If you search on Google for the word Google plus the exact phrase “Don’t Be Evil”, you get 366,000 hits. The company’s motto has been used at least since 2001, according to Wikipedia.

As someone who has been writing and speaking about business ethics for seven years, I applaud this motto. But I question its authenticity as it applies to some of Google’s actions. In other words, I see Google occasionally violating the motto with at least three sets of policies that–intentionally or not–certainly do evil.

On its corporate information page, Google defines what it means by “don’t be evil”:

* We don’t allow ads to be displayed on our results pages unless they are relevant where they are shown. And we firmly believe that ads can provide useful information if, and only if, they are relevant to what you wish to find – so it’s possible that certain searches won’t lead to any ads at all.
* We believe that advertising can be effective without being flashy. We don’t accept pop-up advertising, which interferes with your ability to see the content you’ve requested. We’ve found that text ads that are relevant to the person reading them draw much higher clickthrough rates than ads appearing randomly. Any advertiser, whether small or large, can take advantage of this highly targeted medium.
* Advertising on Google is always clearly identified as a “Sponsored Link,” so it does not compromise the integrity of our search results. We never manipulate rankings to put our partners higher in our search results and no one can buy better PageRank. Our users trust our objectivity and no short-term gain could ever justify breaching that trust.

These are good, as far as they go. And Google has done a whole lot of other things right—starting with creating a fabulous user experience. Anyone who remembers the awful interfaces, slow and inaccurate search results, and general clumsiness of pre-Google search tools is grateful for Google’s existence. I got on the Internet in 1994, and I certainly count myself among those who appreciate what Google did for search. The AdWords/AdSense program is another example of reinventing the paradigm and doing it a good bit better, and some of the newer modules also make things easier for anyone doing research. Google’s real mission seems to be to make the world’s body of knowledge accessible on line, in seconds. In many ways, that’s a worthy goal. But on ethics grounds, Google has had some real shortcomings.

Sidewiki, as I understand it, allows users who have the Google Toolbar installed to comment, unmoderated, in an area that appears on the left side of the webpage–but those comments are only visible to others who have the Toolbar installed! Among the many evils this can lead to: spamming, blocking site owners’ sources of revenue (or even replacing them with links that benefit those commenting), loss of control over one’s own website, black hat search technique, slander of site owners or contributors, unethical business practices such as deceptive advertising, and even something as simple as wrecking the aesthetic and content integrity of a carefully designed website…all in a hijacked section of the page that may not even be visible to the site owner, if he/she doesn’t happen to install the toolbar.

I was alerted to the Sidewiki problem through two recent blogs by Paul Myers on Talkbiz. The first discusses the software and its vast potential for misuse. And the second offers site owners some possible protection, as well as a suggestion to Google about how to enable the useful parts of the feature without compromising site integrity or forcing site owners to agree to onerous privacy terms:

When someone wishes to read comments or discussion about a site they’re visiting, enable them to open a separate browser tab, program window or other display option that shows previous comments and allows them to add their own.

This is not a technically difficult change to the program, certainly. It is consistent with the goal of enabling broader visitor interaction in a time- and context-appropriate fashion.

And it respects the rights of site owners.

Google can’t hep being aware of these controversies. Sop how can it claim to abide by “don’t be evil”?

Sidewiki Makes Me Question Google’s “Don’t Be Evil” Mantra is a post from: Principled Profit

Exactly how did Bernie Madoff steal his billions? Why are Halliburton’s hands so dirty? What happened with corruption cases in the rebuilding of Iraq? Following a link from EthicsWorld’s e-newsletter, I came to a single URL that has multiple stories on corruption: http://www.ethicsworld.org/publicsectorgovernance/corruptioninvestigations.php#sec.

This is what we’re up against, those of us who believe in ethics.

Corruption Roundup: Many ‘Stories, One URL is a post from: Principled Profit

Pope Benedict XVI’s third encyclical is a sweeping, 144-page document addressing and interlocking a wide range of social issues. He calls on the financial industry to tame its greed and turn to ethics, asks the United Nations and individual governments to address deep-rooted poverty issues–not only from economic development perspectives but also making sure these countries have a voice and a seat at the table of power–a political shift, in other words.

Good coverage in the Washington Post (see above link). And a shoutout to Allan Holender of the World Wide Association of Zentrepreneurs, for bringing this important document to my attention.

