52
An HPG Background Paper June 2007 Humanitarian Policy Group hpg Overseas Development Institute Business engagement in humanitarian relief: key trends and policy implications Andrea Binder and Jan Martin Witte Study commissioned by the Humanitarian Policy Group of the Overseas Development Institute (ODI)

Business engagement in humanitarian relief: key trends and ......business engagement in humanitarian relief highlight the potential for making relief work more effective and efficient

  • Upload
    others

  • View
    2

  • Download
    0

Embed Size (px)

Citation preview

Page 1: Business engagement in humanitarian relief: key trends and ......business engagement in humanitarian relief highlight the potential for making relief work more effective and efficient

An HPG Background PaperJune 2007

HumanitarianPolicy Group

hpg

Overseas Development

Institute

Business engagement inhumanitarian relief: keytrends and policy implicationsAndrea Binder and Jan Martin Witte

Study commissioned by theHumanitarian Policy Group ofthe Overseas DevelopmentInstitute (ODI)

Page 2: Business engagement in humanitarian relief: key trends and ......business engagement in humanitarian relief highlight the potential for making relief work more effective and efficient
Page 3: Business engagement in humanitarian relief: key trends and ......business engagement in humanitarian relief highlight the potential for making relief work more effective and efficient

About the authors

Andrea Binder is a Research Associate with the Global Public Policy Institute (GPPi). Jan MartinWitte is an Associate Director of GPPi. The authors would like to thank Cecily Brewer, Wade Hoxtell,Oliver Sanderson, Anita Hurrell and Ji-Hae Kim (all with GPPi) for research and editing assistance.The views expressed in this paper are entirely the authors’ own.

Humanitarian Policy GroupOverseas Development Institute111 Westminster Bridge RoadLondonSE1 7JDUnited Kingdom

Tel: +44(0) 20 7922 0300Fax: +44(0) 20 7922 0399Website: www.odi.org.uk/hpgEmail: [email protected]

© Overseas Development Institute, 2007

Page 4: Business engagement in humanitarian relief: key trends and ......business engagement in humanitarian relief highlight the potential for making relief work more effective and efficient

ii

HPG BACKGROUND PAPER

GPPI Brief/paper2nd 12/6/07 3:51 pm Page ii

Page 5: Business engagement in humanitarian relief: key trends and ......business engagement in humanitarian relief highlight the potential for making relief work more effective and efficient

iii

HPG BACKGROUND PAPER

List of abbreviations

CERF Central Emergency Relief Fund

CMM Conflict Management and Mitigation

CAP Consolidated Appeal Process

CARE Cooperative for Assistance and Relief Everywhere

CSR Corporate Social Responsibility

DFID Department for International Development

DRI Disaster Relief Initiative

DRN Disaster Resource Network

ECHO European Commission Humanitarian Aid Office

HRI Humanitarian Relief Initiative

ICRP Instability, Crises and Recovery Program

MAC Managing African Conflict

MSI Management Systems International

MSF Médecins Sans Frontières

ODA Overseas Development Assistance

OECD Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development

PADCO Planning and Development Collaborative International

UNDP United Nations Development Programme

UN OCHA United Nations Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs

USAID United States Agency for International Development

WFP World Food Programme

GPPI Brief/paper2nd 12/6/07 3:51 pm Page iii

Page 6: Business engagement in humanitarian relief: key trends and ......business engagement in humanitarian relief highlight the potential for making relief work more effective and efficient

iv

HPG BACKGROUND PAPER

GPPI Brief/paper2nd 12/6/07 3:51 pm Page iv

Page 7: Business engagement in humanitarian relief: key trends and ......business engagement in humanitarian relief highlight the potential for making relief work more effective and efficient

1

HPG BACKGROUND PAPER

This paper was commissioned by the Humanitarian PolicyGroup (HPG). It is part of a broader HPG study into the role ofthe private sector in support of humanitarian action. Thispaper contributes by exploring systematically the new rolescompanies are playing in humanitarian action. It assesses theforms such engagement is taking, with a particular focus onpartnerships, and explores the underlying motivations forengaging in new ways. It also addresses whether new forms ofcorporate engagement and new donor funding patternsrepresent potential competition to humanitarian actors, andhow this impacts on humanitarian principles. The paper is aproduct of a scoping exercise to assess the depth and natureof non-commercial and commercial business engagement inhumanitarian relief; eight illustrative case studies; andinterviews with numerous experts and practitionersconducted over 2006 and early 2007.

Key findings from the research show that businessengagement in humanitarian relief has expanded in scopeand size in recent years – in both voluntary and commercialways. A range of factors, the most prominent of which are tocontribute to positive branding and to motivate staff, drivescompanies to engage in humanitarian work. Companieswishing to pursue partnership arrangements tend to preferin-kind assistance to cash aid. The vast majority ofengagement relates to natural disaster relief, however, andthe value of such engagements in financial terms remainssmall, relative to overall humanitarian financing. Perceptionsof a growing trend of non-commercial company engagementin humanitarian relief may be based largely on effective

public relations/brand management campaigns bycompanies involved in this field.

The widely-held perception that companies increasinglycompete on a commercial basis with traditional humanitarianactors seems overstated. This perception may have beeninfluenced by the highly publicised instances of corporationsreceiving large USAID contracts during the Afghan and Iraqwars. To date, commercial business engagement seems to belargely limited to reconstruction and long-term development.

Partnerships with businesses can bring needed technicalexpertise and added capacity – but developing a strongworking relationship takes time and effort. Past attempts topursue partnerships with corporate agencies have often beenfrustrated as agencies are unclear about the intendedoutcomes for the partnership, or view it as a way of developinga long-term funding arrangement. Partner selection should bebased on a match between identified gaps, the skills andcapacities on offer and the ability of the agency to manage thepartnership. Equally, companies should seek not to limitthemselves to natural disasters or high-profile cases – positiveimage is based on credibility and, in the long run, respondingto greatest need will contribute more to such credibility thanopportunistic efforts. Finally, companies should be moretransparent about the contributions they make tohumanitarian relief. Research in this area is hampered bycompanies’ reluctance to provide privileged information,irrespective of whether their engagement is based on acommercial or non-commercial model.

Executive summary

GPPI Brief/paper2nd 12/6/07 3:51 pm Page 1

Page 8: Business engagement in humanitarian relief: key trends and ......business engagement in humanitarian relief highlight the potential for making relief work more effective and efficient

2

HPG BACKGROUND PAPER

GPPI Brief/paper2nd 12/6/07 3:51 pm Page 2

Page 9: Business engagement in humanitarian relief: key trends and ......business engagement in humanitarian relief highlight the potential for making relief work more effective and efficient

3

HPG BACKGROUND PAPER

For decades, companies have occupied a secondary place inhumanitarian relief, providing goods and services to dominanthumanitarian actors contracting their assistance. However,recently the business community has started to respondunconventionally to needs arising from humanitarianemergencies, offering more than just logistical support or thedelivery of construction materials on a fee basis. This suggeststhat new forms of business engagement in humanitarian reliefmay be emerging.

One new form of engagement is partnership betweencompanies and traditional humanitarian actors to improvedisaster relief services. These partnerships are voluntary.Companies often claim that their participation in suchcollaborative alliances is not primarily, if at all, motivated byfinancial incentives, but is rooted in a desire to demonstratetheir corporate social responsibility (CSR).1

A second change in corporate engagement is the enlargedscope of traditional work. In the crises in Iraq and Afghanistan,humanitarian practitioner have reported that companies nolonger merely procure goods and services for traditionalhumanitarian actors, but in a number of cases appear tocompete with them for humanitarian budgets.2 While mostdonors give humanitarian funds only to non-profit organis-ations, the US and UK contract commercial providers directly toplan and implement humanitarian projects. However, so far thisseems to be related more to reconstruction and developmentthan to actual relief operations – particularly in the US case(SIGIR Report to Congress, 30 July 2006: Appendix H).

These developments have given rise to much discussionwithin the humanitarian community regarding the role of theprivate sector in humanitarian relief. Critics and supportersalike argue that the two trends sketched out above, ifsignificant and durable, have the potential to transform thehumanitarian domain. Critics fear that these trends willsolidify donor control over the implementation of reliefactivities. Companies, they assume, are less inclined todefend their independence vis-à-vis their paymasters thanNGOs. More significantly, critics fear that the increasingengagement of companies serves to weaken the application ofhumanitarian principles. As profit-maximisers, companies aresupposedly less concerned about humanitarian principlesthan are humanitarian NGOs (Hopgood, 2005: 4). Critics alsofear that companies’ voluntary contribution may not merely bea step towards increased engagement, but may eventually

crowd out donor funding altogether. In contrast, supporters ofbusiness engagement in humanitarian relief highlight thepotential for making relief work more effective and efficient.They argue that business can bring value to humanitarianrelief, including expertise, new technology and in some casesmuch-needed funds (Globalgivingmatters, 2005). Introducinggreater competition into the humanitarian ‘marketplace’ couldpotentially reduce inefficiencies and increase value for money.

All of these issues merit further discussion. In order to assessboth sides of the argument, it is first necessary to appraise thetrends and assess their implications. This report attempts tocontribute to the study of company engagement inhumanitarian action by exploring systematically the new rolescompanies are playing in humanitarian action. It assesses theforms such engagement is taking, and explores its underlyingmotivations. It also addresses whether new forms of corporateengagement and new donor funding patterns representpotential competition to humanitarian actors, and how thisimpacts on humanitarian principles. To address these issues,we have conducted a scoping exercise to assess the depth andscale of non-commercial and commercial business engagementin humanitarian relief; conducted eight illustrative case studies;and interviewed numerous experts and practitioners.

