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.orgs philanthropic role poses a problem: it is causing Google to diverge from the companys core mission as the organizer and supplier of information. Googles strong social commitment and its consequences Brin and Page, Googles 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 CSRs approach of mere awareness and consideration for social welfare; it is a large-scale initiative that reflects Googles 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, Googles 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 todays competitive business environment, it is crucial for firms to stay focused on their core competencies. Googles core competency is its technology to organize the worlds information into a universally useful and accessible form: this is Googles 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 companys intense and enduring interest, which is to help people find information efficiently. But Googles 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

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. Googles divergence from its main task and hence its core competency is risk the companys 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 several for-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.orgs 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.Incs expenses incurred by Google.org, combined with the prevailing trend of rising cost in all of Googles 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 companys obligation to act in the best interests of shareholders.

Alternatives I) Incorporate Google Incs information technology

To bridge the gap between the roles of Google Inc and Google.org, Dr.Brilliant can use Googles 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 Googles 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 Googles 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.

A downside to this option is that Google.orgs 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.Incs core competency An extreme form of the first alternative is to end all of Google.orgs activities that are not

related to Googles 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.Incs main role, it can also strengthen the corporations core competency even more. In addition, shareholders will be satisfied from the significant cutback in expenses. Choosing this option drastically reduces Google.orgs philanthropic activities and therefore its world impact on global issues. Moreover, by using only the companys information platform and programs, which is considered as Google products, some people will perceive Googles 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 societys interest. Recommendation The most effective solution will be combining the current activities of Google.org with Googles expertise in information and technology. Dr. Brilliant should use all of Google Incs resources - financial, human and technological to create a useful and 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.

By making all these information available, Google.org can influence individuals and communities to advocate for change. Hence, Dr. Brilliant will be fulfilling Googles desire to apply innovation and significant resources to the largest of the worlds 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, Googles 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 companys philanthropic activities, Dr. Brilliant can leverage and combine two distinct goals Googles 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 Googles strengths in technology and information. Lots of philanthropists have lots of money to spend on solving social problems. But its not the amount of money that makes an effective philanthropist; its 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.