Text size:

Corporations add to tsunami relief

BY MONTY PHAN | STAFF WRITER

January 6, 2005

As the scope of the devastation from the tsunami disaster increases, so are the relief contributions from corporate America, with dozens more companies this week signing their name to the list of donors.

After an initial lag, the amount of corporate aid has seen a sharp rise since Monday, with more than $100 million donated so far, according to a running tally on the Web site of The Chronicle of Philanthropy trade newspaper. While most have donated cash from corporate contributions and employee-matching programs, others have pledged needed supplies such as prescription drugs and bottled water.

For example, last week Pfizer said it would donate $10 million and about $25 million in drugs, and Islandia-based Computer Associates said Wednesday it had pledged $650,000 via its "Matching Gifts Program," in addition to an initial donation of $200,000. On Monday, Manhattan-based Verizon said it had begun a matching program that so far has contributed about $1.9 million to relief efforts, roughly a third of which has come from employees.

"We wanted to highlight what our employees are doing because of the incredible response," said Verizon spokeswoman Ivette Mendez.

The rise in the amount of corporate aid could be attributable to two factors: those in key positions returning to work after the holidays and the "me too" effect of companies adding their names to the list of givers, said Mike Lawrence, executive vice president of Boston-based Cone Inc., which has researched corporate responsibility issues. Lawrence said that companies with employees and business interests in or near a disaster area -- such as, in this case, Starbucks and Computer Associates -- typically are among the first to donate.

At least one company, Kimberly-Clark Corp., has publicly increased its initial donation: After saying last week that it was contributing $100,000 to UNICEF, the company on Tuesday issued another release saying it was upping that commitment to as much as $1.5 million, with its chairman and chief executive adding that it "felt compelled to do more" as the magnitude of the disaster went up.

"There will come a time, and we may not have seen it yet, when not doing something will get you in trouble," Lawrence said. "We haven't reached that yet, but we still might."

One dilemma that comes with a company's contributions to relief efforts is how to publicize such actions. As the aftermath of the Sept. 11 attacks proved, it's a fine line: If no one knows about your donation, you risk being seen as callous, but if you make too much of it, you're seen as boastful.

Lawrence said research conducted by his firm two months before the tsunami disaster indicated that about three in four Americans believe companies have a responsibility to help support causes. He said that when clients want to communicate how they've donated to such causes, he counsels them to post the information on their Web site and put a simple news release on a wire service rather than sending it to individual reporters.

Because it is often a gray area, it's easy to overstep the line dividing too-little publicity and too much, said Gary Lewi, executive vice president with Manhattan public relations firm Rubenstein Associates. While it's always important to make such contributions known, each company is different in how it should do so, he said.

"It's not a function of puffing out your chest and saying, 'Look how altruistic I am,'" Lewi said. "It's a function of reaffirming who you are as a group of people operating in a corporate environment."