Company engagement in humanitarian relief, especially on anon-commercial basis, is a relatively new phenomenon. Existingliterature is rare and data collection proved difficult. The scopeof the study was limited in several ways. The report looks atdirect forms of business engagement – not at companies asdonors. Furthermore, while small-business initiatives play themost significant role in local relief operations, they are not likelyto have the overarching programmes of larger companies, norare they likely to be involved beyond the local level (see IFRC,2005: Chapter 4). The focus here is thus more on global ratherthan local businesses. The report does not assess longer-termissues related to reconstruction and development. It looks atbusiness engagement in natural disaster and conflict response– excluding security companies and non-relief-related post-conflict reconstruction (discussed extensively in Wheeler andHarmer et al., 2005). A systematic evaluation of the value ofbusiness engagement in humanitarian relief lies beyond thescope of this study. So far, assessments are ad hoc, anecdotalor unavailable. Given these limitations, this study should beregarded as a contribution to the evolving debate on the role ofthe private sector in humanitarian relief.

Our research revealed the following findings:

• In terms of the absolute number of corporate non-commercial initiatives, a growth in engagement can be

Chapter 1Introduction

1 Business engagement of this type is referred to as ‘non-commercialengagement’ in the text. 2 Interview with a representative of a network organisation of humanitarianand development NGOs, 12 May 2006.

GPPI Brief/paper2nd 12/6/07 3:51 pm Page 3

Page 10: Business engagement in humanitarian relief: key trends and ......business engagement in humanitarian relief highlight the potential for making relief work more effective and efficient

4

HPG BACKGROUND PAPER

observed. The majority of these corporate-led initiativesemerged in the aftermath of the 2004 Indian Oceantsunami. The vast majority of these initiatives are relatedto natural disasters, rather than conflict settings.

• The significance of non-commercial engagement in termsof funds generated for relief remains relatively small.Perceptions of a growing trend in non-commercialcompany engagement in humanitarian relief may be basedlargely on effective public relations/brand managementcampaigns by companies involved in this field.

• Business engagement mainly occurs in one of three forms:as single company initiatives, as partnerships withtraditional humanitarian actors, or as ‘meta-initiatives’ (foran explanation of these three types of businessengagement, see chapter 3.1).

• Companies are motivated by a range of factors. The mostprominent are positive branding and a desire to motivatestaff.

• The widely-held perception that companies increasinglycompete on a commercial basis with traditionalhumanitarian actors seems overstated. This perceptionmay have been influenced by the highly publicisedinstances of corporations receiving large USAID contractsduring the Afghan and Iraq wars, as well as confusion overwhich budgets such contracts come from (developmental,humanitarian or other).3

• To date, commercial business engagement seems to belargely limited to reconstruction and long-term develop-ment.

• Irrespective of whether their engagement is based on acommercial or non-commercial model, companies appearreluctant to provide privileged information. Many companyrepresentatives do not have time to participate in studiesthat are not beneficial to their businesses. The fact thatcompanies do not provide information may also indicatethat there is little of substance to report.

The study is structured as follows. Chapter 2 places thediscussion of company engagement in humanitarian relief withinthe broader debate on recent changes in the humanitariandomain. Chapter 3 focuses on the non-commercial engagementof companies in humanitarian relief, through partnerships withtraditional humanitarian actors or participation in unilateral CSRinitiatives. Chapter 4 analyses the commercial engagement ofcompanies in humanitarian relief. Finally, chapter 5 offers policyrecommendations for traditional humanitarian relief agencies,government donors and the private sector.

3 Phone interview with an NGO representative, 21 April 2006. The GDAReport 2006 states, however, that reconstruction of countries such asAfghanistan and Iraq is increasingly funded out of development assistancerather than humanitarian budgets (Development Initiatives, 2006: 8).

GPPI Brief/paper2nd 12/6/07 3:51 pm Page 4

Page 11: Business engagement in humanitarian relief: key trends and ......business engagement in humanitarian relief highlight the potential for making relief work more effective and efficient

5

HPG BACKGROUND PAPER

A substantive assessment of the changing role business playsin humanitarian relief requires a good understanding of boththe structure of the humanitarian domain, and the nature of theprivate sector. Generally, business actors respond to direct orindirect economic incentives. Some of these, such as demandor (financial) opportunity, are also relevant to the behaviour ofhumanitarian actors. Other economic rationales, such as profit-making or maximising efficiency in order to increase profits, arelittle known to humanitarian actors. Most importantly,however, what distinguishes the two types of actors is priority:whereas economic incentives are imperative to businessactors’ behaviour, they are only secondary for humanitarianactors. Therefore, to fully appreciate how private sector actorsperceive the structural context of their engagement inhumanitarian relief, we believe it is appropriate to use themarket as an analogy for the humanitarian domain.

2.1 The transformation of the humanitarian domain: an

emerging market?

During the past several decades, the humanitarian sector hasbeen dominated operationally, and in terms of funds received,by a handful of non-profit relief agencies rather than bycommercial or state actors. This dominance, combined with theneutrality and independence of providing care, has long kepthumanitarian action at the margins of international politics(Levine, 2004: 1). Until the late 1980s, humanitarianism ‘barelyexisted as a field’ (see Barnett, 2005: 729). Since the early1990s, however, this has started to change, as a result of threekey developments.

First, since the 1990s natural disasters have become morefrequent and visible (see Calhoun, 2004). This has led toapparent growth in the ‘market’4 for humanitarian assistance,not only in terms of financial volume but also in terms of thenumber of market participants (World Bank, 2006: 5). Thisgrowth is reflected in the dramatic increase in official assistance,from $2.3 billion in 1990 to approximately $8.4 billion in 2005(Development Initiatives, 2006: 7). As a percentage of officialdevelopment assistance (ODA), humanitarian aid rose from an

average of 5.8% for the period 1989 to 1993 to 14% in 2005 (seeDevelopment Initiatives, 2006: 8). Private contributions tohumanitarian assistance also increased significantly. Accordingto OCHA’s Financial Tracking Service, private contributions rosefrom 14% of total humanitarian assistance in 2001 to about 35%in 2005 (http://ocha.unog.ch/fts2/).

In both official and private spending on humanitarian assistance,there is great variation from year to year. Practitioners complainthat donors often respond disproportionately to emergencies, ascontributions are not always made where the need is greatest,but rather serve donors’ own political agendas and priorities.Resources are concentrated on high-profile emergencies, andthere is an observable bias towards quick-onset disasters at theexpense of slow-onset and chronic disasters (see Levine, 2004:5; Development Initiatives, 2006: 28). Nonetheless, whencompared to development aid, humanitarian assistance spend-ing has shown stronger growth rates over the past few years.Following the trend of preceding years, in 2005 humanitarianspending grew faster than ODA as a whole (DevelopmentInitiatives, 2006: 7).5 The 2005 financial flows are significantlyinfluenced by the unprecedented response, both private andpublic, to the Indian Ocean tsunami (Development Initiatives,2006: 49). The steady increase in financial assistance since theearly 1990s, as well as the expansion of actors involved, hasintensified competition for funding and projects. This, manybelieve, has created new coordination problems in the field (seefor example Minear, 1999; Reindorp and Wiles, 2001).

Second, because of increasing competition and large-scale,well-publicised failures to respond to major disasters such asthe Rwandan genocide, there have been pressures from withinthe community and from donor governments to professionalisehumanitarian work (see Terry, 2002).6 In particular, the latterhave started to press for greater accountability and the

Chapter 2The humanitarian domain:

key trends and developments

4 Using the term ‘market’ in the context of humanitarian relief isproblematic. Helping people who are suffering physically and mentally fromthe effects of natural and man-made disasters is not a typical business. It isreasonable to argue that the system that brings aid to those who have losttheir loved ones, their homes and means of living due to natural disastersor wars, should probably not be compelled to function according to marketlaws. But for better or worse, an industry has developed aroundhumanitarian aid, permitting us to speak of a humanitarian ‘market’. Thetrade fair in Dubai at the beginning of 2006, the largest ever held, is a goodexample of this trend.

5 ODA net of debt relief, humanitarian spending including relief disbursementin response to the tsunami (Development Initiatives, 2006: 7).6 De Torrente (2005: 3ff ) distinguishes between three different but relateddimensions of professionalisation. One dimension is that, in response togrowing complexity, activity in humanitarianism is becoming a profession,which demands a specific profile, and thus specific training. At the sametime, humanitarian professions are becoming more diverse. Whiletraditional activity in the field remains at the core of humanitarian activity,increasingly administrative, managerial and organisational posts arenecessary to coordinate and organise humanitarian work within anindividual organisation. This development is linked to a second dimension,whereby employment in the humanitarian field is increasingly moving fromvoluntary to paid work. These two dimensions of professionalisation can beseen as a result of the drive towards the enhanced effectiveness ofhumanitarian work. The third dimension is, therefore, the increasedbureaucratisation of humanitarian work, and a move away fromimprovisation and informality.

