Dayna Simpson should be in the final stages of PhD research into seeing the worst in people (in this case corporate people).

It's true private citizens and corporations led the charge on sending assistance to earthquake-tidal wave survivors and their shattered communities following the devastating events of Dec 26 and that in some respects governments have played catch-up.

But if I were a bereaved-injured-homeless-destitute Acehnese, I wouldn't give a damn whose logo was on the bottle of water or soft drink I was given - though I might ponder the issue of whether the faux-morality of the arguments put forward by western PhD researchers about corporate greed risks placing further limits on free capital investment flows and thus the sustained long-term economic growth needed to provide paid employment opportunities and therefore the opportunity to enjoy the product by choice rather than necessity met by kind donation.

It doesn't matter why big business are giving the money. The fact is they are. It really is impossible for them to do anything right isn't it?

Dayna, are you looking at this from purely an academic perspective or are you really criticizing business for donating money? It just seems incredible to me that someone could be saying this rubbish in a critical manner.

Corporate social responsibility is making sure the public are informed about their products and services and that all dealings with the public are honest. That's about it, that's your PhD done for you there. Anything else business does for the communities they trade in (apart from providing jobs and tax income) is a bonus.

What's the motivation for anyone who donates money to the disaster? At the end of the day it's only to make ourselves feel better, to feel that we've done something. Purely selfish reasons and there's absolutely nothing wrong with that.

Bozzie, methinks you have the wrong end of the corporate stick here. "Corporate social responsibility is making sure the public are informed aboutt their products and services" ???

That aint corporate responsibility, that's called advertising. And advertising is a means of increasing exposure, hence profits.

Dayna is correct in her analysis. Corporations don't do anything unless there is something in it for them. they are not moral beings with the desire to do good.

Sorry, bozzie, but they really are just in it for the money!

Take a look at the 3 part series on SBS 'The Corporation'. Part 2 is on this week. It may broaden your opinion a little more.

Seems we are all equally guilty of Conspicuous Compassion lately. Corporate participation can be no worse. I agree with Scribe, that to the victims of tsunami, a donation is a donation, no matter how the boxes are labelled. I feel I understand the arguments Dayna is putting forward, but feel that any commercial threat posed by such corporate advertising is dwarfed by the perceived threat of Christian charities such as Word Vision, converting Muslims to Christianity. In fact, clear warnings against such practise have already been made.

People like oceangrrl should know better than to look a gift-horse in the mouth. But then again, it’s consistency with feminist theory, perhaps makes it precisely so.

Dayna, what a sad person you are. You need to get your perspective above the muddy surrounds of your thought process. I know many businesses who support football and other teams with little hope of recovering their money, they do it because they personally want to be involved. Many others make contributions to almost every facet of community life including looking after their staff members in times of trouble. If you haven't yet seen this you aren't very advanced in your progress toward a PhD. One would hope that you learn to be a bit more realistic and gain a more balance as you progress through your life.

One day it might be you who is in desperate trouble and you will then find that this community including large and small business owners have great and unconditional generosity. Take the word of someone who has been there.

Tom

Dayna, I have to agree with scribe and Tom here. It really makes me wonder what your soon to be published PhD is going to say about CSR.

In three years of working with companies on CSR, I have not come across one where the CSR people even speak to the marketing department. So to allege that all this corporate giving to the tsunami appeal is a cynical marketing plot is a bit rich by a long shot. Undoubtedly there is competition for the 'most headline grabbing' contributions, but what exactly is wrong with that?

Planius I'm a litle concerned about what kind of CSR departments you've been hanging about in, because it's my experience (8 years of it within corporations) that a majority of companies put their CSR people in the marketing department. So that they can produce glossy and ineffective CSR reports. And then they call the role Public Relations. Because isn't that what PR is? Managing (oops sorry 'marketing') relations with the public?

In fact I'm not sure why there seems to be so much vitriol here against Dayna's PhD - why the personal attacks? I thought this was a 'debate' site. Isn't that missing the point? In the last paragraph of the article she says she's all in favour of corporate giving and hopes it will continue. I believe she's advocating the right for the public to ask questions like where is the money going and how is being distributed and what about all the other humanitarian crises that are so very much in need of corporate dollars but never receive it? Isn't CSR consulting/research about pushing for more accountability from corporates?

Wasn't there something somewhere in history about some Greeks and a Trojan Horse?

Audrey, most companies put their CSR in Corporate Affairs (PR), not Marketing. Gianni Zappala has done some research on this in Australia and came up with 39% Corporate Affairs, 24% CEO's office, 12% Community Relations and 7% Marketing. This is in line with what I said we observe in our consulting business.

Seeker..."people like oceangrrl" means what, exactly?
Someone who questions the motives and assumptions of people in power?
What is so terribly threatening to you about that? Because threatened you most obviously are...why else the need on your part to label me.