Pope Benedict XVI Addresses Financial Meltdown, Environmental Issues, and Poverty is a post from: Principled Profit

Like many others, I am appalled both by the apparently stolen election in Iran and by the repressive, violent response of the government to the mass protests.

And like many bloggers today who want to be cheerleaders for democracy and (to use Martin Luther King’s wonderful phrase) “drum majors for justice,” I’m joining in a worldwide campaign today to call attention to the problems with the Iran vote and its bloody aftermath. Click the link to see a long list of grievances and solidarity actions.

Thanks to @engagejoe on Twitter for calling this solidarity action to my attention.

Relevant Twitter tags: #FreeIran #IranElection #bloggersunite

#FreeIran Campaign Turns to the Blogosphere is a post from: Principled Profit

I love it that just about every scientific study ever conducted validates the opinions I’ve been expressing (without research stats to back me up) for years.

Here’s a fabulous study from Australia on whether ethics matters to employees. Conclusion: ethics does matter, big time:

* 84% of individuals believe being responsible environmentally is included in the definition of business ethics.

* A staggering 93% of individuals believe that organisations have an obligation to act ethically even if it occasionally harms their profits.

* And 91% agree that all organisations should make a formal commitment to acting ethically.

* 80% of individuals agree that they are willing to put in extra effort at work if they know that their organization is run ethically.

* 77% agree that if their employer acted in a way that contradicted their core principles, they would definitely leave the organization.

So, if you want some hard facts to back up the idea that ethics works better, here you go.

Study: Ethics Matters A LOT to Employees is a post from: Principled Profit

Answer: I just read provocative articles on BNET on these two topics.

First, Stacy Blackman, while supporting cause marketing, notes that these products are often more expensive, because the company has to cover the cost of the donation. However, I commented that a successful campaign would bring in enough extra sales volume that this shouldn’t be an issue.

Second, Jeffrey Pfeffer makes a fascinating case for lowering healthcare costs by improving US workplace conditions and decreasing job stress caused by anticipated layoffs and other factors. He notes lower stress levels AND better working conditions for many European businesses.

Plenty of footnotes for those who want to check his sources and assumptions.

Of course, there are many other factors–not the least of which is that most other industrialized countries have shifted healthcare from a privilege of the wealthy to a right for all, using a single-payer system that in many cases pays doctors on salary rather than fee-for-service. HR 676 in the US would bring this sensible system to our shores as well, and by some estimates slash health costs around 30 percent.

What Do Cause Marketing and Health Reform Have in Common? is a post from: Principled Profit

Editor’s note: Holly McCarthy submitted this provocative guest post, and I’m running it in the hope of starting some dialogue. I share some of Holly’s concerns about outsourcing (particularly about using it to duck around environmental laws), but also believe there can be ethical ways to do it, and that when done properly, it can be an important leg up to the hardest-pressed communities at the bottom of the world’s pyramid. Curious as to what others think.
–Shel Horowitz

Guest post by Holly McCarthy When we talk of business ethics, we’re generally referring to the right way to do business, the moral way that leads to principled profit. But the advent of globalization has brought on a new kind of ethical value that we must bow to, but one which we tend to ignore because it doesn’t concern us directly. I’m talking about the process of outsourcing, a practice that’s pretty common these days because of the low cost of labor in countries like India, China and the Philippines.

Issue number one: The first unethical aspect of outsourcing is that we’re ignoring our own talent and paying people overseas just to cut costs. Our people are languishing without jobs and yet we’re shifting more and more jobs overseas. There are times when we even tend to hand over sensitive information to unknown faces who are connected to us through just a computer and an Internet connection, thus putting at risk our customers’ privacy and identity. Besides this, we are closing down offices in our country only to open new ones in other countries, thus effectively contributing to development on foreign lands and stagnation in our own.

Issue number two: We’ve also taken to shifting our manufacturing operations overseas, not only because of lower costs, but also because these countries do not have effective anti-pollution laws. We are luring them to ruin with huge amounts of money, and the sad part of this whole shady situation is that those who gain from this venture are not the ones who are affected by the effluents that result from the manufacturing process. It’s the poor and indigent people who live off the land who are hurt the most – they cannot afford bottled water like the rest of us and so must still drink from the stream that’s been polluted; they cannot afford to sit inside air-conditioned rooms and so must breathe in the polluted air; they cannot afford medication, and so they must suffer respiratory illnesses and other ailments in silence.

