Essay: NSN
1. 2008 was one year before the election of the current conservative president even if it was known that the Supreme Leader was not a model of freedom of expression. Said that, Iran remains an old and fascinating civilization of 74mio potential customers who deserve to have access to technologies for socio-economic development as anybody else. From the case, we also understand that competition in the NSN’s business was considered as a red ocean where firms were eagerly seeking for new shares. So, from the CEO perspective, the foreseen legal business was probably considered as a good opportunity for growth. 2. For: The deal means a new customer and a possible entry in new markets. Overall, it results in profit. Communication is the sinew of war and everyone shall have access to means for freely communicating and expressing himself. (The recent events in Africa have shown the importance of networking against censorship) The deal is “legal” and economically legitimate. If it is not NSN, it would have been another firm. Against: It can not be ignored that the intercept package and the sold technology could have been used for censorship and oppression by a government who violates human rights. Even if legal, it does not excuse NSN from dealing with controversial government in the name of profits. The principles of CSR should have hurt NSN’s ethics. One could still be considered in collusion if working with entities violating human rights. Those points raise the questions about the risks NSN could encounter from a legal standpoint and negative publicity. 3. It is not easy to state if NSN could be considered as co-responsible for human rights violations committed by the oppressive regime - in particular after 2009 elections. However, NSN could not ignore the political situation and the associated risk of misusing their technology.