GPPI Brief/paper2nd 12/6/07 3:51 pm Page 5

Page 12: Business engagement in humanitarian relief: key trends and ......business engagement in humanitarian relief highlight the potential for making relief work more effective and efficient

6

HPG BACKGROUND PAPER

adoption of business management approaches – such as agreater division of labour, specialisation, formalisation andstandardisation of workflows. The pressure to professionaliseis also reflected in the growing use of business language andbusiness tools amongst humanitarian practitioners (seeBarnett, 2005: 725; Levine, 2004: 1ff; de Torrente, 2005). Inresponse to reviews of a number of crises, such as Rwanda andSudan, and critiques from within the humanitarian communityand from donors, there have been attempts to standardise thepreviously informal rules guiding humanitarian action (seeBarnett, 2005; Gostelow, 1999).7 This has led to a proliferationof principles and codes of conduct (see Barnett, 2005; Levine,2004; Hopgood, 2005; Anderson, 1999). At bottom, each ofthese codes and principles depends on concepts of humanity,neutrality and impartiality.

Finally, since the end of the Cold War humanitarianism hasincreasingly become both a means and an end of foreignpolicy; civil and military interventions for humanitarianpurposes are increasing and some argue that they haveemerged as an organising principle of today’s internationalrelations (see Macrae, cited in Levine, 2004: 3). As a result,governments now seek to exert greater control over howresources are spent (Barnett, 2005: 731). Funding decisionsare often based on political interest (Levine, 2004: 4). At thesame time, the increasing dependence of many humanitarianactors on governmental donors makes it easier for the latter toinfluence the work of the former: ‘The most important controlmechanism [comes] from the power of the purse’ (Barnett,2005: 731). Today, more than two-thirds of available publicfunds are spent bilaterally (Development Initiatives, 2006: 7).This increased presence of donor governments in thehumanitarian sphere, and the funding patterns that result,affect both traditional, non-profit actors and for-profitcompanies alike (see Barnett, 2005: 725; Levine, 2004: 3).

The convergence of these three developments seems to havecreated a friendlier atmosphere for commercial engagement inhumanitarian relief: for-profit actors should quite naturally beattracted by the growth of the market; they already possessthe business management tools governments increasinglydemand; and donors may see for-profits as more willing tocomply with their directives than NGOs. However, beforejumping to conclusions we need a better understanding of thestructure and dynamics of the humanitarian domain.

2.2 The humanitarian domain as a quasi-market

dominated by several big players

A closer look at the fundamental structure and dynamicsunderpinning the humanitarian endeavour gives us reason tobelieve that commercial engagement will not necessarilybecome widespread.

The humanitarian market is probably best characterised as aquasi-market (Harford, 2004: 3). Quasi-markets exhibit anindirect producer–consumer relationship. In regular markets,consumers purchase goods and services. In the market forhumanitarian relief, however, the consumer (i.e. the aidrecipient) neither purchases nor pays for the delivered service.Rather, public or private donors finance the transaction. Inother words, there is an indirect producer–consumerrelationship: aid agencies are the producers, donors the buyersand aid recipients the consumers. As a result, the market isloaded with asymmetries. Donors have difficulty determiningwhether the services they pay for are indeed adequatelydelivered, while recipients have few means of effectivelymaking complaints or airing grievances. This in turn results inmoral hazards, such as weak incentives on the part of the aidagency to deliver good-quality services efficiently. Political andinformation asymmetries are common factors preventing themarket from performing to its full capacity (see Easterly, 2002;Harford, 2004; Cooley, 2002; Rose-Ackerman, 1996).

These distortions of the humanitarian market exist regardless ofwhether the actors are for-profit or non-profit. From theperspective of economic theory, what distinguishes the twotypes of actors is that non-profits have a ‘non-distributionconstraint’ (Rose-Ackerman, 1996: 717). That is, non-profits haveneither shareholders nor owners, nor do they make any profit,and are thus not constrained to distribute their income to aspecific group of people. For-profits, on the other hand, need tocater to their shareholders or, if held privately, to their owners.8

The non-profits’ non-distribution constraint is legally required inmany countries, where not-for-profit actors cannot retainportions of the donations as income. As a result, not-for-profitshave fundraising advantages in a market where donors, bothprivate and public, want to be certain that the money spent(taxes in the case of government donors, earned income in thecase of private donors) will reach the beneficiaries rather thanincrease company profits (Rose-Ackerman, 1996: 717).9

A further characteristic of the humanitarian market is itsoligopolistic structure, on the demand as well as the supplyside. The demand side of the humanitarian market isdominated by a small number of NGOs, namely CAREInternational, World Vision, Save the Children, Oxfam andMSF, with annual budgets ranging from over $400 million toroughly $2 billion.10 The remainder of the market is

7 For example, the Code of Conduct for the International Red Cross and RedCrescent Movement and NGOs in Disaster Relief; the Providence Principlesassembled by a number of NGOs; and the SPHERE Project.

8 As Easley and O’Hara observe: ‘[I]n buying food for our own consumptionwe can observe the products we are purchasing. In donating money to feedEthiopian famine victims, however, we are not likely to travel to Ethiopia toobserve the delivery of the food. The non-profit’s non-distributionconstraint assures us that our entire donation will not end up in themanager’s bank account. If we donate to a for-profit firm, however, whatassurance do we have that the money provides food to Ethiopians ratherthan profits to the owners?’ (Easley and O’Hara, 1983: 532).9 Interview with a representative from the German government, 2 May2006.10 Information gathered from the organisations’ websites. In 2004, 21 NGOgroupings received 50% of all humanitarian spending channelled throughNGOs.

GPPI Brief/paper2nd 12/6/07 3:51 pm Page 6

Page 13: Business engagement in humanitarian relief: key trends and ......business engagement in humanitarian relief highlight the potential for making relief work more effective and efficient

7

HPG BACKGROUND PAPER

distributed across a (steadily increasing) number of smallactors, which compete fiercely for market share (Barnett,2005). On the supply side, we find a handful of public donors,such as the US, the UK, the European CommissionHumanitarian Aid Office (ECHO), Sweden, the Netherlands,Switzerland and Canada – who together provide over 63% ofoverall humanitarian assistance (OCHA Financial TrackingSystem, http://ocha.unog.ch/fts/ index.aspx). The remainingaid is supplied by an increasing number of donors, bothprivate and public.

2.3 Conclusion

The analysis above highlights two important points. First, theongoing transformation of the humanitarian domain hascreated an atmosphere conducive to more extensive privatesector engagement in humanitarian relief. At the same time,an analysis of the fundamental structure of the ‘quasi-market’for humanitarian relief suggests that the ‘commercialisation’of relief is unlikely; traditional humanitarian actors, inparticular non-profits, enjoy a strategic advantage overpotential private sector competitors.

GPPI Brief/paper2nd 12/6/07 3:51 pm Page 7

Page 14: Business engagement in humanitarian relief: key trends and ......business engagement in humanitarian relief highlight the potential for making relief work more effective and efficient

8

HPG BACKGROUND PAPER

GPPI Brief/paper2nd 12/6/07 3:51 pm Page 8

Page 15: Business engagement in humanitarian relief: key trends and ......business engagement in humanitarian relief highlight the potential for making relief work more effective and efficient

9

HPG BACKGROUND PAPER

For many years, the business community has been an activeand important contributor to humanitarian relief, primarilythrough its philanthropic activities. Corporate philanthropy inhumanitarian relief has steadily increased over the past severaldecades (Whiteman et al., 2005; Foundation Center, 2006).While exact figures vary, it is widely believed that corporatedonations reached a record high with the Indian Ocean tsunamiin 2004 (Whiteman et al., 2005; UN Office of the SecretaryGeneral’s Special Envoy for Tsunami Recovery, 2006: 5).

While corporate philanthropy remains important, companiesincreasingly appear to seek more direct ways of engaging inhumanitarian relief operations, for example through so-called‘partnerships’ or ‘multi-stakeholder initiatives’. Some companies– albeit much smaller in number – also engage directly in relief.

3.1 Results of scoping exercise

The scoping exercise used in this study was assembled largelythrough internet research and expanded on through interviews.It identified 61 initiatives in which the private sector engages inhumanitarian relief on a non-commercial basis (for a list ofinitiatives, see Appendix I).11 Overall, the scoping exerciseidentified a number of key elements of non-commercialbusiness engagement in humanitarian relief, which, together,constitute a new form of corporate engagement in this area.

Beyond sharing common ground to the extent that theengagement is non-commercial, the company initiativesidentified in the scoping exercise vary greatly with respect totheir development, structure, management and fundingarrangements. We categorised the initiatives into three groupsand identified trends based on industry sector, firm size, firmlocation, leadership commitment and a variety of otherfactors. These three types are:12

1) Single company engagement: initiatives launched andimplemented by a single corporation, which often emerge inresponse to a specific crisis and are most frequently plannedand executed by company CSR departments. Such

initiatives range from traditional philanthropy (e.g.coordinating company staff donations) to fully-fledged,company-run relief operations in disaster regions (including

Box 1: The IBM Worldwide Crisis Response Team

IBM, with annual revenues of $91.1 billion, was one of the firstmajor corporations to shift its strategy of corporate givingfrom philanthropy to unilateral business engagement indisaster relief (Woodworth, 2001; IBM, 2005).13 IBM’sWorldwide Crisis Response Team was launched in 1993 toestablish ‘initial response and recovery services for our IBMcommercial clients’ (see Agnew, 2005). Today, it also providespre-disaster risk assessment, insurance and disaster relief foremployees and their communities. It also offers IT goods,services and expertise in logistics and management togovernments and organisations in disaster response efforts.Since 1993, Crisis Response Teams have aided disaster reliefin 49 countries related to more than 70 major natural andman-made disasters (IBM, 2004; GPPi interview, 2006).