As Audrey pointed out, gifts don't always come without strings attached.

A report in a local paper this morning interviewed a woman (oh, seeker, get over it!) who was born in Indonesia. She reminds people that the residents of Banda Aceh and most of the other regions, had it terribly hard to begin with. There is no income support, entire families band together to eke out some basic standard of living. Most of us couldn't give a toss about that before the tsunami, it's just that it triggered off our own fears about such a death, and the inevitable destruction that would occur here.

Go on, Seeker. find something terribly feminist-oriented about that.

Well said Dayna. Agreed. Other people in this forum really should wake up and have some independent thought on occasion.

Ben's right!! Big business is fat and greedy and only does anything if it increases the bottom line.
That's certainly a fresh, new, independant idea isn't it? I certainly haven't heard that argument ad nauseum before.
Ben, maybe it's you that should think for yourself occasionally instead of jumping on every feel-good "look at what a good and caring person I am" bandwagon that comes along.

Oceangrrl, your cynicism is the only threat I detect :-(

Benevolence and altruism do exist in individuals, communities, governments, and yes, even in public corporations. They don’t always get it right but when they do, it should be acknowledged once in a while. It doesn’t hurt and doesn’t cost, but in the process, helps to change the world for the better :-)

You’re right Seeker. When corporations get it right, they should be acknowledged. However, while corporate giving is a good thing, this type of short term giving is not enough. Corporations need to address the real long term CSR issues – poor labour standards and environmental degradation in THESE VERY COUNTRIES that have been hit by this natural disaster. Donating to these countries and calling it CSR during times like is an easy option, and leads people to be cynical of the actions of corporations. I would suggest to consultants like Planius that corporations need to respond as swiftly to the above mentioned issues. Inaction on these issues by corporations has a devastating manmade-tsunami affect on the poor in countries like Thailand, Indonesia, Sri Lanka and India. And just to clarify certain misapprehensions in these postings: a donation is not a donation no matter what. Sri Lanka refused aid from Israel, while India refused all offers of foreign aid – their traditional stance of ‘thanks, but no thanks’ to foreign governments…now, I wonder why this was?! Aren’t these poor third world nations desperate for any help they can get? You would think that they would be a bit more grateful right scribe, seeker, bozzie???

Sam, short term giving is never enough, but it is also the best kind. Give them clean water, provide for immediate health needs, leave some money in the kitty to enable them to fish again, restart tourism (and whatever), then get the hell out. Long term giving and what that entails, could be India's issue. Refusing aid from certain sources is OK too. Indonesia seems to want us all out as soon as all the donations are in (enough to make ME cynical, heaven forbid ;-).

We need to be sensitive to these things too - Charities like World Vison etc. were planning 5-10 year involvement, and you could see the Indonesians (for various reasons) were a little uncomfortabe with that. The presence of foreign troops are another source of discomfort. Whether it is because they cannot guarantee their safety, or whether it inflames GAM, or whatever the reason, I would think they have the right to do that. We should respect that.

Sam, environmental degredation and poor labour standards in developing countries are the responsibility of government, not foreign corporations. The under privileged in developing countries are so because of their governments, not any action or inaction by corporations.

Although India and Sri Lanka are developing countries they certainly aren't classified as poor countries. They have every right to refuse aid, assistance or anything else they wish, whether they're poor or not.

I have to agree with Sam here .. there seems to be prevailing attitude of 'they should be so grateful to receive our money' and 'anything else that's wrong with their standard of living, oh well, that's not our problem, we're just here to don the corporate superman outfit, charge in, save the day and then walk off'. Is that socially responsible? Sounds incredibly unsustainable. A lot of economic work suggests that last-minute corporate giving or 'cause-marketing' is bad for the business bottom line. On the one hand it generates mistrust in the receiving community .. but Seeker and Bozzie would have you believe that the people in poorer parts of the world should be sooo happy to receive anything immediate from the western world even if half of it gets eaten by government-skimming. Short term giving is culturally insensitive, contextually disruptive and almost never gets to the people that really need it. On the second hand, cause-marketing has been shown to produce a negative response from the stockmarket and shareholders. Philip Morris is notorious for donating $75 million in charitable donations one year and then spending $100 million advertising their 'goodwill'. The Asian economies encourage corporations to set up business within their borders, with tax breaks and a blind eye to pollution and unsafe, under-valued work practices. Bozzie, Scribe and Seeker are all in favour of this .. but, did you realise that the availability of such cheap and irresponsible operating conditions make Australia a less desirable place for MNCs to invest?

And as for Planius with "Undoubtedly there is competition for the 'most headline grabbing' contributions, but what exactly is wrong with that?". Well, a lot. It's laughable that you say this and then provide a link to your website that holds a feature article arguing against such superficial responses from Corporations. Can't you afford a decent advertisement for your services?

