CORPORATE CONTRIBUTIONS IN THREE RECENT NATURAL DISASTERS:
A COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF THE TSUNAMI, KATRINA, AND THE
EARTHQUAKE IN PAKISTAN1
“We thought the tsunami was the worst we could get. This is worse.”
-Jan Egeland, UN emergency relief chief (about the earthquake in Pakistan)
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The world has witnessed a number of natural disasters during the last year. Some of these
disasters may have been the worst natural disasters ever2, especially in the regions where they
occurred. This report looks at the corporate response in three of these recent natural disasters: the
Indian Ocean Tsunami, hurricane Katrina, and the 8/10 Earthquake in Pakistan.
23 transnational companies (TNCs) were selected for analysis. About seventy percent of
these companies are American, while the rest are European. They deal in a wide variety of
products ranging from consumer goods to biotechnology.
Our analysis reveals two stark results. First, the funding provided for the 8/10 Earthquake
by these 23 companies was inadequate given the number of people that were displaced by the
disaster. The funding given by these 23 companies comes to a total of US$6.1 per person
displaced, which is not even enough to buy a blanket or a sweater.
The second finding is that, when compared with the Tsunami and Katrina, funding
provided by these 23 companies for the 8/10 Earthquake is meager. Per person displaced, these
companies donated $330.9 for Katrina, $91.1 for the Tsunami and $6.1 for the Earthquake. Even
in absolute terms, the funding given for the Earthquake is much lower than that given for the
other two disasters.
There may be seemingly plausible explanations for this discrepancy. We consider a few
in this paper such as nationality of companies, media coverage, effect of tourism, number of
countries involved and the politics of terrorism. However, we argue that each of these reasons
falls flat when looked at from an ethical lens. It is from this consideration that we conclude that
the notion of corporate social responsibility (CSR), which is the force behind these corporate
donations, becomes a dubious notion given the present study.
CSR, we conclude, is no stable notion, and is based on factors such as those we have
considered. Media coverage can alter corporate giving, and so can presence or absence of
tourism. The issue becomes a matter of political expediency, and not of ethical responsibility to
society. In the end, it may only be a function of the interest that companies have in a particular
market which drives their corporate giving. At least in the case of the Earthquake, which is
perhaps the most significant in the recent history of Pakistan in terms of deservingness for
corporate funding, the TNC corporate sector seems to have failed its CSR mission.
1
2
Authors: M. Daud Munir and Kashif Jamal of The Network for Consumer Protection
"2005: Year of Disasters," Oxfam.http://www.oxfam.org.uk/press/downloads/year_disasters.pdf
1. INTRODUCTION
A few things differentiate the responsiveness of present-day natural disasters from those which
happened two or three decades ago. Two of these directly contribute to the ‘globalization of
response’ to natural disasters. These two changes – increased transnational corporate activity and
development of mass media – change considerably the way that natural disasters are responded
to. It would be worthwhile then, at the outset, to consider these two changes:

Transnational Corporate Activity
There are presently thousands of companies which do business in one form or another
inside countries other than their home country. Table 1. Market values and GDPs of
The biggest of these have market values greater selected countries and companies
Market Value/
than the GDPs of many countries (see table 1). Country /
Company
GDP
These global companies exercise immense
($Mil)
influence in the countries where they manufacture
273750
or sell their products. Important to understand for Microsoft
Citigroup
247660
the purpose of the present report is the notion of
RD/ Shell Group
221490
corporate social responsibility (CSR). CSR is a
Pfizer
197990
broad term, with adherents and opponents with Procter & Gamble
133920
varying perspectives. Essentially, its adherents Malaysia
118300
claim that corporations are morally responsible Pakistan
96100
entities and can not only effectively regulate their Egypt
75100
own activities to a large extent, but can also Peru
68600
further the cause of social justice and en- Mali
4900
vironmental protection. Its opponents claim that Sources: Forbes website (www.forbes.com) &
Bank at a glance country reports (
CSR is a false notion3. To them, it can mean World
http://devdata.worldbank.org/edstats/cg.asp)
4
anything from an advertising tactic to a tacit (accessed 21-11-05)
attempt to reduce the level of governmental
regulation on their activities, as well as reduce welfare spending. Whatever the case, it is
now true that most global corporations consider themselves to be socially responsible.

