CSR Faceoff: Facebook v Google

The two winners in cloud computing in the last decade are indisputably Facebook and Google, Silicon Valley startups that now define many aspects of the digital communication. However, these companies are not equal in corporate social responsibility. Indeed, Google has kicked Facebook's CSR a* in ways that creates space for a Facebook competitor. Here are 5 ways Google is better than Facebook.

Google based on CSR principle

One of the main aspects setting the two firms apart (and possibly responsible for CSR-path dependence at Google) is that Google started out with a premise of social neutrality: the famed "Don't be evil" edict. Such a mandate is not altruistic, but at least it is a top-down instruction against societal harm. The company is based on an idea of net benefit for society, and that has turned out to be really, really important. Facebook, lacking such a slogan, has danced with the "evil" line on multiple occasions. At its core, CSR is about delivering a valuable product that doesn't harm its own customers; Google always does that, Facebook sometimes does.

Google decouples revenue from services

A key part of don't be evil has turned out to be decoupling services from revenues. Google makes money mostly by advertising. Facebook makes money from … well, we're not totally sure, but it's rumored to be advertising. Anyway, Google's services: email, browser, maps, analytics, etc are NOT advertising in themselves, and you can use their services without being forced to participate in advertising- you don't have to click. Facebook's services: a digital social network, cannibalizes the social network FOR the advertising. In other words, even though Google totally mines your data to target adwords, it doesn't force you to do anything. Facebook requires you to populate your "likes" and limits user participation in order to create a more valuable advertising product. As a result, Facebook has lost a lot of utility by whoring out its user's data, at considerable detriment to their privacy rights.

Google doesn't have insane privacy flaws

Facebook almost defines privacy failures at this point. Google, despite likely having much more data on websurfers, email, demographic, pictoral and physical location information, has yet to bungle it like Facebook does repeatedly. But Facebook can't prioritize its users' privacy, since it needs to invade user data to make money, as explained above. Google makes money other ways, so it isn't pressured to "use the user", or their civil rights.

Google went public

Sometimes being a private company helps a company make bold and innovative CSR moves, like ClifBar. Other times, it helps you be evasive, like Facebook. Being a publicly necessarily subjects Google to greater levels of corporate transparency. Don't you wish you could sue Facebook over its privacy abuses? It'd be easier if you owned a little slice of them.

Google treats its employees better

Facebook is surely good to their employees, but Google is notorious for it, shuttling employees around California in a private coach, keeping them fit and healthy, caring about their happiness. CSR implies an obligation to employees that Google exceeds and that Facebook, well, who knows, since they're not transparent about their operations.

Google is superior to Facebook in the marketplace and in CSR in ways that are related to eachother. Indeed, Facebook's continuous CSR failures and increased commercialization opens up space for a competing service that provides the same profile and networking tools as Facebook, with the value proposition of privacy rights. Perhaps Google could provide such a thing.