The ongoing Israeli assault on Gaza has sparked intense debates within American tech companies about their involvement in the conflict. Tech workers have been advocating for greater transparency regarding their employers’ work for the Israeli military and have even protested against these contracts. IBM, which has a long history of working with the Israeli military, has also faced pressure from its employees to disclose and limit its role in the offensive.
In a livestreamed video Q&A session on June 6, IBM CEO Arvind Krishna addressed these concerns. However, his response only fueled further consternation among IBM workers. According to records of the presentation, Krishna stated that IBM’s foreign business decisions are not based on the company’s own values or humanitarian guidelines. Instead, IBM operates according to the principles encouraged by the governments of the countries it operates in. This statement did little to reassure employees who were worried that business interests would outweigh ethical considerations.
Krishna also claimed that IBM would not participate in building offensive weapons, not because it is morally wrong, but because the company lacks a system to judge the ethical implications of such technologies. However, it is worth noting that IBM has been involved in running the military infrastructure that supports the use of these weapons. In 2020, the company won a contract worth approximately $275 million to build data centers for Israeli military logistics, including combat equipment.
The discrepancy between IBM’s internal stance and its public claims is striking. While the company asserts that its business practices are guided by human rights commitments, its closed-door discussions with employees suggest otherwise. IBM, like its competitors, uses vague language about corporate responsibility and ethics without providing specific guidelines. The company’s human rights principles page mentions its adherence to the United Nations Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights, but it does not elaborate on how these principles are implemented.
These UN guidelines emphasize the need for companies to prevent or mitigate adverse human rights impacts linked to their operations, products, or services. They also highlight the increased risks of complicity in human rights abuses in conflict-affected areas. The guidelines suggest that companies operating in such environments should be cautious about their business relationships and potential liability for human rights abuses committed by other actors.
IBM’s response to its employees’ concerns raises questions about its commitment to these principles. By prioritizing the desires of governments over ethical considerations, the company appears to be sidestepping its responsibility to uphold human rights. This approach is reminiscent of IBM’s defense of its sale of computer services to apartheid South Africa, where the company claimed to follow the lead of the U.S. government in foreign business dealings.
The revelations about IBM’s stance on its involvement in the Israeli offensive have left many employees dissatisfied and outraged. Some workers view Krishna’s comments as an excuse for the company to hide behind the choices made by the U.S. government in a business sense. Given IBM’s track record of participating in genocidal government projects, these remarks do not inspire confidence in the company’s moral compass.
The debate surrounding tech companies’ involvement in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is ongoing. IBM’s response has only added fuel to the fire, with employees and activists calling for greater accountability and transparency. As the conflict continues, it remains to be seen how tech companies will navigate their role in supporting military operations and whether they will prioritize ethical considerations over business interests.