Corporate Social Responsibility The Role of

Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management Corp. Soc. Responsib. Environ. Mgmt.
(2010) Published online in Wiley Online Library (wileyonlinelibrary.com) DOI: 10.1002/csr.253
Corporate Social Responsibility: The Role of Fortune 100 Companies in Domestic and International Natural Disasters
Brian R. Johnson,1,* Eric Connolly2 and Timothy S. Carter3
1
Grand Valley State University, Grand Rapids, MI, USA 2 Florida State University, Tallahassee, FL, USA 3 University of North Alabama, Florence, AL, USA
ABSTRACT The failures of governments in emergency-management-related activities have highlighted the importance of how corporations engage in the response, recovery, planning, and mitigation of disasters. Through the content analysis of corporate social responsibility reports from Fortune 100 companies (N = 84), this study found that most corporations engage in disaster-related activities for instrumental and ethical reasons. Short-term relief and recovery activities were reactive and episodic-based, and included nancial and in-kind activities to employee and customer stakeholder groups. In the case of predictable or more stable threats (e.g. disease), proactive long-term initiatives included a broader stakeholder group, where activities ranged from nancial-based forms of assistance to collaborative partnerships with NGOs and governments. Copyright 2010 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd and ERP Environment.
Received 1 June 2010; revised 28 September 2010; accepted 11 October 2010 Keywords: corporate social responsibility; CSR; disasters; emergency management; stakeholders
Introduction
resources and threatens the function and safety of a society (Gallant, 2008). According to the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), from 2000 to 2008 there were 501 declared disasters in the United States (FEMA, 2009). In 2008 alone, there were 75 major disaster declarations in the United States that included hurricanes, ooding, wildres, and severe storms. The magnitude of some of these disasters has been large. The total economic losses from Hurricane Katrina in 2005 exceeded $200 billion (King, 2005), while the American Farm Bureau estimated crop losses at $4 billion due to ooding in the state of Iowa in 2008 (Weather damaged crop, 2008). In many cases, these nancial losses exclude the intangible impacts of natural disasters, which may include increases in crime and fear of crime (Brezina and Kaufman, 2008), population shifts (Smith, 1996), and the subsequent destruction of political and social units (e.g. groups, churches) within a
* Correspondence to: Brian R. Johnson, Grand Valley State University Criminal Justice, 401 W. Fulton Street, Grand Rapids, MI 49504, USA. E-mail: johnsonb@gvsu.edu
Copyright 2010 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd and ERP Environment
NATURAL DISASTER IS AN EVENT OF NATURE OR A NATURALLY OCCURRING EPISODE THAT OVERWHELMS LOCAL
B. R. Johnson et al.
community (Lindell and Prater, 2003). Researchers have also reported higher rates of suicide (Krug et al., 1998) in addition to other forms of psychological distress including post-traumatic stress disorder (Freedy et al., 1992; Steinglass and Gerrity, 2006) after natural disasters. The emergency management of disasters traditionally has been the domain and responsibility of local, state, and federal governments (Wilson and Oyola-Yemaiel, 2001) who have been tasked with the planning, response, recovery, and mitigation of disasters (Congressional Report, 2005). In some cases, however, governmental entities tasked with the emergency management function have failed (Edwards, 2007, 2008). These failures have been attributed to poor intergovernmental relationships (Roberts, 2006; Birkland and Waterman, 2008), rigid bureaucratic structures (Neal and Phillips, 2007), weak leadership and collaboration among parties (Waugh and Streib, 2006), and breakdowns in the administrative elements of emergency management systems (Schneider, 2005). All of these issues (and others) are perhaps exemplied with Hurricane Katrina in 2005, which resulted in massive ooding and storm damage in the city of New Orleans and the southern United States. The poor performance by the emergency management system led to a Congressional Select Committee investigation. The Report concluded that the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), states, and local governments were not prepared for the event and that relief was impaired by a myriad of factors including poor command and control (Congressional Report, 2005). Emergency management, however, is not the exclusive domain of governments. Large corporations including Wal-Mart, Home Depot, Exxon Mobil, and Anheuser-Busch have provided direct and indirect forms of disaster relief and assistance, in addition to supporting non-governmental organizations (NGOs) (PR Newswire, 2004; 2005; 2008; PR Domain, 2005). Certain private sector organizations have also encouraged greater levels of nongovernmental involvement in the emergency management of potential disasters. The American Society for Public Administration (ASPA), for example, advocates that the business community participate in disaster recovery efforts (Edwards, 2007, 2008). The Homeland Security and Defense Business Council, an organization dedicated to private sector initiatives related to homeland security, also encourages the private sector to take an all-hazards approach to emergency management and partner with the public sector to improve existing emergency management systems (HSDBC, 2007). Even the federal government has promoted such efforts. Homeland Security Presidential Directive 7: Critical Infrastructure Identication, Prioritization, and Protection (2003), calls for the private sector to identify, prioritize, and coordinate the protection of critical infrastructure and key resources (n.p). A review of the FEMA and DHS websites also provides anecdotal evidence that the federal government has recognized that the resources and skills that private corporations possess are needed in times of disaster. The motivations for private sector companies to assist in natural disasters are broad. At their most basic level, the response to such disasters could be based on a companys need to protect its assets. Or, companies could have more altruistic aims, such as recognizing that they have a moral responsibility to be good corporate citizens. Regardless of the reasons why companies engage in emergency management initiatives, such activities fall under the guise of corporate social responsibility (CSR). However, the role of companies in natural disasters has not been adequately studied by the academic community. Therefore, this study explores the nature and extent of domestic and international CSR-based disaster initiatives by Fortune 100 companies in the United States.
Literature Review
CSR
CSR is dened as actions by corporations that provide some type of social benet that they are not required to perform (McWilliams and Siegel, 2001). Jones (1980 p. 59) denes CSR as the notion that corporations have an obligation to constituent groups in society other than stockholders and beyond that prescribed by law and union contract. Holmes and Watts (2000, p. 9) dene CSR as continuing commitment by business to behave ethically and contribute to economic development, while improving the quality of life of the workforce and their families as well as the local community and society at large. These CSR activities are also voluntary in nature and can be considered a reection of the companys character (Sen and Bhattacharya, 2001), its value system (Jamali, 2008), its concern for society and the well-being of the citizenry (Johnson, 1971; Carroll, 1999), or even its soul (Chappell,
Corp. Soc. Responsib. Environ. Mgmt. (2010) DOI: 10.1002/csr
Fortune 100 Companies in Disasters

