In case you missed it, Google's announcement last week marked a real turning point for multinational corporations.  It set precedence for the corporation, representing Western values, standing up to a foreign state.  This value clash involves a plethora of important questions with not so obvious answers.

When localizing a product for a certain country or culture or expanding operations internationally, multinational organizations subject themselves to local jurisdiction and as a consequence must abide by local laws.  What's the right thing to do when these laws are at odds with the values of the companies seeking to do business in the markets?  We struggled with this immensely during the years I was at Google, working with the Asia and Latin America teams where these issues were most acute. 

It's not at all obvious what the appropriate response is, and I want to put forth two reasons why.

First, local laws reflect values and customs of different cultures.  Arguing that companies have a moral obligation to take a stand against laws that "we" deem unethical assumes that there's some objective way to define what is ethical.  The China case might seem clear cut but there's a clear grey area where it just might be that different cultures have opposing values on certain issues.  In this case, should the MNC or global organization choose to operate only in places with aligned values, or choose to respect local values even if they disagree with them?

Second, what if by going in and abiding by local laws, an organization does more good than by staying out in objection to them?  This reasoning is what drove the original Google decision, the belief that by giving people access to information they were better positioned than otherwise.  (I'll leave aside any speculation about whether there was a belief that this move would ultimately bring political change).  To take a more extreme example, what about a doctor who is pro-choice?  Or who has strong beliefs about female genital mutilation?  Should that doctor not practice medicine where laws aren't aligned with those beliefs?  

So while the China case may seem obvious, hopefully this sheds some light on the nuance of the issues that are lying underneath.