How would you feel if Google started matching employee charitable contributions?

[thermal]

If Google suddenly announced it would match employee charitable contributions (up to $10,000 annually), how would you feel about that? Would you feel it's a positive ethical move, or a waste of shareholder money?

 

[A.Nonymous]

Waste of money. Why is a company doing that? To get goodwill? Google already has plenty of goodwill. Completely pointless.

 

[Vihzel]

Up to $10,000 per year? That's extremely small for Google. Of course it would be great for the charitable organization and look great in the public eye.

 

[9to5cynic]

Hmmm google had (has?) the mission statement to "do no evil" right? I guess that would fit it. Though, in my book google could commit some serious crimes and still end with positive karma. Gmail being free, Google docs, ... and the search engine... saved me ages online.

Yup, google.

 

[cds0699]

Why is it that companies, or people with a lot of money are expected to make charity donations these days?

I feel businesses should do what they're supposed to do. Put out the best possible products/services, support them, and make a profit for the company and it's investors.

 

[A.Nonymous]

Hmmm google had (has?) the mission statement to "do no evil" right? I guess that would fit it. Though, in my book google could commit some serious crimes and still end with positive karma. Gmail being free, Google docs, ... and the search engine... saved me ages online.

Yup, google.

If giving to charities is going along with "don't be evil" then is not giving to charities evil? I fail to understand why someone who chooses to keep all the money that they've honestly earned is evil.

 

[cds0699]

If giving to charities is going along with "don't be evil" then is not giving to charities evil? I fail to understand why someone who chooses to keep all the money that they've honestly earned is evil.

I agree 100%.

 

[Roze]

I am not sure if you guys/gals know how much Google gives back to the communities and the world.

This is Google's Philanthropy site: Google.org - Philanthropy @ Google

Google approaches philanthropy in a variety of ways. In 2010, charitable giving at Google exceeded $145 million in funding to non-profits and academic institutions, and more than $184 million in total giving when including Google Grants, Google.org technology projects and product support for non-profits. Learn more about our major initiatives below.

If Google suddenly announced it would match employee charitable contributions (up to $10,000 annually), how would you feel about that? Would you feel it's a positive ethical move, or a waste of shareholder money?

Google already does this Actually, they match $12,000 per employees.

Google employee matching: Up to $12,000 company match for each employee’s annual charitable contributions and $50 donation for every 5 hours an employee volunteers through the “Dollars for Doers” program.

I am not sure in the US, but in Canada, charitable donation is 100% tax deductible. The government gives people incentive to donate, especially those that make a lot of money. It's either 'I have 12k in tax I owe the government this year. Do I want to give the 12k to the government or to my favourite charity. If I give that 12k to the charity, it is 100% deductible against my taxable income.'

Giving back to the world:

In this spirit, our global sales team led by Nikesh Arora is giving a $20 million holiday gift that will provide:

-Schooling for 15,000 kids in poor communities in India through Bharti Foundation.

-Access to vital medication and health services, especially for women and girls, in post-conflict areas in Africa through Global Strategies for HIV Prevention.

-Vaccines to protect 50 million children from polio through UNICEF.
Strategic support and online tools for 1.5 million social entrepreneurs through partners including
Ashoka, NTEN, APC and LASA.

-Environmental education in the National Parks for 40,000 students through NatureBridge.

________________________________________________________________________

Why is it that companies, or people with a lot of money are expected to make charity donations these days?

I feel businesses should do what they're supposed to do. Put out the best possible products/services, support them, and make a profit for the company and it's investors.

It goes with people that are better off (in society/life) helping out people that are less fortunate. People volunteer their time to charities to raise money for good causes or volunteer their professional skills.

Companies are made up of people. People that do much for the community may get other employees in their company to reach out to the community as well.

Helping out the community is seen as a good thing. Companies helping out the community is seen as them giving back to the communities that the companies situated in.

Now company A and B make identical products in every way except Company A donates $$ to your community. Sadly company B does not. If you were to ask someone to pick between product A or product B, they will pick product A since they see the positive results of the company within the community. Now company B sees a decrease in sales and ask customers, 'why do you buy product A when product B is the exact same'. Their replies, 'because company A donates to the community so our purchase for product A is helping the community'. To be competitive, company B announce that it will also donate $$ to the community.

Goodwill goes a long way for a number of companies. It is a competitive advantage that most companies take advantage of.

 

[cds0699]

I am not sure if you guys/gals know how much Google gives back to the communities and the world.

This is Google's Philanthropy site: Google.org - Philanthropy @ Google



Google already does this Actually, they match $12,000 per employees.



I am not sure in the US, but in Canada, charitable donation is 100% tax deductible.