With the Crisis Response Team, IBM increased the impact ofits humanitarian contributions, and assured that its fundswould be used effectively (GPPi interview, 2006). It was alsopractical. The commercial branch of IBM has profited fromthe lessons learned, which have been incorporated into itsdisaster consulting practice, and from expertise gained inhumanitarian disaster relief.14 IBM’s expenditures ondisaster-related humanitarian action are not significantcompared to the profitability of its disaster consultingpractice, the Business Continuity and Recovery Services,which generates an estimated revenue of $600 million a year(see Lohr, 2001; Fortune Magazine, 2006).

IBM involvement at the national level follows either agovernment request for help or an IBM-initiated discussionwith high-level government officials about its potential role.Once invited to engage, an IBM Crisis Response Team oftrained experts works alongside local volunteers, businesspartners and other humanitarian relief organisations (Agnew,2005; IBM, 2005; GPPi interview, 2006). To encouragesustainability, the teams develop an exit strategy and trainlocal people for eventual takeover. At the close of operations,the teams assess their performance and identify lessonslearned for the future (GPPi interview, 2006).

Chapter 3The new face of corporate philanthropy?

The changing nature of business engagement in humanitarian relief

11 The list of initiatives is not exhaustive. The method of identifying casesprimarily through internet research and expert interviews is biased towardslarger initiatives, which are able to communicate their work effectively. Inaddition, this selection does not include traditional corporate cashdonations.12 This is not an analytical typology. This categorisation is used here as aheuristic device in order to illustrate the breadth of non-commercialbusiness relief in humanitarian relief.

13 Interview with a representative of IBM’s Crises Response Group, June 2006.14 The IBM commercial crisis management services website advertises theexpertise gained in past humanitarian crisis responses (see www-1.ibm.com/services/us/index.wss/offering/bcrs/a1000265 06).

GPPI Brief/paper2nd 12/6/07 3:51 pm Page 9

Page 16: Business engagement in humanitarian relief: key trends and ......business engagement in humanitarian relief highlight the potential for making relief work more effective and efficient

10

HPG BACKGROUND PAPER

self-standing initiatives engaging through in-kind donationsand through involving company staff in the managementand implementation of relief operations).

2) Partnerships. Partnerships refer to multi-stakeholder initia-tives that bring together corporations and traditionalhumanitarian actors such as the United Nations, bilateraldevelopment organisations and/or NGOs.15 This arrange-ment was the most common type of initiative identified in thescoping exercise (with 52 examples). The number of organis-ations involved in a partnership varies greatly: many bringtogether only two partners (business–NGO; business–

government), while others have developed into broad-basedinitiatives with ten or more collaborating organisations.

3) Meta-initiatives. Meta-initiatives involve companies andother actors joining forces to enhance coordination inhumanitarian relief work and to share lessons learned. Thestated goal of some meta-initiatives, such as the DisasterRelief Initiative (DRI), also includes the establishment ofstandby capacity, often in addition to engagement throughCSR initiatives and/or partnerships. Various meta-initiativeshave been launched, facilitated by business associationssuch as the World Economic Forum or the Fritz Institute.Meta-initiatives are designed to facilitate more effectiveindustry-wide action in humanitarian relief, to avoidduplication of effort and to take advantage of economies ofscale. They also seek to overcome the limitations of the adhoc nature of giving in emergency response. They aim atsystematising and formalising response.

15 Broadly speaking, partnerships can be described as voluntary andcollaborative initiatives that bring together actors from various sectors(including business, civil society and the public sector) to achieve a commonobjective or undertake a specific task, and to share risks and responsibilitiesas well as resources and benefits. For a more in-depth discussion of the term‘partnership’, see Witte and Reinicke, 2005: chapter 2.

Box 2: Motorola’s partnership with Care

International

Communications technology company Motorola, Inc. hadannual sales of $27.1 billion in 2003. It initiated a partnershipin 2004 with CARE International. CARE has an annual budgetof approximately $565 million (CARE, 2005). According toCARE’s president and CEO, Peter Bell, the partnership seeksto ‘link isolated communities to the outside world and helpsave lives’ by providing remote areas with communicationstechnology. Motorola has donated radio communicationssystems in Bangladesh, the Democratic Republic of Congo(DRC) and Peru. Motorola’s donation is valued at $1 million.

According to Motorola, its motivation for engaging in thepartnership with CARE is that it constitutes ‘an excellentopportunity for us to leverage our expertise in radiocommunications and make a significant contribution to thecommunity’ (Motorola, 2004). In addition, Motorola offers itsproducts and services for the purposes of humanitarian reliefat least in part to establish a presence in new markets.Administratively, Motorola’s marketing, sales and fieldservices sections are all involved in the management andimplementation of the partnership (GPPi Interview, 2006). Sofar, there are no publicly available evaluations of the effects ofthe partnership. However, CARE and Bangladeshi governmentrepresentatives highlighted Motorola’s positive contribution,stating that its radio device donations could servecommunities by improving household security (see http://www.thedailystar.net/2004/12/01/d41201160398.html).

There are plans to expand the scope of the partnership.Motorola recently made an additional grant to CARE to helprebuild schools following the earthquake in Pakistan in2005. There are continuing discussions around how CAREand Motorola could form a partnership in India. Thewillingness of Motorola to expand its partnership with CAREis a testament not only to its success, but also to Motorola’sdesire to continue exploring new market potential indeveloping regions.

Box 3: The Disaster Resource Network (DRN)

The Disaster Resource Network (DRN) was established by theWorld Economic Forum in 2001. It is envisaged as a bridgebetween traditional relief actors and businesses willing tocontribute to the prevention and mitigation of disasters. Themission of the DRN is ‘to mobilise the resources of theinternational business community to rebuild the lives andlivelihoods threatened by natural and man-made disasters’(see http://www2.drnglobal.org/home). DRN relief effortsinclude sending medical emergency teams, shipping reliefsupplies, donating emergency communications technologyand computers and deploying Airport Emergency Teams(AETs) of logistics experts and heavy equipment operators torun airport operations in disaster areas. Through the DRN,World Economic Forum members have contributed to reliefefforts following the 2004 tsunami; Hurricane Katrina in theUnited States; the November 2005 earthquake in South Asia;and the May 2006 earthquake in Indonesia.

The DRN identifies gaps in existing relief efforts andapproaches companies capable of filling them. Since 2001, theDRN has worked with a variety of local actors in affectedregions as well as traditional humanitarian assistanceorganisations (GPPi interview, 2006; DRN: http://www.weforum.org/pdf/Indonesia.pdf, 2006). Businesses donateboth financially and in-kind, and give finances either to aspecific disaster or through sustained unspecified giving. Ingeneral, contributions range from $500 to $300,000 (seeWorld Economic Forum, 2003). The DRN estimates the AET’scontribution at $1.7 million in volunteer labour and services tothe tsunami emergency relief effort.16 Between $300,000 and$500,000 is kept as reserves by the DRN so that it can respondto disasters immediately. DRN involvement in a disaster isbased on UN and NGO requests for relief aid; however, AETdeployment requires the agreement of the local government.

16 See www.weforum.org/site/homepublic.nsf/Content/Disaster+Resource+Network%3A+Current+Projects.

GPPI Brief/paper2nd 12/6/07 3:51 pm Page 10

Page 17: Business engagement in humanitarian relief: key trends and ......business engagement in humanitarian relief highlight the potential for making relief work more effective and efficient

Company contributions to humanitarian relief range fromdonations of immediate aid supplies (food, water, blankets) tologistics (providing free transport as well as improvinglogistical systems and efficiency), technology (especiallycomputer hard- and software), communications equipmentand monetary donations. Companies from a broad range ofindustry sectors have engaged in humanitarian relief on a non-commercial basis, but three sectors appear particularlyprominent – logistics, information technology (IT) andtelecommunications – due to the relevance of contributions inthese three sectors to disaster relief operations.

The majority of non-commercial initiatives in the scopingexercise focus on major sudden-onset natural disasters ratherthan man-made disasters, such as conflicts, or gradual-onsetdisasters, such as droughts.17 Interviews with companyrepresentatives suggest that corporations tend to avoid post-conflict disaster relief because of the associated dangers –related to their security and their standing in relevantcommunities.18 Post-natural disaster relief is ‘easier tonavigate’ and involves fewer complex questions about liabilityand insurance for company staff working at the site of thedisaster. Engagement in post-conflict relief may also raise

reputational issues, such as being associated with the conflictor being forced to take sides. In cases where businesses doengage in post-conflict disaster relief, it is usually not in theform of partnerships but indirectly, for instance throughfundraising or providing technology to be implemented bytraditional humanitarian agencies.

The scoping exercise indicated that the vast majority ofinitiatives emerged immediately after the 2004 tsunami (seeFigure 1).

Figure 1 demonstrates that the tsunami was a catalytic event,helping to increase awareness of and active contributions tohumanitarian operations within the business community. It isquestionable, though, whether business support followingmajor events such as the tsunami will be sustainable over time(see also section 3.3).