1993). Some individuals have dened CSR as simply a construct whose denition is elusive at best (Snider et al., 2003), a practice and a philosophy that lacks a precise denition, making the concept fuzzy (Lantos, 2003). CSR could also be considered to be a social construct whose denition and actions are based on social, stakeholder, economic, voluntariness, and environmental variables (Dahlsrud, 2008). Regardless of why CSR exists, it does arguably provide a range of benevolent activities. These activities can be placed within two broad perspectives: 1) ethical actions by corporations; and, 2) instrumental activities. In the context of ethical activities, they range from the rm meeting its legal requirements (transactional ethics) to the rm engaging in proactive change-based ethics that it is not legally required to carry out, but nevertheless performs. In the context of instrumental needs, meanwhile, CSR may exist to improve the companys goals, market share, and protability (McAdam and Leonard, 2003). Instrumentally, CSR-related activities may also make the company more attractive for the consumer, subsequently increasing its brand and brand loyalty (Michael, 2003; Lichtenstein et al., 2004; Johnstone, 2008). Therefore, it may be considered a corporate strategy (Michael, 2003), or a public relations invention to make the rm look good (Frankental, 2001). The company could also benet through its long-term community development efforts by improving the quality of life of its employees (Michael, 2003). Such efforts also serve as a recruitment and employee retention strategy (Idowu and Towler, 2004). Furthermore, if an incident or harmful activity is caused by the organization, prior CSR actions could create a halo effect, mitigating consumer judgments and the degree of blame assessed against the rm (Klein and Dawar, 2004), leading to the avoidance of, or a reduction in the rms reputational risk (Oketch, 2005). These activities also impact a variety of stakeholders. A stakeholder is anyone who has an interest in the rm (Fassin, 2009). It can include employees, business partners, shareholders, governments, and clients (Freeman, 1984). These stakeholders (on an individual or group basis) can also be categorized as coalitions, claimants, inuencers, or a combination thereof (Kaler, 2002). A stakeholder can also include the natural environment, even though it does not have consciousness as do traditional classes of stakeholders (Norton, 2007, p. 387). In this context, the environment is accounted for through its human stakeholders (Maak and Pless, 2006) where the organization adopts an ethical or moral obligation to the environment because of its corporate philosophy or stakeholder inuences (Phillips and Reichart, 2000). In other cases, these environmental-based CSR activities can be addressed in a strategic perspective because natural events, including extreme weather and climate changes, can severely impact the operations of a company (Starik, 1995; Driscoll and Starik, 2004). In order to accomplish their CSR objectives, rms have a variety of delivery mechanisms at their disposal. First, CSR activities can be standalone; i.e. corporations may sponsor or engage in various programs and activities on their own. Companies can also partner with NGOs, where partnerships could emerge based on social needs (Michael, 2003). Oftentimes, these public-private partnerships include working with organizations whose activities somehow tie into their customer base (Lichtenstein et al., 2004). The last category, meanwhile, is where the organization partners with governments. For example, a rm may work with governmental representatives and various agencies on consumer welfare, employee safety, community reinvestment, and environmental protection issues (Michael, 2003).
Prior Research
While there is extensive research on CSR in the context of ethics (Robin and Reidenbach, 1987; Carroll, 1991; Garriga and Mele, 2004; Joyner and Payne, 2004), nancial performance (Pava and Krausz, 2004; Becker-Olsen et al., 2005; Kotler and Lee, 2005; Vogel, 2005), marketing (Burke and Logsdon, 1996; Sen and Bhattacharya, 2001; Ferrell, 2004; Mohr et al., 2005), public relations (Clark, 2000; Esrock and Leichty, 2000; Frankental, 2001; Snider et al., 2003), and industrial case studies addressing specic company activities (Anderson and Bieniaszewska, 2005; Kanchan, 2010), and in different parts of the world (Hills, 2005; Kusku, 2007), very little academic research has specically addressed the nature and extent of CSR-based emergency management activities. The research that does exist can be best described as editorial, descriptive, and fragmented, only examining the actions of specic companies, and failing to provide a comprehensive understanding of the nature and extent of emergency management of disasters in the United States and abroad. This literature includes, for example, a case study analysis of the philanthropic activities of four major corporations, where it was determined that a much less genuine
commitment to CSR existed than what was published by the rms in their CSR reports (Innes and Norris, 2005). Other studies, including Bishops (1991), analyzed moral culpability of corporate leaders, concluding that personal responsibility should attach when they fail to take every reasonable effort to avoid or ameliorate disasters. In other cases, the literature is directed toward what organizations can do better in the milieu of emergency management. Flynn (2008), for example, proposes that a key to managing hazards is to build greater levels of resiliency in society. As such, Flynn proposes that the Secretary of Homeland Security should reach out to the private sector and task it with taking the lead in advancing resilience at the company and community level (Flynn, 2008, p. 6). Partnerships between governments and the private sector in prevention, preparedness, response, and recovery efforts to reinvigorate local economies, and their resilience toward future disasters have also been recommended (Hutchinson, 2005). The development of formal disaster plans that include coordinating activities with charities, increasing the number of non-prot organizations they work with, and working with business groups to coordinate relief efforts have also been explored (Garmhausen, 2006). Other authors have reviewed the need for protecting employees (and suppliers) through the creation of human impact plans to ensure business continuity (Alonso and Boucher, 2001; Sapirstein, 2006). Academic research into CSR in the context of disaster planning is limited. Wilkinson (2007), for example, examined the federal procurement system under the indenite delivery-indenite quantity (IDIQ) contract system, which allows the federal government to establish pre-arranged contracts with private sector vendors to provide material during natural disasters. Wilkinson concluded that greater coordinated and advanced planning efforts for disasters is needed, based on the failures of emergency coordinators during Hurricane Katrina, who did not have IDIQ contracts in place. Shrivastavas (1995) study, meanwhile, articulates the role of CSR in industrial and environmental (I/E) crises. He denes industrial crises as events caused by organizations, based on a failure of technology, which can cause immense hardship to humans and the environment (as was the case of the 2010 British Petroleum disaster in the Gulf of Mexico). In this context, Shrivastava (1995) argues that organizations need to move to a new paradigm of management. Instead of the traditional anthropocentric model, which is oriented toward human societies and institutions, organizational CSR efforts should adopt an ecocentric perspective, where nature itself has rights or a moral standing, wherein the organization considers the human community as an integral part of nature (Shrivastava, 1995, p. 217). By adopting this perspective, Shrivastava posits that organizations will be better prepared to plan for, respond to, and recover from I/E disasters. In order to accomplish this, however, CSR must become institutionalized where the . . . Broader conception of responsibility gives rise to a broader repertoire of actions for preventing and coping with environmental crises (Shrivastava, 1995, p.226).
Methods
Since the focus of this study is to examine CSR-based activities related to disasters, a methodology consistent with content analysis will be utilized. Content analysis is the methodical or systematic study of messages and the meanings that these messages convey (Maxeld and Babbie, 2008, p. 340). Under this research methodology, the qualitative aspects of the messages are collected, coded, quantied, and then analyzed to identify any trends or patterns that exist (Bachmann and Schutt, 2007). This methodology has already been used to analyze CSR-based activities related to human resource management (Vuontisjarvi, 2006) and the market communications activities of Fortune 100 companies (Perry and Bodkin, 2000). It has also been used to examine the existing research related to childrens responses to natural disasters (Mercuri and Angelique, 2004), the analysis of sociological articles to assess changes in social rituals or practices after a disaster (Thornburg et al., 2007), how major newspapers shaped social policy after Hurricane Katrina (Barnes et al., 2008) and themes of crisis communication by government agencies during Hurricane Katrina and Hurricane Rita (Gallagher et al., 2007). The population for this study included all Fortune 100 (N = 100) companies in the United States. These are the most protable companies in the United States, based on their gross revenues. This list of companies is compiled annually and published by Fortune Magazine, where each company is rank-ordered according to its gross prots for the preceding year. The unit of analysis was each rms most recent published CSR report (2007 or 2008) which was retrieved from the rms respective website on the Internet. These CSR reports are considered to be

the main outlet for corporate accountability and a demonstration of their commitment to social issues (Vuontisjarvi, 2006). The unit of observation, meanwhile, was the rms disaster-related activities as disclosed in its CSR reports. A total of 84 CSR reports were located through each rms respective website and analyzed for this study. The examination and coding of the CSR data was relatively straightforward. The data coding process rst involved the review of each CSR report by the authors multiple times to identify those CSR activities that were directed toward natural disasters. In this context, only the manifest (the surface, face, or visible) content of the document was used for analysis. This analysis of the manifest, instead of the latent or underlying meaning of the communication, better ensures the reliability of the data coding process (Babbie, 1995). Following the CSR review, the researchers identied potential themes and developed a formal codebook. To further ensure the reliability of the data, some decision rules were also created. First, no attempts were made to interpret the underlying meanings of the words or statements from the reports. Instead, the manifest CSR disclosures were categorized into logical themes in order to assess the nature and extent of CSR activities toward emergency management. Next, the data was further categorized into the broad categories of principles (aims or values), processes (actions or processes taken), stakeholders served, and the outcomes of the CSR disaster initiatives. In order to ensure intercoder reliability (Kurasaki, 2000), samples of the text from the CSR reports were reviewed for accuracy prior to the nal coding and analysis. This was achieved by having another researcher analyze and code the CSR statements into the SPSS dataset. This dataset was then analyzed for reliability. If any discrepancy was found, the authors reviewed the data, based on the decision rules, and re-coded the statements accordingly. The data was also dichotomized into the mutually exclusive and exhaustive categories of natural and man-made disasters. Man-made disasters are caused by the breakdown of a social system, where human processes or events in society unleash the disaster (Albala-Bertrand, 1993). While natural and man-made disasters are not mutually exclusive (e.g., a natural disaster may cause a man-made disaster: a ood could cause famine and disease, while a careless camper could cause a forest re, for example), for the purpose of this study, man-made disasters were those disasters caused as the result of social events. Man-made disasters can also be construed as events where humans have somehow caused or exacerbated some system or technological failure. For example, in the case of HIV/AIDS, some researchers have posited that the failure of organizations and governments to recognize and address this disease immediately after its discovery led to its spread and increase in numbers throughout the world (Perrow and Guillen, 1990).
Findings
The Nature and Extent of Disaster Activities: General CSR Statements
Table 1 provides an overview of Fortune 100 CSR disclosures that were classied by themes. First, each CSR report was analyzed in its entirety for content where corporate activities were categorized into nine themes and/or practices. These themes or practices included: 1) Disasters statements found in the CSR that directly identify activities related to natural and man-made disaster response, recovery, mitigation and planning initiatives. 2) Compliance and governance statements related to regulations that govern corporate operations. 3) Globalization and human rights statements related to the human rights and the welfare of citizens throughout the world. 4) Environmental health and safety physical, social, chemical, and cultural conditions that affect employees and the environment. 5) Public policy attempts by the organization to address a specic public issue (e.g. health). 6) Communities ways corporations improve various aspects of local communities. 7) Customers statements directed or focused on the relationship between the corporation and its customers. 8) Employees statements directed or focused on the relationship between the corporation and its employees. 9) Suppliers statements made or focused toward the relationship between the rm and external suppliers.
EMERGENT THEMES Mining and Engineerg Manufacturing Transport, Comm, Electric, Gas and Sanitary Services 8 (88.9%) 9 (100.0%) 7 (77.8%) 3 (42.9%) 1 (14.3%) 1 (14.3%) 2 (28.6%) 8 (88.9%) 8 (88.9%) 5 (55.6%) 5 (55.6%) 4 (44.4%) 3 (33.3%) 10/9 (90.0%) 7 (36.9%) 2 (10.5%) 15 (71.4%) 12 (57.1%) 11 (52.4%) 11 (52.4%) 8 (38.1%) 4 (19.0%) 25/21 (84.0%) 9 (47.4%) 1 (5.3%) 19 (90.5%) 17 (81.0%) 19 (90.5%) 12 (63.2%) 16 (84.2%) 11 (57.9%) 2 (18.2%) 0 8 (72.7%) 1 (9.1%) 12 (63.2%) 6 (31.6%) 8 (42.1%) 3 (15.8%) 7 (36.8%) 6 (31.6%) 28/19 (67.9%) Wholesale and Retail Trade Financial, Insurance and Real Estate Services
SIC CODES TOTAL
4 (100.0%) 4 (100.0%) 3 (75.0%) 0 0 0 3 (100.0%) 3 (75.0%) 1 (25.0%) 4 (100%) 2 (50.0%) 3 (75.0%) 3 (75.0%) 4/4 (100%) 0 9 (52.9%) 17 (60.7%) 18 (64.3%) 18 (64.3%) 16 (57.1%) 13 (46.4%) 10 (35.7%) 30/28 (93.3%) 5 (29.4%) 3 (17.6%)
26 (92.9%) 22 (78.6%) 17 (60.7%)
1 (33.3%) 2 (66.6%) 3 (100.0%) 0 2 (66.7%) 1 (33.3%) 0 1 (33.3%) 1 (33.3%) 0 (00.0%) 0 (00.0%) 0 (00.0%) 1 (33.3%) 3/3 (100%)
70 (83.3%) 70 (83.3%) 60 (71.4%) 19 (31.7%) 7 (11.7%) 17 (28.3%) 17 (28.3%) 56 (66.7%) 46 (65.7%) 46 (54.8%) 37 (44.0%) 35 (41.75) 27 (32.15) 100/84 (84.0%)
Environ Health and Safety Community Disasters Domestic Natural Man-Made International Natural Man-Made Employees Customers Compliance/Governance Suppliers Public Policy Global Human Rights Fortune 100 Orgs/CSR Reports Analyzed
Table 1. Fortune 100 CSR Disclosures: SIC Codes and Disclosure Themes (n = 84)

