. Thus, the employees have been suffering from this feeling
that though their company has made some changes in order to do what is right they are not really
implementing the rules in a proper way. Miller (2016) has also supported saying that even after
making this revision or the change in their code of conduct the previous motto still remains as
the unofficial motto. This is because the revised version of Google that is Do the right thing still
contains one of the clauses from the old version. The concluding line is still bearing a kind of
reference to the old ethical conduct that says “And remember… don’t be evil, and if you see
something that you think isn’t right – speak up!”
However, Files et al (2017) have stated that Google has made this change by keeping in
mind the welfare of the interests of their employees. They want to make sure that none of the
employees are getting bullied or neglected in any way. The main purpose or the motif with
which Google started off with their new ethical code of conduct was to attract loyal employees
within their workforce. It was also to make sure that they are being able to deal with their own
problems and fight for their own rights. In other words, Google wanted to create a very healthy
company culture. Their main motive was to make sure that they can imbibe a culture to provide
respect to their users. They wanted to ensure that they are being able to provide protection to the

6ETHICAL BUSINESS MANAGEMENT
privacy and the concerns of all their uses. They wanted their employees to speak up at each and
every instance if ever they feel that they are being unheard. However, even after incorporating
these changes, there were several instances of unhappiness among the employees. This is mainly
because of the dissatisfaction that the employees have been suffering through even after this law
was imposed. White (2018) is of their opinion that gender diversity must have been one of the
main motifs of such a big tech company like Google. However even after implementing this new
law, it has been seen that the workforce of the company mainly comprises of the male and the
white-skinned employees.
This is evident in the fact that the company has not been able to implement ethics in a
proper and organized way. MacAulay and Moldes (2016) have also argued that on one hand, the
company is implementing the code that says do the right and on the other hand the company
itself has been supporting the wrong thing. The company has not taken any strong steps
regarding the sexual harassments that have been taking place in the company post the revision of
their ethical code of conduct.
The female employees of the company have complained of being bullied. There have
been inequalities in the salaries of the male and the female employees. Dutt et al (2016.) have
stated that a large number of employees have raised their voices against such unjust and
improper practices that have been taking place in the organization. There have been mass
walkouts as a revolt for these unjust practices. However, it was evident from the approach of the
company that they are not much concerned about this matter. This is because the company
managers did not show much importance in listening to the complaints of the employees. This
shows that even after implementing the revised version of the ethical code of conduct, the
management was not really concerned about supporting the employees. Thus, in this case, it can

7ETHICAL BUSINESS MANAGEMENT
be said that the company was not really abiding by the principles of the new codes of conducts
that were set by them.
There have also been other instances in the company apart from the gender biases. This is
because the employees also showed their dissatisfaction against the contracts or the projects that
the company was undertaking. For an instance, the company had undertaken the secret pact with
China over the Pentagon after the internal revolt. Adelstein and Clegg (2016) have said that the
employees were highly dissatisfied due to the fact that the company was not listening to the pleas
or the opinions of the employees. The women’s march was one of the significant activities that
talks about the large scale dissatisfaction that the female employees have been showing. Though
the employees asked the company to do more and to do take the right action the company has
been very negligent towards the employee concerns.
It must be noted in this context that this behavior of the organization or the management
is going totally against the new and the revised code of conduct that have been set by them.
Thus, it can be said that the company was not abiding by the principle that they have included in
their new revised version of the code of conduct. The concluding line of the newly revised
version of the code of conduct said
And remember… don’t be evil, and if you see something that you think isn’t right – speak
up!”
However, Garg et al (2018) have said that there is a share contradiction that is being
exhibited by the company as they are not listening to what their employees have to speak out.
Thus if the company is not following the rules that they have included in their ethical code of

8ETHICAL BUSINESS MANAGEMENT
conduct then it becomes unimportant for the employees. The employees have the complete right
to protest against these kinds of practices.
Thus, it can be said that though Google has tried their best to take care of the interests of
their employees but somewhere or the other they have not been able to do the same. The
employees are of the opinion that though they requested the company for working over their
diversity, not much heed has been paid on the same. Even after revising the code of conduct the
employees did not get any such positive response from the company. It can be said that the
company is trying to loosen its ethical stance. There is still a debate regarding his matter,
however, it seems that revising the code of conduct is not really a risky approach for the
company but at the same time, they must start implementing the same in a proper manner.

9ETHICAL BUSINESS MANAGEMENT
References
Adelstein, J. and Clegg, S., 2016. Code of ethics: A stratified vehicle for compliance. Journal of
Business Ethics, 138(1), pp.53-66.
Cassin, B. and Syrotinski, M., 2017. Google Me: One-click Democracy. Fordham University
Press.
Dutt, K., Pfaff, D.L., Bernstein, A.F., Dillard, J.S. and Block, C.J., 2016. Gender differences in
recommendation letters for postdoctoral fellowships in geoscience. Nature Geoscience, 9(11),
p.805.
Files, J.A., Mayer, A.P., Ko, M.G., Friedrich, P., Jenkins, M., Bryan, M.J., Vegunta, S., Wittich,
C.M., Lyle, M.A., Melikian, R. and Duston, T., 2017. Speaker introductions at internal medicine
grand rounds: forms of address reveal gender bias. Journal of women's health, 26(5), pp.413-
419.
Garg, N., Schiebinger, L., Jurafsky, D. and Zou, J., 2018. Word embeddings quantify 100 years
of gender and ethnic stereotypes. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 115(16),
pp.E3635-E3644.
Lee, S.H. and Seok, C.H., 2017. The Issues of Media and Public Ethics on Doping Problems. In
Advances in Computer Science and Ubiquitous Computing (pp. 155-160). Springer, Singapore.
MacAulay, M. and Moldes, M.D., 2016. Queen don't compute: reading and casting shade on
Facebook's real names policy. Critical Studies in Media Communication, 33(1), pp.6-22.

10ETHICAL BUSINESS MANAGEMENT
Miller, A.G. ed., 2016. The social psychology of good and evil. Guilford Publications.
Paschke, A. and Schäfermeier, R., 2018. OntoMaven-Maven-Based Ontology Development and
Management of Distributed Ontology Repositories. In Synergies Between Knowledge
Engineering and Software Engineering (pp. 251-273). Springer, Cham.
Rappold, J.F., Hollenbach, K.A., Santora, T.A., Beadle, D., Dauer, E.D., Sjoholm, L.O., Pathak,
A. and Goldberg, A.J., 2015. The evil of good is better: Making the case for basic life support
transport for penetrating trauma victims in an urban environment. Journal of Trauma and Acute
Care Surgery, 79(3), pp.343-348.
Scharks, T. and Masuda, Y.J., 2016. Don't discount economic valuation for conservation.
Conservation Letters, 9(1), pp.3-4.
Somerville, C., Marteau, T.M., Kinmonth, A.L. and Cohn, S., 2015. Public attitudes towards
pricing policies to change health-related behaviours: a UK focus group study. The European
Journal of Public Health, 25(6), pp.1058-1064.
Trevino, L.K. and Nelson, K.A., 2016. Managing business ethics: Straight talk about how to do
it right. John Wiley & Sons.
White, A.J., 2018. Google. gov: Could an alliance between Google and government to filter facts
be the looming progressive answer to “fake news”?. The New Atlantis, (55), pp.3-34.