Outsourcing is and has always been a sore point with developed nations like the USA and the UK. The burgeoning of talent in developing countries, talent that is available at a fraction of the cost incurred in hiring local labor, had made organizations take the easy way out. Of course, when there’s money to be made, it’s understood that you want to be among the profits. But there’s an ethical line that cannot be crossed, and it’s up to you to decide where you want to draw it.

This post was contributed by Holly McCarthy, who writes on the subject of online universities. She invites your feedback at hollymccarthy12 at gmail dot com

Outsourcing Pollution, With No Thought for Ethics is a post from: Principled Profit

Apparently, a lot of players in the international adoption world have been a little too glib about where these babies are coming from, and some children have been stolen from their parents to be adopted by people in the Northern hemisphere.

Even though it delayed and may have prevented her adoption, one adoptive mom, Jennifer Hemsley, got too suspicious. Her courageous battle with the system and great personal/family/financial hardship in order to do the right thing are a model of how to behave in an ethically cloudy situation, even if the outcome is the opposite of what you’re striving for.

Medical reports seemed obvious forgeries, without letterhead or doctor’s signature. And during a critical hearing, Hemsley said, her Guatemalan advisers tried to pay a stranger to pose as Hazel’s foster mother.

“Todd and I felt a lot like, ‘Gee, is this really happening?’ Maybe we should just look the other way and keep plodding along, because every time I tried to tell someone, nobody cared,” Hemsley said. “I couldn’t look the other way. I just couldn’t turn my head.”

Ricardo Ordonez, the Hemsleys’ adoption attorney, denied any fraud and vowed to clear his name by producing the birth mother for new DNA tests. Another court hearing is pending.

If the Hemsleys had walked away, as hundreds of other Americans did after problems surfaced, Hazel would likely have been abandoned or reoffered for adoption under another false identity, Tecu said. Instead, Jennifer Hemsley stayed with Hazel for months, draining more than $70,000 from a second mortgage on their home and paying for a trusted nanny.

Adoptive Mother Takes Personal Risk Over Ethics Practices is a post from: Principled Profit

From liberal Democrat State Senator Dianne Wilkerson of Massachusetts to Chen Shui-bian, the former President of Taiwan, there’s been another spate of politicians caught with their hands in the cookie jar.

Some of these people, like Alaska Senator Ted Stevens, have had positions of public trust for decades.

Isn’t it time we looked at this as a society? Not just in the U.S., but around the world. There’s got to be a way to govern that doesn’t put so much temptation in front of our politicians to abuse their trust and their power.

What Is It About Politicians and Corruption? is a post from: Principled Profit

The company that so many of us love to hate has started addressing some of the reasons why I won’t do business with them. This short article by Mallen Baker shows progress on both labor standards and energy. Reprinted in full with Mallen’s generous permission.

This is big news, as my understanding is a major part of why so much of the US economy picked up and moved to Asia is Wal-Mart’s constant demand that suppliers reduce the price 10% every year. About time it started adding some social responsibility to its demands.

Wal-Mart has told a meeting of its Chinese suppliers that social and environmental standards will need to be raised to help the company meet its goals and to move forward in the wake of the milk poisoning scandal that has left many Chinese children still in hospital.

The company’s requirements will aim to improve energy efficiency, with a 20 percent improvement in energy efficiency required of the top 200 suppliers, full disclosure of locations of factories including sub-contractors, and product improvements in terms of energy ratings.

Wal-Mart said that many of the measures would be good for suppliers, helping them to save money by reducing waste. But in any case, it made a direct link between the quality of products and whether or not a supplier cheated on overtime or used child labour, or dumped polluting waste.

In return, the company has said it will change the nature of its relationship with Asian suppliers, aiming to develop deeper long-term relationships to mutual benefit, rather than focusing simply on the price of each transaction.

Overall, I continue to be highly critical of Wal-Mart, but glad to see the company moving forward. I think this is only the third time I had anything good to say about Wal-Mart in this space. The first was after Katrina, when the company stepped in to do what the federal government should have done. And the second was almost two years ago, regarding one of the company’s other energy saving initiatives.

Wal-Mart Finally Moving Forward on China Labor Conditions is a post from: Principled Profit