Several weeks ago, Google announced that because of a "highly sophisticated attack" on the e-mail accounts of Chinese dissidents, that the company would no longer filter Google search results in that country.  As search engines are required to agree to this stipulation in order to operate in China, many suspect that this will lead to Google's eventual withdrawal from the country. Because of the size of China's population (and what this means for Google's market share), Google's increasing entrance into other product markets (operating systems and cell phones), and the increasing importance of China as a world power, this announcement was almost entirely unexpected. And despite the view articulated in the Business Week article linked above, although there may be some business considerations for the decision, when Google announced the decision, the reasons articulated had nothing to do with profits, but were about people.

For non-business types, this may seem like a complete non-story, however, that couldn't be further from the truth. Why? Because for years, there has been a race in China, the race between market capitalism and military communism. Many have advanced the notion that as China becomes increasingly capitalistic, democratic ideals and values will follow. The argument went like this - as the importance of trade grows, the Chinese government will be willing to concede ground on human right issues in order to get their trading partners happy. Therefore, market forces will lead cultural change. If Google's decision is an indication that market forces are not up to the task, than we must ask, what will be the cause of change? After all, just last week, another difficult regime (Iran) announced that Google's e-mail service, gmail, would be suspended. If companies cease operations, whether by choice or by force, in countries where human rights are routinely violated, how can the market expect to be the champion of human rights?

The answers are not easy ones.  Google's decision can not be seen as a concession that China won't change, but instead as a rallying cry that businesses who operate in China bare more of the responsibility for demanding change. For years, human rights advocates have argued that resolving human right issues should be addressed as a condition for economic development. If more businesses were willing to risk temporary financial loss, in order to insure that long-term well-being of a repressed people, then both the business, and the people will be better for it.  Organizations must not abdicate their role as the forbearers of democratic freedoms, but must instead, step up to the plate in demanding them.

Despite its unofficial motto to "do no harm" Google must not be the only proponent in the fight. Instead, every business should recognize (as Spiderman's wise uncle said) that "With great power comes great responsibility." May we use the power and the privilege of business, of meeting and serving customers' needs, to not only enhance their life through our products, but to protect and enrich their life through freedom.