Next, each statement was coded into a dichotomous scheme, based on the presence (or absence) of CSR activities for each thematic category. If the organization reported at least one activity in the thematic category, it was recorded as a conrmation (a yes). Conversely, if there was no evidence of a CSR activity in that particular thematic category, a subsequent code of no was reported. Then, CSR statements/themes were then cross-tabulated by the rms primary SIC industry code as designated by the Security and Exchange Commission (SEC) in order to assess the nature and extent of natural disaster activities by industrial sector. Finally, the total number of Fortune 100 companies compared to the CSR reports used in this study is reported in Table 1. The most frequently disclosed CSR themes or category statements (based on the total number of CSR disclosures) are not connected to disaster-related activities. Rather, environmental health and safety (n = 70; 83.33%), and community (n = 70; 83.33%) activities are the two most frequently cited CSR activities and thematic disclosures for the period under analysis. Both of these themes were present in over 80% of all of the CSR reports used in this study. Disaster-related thematic statements, meanwhile, ranked third among all CSR initiated activities; 60 CSR reports (or 71.4%) contained disclosure statements related to activities that were directed toward disasters. Global human rights, meanwhile, was the least disclosed theme in the CSR reports (n = 27), where approximately 32% of all companies disclosed such activities in their annual CSR reportss for the period under analysis. Table 1 also shows intra-variations in CSR activities, based on SIC code. In this context, the majority of industries, regardless of their SIC designation code, reported engaging in disaster-related activities during the period under analysis. When controlled for SIC classication, organizations in the services (n = 3; 100%), wholesale and retail trades (n = 19; 90.5%), and manufacturing (n = 17; 60.7%) categories had the highest proportion of disasterrelated statements. Companies in the manufacturing category (n = 17; 60.7%), and also nancial, insurance, and real estate (n = 11; 57.9%) category, had the lowest number of disaster-related disclosure statements in their CSR reports. The types of disasters (n = 60) that Fortune 100 companies responded to through CSR initiatives over the period of analysis are shown in Table 2. Here, CSR data was cross-tabulated by industry (based on SIC) and disaster type to provide a comprehensive understanding of CSR-related activities. The results of this analysis show that the majority of CSR activities were international (n = 34; 56.7%) in nature, equally distributed between natural and man-made disasters. In the context of domestic activities, meanwhile, the majority of CSR activities were directed toward natural disasters (n = 19; 31.7%), while domestic man-made CSR activities had the lowest number of CSR activities (n = 7; 11.7%). The cross-tabulated data also provides insight into what types of companies (based on SIC) provide CSR-related disaster activities. In the context of domestic natural disasters, companies in the wholesale and retail trades (n = 9; 47.4%) had the highest proportion of activities, while companies in the service sector (n = 2; 66.7%) provided the highest proportion of man-made domestic CSR activities. The analysis of international activities shows that companies in the nancial, insurance, and real estate sector (n = 8; 72.7%) were proportionally responsible for most natural disaster CSR activities, while companies in the mining and engineering sectors dedicated all of their CSR activities (n = 3; 100%) to man-made disasters.
Corporate Involvement in Domestic Disasters

The qualitative analysis of CSR disaster information is presented in Table 2. In order to assess these corporate activities, the data was dichotomized into: 1) immediate CSR activities that were directed toward response and recovery-based initiatives, and 2) long-term activities that were directed primarily toward the planning and mitigation of disasters. Key descriptive statements and general themes related to each CSR activity category are also shown in Table 2, while specic narrative summaries from the CSR reports are included in the discussion section.
Domestic Natural Disaster Activities

Immediate domestic natural disaster activities were diverse; activities were primarily directed toward employee, customer, and community stakeholders. Partnerships with NGOs, direct cash donations, in-kind donations, company cash grants, employee cash donations, pledges, challenge grants, and foundation-based initiatives were
Disaster Type Natural Immediate
Denition
CSR Activities
Activities directed toward the response and recovery of natural disasters
Direct cash donations Partnerships/cash donations to NGOs (e.g. American Red Cross) In-kind donations (goods, services and resources) Company cash grants Employee cash donations/contributions Pledges, challenge grants and foundation matched funds Employee volunteer activities Deployment of employees Customer cash donations
Long-Term
Activities directed toward the mitigation and planning of natural disasters
Working with local leaders, community organizations government ofcials Creation of emergency operations center Financial investments in disaster-struck communities Corporate grants Infrastructure modications (e.g. communications and computers) Stakeholder educational and training programs Long term funding of non-prot organizations for disaster initiatives Deployment of corporate resources to disaster Deployment of employees to disasters In-house education, treatment and prevention programs Existence of emergency operations center Funding of disaster preparedness programs Working with local leaders, community organizations government ofcials Emergency management training w/local organizations Design of disaster-response software and technologies Foundation funding for long-term recovery efforts Funding of non-prot initiatives for disaster preparedness programs
Man-Made Immediate
Activities directed toward response and recovery of natural disasters Activities directed toward the mitigation and planning of natural disasters
Long-Term
Table 2. CSR Domestic Natural Disaster-Related Activities
used to assist in disaster response and recovery for the period under analysis. Ford Motor Company, for example, donated vehicles to re and rescue agencies during Californias wildres, while pharmaceutical companies also reported in-kind donations of drugs and medical supplies. UPS reported using its infrastructure of delivery trucks in relief and response activities while FedEx reported donating emergency service response units (trucks) to the Salvation Army mobile canteens in addition to funding disaster relief kits. Verizon also provided communication links to emergency management personnel during the Georgia forest res in 2007 and cell phones to assist ood victims in Oregon during the same year, while Hewitt-Packard donated $500 000 to the American Red Cross for hurricane relief efforts. The CSR reports also show that employee and customer stakeholder groups were used in immediate natural disaster relief and recovery efforts. Verizon, for example, reported sending employee teams to the Southern California wildres to assist victims and emergency responders, while the Kraft Foundation (in addition to providing cash and food donations) had 750 volunteers build homes in Slidell, Louisiana, after Hurricane Katrina. Fannie Mae also provided paid leave for its employees to assist in hurricane recovery efforts in the path of Hurricane Katrina. Additionally, Walgreen employees assembled disaster kits and distributed free water and ashlights, while Tyson employees served free meals to tornado victims and rescue workers. In the context of customer disaster

