Can a global business be idealistic? Last week, Google's most senior executive in Brazil was detained after the company refused to take down a YouTube video that allegedly insulted a politician. Google said that "voters have a right to use the internet to freely express their opinions about candidates for political office." But is it possible to balance being a global business with adhering to your founding ideals? The academic: Rohit Deshpandé Logic suggests that when in Rome, a business should do as the Romans do. But increasingly multinational corporations are developing a set of guiding principles, irrespective of the market in which they reside. For example, I recently wrote a case study on a vodka company in Russia. While some have questioned the rule of law in that market, to obtain funding from international investors the company had to be transparent in its accounting because investors are leery of investing in countries with an uncertain political climate. Just take a look at Argentina since the government nationalised YPF. In the short term, Google needs to protect its executive. In the long term, it is right to continue trying to influence policy in a way that conforms to its values. The writer is the Sebastian S Kresge professor of marketing at Harvard Business School The consultant: David Cushman Organisations have to remain true to their fundamental beliefs. There may be a short-term cost or loss from sticking to them but businesses built to succeed in today's open economy must take a longer view because without consistency, trust disappears. Today's winners are open businesses, those organisations that use their resources to create networks of people who care about the same things they do and who work with them to achieve shared goals. That is the bigger picture Google sees - and that no amount of local sabre-rattling is likely to make it relinquish. The writer is co-founder of 90:10 Group and co-author of "The 10 Principles of Open Business: Building success in today's Open Economy" (forthcoming) The entrepreneur: Kunal Gupta The issue is a lack of clarity on who is the publisher and thus responsible for the content. Google says it is not responsible for what its users post on YouTube. However, if Google is in fact monetising users" content (which it is through display and video advertising), you could make the case it is now the publisher and thus responsible for the content. I like that Google is publishing the requests from government authorities globally to remove content, and hope that over time this turns into a self-accountability measure where the requesters receive the same public scrutiny as those they are scrutinising. The writer is co-founder and chief executive of Polar Mobile