Our research shows that the average size of initiatives,measured by budgets per annum, is approximately $2 million(see Appendix I). The largest initiative has an annual budget of$10 million (TNT’s ‘Moving the World’), while the smallestinitiative has a budget of $10,000 (the partnership betweenBrandix Lanka and UNDP). Assembling budget data for theseinitiatives proved extremely difficult. In most cases, data is notpublicly available and was not provided at our request. Only aminority of initiatives (22) surveyed provided exact data onfunding. Moreover, even when budget data is provided, theexact time period for allocated budgets is often unclear, and itis not clear whether companies calculate their contributionsaccording to market rates, or internal ones. Interviews suggestthat market rates are used, which would mean that the actualfinancial commitments are overstated.

11

HPG BACKGROUND PAPER

Figure 1: Founding dates of initiatives

1995–1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006

Type of engagement

SCE PPP Meta initiative

17 For a similar finding in the disaster prevention arena, see Warhurst,2006. Health disasters such as the SARS and AIDS epidemics were notconsidered in the scope of this report.18 Without exception, all corporate interviewees noted a clear preferencefor working in humanitarian relief operations after natural disasters. Thisprobably related to the fact that the nature of conflicts has changedsignificantly over the past decade. While inter-state conflicts continue toattract significant attention and media coverage, the predominant numberof new conflicts are low-intensity yet often protracted civil wars (see e.g.Collier et al., 2003). The changing structure and intensity of conflictsgenerates a range of new challenges for efforts not only in conflictprevention but also in post-conflict relief, reconstruction and development.

Source: GPPi.

GPPI Brief/paper2nd 12/6/07 3:51 pm Page 11

Page 18: Business engagement in humanitarian relief: key trends and ......business engagement in humanitarian relief highlight the potential for making relief work more effective and efficient

12

HPG BACKGROUND PAPER

3.2 Analysis and conclusions

The scoping exercise provides a broad and illustrative, yet to alarge extent descriptive, picture of the breadth and scope ofnon-commercial business engagement in humanitarian relief.For that reason, we also conducted five case studies (seeAppendix III). Based on the scoping exercise and the casestudies, what conclusions can we draw in relation to the keyresearch questions raised at the outset?

3.2.1 Significance of non-commercial business engagement

in humanitarian relief

The scoping exercise suggests that the non-commercialengagement of business has become an increasingly commonfeature of the humanitarian relief domain. During the pastdecade, the number of partnerships and CSR initiatives inhumanitarian relief has increased significantly. However, thismust be viewed in perspective.

First, it is important to recognise that much of the growth innon-commercial business engagement was primarily driven bythe Indian Ocean tsunami in 2004. More than 90% of theinitiatives in the scoping exercise were launched in response tothat catastrophe. Since then, the growth rate in new initiativeshas levelled off. Based on the number of new initiatives andcompanies engaged, there are no signs that there is consistentand significant growth independent of large-scale disasters. Infact, non-commercial business engagement in relief has notbeen as significant in other disasters (such as the Kashmirearthquake in 2005), suggesting that the tsunami may havebeen a singular event. At the same time, the fact that theoverall number of non-commercial business initiatives is notgrowing may also be a result of an ongoing process ofconsolidation. Various companies appear to be joining forces inmeta-initiatives, with the intention of enhancing coordinationand learning. Humanitarian relief experts see this as a positivephenomenon, since the new meta-initiatives tend to reducetransaction costs and help educate corporate managers in thecomplexities and intricacies of humanitarian relief work.19

Second, the significance of non-commercial engagement inhumanitarian relief should not simply be judged by thenumber of new initiatives and the number of companies thatare active. Another, probably more useful, indicator is thescale of overall funding being channelled into humanitarianrelief activities through these new types of initiatives. Whileconsistent and reliable data about the financial size ofinitiatives is difficult to obtain, our research suggests thattheir overall significance in terms of funding generated forrelief work remains small, at least in relation to overall

humanitarian aid budgets from private cash donations andgovernment donor contributions. The media attention some ofthese initiatives frequently attract stands in stark contrast tothe fact that the overwhelming number run on budgets wellbelow $500,000 per year. These numbers pale in comparisonto overall corporate philanthropic cash contributions, the sumtotal of private individual giving and, particularly, overallgovernment spending on humanitarian action (see chapter 2).In most cases, it is also unclear how corporate support will besustained as there are no multi-year funding commitments.

Of course, the level of funding that is available is notnecessarily an appropriate predictor of impact. As our casestudies suggest, even comparatively small initiatives have thepotential to develop significant impact and produce a variety ofpositive outcomes. This applies in particular to partnershipsthat are not only mechanisms for the delivery of humanitarianaction, but also effective conduits for knowledge exchange andlearning. Without exception, interviewees from both privateand humanitarian agencies with experience of partnershipsemphasised the positive impact of non-commercial businessengagement on the sector as a whole.20 UN intervieweeshighlighted the important role partnerships play in bringingknowledge and expertise into the UN (GPPi interviews, 2006).However, while individual initiatives and companies makenotable contributions to humanitarian relief, overall non-commercial engagement in humanitarian relief remains a nichephenomenon.

3.2.2 Forms and management of non-commercial business

engagement

Our research highlights two reasons why companies prefer toact through partnerships rather than alone. First, manycompanies recognise that becoming involved in themanagement and implementation of humanitarian relief canbe difficult and risky. Delivering aid in a post-conflict or post-disaster situation usually requires operating in very complexand frequently dangerous environments. Companies tend tolook for experienced partners to help them avoid mistakes andreduce risks (GPPi interviews, 2006). Second, companies arefrequently interested in building partnerships with well-knownand reputable NGOs or inter-governmental agencies, such asthe UN, in order to profit in terms of their image. HumanitarianNGOs such as Save the Children or CARE International havehigh and very positive international visibility. Associating acompany with such organisations can help to improve thatcompany’s public profile. In identifying suitable partners,companies tend to be highly selective. Competence and areputation for efficiency is another important selection factor.Companies also tend to choose partners that suit theirstrategic branding needs.

19 Interview with a UN representative conducted by the authors, 31 May2006. Various others supported that view, including for example BenedictePansier (Donor Relations Officer, World Food Programme) and RosTennyson (Director, The Partnering Initiative, IBLF) (comments made duringa workshop on the role of business in humanitarian/disaster relief at theAnnual Private Sector Focal Points Conference in Paris, 31 May 2006, jointlyorganised by the UN Global Compact Office, UNFIP and UNESCO).

20 In addition, Warhurst (2006: 6) notes that ‘through long-termcooperation and learning on both sides of the partnerships [in disasterrelief ], the humanitarian organisations find themselves increasingly able toengage with their corporate partners on prevention and mitigation, not justcrisis. This suggests that partnerships should be seen as learningjourneys’.

GPPI Brief/paper2nd 12/6/07 3:51 pm Page 12

Page 19: Business engagement in humanitarian relief: key trends and ......business engagement in humanitarian relief highlight the potential for making relief work more effective and efficient

13

HPG BACKGROUND PAPER

In terms of the planning and management of humanitarian reliefwork, in most companies CSR or communications departmentsare in charge. There are a few examples (one is TNT’s ‘Moving theWorld’ initiative) where humanitarian relief activities areorganised in a completely separate department within thecompany. This is usually the case when the engagement is bothvery significant and long-term. There appears to be very littleintegration of humanitarian relief activities into core businessplanning and management structures. This separation does notappear to be directly correlated with the quality of thehumanitarian work companies do, although several intervieweespointed out that corporate engagement tended to remainprecarious inside the company if an initiative did not involvedepartments beyond CSR (GPPi interview, 2006). Given that aconsiderable number of initiatives are initiated by the CEO or aboard member, they frequently attract senior managementattention, which helps them maintain the necessary supportinside the company.21 Several interviewees noted that businessengagement is often un-strategic to start with (especially withrespect to partner selection, where to help and what to do), andbecomes more strategic over time (GPPi interview, 2006).

With regard to the modalities of funding such corporateengagement in humanitarian relief, in most companies activitiesare paid for out of the general CSR or communications budgets.In terms of sustainability, this can be problematic. Expenses forCSR are usually pure cost centres within a company, andtherefore tend to be subject to the vagaries of the business cycle,so that ‘defending’ CSR budgets within companies is usually noteasy. Much like traditional philanthropy, financial commitmentsto partnerships and other initiatives in humanitarian relief willincrease during good times, and decline during bad (see alsoWarhurst, 2006: 10; GPPi interview 2006).22 However, given thenovelty of the initiatives surveyed in this report, no conclusiveevidence exists to support this conclusion.

As corporate engagement in humanitarian relief matures,there appears to be a determined effort to professionalise thepractice. This is reflected in the growth of meta-initiatives suchas the DRN, which help companies share lessons learned andbest practice, and facilitate the coordination of futureactivities. This professionalisation frequently appears to becorrelated with a determined effort to enhance brand visibility(i.e. to maximise the reputational benefits of non-commercialengagement), and to reduce the direct cash outflow (inexchange for greater in-kind engagement).

None of the initiatives surveyed for this report had conducted athorough independent evaluation and/or impact assessment(see also Warhurst, 2006: 11). Without evaluation and impactassessment, it will be impossible to gather lessons learned and

best practice. The lack of impact assessment also inhibits properbenchmarking. Several companies (including IBM and TNT)conduct regular internal reviews of their engagement in disasterrelief work, but it is unclear to what extent these look at overallimpact and the management of the particular initiative, or theextent to which the results of such reviews are shared withpartners. In interviews, several business representatives agreedthat evaluation and impact assessment are needed, and notedthat, in the future, such activities would be launched. However,at this stage there appears to be little willingness to open upthese initiatives to independent and external evaluation.