Audrey, why shouldn't they be greatful to receive money to help rebuild their shattered lives? I'm sure if you went and asked most of them they would be very greatful.

Alot of these comments are really patronising of people in the third world. The messsage that comes through is that people of the third world are little more than pathetic children being bullied and monstered by the evil west. It's a great way of being racist without actually being racist if you ask me. Heaven forbid that people in developing countries might actually want to develop! Fancy some poor little Sri Lankan actually wanting to own a television set, go to the movies sometimes or buy themselves "a little something." The idea is outrageous! They really should just potter around their little rice paddies and weave a few baskets and let the do gooders get on with making themselves feel better.

If you really want to do some good how about you get over to Somalia, Sudan, or somewhere like that and tell their governments to actually help their people instead of slaughtering them and starving them to death. When you get these countries to the stage where multi-nationals actually want to invest there then you actually have done some good.

Bozzie, you are correct - your comments are 'really patronising of people in the third world'. And we should be falling over ourselves to let the communities of developing countries in on how satisfying a consumer-culture is. What they are crying out for is a good TV, a local showing of Bridget Jones and some good old retail therapy. And perhaps a big casino for that special night out. And you are again ultimately right - perhaps YOU should go to Somalia or Sudan (why only there?), let the government know just how wise you are and stop terrorising 'do-gooders' - ie people trying to do some good, how dare they!? - online.

Sri Lanka's main production income is from garment & textiles, tea and rubber. Not as much rice paddy-pottering and basket weaving as you would expect for the stereotytpical image of a developing nation, and if there was, you're right, we should immediately put a stop to it and get everyone more gainfully employed in a sweat-shop.

Audrey, what exactly would YOU do and how would YOU do it? What is that big picture we’re all missing; pray tell.

What has Bridget Jones got to do with anything and who said “retail therapy” is needed or provided. What is it about the western capitalist culture that you like?

"Heaven forbid that people in developing countries might actually want to develop!"

An odd idea this one, and one that I find rather condecending.

The aritcal was about big corporations taking advantage of the cituation, one I feel is justified. However, now we get to see an old favorite, what development actually means.

American planners, consultants and architects mannaged to turn Mecca, the most holy city for some 1.3 billion Muslims, into a mess of tunnels, flyovers, gaudy hotels and rater tacky malls. Lets look at the good old Marlbro Man. A corporate image that many people in America don't want to see anymore, but throught Asia his gurning face is there, grinning down at you while teenage girls dressed as cowgilrs hand out free cigeretts to passing youngsters.

No one, including Dayna, is denying that the people affected by this disaster need help (though the fact that roughly 210,00 die EVERY WEEK because of world poverty is a fact often overlooked by so many of us, including the all loving, all careing corporations) however a question has been raised regarding the overall stratagy of these big buisnesses and other possiable motives. While one may by synical for asking such questions, I believe that one would be totally naive not to.

Most Australian corporate giving was channelled through charities.

Here’s a link to an article jointly written by Australian chief operating officers of these charities; this is what they promise to do. http://smh.com.au/articles/2005/01/16/1105810774915.html

Thanks for proving my point Audrey. What are you actually trying to say? That people in developing countries should try and live up to some Utopia of quaint village life, everyone looking out for one another, loving the environment and rejecting the ideals of a consumer society? And I'm the one being patronizing!? These people have just as much right to strive for comfort, security and anything else they might like. Pity most people in the third world don't have computers, they might be able to put their two cents worth in as well as all us privileged Westerners. The human race has spent it's entire existence trying to control the environment to its benefit. Trying to make life for itself as safe and comfortable as possible. It's a bit hard to swallow that we've had if wrong from the beginning. Remember that along with consumerables, Western commercialism also provides better health standards, longer life expectancies, better education, plentiful food and safe water.

Australia's biggest exports are mining and agricultural products. According to your reasoning then most Australians are miners or farmers. I'd also much rather work in a sweat shop than starve to death. But this gets back to what I've already said. It's up to governments to ensure that their people don't work in such conditions.

Audrey I really don't understand what's so bad about our society? You are most probably a product of this society, as are your family, friends, neighbours and all the generous people who donate money and time to alot of causes in this country. Most people I meet are lovely decent people. We can walk down most streets in this country safely, if we get injured or can't find work our country supports us until we get back on our feet. Our kids have a bright future and we can think and say as we please (almost) without having to worry about being dragged from our beds at night. Our country has recently been in the grip of drought for years, yet I haven't heard of thousands of Australians starving to death in the streets. If that's what an evil consumer driven society produces then I'm all for it.