Effect of Mass Media
The information and communication revolution has meant that news of events even in
remote areas of the world is immediately communicated to those who have access to the
information resources (television, internet, radio etc.). As people watch live footage of
events from distant places in the world, they feel in some way or another connected to the
events, and indeed to the people involved in those events. Especially in case of natural
disasters, when images of death and deprivation are viewed by people, they feel
somehow responsible to help those in need.
3
4
Henderson, D. "The case against 'Corporate Social Responsibility'", Policy, Winter2001,Vol. 17, Issue 2
Coors, A. and Winegarden, W., "Corporate Social Responsibility or good advertising", Regulation, Spring 2005
2. THE 3 DISASTERS
In this report we will compare corporate aid in three natural disasters that took place in 2004-05.
The details of these disasters are as follows (see table 2 for data on casualties and displaced
population):

The Indian Ocean Tsunami
On 26 December 2004, a massive earthquake off the island of Sumatra in Indonesia
generated tsunamis that caused massive destruction in the coastal areas of South-East
Asia, reaching even as far as East Africa. The countries most affected were Indonesia, Sri
Lanka, India, Thailand and Maldives.

Hurricane Katrina
Thought to be the most destructive (and costliest) natural disaster in the history of the US,
Hurricane Katrina made its landfall twice on continental United States. On 29 August
2005, Katrina made landfall on the southern state of Louisiana causing extensive
destruction. It continued to cause damage in Mississippi and Alabama.