response initiatives, cash donations were used. Wal-Mart, for example, had collection sites in their California stores to solicit cash donations for wildre relief, while Lowes reported that it created customer donation sites for the American Red Cross in its stores, matching the in-store customer contributions. Long-term domestic planning and mitigation initiatives were also identied. Stakeholders in this group included employees, customers, and communities. For instance, JP Morgan provided examples of working with community non-prots and nancing real estate ventures in disaster-struck communities. Fannie Mae also reported using corporate grants that allowed non-prot organizations to expand their revitalization efforts. Various educational programs were also identied. The Home Depot, for example, reported creating a partnership with 40 American Red Cross chapters in the United States to educate citizens on disaster preparedness, in addition to conducting education clinics at select Home Depot stores. FedEx also reported supporting the Salvation Armys Prepare to Respond to Emergencies Planning and Readiness Education (PREPARE), a program designed to standardize disaster training, while also funding a Red Cross program in Memphis, Tennessee that produced and distributed 25 000 copies of a disaster response preparedness booklet to the citys Spanish-speaking community. Target stores mentioned creating a culture of disaster preparedness among team members, while promoting National Preparedness Month. In addition to the educational activities, rms also reported organizational changes to be better prepared for future disasters. Wal-Mart, a retailer that relies upon logistics, has created an emergency operations center which is designed to assist in planning for and responding to disasters with the goal of working with local leaders, community organizations, and elected ofcials. Telecommunications-based companies, meanwhile, included statements and information about improving or hardening their existing communications systems in disaster-prone areas to be better prepared for future issues. In the context of infrastructure modications, Sprint also reported that they have dedicated $115 million in improvements in preparations for storm-prone coastal communities (i.e. mitigation activities). Sprint/Nextel also invested $27 million in the creation and maintenance of an emergency response team, while Microsoft reported working with the American Red Cross on software design and the creation of a website for disaster victims.
Domestic Man-Made Disaster Activities

Immediate response and recovery efforts directed toward man-made disasters were limited for the period under analysis. Only one company, Sunoco, reported in their Community Engagement section of its CSR their collaborative efforts in responding to an oil leak when its Toledo Renery Emergency Response Team (ERT), a member of the Northwest Ohio Michigan Mutual Aid District (NOMMAD) responded to a local oil spill. No CSR disclosures had specic statements related to their philosophy or practices to address immediate man-made disasters. In the context of long-term man-made disasters, CSR activities were often related to public health issues and directed toward employees and community stakeholders. Delivery mechanisms, meanwhile, included partnerships, nancial support, and self-initiated activities. McKesson, a healthcare company, stated that it was working with federal and state government organizations to consider new ways in improving the quality and delivery of healthcare to populations with diseases including HIV/AIDS, while FedEx reported its partnership with the Salvation Army that addressed both natural and man-made disasters. Pzer reported providing nancial support/ funding to AIDS organizations in the USA, while Johnson & Johnson provided information about its HIV/AIDS treatment, prevention, awareness and support services for all employees worldwide. Dell also reported similar activities, stating that it promoted health screenings at any Dell location in the USA that employed over 200 employees. Chevron reported HIV/AIDS education, awareness, prevention, and treatment programs for its employees and communities.
Corporate Involvement in International Disasters

Table 3 reports the qualitative analysis of international disaster statements. As was the case with domestic natural disaster activities, the data was dichotomized into the categories of natural and man-made activities and then cross-tabulated by immediate and long-term corporate activities. Key descriptive statements, general themes and specic narrative examples related to each CSR activity category are also shown in Table 3.
Disaster Type Natural Immediate
Denition Activities that are directed toward the response and recovery of natural disasters
CSR Activities Partnerships with NGOs Partnerships/cash donations to NGOs Direct cash donations Financial support/contributions In-kind activities (goods, services and resources) Employee volunteer activities
Long-term
Activities that are directed toward the mitigation and planning for natural disasters
Emergency management training w/local organizations Funding of non-prot initiatives for disaster preparedness programs Existence of emergency operations center Financial assistance through foundations Partnerships/collaboration with governments Partnerships/cash donations to NGOs Outreach activities for HIV/AIDS through NGOs and private organizations (treatment programs) Employee cash donations In-kind assistance (goods, services technologies and resources) Financial contributions for disease education, prevention and treatment initiatives Proprietary/corporate disease education, prevention and treatment programs Partnerships with international relief organizations Existence of emergency operations center Funding disease-related research initiatives Funding NGO initiatives for disaster preparedness programs (68)
Man-Made Immediate
Activities that are directed toward the response and recovery of natural disasters
Long-term
Activities that are directed toward the mitigation and planning for natural disasters
Table 3. CSR International Natural and Man-Made Disaster-Related Activities
International Natural Disaster Activities

The data shows that corporations engage in immediate and long-term international natural disaster activities. In the context of immediate natural disasters, activities were primarily reactive in nature, involving in-kind and nancial contributions to employee and community stakeholder groups. Examples of direct, in-kind forms of relief included FedEx which provided complimentary shipping services of water during the Myanmar Relief Efforts and the airlift of supplies to other disaster-struck areas. Additionally, Wal-Mart provided products to affected areas in Central America in the aftermath of Hurricane Felix and Hurricane Dean and funded mobile canteens that were used by the Salvation Army in Mexico City. Wal-Mart also highlighted a program in Costa Rica called Mano a Mano which works with a non-prot organization to collect and disperse food donations from its customers through its distribution center to families and communities affected by natural disasters. Johnson & Johnson, meanwhile, provided both product and nancial contributions to NGOs operating in Mexico, the Dominican Republic, and Bangladesh. Chevron reported providing immediate forms of relief to local communities after a typhoon struck the Philippines as well as partnering with local governments and NGOs in recovery and relief-based activities. However, long-term natural disaster initiatives were limited in their frequency and scope. Generally, these activities were related to planning initiatives. Wal-Mart, for example, has a disaster preparedness center to plan for natural (and man-made) international disasters, while FedEx reports being committed to disaster contingency planning and the pre-staging of materials before a natural disaster strikes.
Fortune 100 Companies in Disasters International Man-Made Disaster Activities

International man-made CSR activities were generally based on direct nancial assistance and the provision of in-kind activities to stakeholders that included employees and communities. For example, General Electric, through its GE Foundation, gave $2.1 million in emergency grants toward humanitarian efforts in the war-torn Darfur Region of the Sudan. Kraft Foods provided food supplies in areas devastated by AIDS and food shortages, while Proctor and Gamble reported in-kind product donations in 30 countries related to the provision of clean water for children through the companys Childrens Safe Drinking Water Program. Only one company, Johnson & Johnson, reported the use of the rms human resources in a direct manner to assist in immediate disaster relief; some of their South Korean employees volunteered their time to assist in the clean-up of an oil spill. Johnson & Johnson also reported immediate disaster-related activities including the creation of licensing agreements to make HIV/ AIDS drugs more affordable, while providing one of their drugs royalty-free in Sub-Saharan Africa. Addressing disease-related disasters was also identied in the data as a CSR activity. A large number of these initiatives were directed toward employee and community stakeholders, where corporations engaged in standalone and collaborative partnerships. IBM, for example, writes about their Hepatitis B prevention and education initiatives for its employees in China. Exxon Mobil also reported a comprehensive program called StopAIDS that has been implemented in Russia and in sub-Saharan countries. This initiative includes educational programs and access to community-based care and treatment with the goal of keeping its workforce healthy and disease-free. Chevron also reported employee HIV/AIDS prevention, health screening, and access to voluntary treatment resources in foreign countries. Johnson & Johnson also reported HIV/AIDS and Hepatitis B initiatives directed toward its employees and dependents worldwide through the provision of education-based initiatives and healthcare programs. The long-term initiatives show that corporations used a variety of collaborative delivery mechanisms to reach employee and community-based stakeholders. Dell Computers reported collaborative partnerships with the US State Department and local initiatives for HIV/AIDS screening and prevention activities. Marathon Oil also reported an anti-malarial program with local community governments in Equatorial New Guinea, while Pzer reported partnering with NGOs and various governments in African nations under a treatment and prevention program called Mobilize against Malaria. Furthermore, Kraft Foods also reported working with the American Red Cross in China to construct modern sanitation systems and clean water sources. Kraft also reported partnering with non-prot organizations in South Africa to train community leaders and the citizenry to plant vegetable gardens to offset hunger, while Pzer reported supporting clean water initiatives through direct employee assistance and partnering with NGOs in selected African countries. IBM also wrote about its clean water initiatives, land use, and watershed management in Brazil where it has partnered with NGOs to develop water-modeling tools. In-kind activities and the nancial funding of projects were also found in long-term man-made disaster planning and mitigation activities. Intel reported the creation of new logistics software to assist in materials management during disasters, while Microsoft reported a collaborative effort with the United Nations Ofce of the High Commissioner for Refugees in order to make relief workers computer literate, while providing computer-based technologies to reunite refugees. IBM reported addressing world hunger by modeling rice production through its World Community Grid (the largest public humanitarian grid) and using its computer technologies (computers and software applications) to facilitate the sharing of research related to diseases, including HIV/AIDS. In the context of nancial assistance, meanwhile, Proctor and Gamble reported funding a UNICEF program that provided 50 million doses of neonatal and maternal tetanus vaccines, while the Coca Cola Foundation donated $4 million to disaster relief initiatives. Exxon Mobil also reported donating money to NGOs for clean water and soil conservation initiatives in foreign countries.
Discussion and Conclusion