Sherbetsaucers, what's patronizing about that statement? Do you think they don't want to develop? Do you think I'm putting my Western values onto these simple people who have no concept of the evil inherent in Western lifestyles? Who's being patronizing here?

Your statement about Mecca is ridiculous. Do you think the Yanks just showed up there, in the holiest city in Islam, and built all these things whilst the locals sat around crying about it? Every brick laid in Mecca was commissioned by the Saudi's. If they've got a gaudi, horrible place then it's no ones fault but their's. It's like blaming the workforce who assembled your car because you don't like it's design.

To ask the question about corporate motivation in donating money is fine if it's asked from an academic perspective. But it's a bit grubby when asked as a means of attacking the same corporations. They really are in a no win situation.

Very well put Bozzie. I really don't understand what these people are objecting about, unless they think this money should have gone to themselves instead.

I wonder if Audrey and sherbetsaucers put their lotto on for the fifteen million tonight?

Bozzie and Seeker, how wonderfully your naive belief and trust in companies shields you from the facts of life you dismiss as "patronizing", "cynical" or "feel-good".

Governments are responsible for the state of worker's lives in a capitalist system??? You're only kidding yourselves here.
It is not feasible to say governments can protect their workers from low wages and exploitative working conditions. Governments are desperate to attract foreign investment, and this investment is usually reliant on cheap labour and less than rigorous environmental and safety regulations, amongst other things. It would take every govt. in the world to draw a bottome line on wages and say, no, we shall not settle for less.
Companies resist this vigorously.

You seem to have no idea how free trade works in the favour of companies, and that companies have lobbied countries like the U.S, for many years to legislate trade agreements like the defunct MAI agreement, now the Free Trade Agreement. Governemts policing companies!!!
Come on, they're the lapdogs of multi-national corporations for years.

It's truly laughable the way you have dismissed open-thinking people's opinions here, when your thinking is a left-over from the years when most of us believed everything that governments, companies and doctors told us. It's no wonder you can't hear the truths of others. You probably believed it when they told you DDT was harmless, or the tobacco companies that claim smoking doesn't cause health problems.

Go back to the delightful, rose-coloured world that you perceive to be true, bozzie and seeker.
"Me thinks they doth protest too much"

I'd much rather live in my delightful rose-coloured world oceangrrl, than your bitter, cynical, aggressor/victim one.
Firstly I don't believe anything anyone tells me, least of all companies, Doctors and especially governments. All I know is that countries that operate under a capitalist culture enjoy the highest standard of living, highest standards of education, longest life expectancies etcetera. The populations of capitalist countries generally have the luxury of considering questions such as "are corporations opportunistic mongrels because they give money to disaster victims"

It's in a corporations best interest to have their target markets as affluent as possible. If a population has no money then they are hardly likely to buy the companies goods or services. It's in the best interests of most governments of the world it seems, to have their people in a poor a state as possible so as to control them easier.

Face a few facts - The best way of getting basket-case countries a future would be to toss out their government and appoint a couple of large company CEO's to run the joint. At least companies realise the importance of a strong economy and an affluent population and are not driven by stupid political philosophies and agendas.

oceangrrl, I'm looking at the world through rose-coloured glasses? "Me thinketh that the pot calling the kettle blacketh".

Re donations by big companies in the tsunami affected region.

I used to work for two big companies in the region, and had the opprtunity to witness dozens of other foriegn multinationals effects on local communities. It was amazing.

Local people in the regions want developement, they want to live a lifestyle like us. The local governments paid for a little of it, but with difficulties in tax collection and general proverty, they could only do so much.

The gap was filled by big and small multinationals, many Australian but other nation's companies as well. Some donations were public, but many other donations were done secretively (due to the fear of the paranoid, some contributing to this discussion I see.)I saw many roads, schools, hospitals, universities and many other projects built and paid for by these companies. I met and worked with many of the graduates/beneficiaries of these donations. By and large these projects were designed and run by the local populations, not by foriegners.

THe result was phenominal regional improvements in lifestyle over one or two generations. For those who lived in areas without this foriegn corrupting influence, the choice was to move on or to stay dirt poor and die young. Many moved, resulting in big population shifts to areas with big buisness.

I saw the results of factories closed because of foriegn pressure close sweat shops. Unemployment and proverty. Misguided liberals trying to help the poor locals actually increasing proverty and death. I saw projects blocked in foriegn law courts by liberals that would have resulted in cheap power, schools and hospitals for the nation affected. The courts objected to the government of that nation, but the courts and there liberal proponants had no care for the people of that region.

Big buisness corporations are not perfect. However, do not forget, when they set up in a poorer country, they employ local managers and local workers. They become part of the local economy and its people.

Call me brain washed, but the antibuisness liberals did all there work from the comfort of there home nations. They did nothing for the local people when I was there.