How Businesses Have Responded in Egypt

Sustained criticism online and from human rights groups has had some effect on Vodafone: the company is listening. Late last week, the company announced that it will not disconnect the accounts of customers in Egypt who are in arrears, and continue to provide access to everyone on a pay-as-you-go contract, until the crisis is over. It is a serious commitment, and it recognizes the hardship Egyptians and foreigners have faced, and offers a practical solution to ensure that people can keep talking and communicating with each other.

This gesture is a welcome development, coming after mobile phone and Internet companies suddenly withdrew their services on Government orders, and worse, transmitted pro-government messages (though Vodafone says it did so under duress) which added to a climate of incitement against peaceful demonstrators.

It is also the sort of action many companies like Vodafone have taken in the aftermath of natural disasters like earthquakes or cyclones, to provide immediate relief. Some see it as a philanthropic gesture; others as an act of corporate social responsibility. And while important, the step does not mitigate the potential and real harm done by the disconnection of services, or the simultaneous broadcast of the controversial text messages. (True, mobile communications were restricted immediately after the July 7, 2005, bombings in central London, but that was in response to terrorist attacks, and the services were resumed quickly. The Egyptian Government’s order was not in response to a terror attack; its intent was to prevent communication between people).

Arguably more creditable and braver is the clever move by Google and SayNow, which provided a "Speak to Tweet" telephone service whereby people in Egypt could call and leave voice messages which were then disseminated through Twitter.

In other words, Egyptians who were unable to access the Internet because of the shutdown (which has had devastating consequences for the Egyptian economy as well) were able to bypass the restriction, and continue to communicate with one another and the rest of the world, albeit only 140 characters at a time.

Perplexingly, Martin Sorrell, the head of the advertising conglomerate WPP, found the conduct of Google and Facebook questionable. In an article in the Times [subscription required], he expressed sympathy and understanding for the dilemma Vodafone faced, and echoed the company’s initial response – that it had no choice but to obey Egyptian authorities.

And then, with Google and Twitter in mind, wrote: "They may become greater heroes among generations brought up in a newly connected world, but they are making de facto editorial and political judgments that will have unintended consequences…. They must understand that with incredible power comes incredible responsibility. You cannot stick your head in the sand and say you are only providing the pipework: you are responsible for the information that flows through it."

That is indeed the case. But Google, Twitter, SayNow, and to some extent Facebook, were not merely acting as a conduit for information – they were supporting a fundamental human right. Google knows risks, and knows how to respond – think of its refusal to censor its search terms in China, after China began attacking Google’s infrastructure. Facebook’s constant tinkering of privacy settings may irritate its users, but by providing space to those organising demonstrations, it has shown it understands human rights responsibilities. And Twitter has shown the importance of alternative means of communication in societies where states are all-powerful and control most means of communications, and where governments may not be democratically elected.

 The episode reinforces how important it is for business executives – systems engineers at mobile phone companies in Egypt and chairmen of advertising conglomerates in western capitals – to familiarize themselves with the human rights framework. When Vodafone turned off access, it made Egyptians vulnerable: to misinformation, to propaganda, to rumours.

In volatile political situations, violence can break out over unsubstantiated “news” passed through word of mouth. (To be sure, the same can happen through the Internet as well, but with access to all sources of information, Internet users can cross-check rumours and discount lies). Mr. Sorrell thinks Vodafone and others “had no option” but to follow orders when, as it says, it was forced to send those controversial messages.

In contrast, Google, Facebook, and Twitter provided the avenue for people in Egypt to reach out – to reassure loved ones they were safe, to warn others of dangers, and to tell the world outside – about what was going on. These companies recognized the meaning of the right to seek, receive, and impart information; they upheld the right to speak freely.

In Mr. Sorrell’s universe, it seems, that’s not what business should be doing. If that is indeed his view, then it is wrong. There is another view: on Saturday, Richard Branson, chairman of the Virgin conglomerate, called upon business heads to "speak out and support the people of Egypt and other countries where oppressive leaders hold sway."

He continued: "At the moment, global politicians are beating around the bush and too many business leaders are keeping quiet. Politicians and business leaders should give President Mubarak a clear statement of intent that he must step down immediately enabling Egypt to move to a true democracy."

As the Wall Street Journal reports today, Wael Ghonim, a senior Google executive and Egyptian national, has been active for several months on social media platforms, supporting Mohammed ElBaradei, former head of the International Atomic Energy Agency who has emerged as the focal point of opposition to President Mubarak and launched electronic protests against the Egyptian administration.

On Jan 28 he disappeared, reportedly arrested by the Egyptian authorities, who have informed his family that he is expected to be released today. It is not known if Mr Ghonim violated any Google policies.

Businesses have to think carefully: in a few days, or few weeks, or few months from now, when Egypt will hold its first genuinely free elections in decades, Egyptians will want to know from these companies: whose side were they on when it mattered – the State, or the People? Did the company uphold and respect human rights, or did it undermine human rights? Did the company, in the process of complying with the law, end up being complicit in lawlessness?

I have a feeling Mr. Branson will come out grinning, and not Mr. Sorrell.