In light of the current mandates by governments to improve the efcacy of disaster response and preparedness efforts, corporate involvement in disaster-related activities has become a topic for academic research. When compounded with the fact that disasters can overwhelm governmental response efforts (Wise and Nader, 2002;
Edwards, 2007), a more explicit understanding of what corporations do in the context of disasters may continue to grow in importance. Through the analysis of CSR reports from Fortune 100 companies, this study has explored this issue, discovering that most corporations already engage in immediate and long-term activities directed toward disasters, suggesting that companies have recognized their ethical responsibilities to provide some type of corporate response when disasters strike. This study identied corporate initiatives directed toward immediate disaster relief and recovery efforts for domestic natural disasters (e.g. hurricanes, tornados, oods, and wildres). These activities were generally episodic and reactive, supporting the existing research that has also found that CSR initiatives were primarily directed toward post-disaster, response-based activities (Shaw and Sinha, 2003; Miyaguchi and Shaw, 2005), and/or are short-term or one-time relief operations, and spontaneous one-off interventions rather than long-term sustainable activities (Twigg, 2001). Many of these spontaneous, indirect, and one-time activities in this study included nancial contributions to NGOs and in-kind initiatives. In the context of planning and mitigation, some long-term disaster management activities were also identied. Consistent with McEntire et al. (2002), the CSR disclosures showed that these activities were holistic and/or integrated actions directed toward disasters by diminishing risk and susceptibility and building of resistance and resilience (p. 273). These activities also appear to be driven by the corporations external task environment. That is, specic risks that the organization is exposed to (or vulnerable to) appear to receive priori attention over others. For example, where the risk of disease is high, as is the case in some foreign countries, corporations are involved in disease education, prevention, and treatment programs. Additionally, unlike natural disasters that may be more dynamic, which makes planning and mitigation activities more complex and perhaps confusing for planners and policy-makers (Clarke and Short, 1993; Weichselgartner and Sendzimir, 2004), disease-related issues are also more constant, and can be modeled and better planned for (Albala-Bertrand, 1993; Thomas, 2000; Fauci, 2001) by corporations. This study also found that the primary beneciaries of disaster activities included employees, customers, and communities. This nding also supports the existing CSR literature that posits that the development of CSR activities is based on targeting those stakeholders that have a direct connection to the rm (employees and customers) as well as emerging stakeholders (in this case communities) who could impact the rms cash ow (Falck and Heblich, 2007). From an organizational perspective, this makes sense. Jamali (2008, p. 219), for example, speculates that organizations have limited resources and bounded rationality, and thus tend to prioritize their stakeholders according to instrumental and or/normative considerations. In this study, those industry sectors (based on SIC coding) that had the greatest number of statements directed toward immediate disaster activities were the service and wholesale, and retail trades. Arguably, for these industry sectors to function and survive, they rst need to ensure that their employee stakeholders are taken care of to ensure business continuity. These industry groups may also be more dependent upon their current (and future) customers from the affected disaster area(s) relative to other organizations in other SIC groupings. This study also examined how corporations participate in disasters. In this context, it was found that a variety of indirect and direct disaster support mechanisms are used. Indirectly, nancial forms of assistance were a common reported activity. Firms also reported partnering with NGOs to immediately address domestic and international natural disasters. This nding is consistent with other studies that have also reported that corporate giving activities are often based on immediate forms of relief (Giving in the aftermath, 2007). Furthermore, in-kind or pro bono activities which included the provision of company resources, products, and services were also a common corporate activity. Internal corporate resources were used to respond to the long-term planning and mitigation of disasters, too. These included using the rms personnel, technologies, and existing logistics-related skills in disaster-related activities. Some differences were also found, depending upon the disaster type and location. First, rms reported using employees more often in immediate domestic natural disaster relief and recovery efforts. This could be explained in a logistical context where it may simply be easier for companies to send employees to domestic natural disasters. It could also be attributed to the fact that immediate-based activities are spontaneous and ad hoc in nature (Twigg, 2001), where the deployment of employees to disaster zones is simply a rapid response strategy that an organization could readily execute. Second, it also appears that in the case of short-term activities, rms engage in reactivebased activities. This could be attributed to the fact that some organizations may consider some events to be a low

probability risk and simply do not plan for and anticipate such threats. Or, perhaps corporate directors may not know what duties and standards are expected in these situations (Minkes et al., 1999) where they then stall in their planning and decision-making processes related to response-related activities due to bounded rationality and/ or organizational rigidity (Forester, 1984; Pidgeon and OLeary, 2000). This study also provided insight into why corporations engage in disaster-related activities. Consistent with the existing CSR-related literature, disaster-related activities are based on both instrumental (business protability, survival, continuity) and ethical needs (Garrett, 1989; Carroll, 1991). However, this study also found that CSR disaster activities cannot be easily classied into these two categories. Instead, these activities might be better understood by applying Bradys (1985) Janus Head paradigm, which posits that corporations engage in both formalist and utilitarian ethical activities that are not necessarily antagonistic, but complementary in nature. Based on this paradigm, some assumptions can be made regarding why corporations engage in disaster-related activities. Instrumentally, it can be argued that the majority of CSR initiatives are directed toward the rms core economic needs, which are based on survival, self-preservation, and protability. Immediate forms of disaster activities, by their very design (e.g. nancial support, in-kind actions), ensure a quicker return to normality for the citizenry (Ward, 2001), where they can then continue consuming the rms goods and/or services. These activities also serve as a public relations tool to make the rm more attractive, which could increase market share (Roberts, 2003). Long-term planning and mitigation activities may also serve to increase the nancial and social assets (extended family structures, social networks, better infrastructures) of individuals and communities, making them more resistant or resilient to the direct and indirect impacts of disasters (Sanderson, 2000). In turn, this would lead to a more nancially secure stakeholder base which the rm relies upon for its protability and survival. Furthermore, the data also shows that many organizations are involved in long-term risk management strategies directed toward the reduction of dynamic risk related to its operations and reputation. In this context, most of the strategies are directed toward risk reduction (treatment, education, etc.) and risk-spreading activities (activities that delay or deter; Johnson, 2005) that are designed to ensure the economic success of the corporation. Conversely, CSR disaster-related activities were also directed toward those ethical values and norms that society expects from corporations. Perhaps this is best illustrated in the long-term philanthropic efforts that included nancial donations to NGOs. With these types of activities, the corporation no longer has direct control of the monies (or products) that they have donated, suggesting that their motives are perhaps less economic in nature and directed more toward altruistic, discretionary, and/or philanthropic good corporate citizen activities. Additionally, other long-term man-made disaster activities also demonstrated strong philanthropic components. Disease prevention or mitigation activities related to HIV/AIDS and clean water initiatives undoubtedly assist rms economically by ensuring that they have a healthy and stable workforce. However, these initiatives extend far beyond key stakeholders and serve to enhance societal or public health and welfare to some degree. The results of this study also warrant the discussion of CSR-related policies. First, this study shows that the private sector is most often involved in immediate-onset disaster- relief-based efforts and long-term mitigationrelated activities that are particularly important in developing nations whose existing government infrastructure may be more fragile and susceptible to greater levels of ineffectiveness in times of disaster (Bhatt, 2002). Therefore, corporate policy related to the planning and mitigation of both fast and slow-onset disasters is of particular importance for disaster response and management activities. This study also showed that some CSR initiatives were localized in nature, raising the question if corporations have CSR-related policies that allow for a decentralized approached to CSR initiatives in order to immediately address some disasters. Consistent with a decentralized decision-making approach, this nding also raises the question if organizations have a bifurcated CSR policy, where immediate relief efforts can be decided at the ground level, while long-term recovery and mitigation efforts can be designed and implemented at the corporate level. Additionally, leadership advocating CSR (Ketola, 2010), coupled with buy-in of the CSR philosophy from line-level staff could lead to a culture of commitment and support for CSR initiatives (Lyon, 2004). This, in turn, could result in a paradigm shift in the organization from a purely economic culture to a social entity more dedicated to its stakeholders (Sarkar, 2008). This study also has shown that corporations often occupy an important social space in the provision of resources, administrative efciency, and contacts to address the effects of disasters. However, the corporate role in disasters needs to be balanced or tempered with other services provided by governmental organizations and smaller, local
companies in order to foster cooperative relationships, limit alienation, competition, and redundancy when responding to and engaging in disaster planning. Of interest, however, is that there is currently no mandated regulation of CSR activities or reporting in the United States (Tschopp, 2005), limiting the ability for policy-makers to make sound decisions on what is actually already done by corporations. Moreover, even though the US governments National Response Plan (NRP) recognizes the role of the private sector in homeland security events, research by the Council on Foreign Relations (2006) concluded that collaborative efforts to date have been fragmented due to the passive role of the federal government. Due to this lack of policy and governmental commitment, corporations themselves need to establish policy to enhance and ensure (and perhaps increase) private sector involvement in the response and management of disasters. Such policies should also include and encourage collaboration among companies, thereby increasing the ability of governments to effectively respond and act, while also increasing the legitimacy of governmental units. This same policy issue exists internationally. The World Bank, for example, has recommended that the public sector needs to mandate, facilitate, partner, and endorse more CSR initiatives with private sector organizations while identifying priorities at the local and national levels (Fox et al., 2002). There are some limitations to this study. First, this study was based on the assumption that CSR reports are a valid tool to assess corporate disaster-related activities. This assumption is based on the fact that other qualitative studies have used similar methodologies. Scholars have also proposed that CSR reports are a rms primary means of corporate communication (Vuontisjarvi, 2006), its scorecard (Spiller, 2000) and a comprehensive overview of its annual activities (Perry and Bodkin, 2000). This assumption, however, may be incorrect. Next, some companies CSR reports lacked detail on their disaster-related activities. For example, some CSR reports were silent on why they performed such activities. Other disclosures, meanwhile, did not provide a great deal of detail on how and why such activities were performed, containing only vague or general statements. Therefore, this lack of data limited the use of CSR reports in this analysis. Last, the external environment may have impacted the ndings. The variability in the type and number of disasters due to the selected time period under investigation may have been different from other time periods, raising the issue of the validity and reliability of this studys ndings. In addition, the economic climate, which has been found to affect levels of corporate giving in other studies (Saraswat and Williams, 2002; Crampton and Patton, 2008), may have affected the ndings in this study. Therefore, a longitudinal analysis may serve to refute or further validate the ndings from the existing research. Finally, in spite of these limitations, this study has contributed to the existing literature related to disaster-related corporate activities. At a minimum, it has provided insight into existing corporate activities directed toward domestic and international natural and man-made disasters. In a practical sense, these ndings can help corporations plan for, reect upon, and assess their current levels of disaster preparedness. This is particularly important for corporations. As pointed out by Emery and Trist (1965), organizations do not exist in a placid or relatively unchanging environment. Instead they live and operate in turbulent elds, where dynamic processes emerge from the eld itself. Some of these dynamic processes, of course, are related to disasters for which there is a greater need for planning and management. This study also showed that corporate activities need to be included and considered when developing comprehensive, disaster-based disaster response, recovery, planning, and mitigation activities. Academically, this study also provides a starting point for future research into disaster preparedness and planning initiatives that may include investigating how corporations identify, plan for, and specically address disasters as part of their responsibility to their stakeholders and society. Through such efforts (and others), a greater understanding of corporate involvement in disaster-related activities can be accomplished.
Acknowledgements
Project funded by USDOJ Grant 2008CKWX0425.
References
Albala-Bertrand JM. 1993. Political Economy of Large Natural Disasters. Clarendon Press: Oxford. Alonso F, Boucher J. 2001. Business continuity plans for disaster response. The CPA Journal 71: 60.

