Google has transcended its original post, guarding the doors of the Internet, to now become a titan of global influence. Free services, fast information and simple communication are all trademarks of the Google brand, but this generosity comes at a cost; Google has become the standard means through which most people experience the world. Understanding the ethical foundation of such a ubiquitous organization is important to ensure that the power wielded by Google does not result in abuse. In this context, it is essential to ask whether Google's choice to downplay the famous motto "Don't be evil" is ethically significant. This essay will argue that de-emphasizing the “Don't be evil” motto is an insignificant change to an inherently flawed code of conduct, indicating an unfocused, shareholder-driven ethical basis for Google's decision making. First, the relationship between a code of conduct and organizational ethical behavior is explored. Second, Google's corporate governance policies and their interaction with stakeholders are analyzed. Finally, counterarguments will be considered. Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on "Why Violent Video Games Shouldn't Be Banned"? Get an Original Essay The modern business environment is a mixture of social, political, economic and legal ingredients where transparency towards employees and stakeholders is paramount (Cavanagh, 2004). In an effort to articulate their core principles, it has become common for organizations to adopt a code of conduct, to the point of becoming a legal requirement in North America. A code of conduct is defined by Business Queensland as a document that contains an organisation's “rules, values, ethical principles and vision” (Business.qld.gov.au, 2019). Internally, a code of conduct will help an organization promote ethical behavior in all employees and externally, the code communicates the ethical attributes of the organizational culture (Erwin, 2010). However, codes of conduct are not yet legally binding, nor is their implementation. Going beyond the legal requirements, the content and implementation or "quality" of a code of conduct is one of the topics explored by Erwin in his 2010 article Corporate Codes of Conduct: The Effects of Code Content and Quality on Performance ethics in which the organization itself is responsible for the quality of the code it adopts. Furthermore, Erwin (2010) identifies an organisation's failure to incorporate the code and failure to implement the code as the key attributes of a low-quality code of conduct. According to Weller (1988), low-quality codes of ethics are widespread in the corporate environment, who accuses organizations of using their codes as a “smoke screen”. This sentiment is shared by Stevens (2007), who warns that ethical behavior is not guaranteed just because an organization has a code of conduct, and Erwin (2010), who identifies the increasing incidence of “insincere and rhetoric". The superficial understanding of Google's famous motto "Don't be evil" is optimistic, but digging deeper into the ethical analysis and contextualizing the motto within the organization's code of conduct reveals that the motto may be one of the "smoke screens " by Weller. The motto itself is ambiguous and fails to address the subjectivity of the word “evil.” What is bad in one culture may be considered good in another, what is bad for one stakeholder may be the primary objective for another. Therefore, the ethical foundation of the“bad” must be understood through the organization's code of conduct. This proves difficult, however, as the code simply states that Google operates to “…the highest possible standards,” while completely failing to actually define those standards. Section 1.1 of the code attempts to provide further clarity, stating that “we seek to implement internationally recognized standards” (Alphabet investor Relations, 2019), but this only raises further questions, what ethical principles is Google trying to embody? Simply claiming to possess integrity and aspire to high standards without articulating the specifics of these standards will make it impossible for Google to adequately embody its code, suggesting that "Don't be bad" is the slogan of an insincere code that offers no direct insight into the forces driving ethics of the organization. “Character, motivations and intentions” are the main drivers of an actor's ethical behavior according to Aristotle's Virtue Ethics (Treviño and Nelson, 2007). Google has not clearly identified the parameters of his character nor his motivations, therefore any attempt at ethical behavior is in vain. We can therefore conclude that Google's once famous motto "Don't be evil" along with its code of conduct appear to be purely superficial and that the company's choice to de-emphasize the motto makes no difference to an indifferent stance on ethical misconduct. Perhaps the underlying ethical forces driving Google's decision making can be better understood through an analysis of their interaction with stakeholders. A stakeholder can be defined as “any group or individual who can influence or is influenced by the achievement of an organization's objectives” (Freeman, 1984 pp 46). Shareholders have long been considered the only stakeholders of an organization, but this view is outdated. Customers, suppliers, governments and employees are just a few examples of Google's stakeholders that must be considered, along with shareholders, for an ethically effective management plan. Mitchell, Agle, and Wood (1997) develop a framework for classifying stakeholders, believing that power, legitimacy, and urgency are three key attributes. In this context, a stakeholder can be classified from “definitive stakeholder” to “non-stakeholder” depending on how much they possess each attribute (Mitchell, Agle, & Wood, 1997), clearly highlighting the great variety of stakeholders in Google. Managing the interests of such a large group of stakeholders can be challenging, but how organizations approach these issues provides valuable insights into their priorities. An organization's corporate governance policy is defined as “a set of relationships between a company's management, its board of directors, its shareholders and other interested parties” (OECD Principles of Corporate Governance, 2004), and it is essential to identify relationships with stakeholders. The corporate governance agreement for Google is with its parent company Alphabet. Alphabet was created by Google in late 2015 to facilitate expansion, but as a direct parent company, the ethical orientation of the corporate governance policy can be applied to both companies. Alphabet's corporate governance guidelines follow "agency theory," meaning that the board of directors is primarily interested in policing managerial behavior to ensure that senior executives act in the best interests of shareholders. Directly mentioned in the opening of the corporate governance guidelines is the board's commitment to “provide a structure within which our directors.