Business Ethics: Google's Affirmative Actions and Diversity Policies

This report provides an in-depth analysis of Google's business ethics, focusing on its diversity initiatives and affirmative action policies. The report examines Google's commitment to creating a diverse workforce, its efforts to promote equal opportunity, and its stance on affirmative action. It explores t...Read More

BUSINESS ETHICS

Contents
Question-1..................................................................................................................................3
Question-2..................................................................................................................................3
Question-3..................................................................................................................................4
Question-4..................................................................................................................................5
Question-5..................................................................................................................................5
References..................................................................................................................................6

Question-1
Google`s affirmative activities can help to achieve several goals. However, it ensures that it
maintains equal opportunity and fairness. Google aims to do best work for its workforce. The
company has addressed lack of presenting across the nation with the help of talent
engagement and outreach endeavours. Google stands strongly behind affirmative actions to
support its diversified workforce. The composition of Google`s workforce is based on Gender
and ethnicity (Parker, 2020). Google undertakes positive affirmative actions for its employees
by availing them training, other learning subjects, and without comparing them on any
discrimination level. Google offer professional and scholar courses to disadvantageous
people, who has talent, make endeavour but lack on the part of arranging resources for further
education (Vazquez, 2020). These actions demonstrate that Google is committed to create a
diverse workforce so that every employee can flourish. Furthermore, Google celebrates
diversity amongst customers, users, and employees. Google make efforts to create such
products and avail services, which can work for everyone from the perspective of
backgrounds varying from ethnicity, race, social background, gender, sexual orientation,
religion, and disability (Garces, and Bilyalov, 2019).
The diversity and inclusive work involves creating an inclusive workplace, engaging talent
management and expanding education, strengthening community outreach, supporting
supplier diversity and create inclusive products (Tomlin et al., 2017).
Question-2
While sweeping these two types of arguments, which are favouring affirmative action, bring
selection between two arguments. First is to broadly serve social good with the integration of
society or else, it would employ affirmative actions to do better at marketplace than other
don’t. I would select second argument for better affirmation action because I think achieving

second argument in the organisation will indirectly serve the community (Chiu, 2018). As it
is often said that business builds from society, and cater the society. For example- while
making Google more diverse and appropriate workplace, the company will motivate high
progress in technological industry (Vazquez, 2020). These efforts would definitely strengthen
community outreach by empowering diverse leaders by expanding changes in public policy.
Therefore, it is important to understand that Google currently maintains affirmative actions to
enhance the skillset of the employees, which concludes that diverse organisations have more
tendency to conduct an ethical platform of 35 percent more than undiversified companies do
(Fyke, Feldner, and May, 2016). Furthermore, contributing to the education and training the
workforce has been an important ingredient of how Google is socially responsible towards
the education of the society. 15 percent gender diverse organisations can outperform the
performance in the industry, which indicates that the company has been giving equal
opportunity to both male and females. Google has undertaken women tech makers, which can
create global scalable events and other programs in supporting women. This aims to help
women to get importance, increased access to many career resources by creating a support to
community especially supporting women (Hainmueller, Hangartner, and Pietrantuono, 2017).
Amongst the two arguments, I would definitely select second perspective in my organisation
because while conducting affirmative actions for the employees, it enhances society`s
education because employees belong to society. However, the social good with integration of
society cannot be fully enforced by imposing first argument as social good include
contributing towards poor people, and contributing to control the pollution etc
(Bhattacharyya, Woods, and Lykes, 2017).
Question-3
From the diversity and talent management of the employees, it has been seen that Google
private funds have set aside for the minorities because Google provide free training and also

education for many employees, who are a bit disadvantageous and considered as minority
(Hartmann et al., 2017). Google strives its best to avail equal platform to all the employees.
On the other hand, a Taxpayer fund one affirmative action or a private investor cater the
other. Amongst both the actions, when a taxpayer fund one affirmative action is far more
superior and ethical as compared to Google availing scholarships to minorities (Garces, and
Bilyalov, 2019). It is important to understand for the last few years, in order to maintain long
term sustainability, a MNC will have to show and cater its social responsibilities towards its
stakeholders such as availing quality services to customer, contributing towards local
community and talk about employee benefits. Under all these actions, it is quite easy to
understand that government enforces companies to do so, and at last company will get greater
brand equity leading to create greater transparency, trust, and faith amongst the stakeholders
(Garces, and Bilyalov, 2019). On the other hand, a taxpayer contributing towards funding any
affirmative action is far more superior and ethical. As government funds student`s education
on the behalf of taxpayer to the university so that minority students can get an opportunity to
free access to the education. According to me, when an investor fund affirmative action, he is
quite selfless and genuinely contribute to society in form of an educated student (Skrentny,
2018).
Question-4
While going through the above case study, it is quite clear that Google undertakes several
affirmative actions in favour of ethics. Therefore, to move against the affirmative actions,
Google will start bifurcating its employees on the basis of race, gender, religion and
nationality (Chen, Chen, and Chi, 2019). Google can discriminate while providing education
and other trainings. Rare-conscious admissions can be stopped to decline equity. Supporting
white students and neglecting the black ones while enriching the education system.
Discrimination on the basis of gender inequality can discriminate in against to Asian