Earthquake (Pakistan)
On October 8 2005, a powerful earthquake measuring 7.6 on the Richter scale struck
South Asia. Its epicenter was located about 90 kilometers north-east of Islamabad.
Affecting mostly mountainous areas of Abbottabad, Batagram, Mansehra and Kohistan in
NWFP and Neelum, Bagh, Punch and Muzaffarabad in Azad Kashmir.
Table 2. Dead and displaced in the Tsunami, Katrina and the
Earthquake (Pakistan)
Natural Disaster
Indian Ocean Tsunami
Hurricane Katrina
Earthquake (Pakistan)
Casualties
170,000
1033
73,276
Population displaced
(millions)
1.5
0.3
3.2
Sources: WHO Situation Report 24 for Tsunami5, OCHA Situation Report
19 for Earthquake6 & LAFD Situation Report September 7, 2005 for
Katrina7
5
http://www.who.int/hac/crises/international/asia_tsunami/sitrep/24/en/index.html
http://ochaonline.un.org/DocView.asp?DocID=3951
7 http://www.laafricanamericankatrinaresource.net/Submissions/KatrinaSitRept09-07-05TTG.pdf
6
3. THE 23 COMPANIES
In the current analysis we selected 23 corporations that were major donors in the 8/10
earthquake8. Data was then obtained for the corporate donations made by these
companies in the other two natural disasters (for data sources, please see Appendix). By
location of headquarter, 15 companies are American, 3 German, 2 Anglo-Dutch, 1
French, 1 British and 1 Finnish. Sector-wise 6 deal in consumer goods, 5 in
pharmaceuticals, 3 in telecommunication, 2 in information technology, 2 in energy, 2 in
finance and banking, 1 in technology, 1 in biotechnology, and 1 in chemicals.
Table 3 shows corporate donations in the three natural disasters. Corporate aid shown in
these tables is an aggregate of both cash and in-kind donations.
Table 3. Corporate donations in the three disasters
#
Company
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
Pfizer
Citigroup
Coca Cola
Pepsi Cola
Unilever
Intel
MERCK
Bayer
Siemens
Motorola
Shell
GSK
Procter & Gamble
Monsanto
Wyeth
Johnson & Johnson
Microsoft
Nokia
Chevron-Caltex
BASF
Alcatel
American Express
Kodak
Total
Earthquake
total
Tsunami
total
Katrina
total
(Million USD)
(Million USD)
(Million USD)
6.11
3.0
2.03
2.0
1.16
1.0
0.67
0.55
0.52
0.5
0.5
0.33
0.5
0.25
0.18
0.15
0.13
0.12
0.05
0.016
0.016
0.015
0.001
35.0
7.4
19.8
2.0
7.47
1.0
10.4
15.2
1.17
3.8
3.1
2.34
2.0
1.3
1.0
2.0
3.5
3.51
12.0
4.9
1.0
1.0
1.5
6.0
11.2
5.0
2.1
3.6
1.0
11.8
2.0
2.0
1.5
3.0
10.0
10.0
1.0
1.0
9.4
9.0
1.0
5.0
1.0
1.17
1.0
0.5
19.79
142.39
99.27
Sources: See Appendix
8
It is important to note that there were Pakistani companies that donated significantly more than many of
the companies selected for the current analysis. However, this analysis is focused on transnational
corporations only.
4. COMPARISON OF CORPORATE GIVING
There is considerable variation in the corporate aid given out by the selected 23 global
companies in the three disasters. The most funding was provided for the Indian Ocean
Tsunami (142.39 million dollars), followed by the hurricane Katrina (99.27 million
dollars). The least funding was given for the earthquake in Pakistan (19.79 million
dollars) (see table 3).
These figures would become more intelligible against the backdrop of the damage caused
by each disaster. There are several conceivable ways to compare the three disasters
including death toll, number of injured, number of displaced etc. The most suitable
indicator for the damage, however, seems to be the number of displaced people. This is
because the funding is going to be targeted at this subset of the population. Those who
have perished in the disaster also need assistance (for instance for proper burial). But,
most of the funding is going to be used for the relief and rehabilitation of the displaced
people. It seems right, then, to compare the funding in light of the number of people
displaced in each disaster (see table 4, and figures 1, 2 & 3).
Table 4. Comparison of corporate giving in the three disasters by dollars per
person displaced
Natural Disaster
Earthquake (Pakistan)
Indian Ocean Tsunami
Hurricane Katrina
Total funding by
the 23 companies
(Million US$)
19.79
142.39
99.27
Population displaced
(Millions)
Dollars per person
displaced
3.2
1.5
0.3
6.1
91.1
330.9
Sources: see tables 2 & 3
Fig. 1 Population Displaced
Fig 2. Corporate donations by the 23 companies
3.5
160
3
140
120
Million US$
Millions
2.5
2
1.5
100
80
60
1
40
0.5
20
0
0
Earthquake
Tsunami
Katrina
Earthquake
Tsunami
Katrina
$
$
$6.1
$91.1
$330.9
per person displaced
per person displaced
per person displaced
EARTHQUAKE
PAKISTAN
INDIAN OCEAN
TSUNAMI
HURRICANE
KATRINA
Figure 3. Dollars per person displaced in Earthquake (Pakistan), Indian
Ocean Tsunami, Hurricane Katrina
5. ANALYSIS OF CORPORATE GIVING
As can be seen from table 4 and figures 1, 2 & 3, funding for Katrina per person
displaced far exceeds the funding for Tsunami. Most relevant, however, for the current
analysis is the fact that the funding for the 8/10 Earthquake is negligible compared to that
for Katrina and the Tsunami.
The response in case of the Earthquake has certainly been inadequate (see box 1). Add to
that various losses and leakages, the actual money that would reach the affected from
these 23 companies would be seriously insufficient.
The question that arises from this analysis is why funding in the case of the earthquake in
Pakistan was so niggardly compared to the other two disaster. A variety of explanations
are possible:


9
Nationality of companies
It can be argued that since 15 out of 23 of the
companies are American, therefore they
contributed much more to the disaster in
America. However, this reasoning, in our
opinion, is not ethically sound. Just like the
unethical 10/90 gap9 in which 90 per cent of
the money in research and development in
health is spent on finding cures for diseases
that affect 10 per cent of the population, this
‘ownership effect’ is not enough to hold back
aid. All these companies do, in fact, draw out
profits from Pakistan. Shell, for instance,
declared 2451 million rupees in profits in
Pakistan10. Their corporate aid in the 8/10
earthquake (30 million rupees) was negligible
compared to the profits they made.
Box 1. What’s $6.1 good for?
Per person funding provided by
23 transnational companies,
some of which are richer than
countries, to those displaced in
the earthquake would be good
enough for purchasing:



1/14 of a cheaply priced
tent, or
1/3 of a cheaply priced
blanket, or
1/2 of a cheaply priced
sweater
Media coverage
Media coverage given to the three disasters varied considerably in the West. It is
understandable – to some extent – that the coverage given to Katrina should have
exceeded coverage given to the other two disasters in the United States. But, it
seems that the coverage given to the earthquake was considerably lower than the
other two disasters. In table 5 we have given details from two publications: the
Economist (UK) and New York Times (US). To make a fair comparison, we have
compared coverage of the three disasters for 40 days after each disaster.
http://www.msf.org/msfinternational/invoke.cfm?objectid=A56D1BCD-7191-4AF5-91EBAED01A756D51
&component =toolkit.article&method=full_html
10 http://www.shell.com/static/pk-en/downloads/about_shell/financial_reports_2005/annual_report_2005.pdf
Media coverage affects responsiveness in disasters in several ways. First, given
the notion of CSR, companies are better motivated to give funding, and then
‘advertise’ it to those who buy their products. The more ‘important’ an event is in
the eyes of the consumers and citizens, the more funding that event will get in this
way. Second, given that providing aid has an opportunity cost, citizens of other
countries do not feel deprived of funding that could have been used on them
instead. For instance, many Americans think that the aid the US government gives
to developing countries is too much. However, it is a fact that US gives the least
funding as percentage of its GDP amongst the rich countries.
Table 5. Media coverage in the West of the three disasters
Disaster
Earthquake (Pakistan)
Indian Ocean Tsunami
Hurricane Katrina
Economist (UK)
New York Times
(US)
(Articles that mention the
disaster till forty days after it
occurred)
(Articles that mention the
disaster till forty days
after it occurred)
12
23
41
82
421
1268
Sources: New York Times websites (www.nytimes.com) & The Economist website (www.economist.com)
(both accessed 21-11-05).
Note: Those articles which were only marginally related to each event were not included

Effect of tourism
One of the possible reasons as to why the response in case of Tsunami was much
better could be that the countries where the disaster happened were mostly tourist
countries. In fact, a few hundred European and American tourists actually died in
the disaster. Pakistan, however, especially after 9/11 is a not an important tourist
destination. Very few people of nationalities other than Pakistan died in the
earthquake. Given the heightened nature of nationalism in modern times, people
feel responsible towards their own people more than they do to those of other
countries. However, as the importance of the event grew, the countries where the
foreign tourists died stood to benefit as well.

Size of Market
Another reason for the greater response in the US and some of the Tsunami
affected countries could have been the greater sizes of the markets in these
countries, including larger consumer bases. The US is certainly the richest
country in the world, and consumption is a key driving force in its economy. The
Tsunami involved countries such as India and Indonesia, which together have
about eight times the number of people that Pakistan has. Given these facts, one
can see the pragmatism on part of the companies in releasing a larger share of
their corporate donations to the Tsunami and Katrina, while reserving only a
niggardly share for a country where they expect to extract little anyway. This
argument makes good business sense. But, ethically, it stands little chance for
acceptability. If the companies are operating in all of these countries, and the
driving force behind their donation is ‘humanitarian relief’, then how did some
humans come to count less than other humans in countries with ‘better markets’?
If that is the case, then the agenda for humanitarian relief and other social
improvement causes must simply be taken away from the companies, and be
handed over to more reliable and fair global institutions.

The number of countries involved
The sheer geographical scope of the tsunami was so immense that it affected
people in as many as ten countries. Although the number of people displaced were
far greater in the 8/10 earthquake, the number of countries affected were so many
more in case of the Tsunami. More countries means more diplomatic ties, more
well-settled diaspora in the rich countries, and more country offices of various
transnational corporations.

The politics of terrorism
Pakistan has, over the last few years, been associated much with the rise of
terrorism. Whether as friend or foe, this association means that the only coverage
many in the West have seen of Pakistan is in conjunction with terrorism. This
misrepresentation has the effect of dehumanizing a whole people, and one
ramification of this can certainly be the niggardly amount given to those affected
in Pakistan.

