China is sparking something else than a commercial threat

Ethics is also business for companies dealing in some countries such as China. Regimes confronting strong demands for democratic reforms, arise questions about the corporate social responsibility of global firms providing intangible and omnipresent services, such as Yahoo or Google. Should these companies conform government requirements for allowing access to private users' data, which in turn affects users’ rights of privacy? Or should they resist these requirements and still marketing in this country? If the second option is adopted, would these companies infringe the local legislations –in this case doubtfully fair- in favour of their own interest –in this case surely fair and favourable to worldwide users?

Since Google is confronting censorship issues in China, these questions are more prevalent today, maybe because polemics about commercial movements of this giant country are becoming a passive but real threat to the ethos of the western side of the world. As we can read in OpenDemocracy, while Chinese companies “go global”, NGO campaigners are increasingly concerned about Beijing’s model of international development.

Anyway the problem is some older, as we can read in HBSWK newsletter -March 2006- :15 years ago General Motors had to deal with South Africa’s apartheid regime about employment policies and whether or not to sell autos in a repressive society. Companies like Cisco Systems and Microsoft also have to confront a question with no less political implications: should they -or not- continue selling hardware or software that filters communications or facilitates social monitoring to governments that are likely to use it for both purposes?

Many of us could say: the answer is stop any business which can increase and perpetuate antidemocratic power. But in this case we were talking about commercial boycott, like US maintain against Cuba. Moreover, these kind of measures could not have any influence in causing a change in these societies. China does not need the core product of Google’s services, since they can imitate and provide it in a short term (perhaps without quality innovations). So it seems that is Google, Yahoo and MSN who needs the Chinese market share...but maybe from new strategic commercial actions towards this country.

In which extent the economic and commercial rules (mostly western) that have been ruling the world, should update and change themselves in order to: a) allow global business to continue developing, and b) influence social and historical changes in societies? Can commercial forces spark social changes that benefit citizens, without making a previous inner revision on how to continue operating?