American Farm Bureau. 2008. Weather damaged crop costs top $8 billion, American Farm Bureau. Washington, DC. Anderson CL, Bieniaszewska RL. 2005. The role of corporate social responsibility in an oil companys expansion into new territories. Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management 12: 19. Babbie E. 1995. The Practice of Social Research, 7th edition. Wadsworth: Boston. Bachmann R, Schutt RK. 2007. The Practice of Research in Criminology and Criminal Justice, 3rd edition. Pine Forge Press: Thousand Oaks, CA. Barnes MD, Hanson CL Novilla LMB, Meacham AT, McIntyre E, Erickson BC. 2008. Analysis of media agenda setting during and after Hurricane Katrina: Implications for emergency preparedness, disaster response, and disaster policy. American Journal of Public Health 98: 604619, DOI: 10.2105/AJPH.2007.112235 Becker-Olsen K., Cudmore B, Hill R. 2005. The impact of perceived corporate social responsibility on consumer behavior. Journal of Business Research 59: 4653, DOI: 10.1016/j.jbusres.2005.01.001 Bhatt MR. 2002. Corporate social responsibility and natural disaster reduction: Local overview of Gujarat,.Disaster Mitigation Institute: Ahmedabad, India. Bishop J. 1991. The moral responsibility of corporate executives for disasters. Journal of Business Ethics 10: 377383. Birkland T, Waterman S. 2008. Is federalism the reason for policy failure in Hurricane Katrina? Journal of Federalism 38: 692714. Brady FN. 1985. A janus-headed model of ethical theory: Looking two ways at business/society issues. The Academy of Management Review 10: 568578. Brezina T, Kaufman JM. 2008. What really happened in New Orleans? Estimating the threat of violence during the hurricane Katrina disaster. Justice Quarterly 25: 701722. Burke L, Logsdon J. 1996. How corporate responsibility pays off. Long Range Planning 29: 495502, DOI: 10.1016/0024-6301(96)00041-6 Carroll A. 1991. The pyramid of corporate social responsibility: Toward the moral management of organizational stakeholders. Business Horizons 34: 3948, DOI: 10.1016/0007-6813(91)90005-G Carroll AB. 1999. Corporate social responsibility: Evolution of a denitional construct. Business and Society 38: 268295, DOI: 10.1177/000765039903800303 Chappell T. 1993. The soul of a business: Managing for Prot and the Common Good. Bantam: Des Plaines, IL. Clark C. 2000. Differences between public relations and corporate social responsibility: An analysis. Public relations review 26: 363380. Clarke L, Short JF. 1993. Social organization and risk: Some current controversies. Annual Review of Sociology 19: 375399. Congressional Report. 2005 A failure of initiative: Final report of the select bipartisan committee to investigate the preparation for and response to hurricane Katrina. Report No. 109/377. 2005. Washington, D.C. Available at: http://katrina.house.gov/ Crampton W, Patten W. 2008. Social responsiveness, protability and catastrophic events: Events on the corporate philanthropic response to 9/11. Journal of Business Ethics 81: 863873, DOI: 10.1007/s10551-007-9553-7 Dahlsrud A. 2008. How corporate social responsibility is dened: An analysis of 37 denitions. Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management 15: 113, DOI: 10.1002/csr.132 Driscoll C, Starik M. 2004. The primordial stakeholder: Advancing the conceptual consideration of stakeholder status for the natural environment. Journal of Business Ethics 49: 5573, DOI: 10.1023/B:BUSI.0000013852.62017.0e Edwards FL. 2007. Federal intervention in local emergency planning: Nightmare on main street. State & Local Government Review 39: 3143, DOI: 10.1177/0160323X0703900104 Edwards FL. 2007/2008. Recovering from Katrina: A work in progress 2007. Public Manager 36: 6772. Emery FE, Trist EL. 1965. The causal texture of organizational environments. Human Relations 18: 2131, DOI: 10.1177/001872676501800103 Esrock S, Leichty G. 2000. Social responsibility and corporate web pages: Self-presentation or agenda setting? Public Relations Review 24: 305319, DOI: 10.1016/S0363-8111(99)80142-8 Falck O, Heblich S. 2007. Corporate social responsibility: Doing well by doing good. Business Horizons 50: 247254, DOI: 10.1016/j. bushor.2006.12.002 Fassin Y. 2009. The stakeholder model rened. Journal of Business Ethics 84: 113135, DOI: 10.1007/s10551-008-9677-4 Fauci AS. 2001. Infectious diseases: Considerations for the 21st century. Clinical Infectious diseases 32: 675685. FEMA. 2009. Declared disasters by year or state. Available at: www.fema.gov. [25 January 2009]. Ferrell O. 2004. Corporate social responsibility and marketing: An integrative framework. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science 32: 319, DOI: 10.1177/0092070303258971 Flynn SE, Prieto DB. 2006. Neglected defense: Mobilizing the private sector to support homeland security. Council on Foreign Relations: New York. Flynn SE. 2008. American the resilient: Defying terrorism and mitigating natural disasters. Foreign Affairs 87: 28. Forester J. 1984. Bounded rationality and the politics of muddling through. Public Administration Review 44: 2331. Fox T, Ward H, Howard B. 2002. Public sector roles in strengthening corporate social responsibility: A baseline study. The World Bank: Washington, DC. Frankental P. 2001. Corporate social responsibility A PR invention? Corporate communications: An International Journal 6: 1823. Freedy JR, Shaw DL, Jarell MP, Masters CR. 1992. Towards an understanding of the psychological impact of natural disasters: An application of the conservation resources stress model. Journal of Traumatic Stress 5: 441454, DOI: 10.1002/jts.2490050308 Freeman E. 1984. Strategic Nanagement: A Stakeholder Approach. Pitman: Boston. Gallagher AH, Fontenot M, Boyle K. 2007. Communicating during times of crises: An analysis of news releases from the federal government before, during, and after hurricanes Katrina and Rita. Public Relations Review 33: 217219, DOI: 10.1016/j.pubrev.2007.02.009 Gallant BJ. 2008. Essentials in emergency management: Including the all-hazards approach. Government Institute: Lanham, MA. Garmhausen S. 2006. Firms fail to learn from past disasters. Crains New York Business 22: 1824.
Garrett JE. 1989. Unredistributable corporate moral responsibility. Journal of Business Ethics 8: 535545. Garriga E, Mele D. 2004. Corporate social responsibility theories: Mapping the territory. Journal of Business Ethics 53: 5171, DOI: 10.1023/B: BUSI.0000039399.90587.34 The Foundation Centre. 2007. Giving in the aftermath of the Gulf Coast hurricanes The Foundation Center: USA. Hills J. 2005. CSR Asia news review: January-March 2005. Corporate social Responsibility and Evironmental Management 12: 114119, DOI: 10.1002/csr.91 Holmes L, Watts R. 2000. Corporate Social Responsibility: Making Good Business sense. World business council for sustainable development: Washington, DC. Homeland security. 2003. Homeland security presidential directive 7: Critical infrastructure identication, prioritization, and protection. Available at: www.dhs.gov/xabout/laws/gc_1214597989952.shtm#0 [10 June 2009] HSDBC. 2007. Corporate responsibility: Why businesses should be prepared in a world of uncertainty. White Paper. Homeland Security & Defense Business Council: Washington, DC. Hutchinson D. 2005. Lessons learned in dealing with large-scale disasters. Insurance and Risk Management 73: 7988. Idowu SO, Towler BA. 2004. A comparative study of the contents of corporate social responsibility reports of UK companies. Management of Environment Quality: An International Journal 25: 420437, DOI: 10.1108/14777830410540153 Innes J, Norris G. 2005. Corporate Social Responsibility: A Case Study Guide for Management Accountants. CIMA Publishing: London, UK. Jamali D. 2008. A stakeholder approach to corporate social responsibility: A fresh perspective into theory and practice. Journal of Business Ethics 82: 213231, DOI: 10.1007/s10551-007-9572-4 Johnson BR. 2005. Principles of Security. Prentice Hall: Upper Saddle, NJ. Johnson HL. 1971. Business in Contemporary Society: Framework and Issues. Wadsworth: Belmont, CA. Johnstone B. 2008. Corporate citizenship: Proting from a sustainable business. Economist Intelligence Unit: London. Available at: http://graphics. eiu.com/upload/Corporate_Citizens.pdf [November 2008]. Jones TM. 1980. Corporate social responsibility revisited, redened. California Management Review 22: 5967. Joyner B, Payne D. 2004. Evolution and implementation: A study of values, business ethics and corporate social responsibility. Journal of Business Ethics 41: 297311, DOI: 10.1023/A:1021237420663 Kaler J. 2002. Morality and strategy in stakeholder identication. Journal of Business Ethics 39: 9199, DOI: 10.1023/A:1016336118528 Kanchan M. 2010. Weaving social responsibility with business strategy: A case study of south India paper mills. Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management 17: 169172, DOI: 10.1002/csr.227 Ketola T. 2010. Responsible leadership: Building blocks of individual, organizational and societal behavior. Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management 17: 193184, DOI: 10.1002/csr.228 King RO. 2005. Hurricane Katrina: Insurance losses and national capacities for nancing disaster risk. Congressional Research Service: Washington, D.C. Klein J, Dawar N. 2004. Corporate social responsibility and consumers attributions and brand evaluations in a product-harm crisis. International Journal of Research in Marketing 21: 203217, DOI: 10.1016/j.ijresmar.2003.12.003 Kotler P, Lee N. 2005. Corporate social responsibility: Doing the most good for your company and your cause, John Wiley & Sons, Inc: Hoboken, NJ. Krug EG, Kresnow M, Peddicord, JP, Dahlberg LL, Powell KE, Crosby AE, Annest JL. 1998. Suicide after natural disasters. New England Journal of Medicine 338: 373378. Kurasaki KS. 2000. Intercoder reliability for validating conclusions drawn from open-ended interview data. Field Methods 12: 179194, DOI: 10.1177/1525822X0001200301 Kusku F. 2007. From necessity to responsibility: Evidence for corporate environmental citizenship activities from a developing country perspective. Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management 14: 7487, DOI: 10.1002/csr.119 Lantos GP. 2003. Corporate socialism unethically masquerades as CSR. Strategic Direction 19: 3135, DOI: 10.1108/02580540310472135 Lichtenstein ME, Drumwright ME, Bridgette BM. 2004. The effect of corporate social responsibility on customer donations to corporatesupported nonprots. Journal of Marketing 68: 1632, DOI: 10.1509/jmkg.68.4.16.42726 Lindell MK, Prater CS. 2003. Assessing community impacts of natural disasters. Natural Hazards Review 4: 176185, DOI: 10.1061/(ASCE)15276988(2003)4:4(176) Lyon D. 2004. How can you help organizations change to meet the corporate responsibility agenda? Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management 11: 133139, DOI: 10.1002/csr.60 Maak T, Pless NM. 2006. Responsible leadership in a stakeholder society A relational perspective. Journal of Business Ethics 66: 99115, DOI: 10.1007/s10551-006-9047-z Maxeld MG, Babbie E. 2008. Research Methods for Criminal Justice and Criminology, 5th edition. Wadsworth: Belmont, CA. McAdam R, Leonard D. 2003. Corporate social responsibility in a total quality management context: Opportunities for sustainable growth, Corporate Governance 3: 3645, DOI: 10.1108/14720700310497104 McEntire DA, Fuller C, Johnston CW, Weber R. 2002. A comparison of disaster paradigms: The search for a holistic policy guide. Public Administration Review 62: 267281, DOI: 10.1111/1540-6210.00178 McWilliams A, Siegel D. 2001. Corporate social responsibility: A theory of the rm perspective. Academy of management review 26: 117127. Mercuri A, Angelique HL. 2004. Childrens responses to natural, technological, and na-tech disasters. Community Mental Health Journal 40: 167175, DOI: 10.1023/B:COMH.0000022735.38750.f2 Michael B. 2003. Corporate social responsibility in international development: an overview and critique. Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management 10: 115128, DOI: 10.1002/csr.41