‘Donor fatigue’
One reason that is often cited for both the lateness of response and the frugal
giving in case of the 8/10 Earthquake is ‘donor fatigue’. According to this
argument, the timing of these three major disasters in a span of ten months
fatigued the donors, such that they couldn’t ‘afford’ to help properly anymore.
Therefore, when the Tsumani struck, they had much of their corporate donation
money lying around, but later the amount had dwindled to naught. This is an
interesting argument and may be satisfactory to all except those who stood to lose
almost everything in the disasters. Human being in distress need aid – not
arguments. That money was provided by a company in an earlier disaster is no
consolation for someone who has lost his shelter in freezing weather. If the
phenomenon of donor fatigue really exists for companies who have market values
far greater than the GDPs of scores of countries, then they had better plan better
or reevaluate their humanitarian agenda. In this paper, however, we contend that
the other factors are much stronger than the timing factor. This is because for the
magnitude of damage (in terms of lives lost and people displaced) these
companies were able to donate extravagantly in Katrina, just a few months after
the Tsunami. We wonder why it is especially in case of a smaller market with
fewer consumers and little tourist attraction where the money ran out.
5. CONCLUSION
We have considered seven seemingly plausible explanations for the discrepancy in
corporate giving in the 8/10 disaster versus the other two disasters. And, as explained,
none of these explanations offer any satisfying reasons for the insufficiency of corporate
giving in the Earthquake. Instead they make us aware of holes in the arena of
international politics as it relates to media and business, such that people in some parts of
the world become better represented, and in turn, seem to have greater worth than those
in other parts of the world.
The notion that concerns us most in this study, however, is that of corporate social
responsibility (CSR). It is from the framework of this notion that companies, whose
explicit aim is profit-making, come forward and donate millions of dollars for improving
the lives of people living in the societies where they do business. The companies, and the
academics who support the notion, argue that many companies have become so
influential that they can best further the cause of societal improvement. The critics,
however, think that this would only lead to a relaxation in governmental regulation11.
The present study reveals some interesting findings with regard to the CSR debate
in Pakistan. We contend that the 8/10 earthquake was the most worthy event for
corporate funding under the CSR notion in at least a couple of decades in Pakistan (or
ever, it may be argued). But, the response has been less than encouraging.
Our analysis reveals that CSR is no stable notion, and that the donations to society
under this notion are no security to its people. It is impossible to question the companies
on the amount they donate. Moreover, the donations given depend on such external (and
often political) factors such as media coverage, presence of tourism, and number of
nature of consumers etc. that it is very unfit to replace a sound and stable governmental
responsibility towards citizens. Eventually, CSR giving may only reflect business
expediency on part of the company, such that its responsibility may be directly
proportional to the amount of profit it makes from a population. Where there are actual
lives at stake, this form of economic aid for people in distress is highly questionable, and
indeed, ethically unacceptable.
For a useful introduction to the CSR debate, see ‘Corporate Social Responsibility’ a debate between Tom
Burke and Joel Bakan, published in The Ecologist In March 2005
11
APPENDIX . SOURCES FOR TABLE 3
‘Earthquake total’ column has been taken from the following website (except for ‘Procter &
Gamble’):
http://www.privatisation.gov.pk/Handout/HO-AR-05/Oct-05/HO28102005%20Cabinet%20Committee%20on%20Fund%20Raising%20From%20Business%20Community