3.2.3 Business motivation

In order to project how the non-commercial engagement ofbusiness in humanitarian relief is likely to evolve in the future,and to assess implications for traditional humanitarian actors, itis important to understand the motivations behind suchengagement. Our research suggests that there are four driversbehind the engagement of business in humanitarian relief: adesire to build a positive brand and to ‘insure’ against potentialfuture political crises; staff motivation; an attempt to gatherbusiness intelligence; and, finally, a desire to ‘do good’.Ultimately, the importance of each factor depends on thecompany in question, its location, its market position, and avariety of other factors.

Corporate image and identity

The increasing importance of CSR is frequently explained asthe result of rising external stakeholder pressure.23 Over thepast decade, companies – especially large transnationalcorporations – have faced increasing scrutiny, particularlyfrom advocacy NGOs pushing them to demonstrate theirenvironmental and social conscience. Consumers are also saidto have become more selective in their choices, preferring theproducts of companies that demonstrate a superiorenvironmental or social record (see Vogel, 2005: 49ff; DePelsmacker, Driesen and Rayp, 2005).

None of the company representatives interviewed for thisstudy regarded direct stakeholder pressure as the only or evenmost decisive driver behind their decision to engage inhumanitarian relief.24 Rather than a reaction to externalpressures, many business interviewees explained theircompany’s engagement primarily as an investment inproactive brand-building25 and reputation management, and

21 Several interviewees highlighted the crucial importance of seniormanagement ‘buy-in’ and continued support to partnerships or CSRinitiatives in the humanitarian domain.22 On the more general ‘slack resources theory’, see Waddock and Graves,1997.

23 The most significant group that has started to put pressure oncompanies is advocacy NGOs. There is ample evidence to demonstrate theimpact NGO advocacy can have on a company’s business. This applies inparticular to brand-sensitive corporations (see also Little, 2001: 1). 24 Many made reference to the increasing pressure of civil societyorganisations on companies to ‘behave responsibly’. None, however,established a direct link between their current engagement in humanitarianrelief and direct advocacy pressure exerted by NGOs.25 Note that branding cannot be confused with PR activities. In contrast toPR, which is short-term and changes considerably over time, branding is along-term strategy. Branding aims to build up a company’s identity in verygeneral terms. It is targeted at consumers and also at future employees andinvestors. In other words, PR is the slogan, branding the idea behind it.

GPPI Brief/paper2nd 12/6/07 3:51 pm Page 13

Page 20: Business engagement in humanitarian relief: key trends and ......business engagement in humanitarian relief highlight the potential for making relief work more effective and efficient

14

HPG BACKGROUND PAPER

an opportunity to contribute to the communities in which theyoperated. Engagement in humanitarian relief on a non-commercial basis is part of a strategy to establish the companyas a good corporate citizen. This is in part ‘insurance’ againstpotential future problems (building up brand equity,establishing relations with external stakeholders that may beuseful later), and in part a strategy to reach out to consumers,clients, suppliers and other relevant stakeholders.

Staff motivation

A second driver behind corporate engagement in humanitarianrelief, and the one most frequently highlighted by interviewees,is the desire to motivate staff (GPPi interviews, 2006; see alsoCampher, 2005; Warhurst, 2006). Ultimately, the goal is eitherto increase the company’s appeal to new talent, or to keepexisting staff on board, thereby reducing staff turnover. Theidea is that a company that is seen to be an active ‘corporatecitizen’ helping to ameliorate human suffering from disasterswill enhance staff morale and staff identification with thecompany (see also Warhurst, 2006). Several studies haveshown that companies with a demonstrable commitment toCSR are more effective performers in the ‘war for talent’ (see forexample Tamkin et al., 2000; OECD, 2001).

It was also suggested that the impact of CSR on company staffis most effective where staff members become directly engagedin humanitarian relief operations.26 A company that is donatingmoney (for example by matching staff donations) is seen as a‘good company’, but the effect on staff morale and motivation isless direct than in cases where companies facilitate staffvoluntary participation in disaster response teams, as IBM,Deutsche Post World Net and TNT do. There have been efforts toquantify the benefits of increased staff morale from suchactivities, such as regular surveys conducted by TNT to assessthe relevance of the partnership with WFP for TNT staff. Thesuccess of the initiative, and the remuneration for its manager,is determined at least in part by the outcomes of thesesurveys.27 So far, however, publicly available consolidated dataon the relationship between CSR engagement in humanitarianrelief and staff morale does not exist.

Knowledge transfer and learning

A third significant driver behind business engagement appearsto be the desire to learn from participation in humanitarian reliefoperations and to use this ‘intelligence’ to enhance businessperformance. This is especially relevant for industries wherelessons from humanitarian relief operations may have somebearing on regular business operations and product develo-pment, in particular telecommunications and logistics. Suchlearning can be relevant for companies in a variety of ways:

• Engagement in disaster relief can tell companies how bestto deal with supply chain interruptions. Relief operations

often take place in the most difficult circumstances, whereinfrastructure is frequently damaged or completelydestroyed.

• Disaster relief operations can teach businesses importantlessons about how to operate in difficult social, politicaland environmental conditions. This includes enhancingbusinesses’ cultural sensitivity, which in turn enables themto test and optimise internal management.

• It has been noted that business is itself frequently a victimof natural or conflict-related disasters. Many companieswere directly affected during and after the Indian Oceantsunami. As a consequence, many companies have starteddeveloping disaster response strategies, and are takingsteps to safeguard themselves against disasters and theirconsequences. Engagement in disaster relief operationscan help them to learn about which strategies work andwhich do not (Twigg, 2001).

• As explained above, engagement in disaster reliefoperations can facilitate product development and add toa company’s record as a reliable service provider instressful situations. This is certainly one of the benefitsIBM derives from its non-commercial engagement, for itsBusiness Recovery Unit. As one interviewee noted, somecompanies also send beta versions of new products torelief operations to expose them to vigorous testing in thefield (GPPi interview, 2006).

Another related instigator of corporate engagement is the desireto ‘network’ with actors to whom they otherwise do not haveaccess, in particular NGOs and the United Nations; many of thehumanitarian relief initiatives with corporate participationappear to serve as platforms for multi-sectoral dialogue.

The likely benefits of engagement in disaster relief operationsshould not be overstated. For example, interviewed expertsfrom logistics firms noted that relief logistics and corporatelogistics were fundamentally different. Deutsche Post WorldNet, for example, does not expect to extract much usefulbusiness intelligence from its partnership with UNDP andOCHA (GPPi interview, 2006).

‘Doing good’

Finally, partnerships and CSR initiatives in the humanitarianrelief domain tend to flow from a company’s effort to ‘do good’or to ‘give something back to society’. In such cases, initiativesare often leadership-driven.28 Company executives or boardmembers often feel personally committed to a cause, and arewilling to contribute resources to it.29

There is a tendency among researchers and practitionersfocusing on the business case for CSR either to ignore such

28 See also Twigg, 2001, on the importance of leadership in disaster-relatedCSR initiatives.29 Some business interviewees maintained that, for corporate engagementin humanitarian relief to be sustainable over time, high-level buy-in isabsolutely crucial. Interview with a representative of a corporationconducted by the authors, June 2006.

26 Interview with a representative of an academic institute conducted bythe authors in June 2006.27 Interview with an NGO representative conducted in June 2006.

GPPI Brief/paper2nd 12/6/07 3:51 pm Page 14

Page 21: Business engagement in humanitarian relief: key trends and ......business engagement in humanitarian relief highlight the potential for making relief work more effective and efficient

15

HPG BACKGROUND PAPER

‘old-style’ philanthropy, or to dismiss it as unsustainable. Ourinterviews suggest, however, that in many cases thephilanthropic motives of individual corporate leaders play acentral role. We currently lack a solid understanding of whatmotivates such leadership, how it plays out within thecompany (i.e. how corporate initiatives that are driven byindividual executives are managed), and what happens onceleading corporate executives disappear from the scene. Theresearch focus on identifying the business case is useful;however, we should not lose sight of the important role ofphilanthropy and individual leadership.

CSR as a (clever) way in to new markets?

It has been suggested that non-commercial engagement inhumanitarian relief may simply be a shrewd tactic to enter newmarkets or to get access to new clients. Offering certain goodsand services for free may open a lot of new doors. Forexample, TNT’s record in its partnership ‘Moving the World’ issaid to have convinced the Dutch government to look to thecompany to provide commercial services in health carelogistics. In the same vein, the non-commercial engagement ofthe consulting firms Booz Allen Hamilton30 and McKinsey &Company31 may have been the first steps in these firmssecuring profitable business opportunities later.

In other cases, such as donating technology, contributinggoods to traditional humanitarian actors may simply hook thereceiver into using a specific proprietary technology in whichthey will later have to invest further, thus benefiting thebusiness. This was a key sticking point in the negotiationsbetween Ericsson and the UN in the context of Ericsson’s Firston the Ground Initiative. The UN, while grateful for the supportthe company offered to its emergency response work, wasconcerned that adopting Ericsson technology would commit itto long-term servicing contracts.

Our research suggests that there is no conclusive evidencethat the non-commercial engagement of companies inhumanitarian relief is a systematic part of a broader strategyto win new business.