Minkes AL, Small MW, Chatterjee SR. 1999. Leadership and business ethics: Does it matter? Implications for management. Journal of Business Ethics 20: 327335, DOI: 10.1023/A:1005741524800 Miyaguchi T, Shaw R. 2005. The corporate sector role in disaster and environmental management. Kyoto University Graduate School of Global Environmental Studies: Kyoto, Japan. Mohr L, Webb D, Harris K. 2005. Do consumers expect companies to be socially responsible? The impact of corporate social responsibility on buying behavior. Journal of Consumer Affairs 35: 4572, DOI: 10.1111/j.1745-6606.2001.tb00102.x Neal DM, Phillips BD. 2007. Effective emergency management: Reconsidering the bureaucratic approach. Disasters 19: 327337, DOI: 10.1111/j.1467-7717.1995.tb00353.x Norton S. 2007. The natural environment as a salient stakeholder: Non-anthropocentrism, ecosystem stability and the nancial markets. Business ethics: A European Review 16: 387402, DOI: 10.1111/j.1467-8608.2007.00511.x Oketch MO. 2005. The corporate stake in social cohesion. Peabody Journal of Education 80: 3052, DOI: 10.1207/S15327930pje8004_4 Pava M, Krausz J. 2004. The association between corporate social responsibility and nancial Performance: The paradox of social cost. Journal of Business Ethics 15: 321357, DOI: 10.1007/BF00382958 Perrow C, Guillen MF. 1990. The AIDS disaster. Yale University Press: New Haven, CT. Perry M, Bodkin C. 2000. Content analysis of fortune 100 company web sites. Corporate communications: An International Journal 5: 8796, DOI: 10.1108/13563280010338331 Phillips RA, Reichart J. 2000. The environment as a stakeholder? A fairness based approach. Journal of Business Ethics 23: 185197, DOI: 10.1023/A:1006041929249 Pidgeon N, OLeary M. 2000. Man-made disasters: Why technology (and organizations) sometimes fail. Safety Science 34: 1530, DOI: 10.1016/ S0925-7535(00)00004-7 PR Domain. 2005. Exxon Mobil commits $3 million for disaster relief efforts in aftermath of Hurricane Rita. Available at: www.prdomain.com [30 January 2009]. PR Newswire. 2004. Anheuser-Busch, wholesalers contribute $1 million to American Red Cross for hurricane relief effort. PR Newswire: New York. Available at: http://www.thefreelibrary.com/Anheuser-Busch,+Wholesalers+Contribute+$1+Million+to+American+Red. . .-a0125952483 [9 December 2004]. PR Newswire. 2005. The American Red Cross and the Home Depot form partnership to educate 1 million people on hurricane and disaster preparedness. PR Newswire: New York. PR Newswire. 2008. Wal-Mart commits $500,000 to support ood relief efforts: retailer partners with American Red Cross and the Salvation Army to provide aid to those affected in ve states. PR Newswire: New York. Roberts J. 2003. The manufacture of corporate social responsibility: Constructing corporate sensibility. Organization 10: 249265, DOI: 10.1177/1350508403010002004 Roberts PS. 2006. FEMA after Katrina. Policy Review 137: 1533. Robin D, Reidenbach E. 1987. Social responsibility, ethics, and marketing strategy: Closing the gap between concept and application. Journal of Marketing 51: 4458. Sanderson D. 2000. Disasters and livelihoods. Risk Management 2: 4958, DOI: 10.1057/palgrave.rm.8240068 Sapirstein G. 2006. Preparing employees for disasters. Business Insurance 40: 10. Sarkar R. 2008. Public policy and corporate environmental behavior: A broader view. Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management 15: 281297, DOI: 10.1002/csr.167 Saraswat SP, Williams CB. 2002. Charity begins at home: A socio-technical analysis of corporate websites to study the response to September 11. Computers and Society 32: 415, DOI: 10.1145/511134.511136 Schneider SK. 2005. Administrative breakdowns in the governmental response to hurricane Katrina. Public Administration Review 65: 515516, DOI: 10.1111/j.1540-6210.2005.00478.x Sen S, Bhattacharya CB. 2001. Does doing good always lead to doing better? Consumer reactions to corporate social responsibility. Journal of Marketing Research 38: 225243, DOI: 10.1509/jmkr.38.2.225.18838 Shaw R, Sinha R. 2003. Towards sustainable recovery: Future challenges after the Gujarat earthquake, India. Risk Management 5: 3551, DOI: 10.1057/palgrave.rm.8240155 Shrivastava P. 1995. Industrial/Environmental crises and corporate social responsibility. Journal of Socio-economics 24: 211227, DOI: 10.1016/1053-5357(95)90036-5 Smith SK. 1996. Demography of disaster: Population estimates after hurricane Andrew. Population Research and Policy Review 15: 459477. Snider J, Hill R, Martin D. 2003. Corporate social responsibility in the 21st Century: A view from the worlds most successful rms. Journal of Business Ethics 48: 175187. Spiller R. 2000. Ethical business and investment: A model for business and society. Journal of Business Ethics 27: 149160. Starik M. 1995. Should trees have managerial standing? Toward stakeholder status for non-human nature. Journal of Business Ethics 14: 207217. Steinglass P, Gerrity E. 2006. Natural disasters and post-traumatic stress disorder short term versus long-term recovery in two disaster-affected communities. Journal of applied social psychology 20: 17461765, DOI: 10.1111/j.1559-1816.1990.tb01509.x Thomas R. 2000. Reconstructing the space-time structure of the HIV/AIDS epidemic for the countries of Western Europe. Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers 25: 445463, DOI: 10.1111/j.0020-2754.2000.00445.x Thornburg PA, Knottnerus JD, Webb GR. 2007. Disaster and deritualization: A re-interpretation of ndings from early disaster research. Social Science Journal 44: 161166, DOI: 10.1016/j.soscij.2006.12.012
Tschopp DJ. 2005. Corporate social responsibility: A comparison between the United States and the European Union. Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, 12: 5559, DOI: 10.1002/csr.69 Twigg J. 2001. Corporate social responsibility and disaster reduction: A global overview. Beneld Greig Hazard Research Centre: London. Vogel D. 2005. The market for virtue: The potential and limits of corporate social responsibility. Brookings Institution Press: Washington, DC. Vuontisjarvi T. 2006. Corporate social reporting in the European context and human resource disclosures: An analysis of Finnish companies. Journal of Business Ethics 69: 331354, DOI: 10.1007/s10551-006-9094-5 Ward S. 2001. Exploring the role of the corporate risk manager. Risk Management 3: 725, DOI: 10.1057/palgrave.rm.8240073 Waugh WL, Streib G. 2006. Collaboration and leadership for effective emergency management. Public administration review 66: 131140, DOI: 10.1111/j.1540-6210.2006.00673.x Weichselgartner J, Sendzimir J. 2004. Resolving the paradox: Food for thought on the wider dimensions of natural disasters. Mountain Research and Development 24: 49. Wilkinson KJ. 2007. More effective federal procurement response to disasters: Maximizing the extraordinary exibilities of IDIQ contracting. Air Force Law Review 59: 233286. Wilson J, Oyola-Yemaiel A. 2001. The evolution of emergency management and advancement towards a profession in the United States and Florida. Safety Science 39: 117131, DOI: 10.1016/S0925-7535(01)00031-5 Wise CR, Nader R. 2002. Organizing the federal system for homeland security: Problems, issues, and dilemmas. Public administration review 62: 4457, DOI: 10.1111/1540-6210.62.s1.8

