Profiteering on Disaster Relief - Essay Example

This is disaster profiteering, though it sounds absurd, it is unavoidable. Steets and Hamilton (2009) say that, there are factors that influence businesses and corporations to engage in humanitarian aid. These are potential for profiteering and corporate social responsibility. For example, on December 26, 2004 parts of Southeast Asia were hit by a Tsunami. More than two hundred thousand people lost their lives and hundreds of thousands displaced. International companies and private businesses gave donations in terms of money, and services like, building websites for tracking victims and transport for personnel and victims from one place to another.

For instance, Deutsche Post World Net provided free transport and a cash donation of USD1.5million. The Coca Cola Company provided water and other basic items to several villages and a cash donation of USD2.1million. Microsoft developed websites where volunteers would register for work (Steets & Hamilton, 2009) Steets and Hamilton (2009) further say that, as a result, the companies improved their public image and met public expectations because they behaved like exemplary corporate citizens. They not only marketed themselves, but the impression created had a positive impact on the finances.

They also proved to their employees that they are reputable employers. Companies seeking to improve their portfolio through corporate social responsibility interfered with the humanitarian efforts of international organizations, NGO’s and the governments concerned. Governments also participated in humanitarian efforts after the Tsunami. Steets and Hamilton (2009) point that they provided basic necessities like food, shelter, clothing, emergency and medical aid. Later on they committed themselves to long-term engagements like rebuilding infrastructure and buildings as well as establishing systems that would warn people of future disasters.

For example, The Australia Government sent food, water, school material and mosquito nets to Indonesia; built many semi permanent houses in Sri-Lanka and formed a development and reconstruction partnership with Indonesia. The government offered aid through organizations like The Australia Red Cross and AUSAID. Monfries (2006) says that, before the disaster, Indonesia had a terrible image in Australia. Drug traffickers and illegal immigrants often had their origin in Indonesia. Australia’s response to the Tsunami was to mend relationships between the two countries.

Australia’s president also talked well of Indonesia’s president in a state luncheon held after the disaster. However, Monfries (2006) is quick to point out that Indonesia may not view Australia’s humanitarian efforts the way the latter views it. This is because the latter is a powerful state and the former was genuinely in need of help after the Tsunami. Politics interfered with governments' and international organizations' humanitarian efforts. Although charity is good, some people go through stigma of charity.

Fothergill (2003) says people of different gender and social classes react differently to receiving assistance after calamities. Some people hate charity; others are often extremely embarrassed when they become beneficiaries of charity and others are too proud to accept help. People who are independent and wealthy may also be uncomfortable when receiving donations. If a disaster strikes, these people often go through stigma