3.2.4 Impact on the humanitarian sector

At this early stage, the impact of corporate partnerships andCSR initiatives on traditional humanitarian actors is difficult to

assess. Overall, access to comparable and reliable data is verylimited. Nonetheless, potential impact is possible in four areas.

Competition with NGOs?

The increasing engagement of business – even if it occurs ona non-commercial business model – raises the questionwhether traditional humanitarian actors, in particular NGOs,will be crowded out. Our research suggests that there appearsto be little or no ‘crowding out’ effect. Our interviews and casestudies show that engagement is often intended to becomplementary (as in the case of logistics companies). In fact,the emergence of meta-initiatives could link traditionalhumanitarian actors such as NGOs to businesses that not onlyprovide much-needed funding, but also offer worldwidecontacts, logistical expertise or other relevant business skillsand resources. In other words, business usually providesgoods and services on a non-commercial basis that NGOs orgovernmental agencies do not have at their disposal.

Are voluntary contributions displacing donor funding?

A question repeatedly raised by observers concerns thelikelihood that increased voluntary corporate engagement willmake donors less willing to provide funds (GPPi interviews,2006). If companies provide certain services – logistics,telecommunications – free of charge, then presumably donorscan reduce their contributions to humanitarian relief operations.This scenario is particularly worrying since the sustainability ofvoluntary corporate engagement is not clear and, as explainedabove, may be volatile. However, none of the intervieweescontacted for this study believed that governments had reducedtheir contributions to humanitarian relief operations because ofvoluntary company contributions in recent years. One reasonmay be the limited financial significance of the initiatives inquestion. If engagement were to increase significantly, apotential crowding out effect may become more likely.

What is the impact on coordination in the humanitarian

sector?

A more general consequence of increasing corporateengagement in humanitarian relief concerns coordination.Large-scale disasters such as the tsunami have shown thatcoordination is already a significant challenge, and there arefears that these problems will only increase with the entry ofnew, business actors into the humanitarian realm. Manycompany representatives interviewed for this study are keenlyaware of the general challenge coordination poses, and find itdifficult to navigate the complex institutional environment: ‘Ifind it difficult to determine who does what and why. It seemsto me that institutions should become engaged based on theircomparative institutional advantages. What would beimportant in my view is that there is better coordination – andless competition – so that we can really make a difference’(GPPi, 2006). The creation of meta-initiatives reflects thedesire of companies to address these challenges. Thus far,there is no hard evidence pointing to increasing coordinationchallenges as a result of growing corporate engagement in

30 In June 2005 Booz Allen Hamilton, in cooperation with the US Chamberof Commerce Center for Corporate Citizenship, brought together 70government, business and non-profit leaders to work on a Global DisasterRelief simulation as an exercise in public-private-nonprofit coordination.For more information, see the Booz Allen Hamilton website:www.boozallen.com/publications/article/884235?lpid=661123.31 McKinsey is consulting NGOs from the sector and has been publishing forseveral years on issues such as the problem of coordination in humanitarianaction. In the context of the tsunami, the company consulted theRehabilitation and Reconstruction Agency for Aceh and Nias (BBR) of theIndonesian government and the Taskforce to Rebuild the Nation (Tafren) of theSri Lankan government on how to deal with the huge inflow of donated money.This engagement was pro bono, but interviewees claim that, in the long run,such an engagement of McKinsey consultants must generate revenues, and isin competition with agencies such as UNDP (see McMahon, 2006).

GPPI Brief/paper2nd 12/6/07 3:51 pm Page 15

Page 22: Business engagement in humanitarian relief: key trends and ......business engagement in humanitarian relief highlight the potential for making relief work more effective and efficient

16

HPG BACKGROUND PAPER

relief. The number of companies which currently engagedirectly in management and implementation is – at least whencompared to the number of NGOs active in that domain –comparatively small.

However, several interviewees highlighted the difficulty ofactually turning private sector intent into effective assistance,especially in the immediate aftermath of large-scale disasters.After the tsunami, institutions like OCHA were flooded withoffers of help from the business community, most of it in-kind. Itproved impossible for OCHA and others to effectively leveragethat help because offers were unsuitable, or the necessarymechanisms and protocols were not in place to implement theoffers. As a result, many post-tsunami evaluation reports detailthe logistical difficulties that ensued when numerousunanticipated shipments of relief supplies (sometimesirrelevant to the task at hand) arrived at local airports andseaports, flooding the limited storage space available (for adetailed evaluation of the international response to the IndianOcean tsunami, see Telford and Cosgrave, 2006). Despite hugeefforts by companies such as DHL and TNT to handle logistics,bottlenecks at crucial arrival points occurred regularly. Itbecame evident that greater linkage and coherence was neededbetween international humanitarian actors, corporate entitiesand local governments (ibid.).

Attempts were made to document corporate donations. Forexample, the UNDP Regional Centre in Bangkok created aprivate sector development assistance database (PS DAD) todocument private sector contributions to post-tsunami relief,improve accountability and transparency and match supplywith demand (see http://tsunamitracking.org). The PS DADfaced numerous challenges. Nonetheless, the final reportshows that the pilot has been a valuable template for trackingprivate sector contributions specifically, and donorcoordination more generally (UNDP, 2006).

What is the impact on humanitarian principles?

Finally, the increasing non-commercial engagement ofcompanies in humanitarian relief also raises questions aboutthe application of humanitarian principles. Again, given therelative novelty of the phenomenon, it is too early for acomprehensive assessment.

Our interviews with business representatives suggest thatcompany practitioners are generally well aware of the keychallenges they must confront in their engagement inhumanitarian relief. However, only a very few intervieweeswere actually aware of humanitarian principles, or the debatesaround them in the humanitarian sector.

The principle of impartiality calls for non-discriminatory andproportional humanitarian action. Again, there is no empiricalevidence for discriminatory behaviour related to non-commercial business engagement in disaster relief. However,business engagement in general tends to discriminate in

favour of natural disasters. Additionally, single-companyinitiatives tend to help their own staff or the community theyare operating in. Those not profiting from this engagementmight feel disadvantaged. Moreover, the fact that the rise ofbusiness engagement has been mainly linked to the IndianOcean tsunami begs the question of proportionality. Ifbusiness engagement is indeed motivated by brandingconcerns, proportionality might not be very high on thecorporate agenda. However, we found no evidence that help isprovided without considering need. Interviews suggest thatone reason for partnering with traditional actors is their betterneeds-assessment capacity (GPPi interview, 2006).

What about independence and neutrality? Only autonomoushumanitarian action renders principled action possible. Theactivities of single companies and meta-initiatives may nothave much influence on traditional actors’ independence. Inpartnerships, however, the corporate partner might want tohave a say in how and where its funds will be used. Eventhough there is no evidence from the case studies andinterviews, independent humanitarian action in partnershipscannot be taken for granted.

It is often claimed that only neutral humanitarian action enjoysthe confidence of all. A priori, private sector actors engaged inhumanitarian relief have no systematic interest in taking sides.On the contrary, the risk of being associated with a certain partyor group is one of the reasons why corporate actors tend to shyaway from engagement in post-conflict settings. Nonetheless,private sector actors might not be perceived as neutral on theground. Their neutrality depends on their pre-disaster reputationin the affected community, as well as their ongoing behaviourand communication strategies during crises. Especially inpartnerships, this reputation can affect the humanitarianpartner. and may undermine or strengthen its credibility.

In sum, empirical evidence from the interviews and casestudies does not suggest any systematic tension betweennon-commercial business engagement and fundamentalhumanitarian principles. This relates to the business desire forpositive branding: positive branding requires principledaction. This is not to say that, depending on the form of theengagement and the individual case, tensions betweenbusiness engagement and humanitarian principles might notarise. However, the more important problem lies in a lack ofawareness and guidelines.32

Training on specific humanitarian principles as advanced byhumanitarian NGOs or the UN is rare. However, there has beena movement towards the development of universal guidelineson humanitarian assistance. For example, in January 2006 theWorld Economic Forum launched the Humanitarian Relief

32 Business Roundtable and the International Business Leader Forum(IBLF) have started to address this: www.businessroundtable.org/taskForces/taskforce/doclist.aspx?qs=44F5BF159FA5D14488A12D239EA5Band http://www.iblf.org/docs/EBTsunami.pdf.

GPPI Brief/paper2nd 12/6/07 3:51 pm Page 16

Page 23: Business engagement in humanitarian relief: key trends and ......business engagement in humanitarian relief highlight the potential for making relief work more effective and efficient

17

HPG BACKGROUND PAPER

Initiative (HRI), which has three mains aims, one of which is the‘development of a set of cross-sector and sector-specificguidelines and standards regarding private sector participationin humanitarian relief facilitated by the United Nations’.33 Whilesuch a structured dialogue between companies and traditionalhumanitarian actors on humanitarian principles is still arelatively new phenomenon, the increasing incidence of meta-initiatives as well as professional development courses34

presents an opportunity to inform companies about theprinciples of traditional humanitarian actors, and to facilitatetheir implementation.

3.3 Outlook

What can reasonably be said about the likely future develop-ment of the phenomenon of non-commercial business engage-ment? How likely is it that existing initiatives will be continued, orthat individual initiatives will grow? How will the nature of non-commercial business engagement evolve in coming years?