Corporate Social Responsibility The Role of

Transféré par

Informations du document

Description originale:

Titre original

Copyright

Formats disponibles

Partager ce document

Partager ou intégrer le document

Options de partage

Avez-vous trouvé ce document utile ?

Ce contenu est-il inapproprié ?

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

Corporate Social Responsibility The Role of

Transféré par

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management Corp. Soc. Responsib. Environ. Mgmt.

(2010) Published online in Wiley Online Library (wileyonlinelibrary.com) DOI: 10.1002/csr.253

Corp. Soc. Responsib. Environ. Mgmt. (2010) DOI: 10.1002/csr

Fortune 100 Companies in Disasters

Corp. Soc. Responsib. Environ. Mgmt. (2010) DOI: 10.1002/csr

Corp. Soc. Responsib. Environ. Mgmt. (2010) DOI: 10.1002/csr

Fortune 100 Companies in Disasters

Corp. Soc. Responsib. Environ. Mgmt. (2010) DOI: 10.1002/csr

SIC CODES TOTAL

26 (92.9%) 22 (78.6%) 17 (60.7%)

Corp. Soc. Responsib. Environ. Mgmt. (2010) DOI: 10.1002/csr

Fortune 100 Companies in Disasters

Corporate Involvement in Domestic Disasters

Domestic Natural Disaster Activities

Corp. Soc. Responsib. Environ. Mgmt. (2010) DOI: 10.1002/csr

Disaster Type Natural Immediate

Activities directed toward the response and recovery of natural disasters

Activities directed toward the mitigation and planning of natural disasters

Table 2. CSR Domestic Natural Disaster-Related Activities

Corp. Soc. Responsib. Environ. Mgmt. (2010) DOI: 10.1002/csr

Fortune 100 Companies in Disasters

Domestic Man-Made Disaster Activities

Corporate Involvement in International Disasters

Corp. Soc. Responsib. Environ. Mgmt. (2010) DOI: 10.1002/csr

Disaster Type Natural Immediate

Table 3. CSR International Natural and Man-Made Disaster-Related Activities

International Natural Disaster Activities

Corp. Soc. Responsib. Environ. Mgmt. (2010) DOI: 10.1002/csr

Fortune 100 Companies in Disasters International Man-Made Disaster Activities

Discussion and Conclusion

Corp. Soc. Responsib. Environ. Mgmt. (2010) DOI: 10.1002/csr

Corp. Soc. Responsib. Environ. Mgmt. (2010) DOI: 10.1002/csr

Fortune 100 Companies in Disasters

Corp. Soc. Responsib. Environ. Mgmt. (2010) DOI: 10.1002/csr

Corp. Soc. Responsib. Environ. Mgmt. (2010) DOI: 10.1002/csr

Fortune 100 Companies in Disasters

Corp. Soc. Responsib. Environ. Mgmt. (2010) DOI: 10.1002/csr

Corp. Soc. Responsib. Environ. Mgmt. (2010) DOI: 10.1002/csr

Fortune 100 Companies in Disasters

Corp. Soc. Responsib. Environ. Mgmt. (2010) DOI: 10.1002/csr

Corp. Soc. Responsib. Environ. Mgmt. (2010) DOI: 10.1002/csr

Vous aimerez peut-être aussi