Levi (2012) categorises various areas where social media is not widely used in his article, “Where ISN’T social media ubiquitous?”. He categorises these locations into a few main areas: areas where the locals’ “native language” is not supported by the more developed social media (such as Facebook and Twitter) and areas where internet is not widely made available. However, he asserts that the problem is aided by the presence of second languages that are spoken in some areas. Additionally, “native languages” are omitted at times due to political complications they bring.
The political complications here refers to recognition of language in contested regions. A “native language” that is recognised by an organisation might be interpreted as a form of political support. In contested regions, this might raise a few questions on whether the stand of a big international firm is appropriate in a regional conflict or if it is appropriate for large corporations to identify themselves politically. I personally feel that these corporations should not take any form of political stand. Instead, they should maintain a secular and neutral approach when faced with political issues.
Big corporations that identify politically had their fair share of protests. One such instance is companies that recognise Israel as a state. The conflict between Israel and Palestine has been ongoing for decades. When Amazon.com was revealed to have been involved in funding the Israeli military, it caused an uproar and mass boycott of the online store for its supposed involvement in the conflict (Armbrsuter, 2002). Although Amazon.com denied and claimed that their involvement was due to false advertising by external parties, it has caused them to suffer losses and damaged reputation. People generally identify themselves with their political stand and opposing views are often rejected by individual groups. This would lead to an unhealthy bank balance for the corporations and would not be justified for such a corporation to be doing so, having built their reputation and size of the company. By denying, Amazon.com clearly feels that it was unhealthy to be associated to the political stand. Therefore, economically, it is not appropriate for big corporations to have such political association.
Although taking a stand might raise strong protests, there are times when it proves to be profitable. In the United States of America, private companies are allowed to fund a candidate’s election campaign. This is a form of political stand whereby the funding represents their alignment in thinking. This form of political stand allows the companies to invest in the candidates that would have jurisdiction or voting rights in matters that might benefit the company (Welsh & Young, 2010). Though it might be bold, I personally feel that it is manipulative on the companies’ part as future policies might favour their businesses at the expense of other companies in the market.
Corporations make decisions based on their profitability albeit political or not. Although making a political stand could be a double-edged sword, ethically, I personally feel that secularity is best in political issues as it shows neutrality and prevents any form of opposition against the companies while promoting a level playing field in the market.
References:
Armbruster, S. (2002, November 15). Amazon denies backing Israel. Retrieved from http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/2473005.stm
Levi, D. (2012, July 24). Where ISN’T social media ubiquitous? [Web log post].Retrieved from http://www.etondigital.com/where-isnt-social-media-ubiquitous/
Welsh, H., & Young, R. (2010). How Companies Influence Elections-Political Campaign Spending Patterns and Oversight at America’s Largest Companies. Available at SSRN 1692739
asyrafes1102 