Google's Shareholders Vote Against Human Rights

yo_cruyff notes a Computerworld article on Google's recent annual shareholder meeting, which was dominated by argument over the company's human rights policies. Google's shareholders, on advice from their board, have voted down two proposals on Thursday that would have compelled Google to change its policies. "Google [has been] coming under fire for operating a version of its search engine that complies with China's censorship rules. Google argues that it's better for it to have a presence in the country and to offer people some information, rather than for it not to be active in China at all... [S]hareholders and rights groups including Amnesty International... continue to push Google to improve its policies in countries known for human rights abuses and limits on freedom of speech... Sergey Brin, cofounder and president of technology for Google, abstained from voting on either of the proposals. 'I agreed with the spirit of these proposals,' Brin said. But he said he didn't fully support them as they were written, and so did not want to vote for them."

Comments

Proxy

[Thelasko]

Some funds in my 401k had issues with the crisis in Darfur. The board recommended that the fund do nothing about it. I voted that they should. Unfortunately, a no reply from other shareholders is counted as votes for the board's recommendation. Most shareholder's don't even open and read the proxies, let alone vote on them. I would sell the shares but it's my 401k and all of the available funds are managed by the same company.

Re:Google may not be evil

[ivan256]

I don't know whether you were swayed in your opinion at all by the irresponsibly biased headline, but it seems to me that this was (yet again) a choice between:

A) Censor parts of Google in China.
B) Censor all of Google in China.

Which one of those is more evil?

Re:Inflammatory headline

[Brigadier]

google is a company, NOT a person. It's purpose is to survive and make profit. I hate it when people act as if corporations are suppose to save the world or something. Professional Ethics aside google's job is to make money and with half the world population being situated in Asia opening up market share there early is important. If people are so cought up with the censorship of the Chinese government then stop buying Chinese products.

The Chinese People Are Responsible

[Dreadneck]

The Chinese people are responsible for pushing back against their government. It isn't Google's responsibility to stand up for the rights of the Chinese. There are over 1.2 billion people living in China - the Chinese government stands or falls at their pleasure. Apparently they are content with the government they have. When they decide otherwise then it is their responsibility and no one else's to change things.

Re:Google may not be evil

[dwater]

I don't think either is of much concern to China. In my experience, almost no one uses Google in China - really only foreigners such as myself. Chinese people generally use a Chinese equivalent.

Re:Inflammatory headline

[dwater]

What you say is true for Google, since it's a publicly traded company, but that's not true for all companies. Some exist purely 'to save the world or something'.
I'd also posit that, in this day and age, considering ethics in the way your company makes money is a sound long term profitable strategy.

Re:Do Human Rights pay the bills?

[anothy]

In a shareholder meeting, the only question being asked is "Does this raise or lower our income?"

while this is certainly true the vast majority of the time in practice, there's no particular reason it has to be. lots of people are interested in things other than making money, and shareholder's meetings are a way of expressing to the board all the shareholder's interests. this is why many corporations keep much of the stock off the market, so they can be sure to dictate at least some substantial portion of those interests.

Re:Inflammatory headline

[geekoid]

You can do both, and a Corporation is held to it's mission statement.
I have work for plenty of corporation that also spent money to help people.

"stop buying Chinese products"
That is no longer possible in any practical way...You can't even live on the street without getting products from China.

Re:The Problem

[MrMarket]

Depends on the investor. I voted in favor of the proposals on my proxy. I'd be curious to see the distribution of votes between individual and institutional shareholders.

Re:Inflammatory headline

[anothy]

i agree with you (and google) about the right course of action here, and that folks like Amnesty are missing the big picture or long view, but i think you're off base on one point:

Taking a stand in prinicple is just that, in principle with no effect on things in the real world.

principled stands can and do often have an effect on the real world. in this particular case, having Google make a hard-line principled stance would have no effect on China because Google has lots of competitors that aren't likely to make the same decision. similar debates have come up in the US federal government, and it's a very different question there. there's no logical inconsistency between voting against this Google-specific measure (because it'd have no positive effect, and arguably a negative one by removing the best information service and replacing it with an inferior one) and voting for government mandated restrictions (because getting Google, Yahoo!, and Microsoft aligned could be powerful enough to make a difference in China's policy), even though both represent hard-line principled stands.