Giving back to the world:



________________________________________________________________________



It goes with people that are better off (in society/life) helping out people that are less fortunate. People volunteer their time to charities to raise money for good causes or volunteer their professional skills.

Companies are made up of people. People that do much for the community may get other employees in their company to reach out to the community as well.

Helping out the community is seen as a good thing. Companies helping out the community is seen as them giving back to the communities that the companies situated in.

Now company A and B make identical products in every way except Company A donates $$ to your community. Sadly company B does not. If you were to ask someone to pick between product A or product B, they will pick product A since they see the positive results of the company within the community. Now company B sees a decrease in sales and ask customers, 'why do you buy product A when product B is the exact same'. Their replies, 'because company A donates to the community so our purchase for product A is helping the community'. To be competitive, company B announce that it will also donate $$ to the community.

Goodwill goes a long way for a number of companies. It is a competitive advantage that most companies take advantage of.

I can understand that, Rose. The main question and reason for my post was the word "expected". It seems like it's expected these days and if a company chooses not to donate then they're doing something wrong in the eyes of a lot of people. I just don't like/agree with the expectation that companies should have to donate to be considered a good company.

It's my belief that most companies have earned their profits, and if they choose to donate, then great, I'd obviously think that's wonderful. However if they choose not to, I don't think that should be held against them either.

 

[Roze]

I can understand that, Rose. The main question and reason for my post was the word "expected". It seems like it's expected these days and if a company chooses not to donate then they're doing something wrong in the eyes of a lot of people. I just don't like/agree with the expectation that companies should have to donate to be considered a good company.

It's my belief that most companies have earned their profits, and if they choose to donate, then great, I'd obviously think that's wonderful. However if they choose not to, I don't think that should be held against them either.

It shouldn't really but if everyone of their competitors donate $$ to charities in the country then it has become a standard that that company donate too if it wants to do well.

 

[A.Nonymous]

I am not sure in the US, but in Canada, charitable donation is 100% tax deductible. The government gives people incentive to donate, especially those that make a lot of money. It's either 'I have 12k in tax I owe the government this year. Do I want to give the 12k to the government or to my favourite charity. If I give that 12k to the charity, it is 100% deductible against my taxable income.'

Here in the States it's similar, but not the same. If you have $10,000 of taxable income and your tax rate is 25% just to use round numbers, then you'd owe $2,500 to the feds. If you gave $2,000 to charity, then as far as the feds are concerned, you've only got $8,000 of taxable income so they'd only take $2,000. There's no option to give that $2,000 to someone other than the feds. All you can do is reduce the amount of money you're going to pay taxes on.

It goes with people that are better off (in society/life) helping out people that are less fortunate. People volunteer their time to charities to raise money for good causes or volunteer their professional skills.

And that's all well and good. If you want to do that, knock yourself out. I just don't see criticizing people who choose not to do that.

Now company A and B make identical products in every way except Company A donates $$ to your community. Sadly company B does not. If you were to ask someone to pick between product A or product B, they will pick product A since they see the positive results of the company within the community. Now company B sees a decrease in sales and ask customers, 'why do you buy product A when product B is the exact same'. Their replies, 'because company A donates to the community so our purchase for product A is helping the community'. To be competitive, company B announce that it will also donate $$ to the community.

Goodwill goes a long way for a number of companies. It is a competitive advantage that most companies take advantage of.

Goodwill does go a long way for sure. In Google's case they have tons and tons of goodwill. Donating to charities is not going to help them much in that area.

 

[9to5cynic]

If giving to charities is going along with "don't be evil" then is not giving to charities evil? I fail to understand why someone who chooses to keep all the money that they've honestly earned is evil.

Sorry for the confusion. That wasn't the implication I was making (attemping to make) at all. I simply meant that if their mission statement was "do no evil" then I can see how donations could be included with that.

I take the statement "Do no evil" as meaning neutral actions are permitted, as are 'good' actions. Of course, evil, good and neutral are all subjective.

 

[mikedt]

I have no feelings at all. Google is a private US corporation, what it does with its money is no particular concern of mine. Same with any other US corporation.

 

[RiverOfIce]

And that's all well and good. If you want to do that, knock yourself out. I just don't see criticizing people who choose not to do that.

Oh goodie. Where do we get to draw the morality line? What is right and wrong in our society. Two grow adults want to marry each other, but they are the same sex, so not only is it illegal but ill-moral. Everyone get off criticizing them, why? Where to we get to draw the line. How about welfare. If someone people choose to be on welfare and some people choose not to be. Should the people that are not on welfare criticize the ones that are?

Where do we get to draw the moral line!!!