%20for%20Earthquake%20Relief-Rs.%208.4%20Billion%20Relief%20Mobilized.htm
(Accessed November 11, 2005)
Figures of Tsunami and Katrina have been obtained from the following websites, respectively
(Accessed November 11, 2005):
Pfizer:
http://www.pfizer.com/pfizer/are/mn_tsunami_qa.jsp and
http://www.pfizer.com/pfizer/are/news_releases/2005pr/mn_2005_0921a.jsp
Citigroup:
http://www.citibank.hu/hungary/homepage/others/szokoar_e.htm and
http://www.citi.com/citigroup/press/2005/050907a.htm
Coca Cola:
http://www2.coca-cola.com/ourcompany/wn20050121_tsunami.html and
http://www2.coca-cola.com/ourcompany/wn20050907_hurricane_katrina.html
Pepsi Cola:
http://www.pepsico.com/PEP_Citizenship/Contributions/FeaturePrograms/index.cfm
Unilever:
http://www.unilever.com/ourvalues/environmentandsociety/casestudies/environment/tsunami.asp and
http://www.unileverusa.com/ourcompany/newsandmedia/pressreleases/Hurricane_Katrina.asp
Intel:
http://portland.bizjournals.com/portland/stories/2004/12/27/daily31.html and
http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/HurricaneKatrina/story?id=1084342&page=1
MERCK:
http://www.bio.org/news/features/20050111.asp and
http://www.merck.com/about/feature_story/09022005_katrina.html
Bayer:
http://www.bayer.com/about-bayer/social-responsibility/donations/tsunami-catastrophe/page3251.htm and
http://www.press.bayer.com/News/News.nsf/0/B143B5E1B5DEB0B7C125706F005344F9?Open&ccm=01
0005000&l=EN
Siemens:
http://www.siemens.com/index.jsp?sdc_p=t15cz3suo1237127pnflmi1237116&sdc_sid=1287710680& and
http://www.usfilter.com/en/About+USFilter/Newsroom/siemens_katrina_release_091205.htm
Motorola:
http://www.motorola.com/content/0,,5199,00.html and
http://www.motorola.com/mediacenter/news/detail/0,,5920_5882_23,00.html
Shell:
http://www.shell.ca/code/library/news/2004/04nr_dec31_tsunami.html and
http://www.shell.com/home/Framework?siteId=us-en&FC2=/usen/html/iwgen/news_and_library/storm_updates/katrina/zzz_lhn.html&FC3=/usen/html/iwgen/news_and_library/storm_updates/katrina/storm_update_jdh_message3.html
GSK:
http://www.gsk.com/financial/reports/ar2004/annual-review-04/contributing.htm and
http://www.gsk.com/ControllerServlet?appId=4&pageId=402&newsid=640
Procter & Gamble: (website accessed on November 23, 2005)
http://www.pg.com/news_flash/earthquake_in_pakistan.jhtml (for 8/10 Earthquake),
http://fdncenter.org/cleveland/gtmd/cl_gtmd_020105.html and
http://www.pg.com/news_flash/dynamic_article.jhtml?document=%2Fcontent%2Fen_US%2Fxml%2Finfo
_center%2Fpg_donations_update.xml
Monsanto:
http://www.bio.org/news/features/20050111.asp and
http://www.monsanto.com/monsanto/layout/media/05/09-01-05.asp
Wyeth:
http://www.bio.org/news/features/20050111.asp and
http://www.wyeth.com/news/Pressed_and_Released/pr09_01_2005_16_06_41.asp
Johnson and Johnson:
http://www.jnj.com/news/jnj_news/20050112_160450.htm and
http://www.jnj.com/news/jnj_news/20050902_152838.htm
Microsoft:
http://www.microsoft.com/presspass/press/2005/jan05/0106TsunamiFS.mspx and
http://www.microsoft.com/presspass/features/2005/sep05/09-09katrina.mspx
Nokia:
http://press.nokia.com/PR/200501/976823_5.html and
http://www.nokiausa.com/about/newsroom/article/1,1046,3429,00.html
Chevron- Caltex:
http://www.chevron.com/news/current_issues/tsunami_additional_contribution.asp and
http://www.chevron.com/news/press/2005/2005-08-30.asp
BASF:
http://www.basf.com/corporate/news2005/021105_tsunami.htm and
http://www.basf.com/corporate/news2005/09-02-05_Katrina.htm
Alcatel:
http://www.alcatel.com/vpr/index.jhtml?body=http://www.home.alcatel.com/vpr/vpr.nsf/8b38f62746ee1dc
ac12567a8004691d8/62f8d25afb94518dc1256f8500496c74!OpenDocument and
http://www.alcatel.com/vpr/index.jhtml?body=http://www.home.alcatel.com/vpr/vpr.nsf/8b38f62746ee1dc
ac12567a8004691d8/0b9eebda4adc7547c125707400352bc5!OpenDocument
American Express:
http://www10.americanexpress.com/sif/cda/page/0,1641,13556,00.asp and
http://amex.justgive.org/katrina/
Kodak:
http://www.letsgodigital.org/en/news/articles/story_2379.html and
http://www.nema.org/media/ind/20050909b.cfm