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.