American by continuously degrading the knowledge the females. Negative online reviews
can reflect forum and black corporate culture, which creates a level of negative corporate`s
culture because not everyone gets an opportunity to share the same platform of success by
creating online presence and leaving vulnerable situation at workplace (Bhattacharyya,
Woods, and Lykes, 2017). It has been seen that efforts, which are ethically reproachable must
be reflected in terms of Google. Google can also try to recruit people who have maximum
resources rather than recruiting on the basis of talent management, which many cost high to
the company because as they are disadvantageous so that training and education support at
high level. The organisation can also exploit the minorities by paying them low wages,
insulting them, harassing them so that they feel bad. This creates a sense of negative
corporate culture, which reflects how negative affirmative actions (Parker, 2020).
Question-5
Under the veil of ignorance for the discrimination part, I have seen that parted from the group
does not feel good at all. The question will analyse whether Google’s hiring policies are
ethically good or bad. It is seen that Google has been committed to treat its employees at
every level with due respect and ensure secure working conditions (Hartmann et al., 2017).
Google has already laid down its ethical code of conduct, which practises value in creating
and finding connection with Google, which will be measured on the basis of highest possible
standards to maintain equality amongst the employees for training education, and delegating
equal power (Google Alphabet, 2019). If I am ignored in any organisation, I will definitely
feel demoralised, demotivated and my work performance will not at all good. Discriminating
me on the part of physical terms is not limited it will lead to depression, loss of self-control,
and anxiety disorders forcing them to attempt suicide. Apparent discrimination has its impact
on work environment and employee personal health (Chiu, 2018).

Undoubtedly, the hiring process of Google is quite ethical as it prohibits retaliation and
employee is allowed to report and investigate against possible violation of code of conduct. It
maintains its standards who treat users and then operate them generally. Google will commit
to advance privacy and freedom to express in the world (Fyke, Feldner, and May, 2016).
Under legal ethical and compliance, users must implement standards so that it can deal in
diverse market and then respond to government requests. Google commits to support the
workplace by availing maximum opportunities to reach maximum potential. It will help them
to create workplace culture, which is free of harassment, bias, unlawful discrimination, and
intimidation (Fyke, Feldner, and May, 2016).

References
Bhattacharyya, S., Woods, M. and Lykes, M.B., 2017. Can educational policy redress
historical discrimination? Exploring a university community’s experiences with India’s caste-
based affirmative action policy. Community Psychology in Global Perspective, 3(2), pp.38-
59.
Chen, M.H., Chen, B.H. and Chi, C.G.Q., 2019. Socially responsible investment by
generation Z: a cross-cultural study of Taiwanese and American investors. Journal of
Hospitality Marketing & Management, 28(3), pp.334-350.
Chiu, C., 2018. Justice Or Just Us: SFFA v. Harvard and Asian Americans in Affirmative
Actions. S. Cal. L. Rev., 92, p.441.
Fyke, J.P., Feldner, S.B. and May, S.K., 2016. Discourses about righting the business←→
society relationship. Business and Society Review, 121(2), pp.217-245.
Garces, L.M. and Bilyalov, D., 2019. Navigating the quicksand: How postsecondary
administrators understand the influence of affirmative action developments on racial diversity
work. Teachers College Record, 121(3), p.n3.
Google Alphabet, 2019. Google Code of Conduct. Available on:
https://abc.xyz/investor/other/google-code-of-conduct/ [Accessed on: 07/04/2020]
Hainmueller, J., Hangartner, D. and Pietrantuono, G., 2017. Catalyst or crown: Does
naturalization promote the long-term social integration of immigrants?. American Political
Science Review, 111(2), pp.256-276.
Hartmann, P., Apaolaza, V., D’Souza, C., Barrutia, J.M. and Echebarria, C., 2017. Corporate
Environmental Responsibility Communication: Implications from CSR and Green

Advertising Research. In Handbook of Integrated CSR Communication (pp. 377-392).
Springer, Cham.
Parker, M., 2020. Google diversity annual report 2019. Available on:
https://diversity.google/annual-report/ [Accessed on: 07/04/2020]
Skrentny, J.D., 2018. The ironies of affirmative action: Politics, culture, and justice in
America. University of Chicago Press.
Tomlin, K.A., Metzger, M.L., Bradley-Geist, J. and Gonzalez-Padron, T., 2017. Are students
blind to their ethical blind spots? An exploration of why ethics education should focus on
self-perception biases. Journal of Management Education, 41(4), pp.539-574.
Vazquez, J., 2020. Strengthening community outreach. Available on:
https://diversity.google/commitments/communities/ [Accessed on: 07/04/2020]