Our analysis of existing initiatives and motives drivingbusiness engagement suggests that we should not expectfurther substantial growth. The incidence of large-scalecrises (e.g. huge natural disasters along the lines of the2004 tsunami) may result in another period of stronggrowth. However, without such cataclysmic events it seemsunlikely that a large number of additional corporations willengage in humanitarian relief on a non-commercial basis.While individual companies may have found a business casefor their engagement, direct financial benefits from this typeof work are difficult if not impossible to demonstrate.Without a clear and compelling business case, large-scalecorporate engagement on a non-commercial basis isunlikely. Furthermore, many corporate initiatives areconceptualised as flagship CSR programmes, which, asVogel (2005) argues, are usually designed to brand acompany as socially and environmentally friendly to set itapart from its competitors. The more companies – andespecially direct competitors – become engaged, the

smaller the likely branding and reputation gains companiesare able to reap from such work.

The scale of existing initiatives is not likely to growsubstantially. As shown above, the dominant motive behindcorporate involvement is the desire to build up brand equityand to invest in corporate reputation. It is likely that thesebenefits will not grow in line with increases in the size of theinitiative.

Perhaps more importantly, there is a clear preference for in-kindand core competency-related business programmes, asopposed to direct cash contributions. As indicated earlier,programmes based on in-kind contributions and the directengagement of company staff in humanitarian relief operationspromise greater direct benefits for corporations, includingbetter brand visibility and staff retention. ‘Perhaps the reallesson learned in recent years is the paradigm shift in corporateresponsibility from a strictly cash donation model to one thatincludes involvement and participation’ (Bob Bellhouse,Executive Director of the Disaster Resource Network, quoted athttp://www.iblf.org/ resources).

Among companies already active in the arena, there alsoappears to be a trend towards more strategic and long-termplanning, and a recognition of the need for consistent learning.This has resulted in at least two different developments. First,there have been attempts to facilitate coordination andlearning, including meta-initiatives and initiatives such asGlobal Hand, a web-based match-making service whichattempts to link corporate donors with traditional humanitarianactors, or IBM’s universal database.

Second, there is growth in planning for long-term engagementand stand-by capacity. Many companies have recognised that,to make a difference, long-term engagement is critical. Thetsunami experience demonstrated that, in order to respondquickly and effectively, it would be preferable to be able to relyon stand-by capacities, something which programmes such asthe DRN seek to facilitate. Pre-positioning supplies anddeveloping regional hubs from which to coordinate supplydeliveries will improve the coordination of aid delivery andhumanitarian response mechanisms.

33 See www.enewsbuilder.net/focalpoint/e_article000593396.cfm?x=b11,0,w. 34 Such as the Executive Education programme offered by INSEAD,targeted at company staff working in the humanitarian domain.

GPPI Brief/paper2nd 12/6/07 3:51 pm Page 17

Page 24: Business engagement in humanitarian relief: key trends and ......business engagement in humanitarian relief highlight the potential for making relief work more effective and efficient

18

HPG BACKGROUND PAPER

GPPI Brief/paper2nd 12/6/07 3:51 pm Page 18

Page 25: Business engagement in humanitarian relief: key trends and ......business engagement in humanitarian relief highlight the potential for making relief work more effective and efficient

19

HPG BACKGROUND PAPER

Chapter 4A profitable market? Commercial business

engagement in humanitarian relief

For decades, non-profit actors have dominated humanitarianrelief – executing needs assessments, heading projectplanning and implementation and carrying out monitoring orevaluation activities. But humanitarian relief has also alwaysbeen a multi-billion-dollar market for companies. Businesseshave long been engaged in this market, providing servicesnot provided by not-for-profit actors and filling gaps wherethese traditional actors lack expertise – in the procurementand transportation of relief supplies such as machinery,electrical appliances or information technology products.WFP, for example, has long contracted logistic firms to moverelief goods from one place to another (GPPi interviews,2006).

Commercial business engagement in humanitarian relief isthus not a new phenomenon. More recently, however,humanitarian relief practitioners have reported thatcompanies are increasingly competing openly with traditionalhumanitarian agencies for contracts from bilateral andmultilateral donors to directly manage and implement reliefprojects (GPPi interviews, 2006). Besides the concern overpossibly losing funds, practitioners say that they are confusedby the current funding practices of key governmental donors –most notably USAID. In addition, they wonder whetherhumanitarian action based on commercial motivation ispossible at all, or a contradiction in terms.

Yet it is still unclear how significant the rise of commercialproviders in humanitarian relief is. This chapter thereforefocuses on the significance of commercial engagement, itsform and rationale, business motivation and the possibleimpact on the humanitarian sector and humanitarianprinciples. The analysis will look specifically at thosecommercial players believed to be competing with traditionalhumanitarian actors for humanitarian relief budgets byoffering similar goods and services.35

Our analysis is based on two sets of data: (1) governmentalbudget data from donors providing humanitarian funding tofor-profit companies – to determine to what extent, if at all,governments have started channelling money allocated inhumanitarian preparedness and relief budgets to companies;and (2) a scoping exercise, case examples of the respectivecompanies and several in-depth interviews with practitionersfrom both NGOs and corporations.

4.1 Donors and commercial business engagement in

humanitarian relief36

If companies are indeed attracting more funding from donors,we would expect to recognise this shift in public disaster reliefbudgets, with an increasing flow of governmental moneygoing to corporations, rather than to traditional humanitarianagencies. Working from this premise, the next section of thisstudy will analyse donor-funding regulations and, whereadequate data is available, relevant funding flows.

The focus is on flows from government donors, becausecompanies commercially active in humanitarian action oftendepend heavily on government contracts. USAID provides upto 90% of funding for some companies and, of course, manyNGOs get substantial funding from donors. Some companiesalso have contracts with traditional humanitarian actors, suchas the UN or NGOs. However, the analysis of financial flowsfrom them to companies would tell us nothing about concernsregarding competition, government funding practices andhumanitarian principles. Moreover, most funds come from ahandful of governments, in particular the United States, theUK, Sweden, ECHO, the Netherlands, Switzerland and Canada(OCHA – Financial Tracking Service, http://ocha.unog.ch/fts/index.aspx). It can reasonably be assumed that companies areunable to draw from the second largest source of funding,donations from private individuals, so, for the purposes of thisstudy, it is sufficient to analyse government funding forcommercial engagement in humanitarian action.

Most European donors provide emergency funding only fornot-for-profit organisations. France, Sweden, the Netherlands,Norway and Germany, as well as ECHO,37 do not channeldisaster relief funds through for-profit actors. These entitieshave established guidelines that prohibit government donorsfrom directly disbursing funds to commercial entities;government emergency money is exclusively expended onnon-profit organisations. Non-profits commonly subcontract

35 Interviewees from NGOs and IOs gave Crown Agents, Chemonics andothers as examples (April and May 2006). Note that we are not looking atthe big contracting agencies, such as Bechtel, Halliburton and KBR.

36 This study does not include commercial business engagement inreconstruction. There are two main reasons for this. First, the purpose ofthis paper is to look into new phenomena of non-commercial andcommercial business engagement in humanitarian relief, and assesswhether this phenomenon might add up to a significant trend. Corporatefor-profit engagement in reconstruction is not a new phenomenon. Second,the supposed growing importance and associated critique of businessengagement in reconstruction has been widely discussed – mainly in thecontext of the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. This subject merits in-depthanalysis, which is beyond the scope of this paper.37 E-mail interview with EU representatives of ECHO, conducted by theauthors in June 2006 (see also http://ec.europa.eu/echo/whatsnew/calls_en.htm and http://ec.europa.eu/echo/partners/index_en.htm.

GPPI Brief/paper2nd 12/6/07 3:51 pm Page 19

Page 26: Business engagement in humanitarian relief: key trends and ......business engagement in humanitarian relief highlight the potential for making relief work more effective and efficient

the delivery of specific goods and services to commercialcompanies, but this is typically done only when they arethemselves unable to supply these goods or services.

The United States and the United Kingdom have more flexiblefunding regulations, and are the only governments amongthose studied which allow humanitarian aid to be channelledthrough commercial players. This is not a recent initiative bornof policy changes, but a well-established practice in bothcountries. A UK DFID procurement officer stated: ‘I do not recalla time when it was not allowed for for-profits to apply for aid. Itwas always whoever is in the best position to respond to aparticular disaster or conflict tended to receive the aid withoutdiscrimination regarding the status of the organisation’ (GPPiinterviews, 2007). There are some restrictions on the sourcesof funding for commercial players, but their overall marketsegment may still be significant, given that these countries arethe most important humanitarian aid donors.

Yet, to date, for-profits appear to attract only a small fraction ofUS and UK donors’ disaster relief budgets. UK government datadoes not show what percentage of the humanitarian reliefbudget is allocated to companies. Thirteen per cent of overallbilateral aid is spent on humanitarian assistance. Indicatedchannels for humanitarian assistance include the EuropeanCommunity, the World Bank Group, regional developmentbanks, the Commonwealth, the United Nations and bilateralentities,38 but no further distinctions are made for the lastgroup. Regarding total US commitments to humanitarian

preparedness and relief in the fiscal years from 1998 to 2006,the bulk of the money went to non-profit players (see Figure 2),whereas commercial actors receive only a negligible portion.Over the past eight years, there has been no significant changein the share captured by commercial actors.

It remains unclear why the US and the UK allow humanitarianassistance money to be channelled though for-profits, whiletheir European counterparts do not. Our interviews suggestthat this is probably a question of different cultures, as Anglo-Saxons in general seem less suspicious of business. NGOrepresentatives observed the same cultural ‘divide’ withrespect to NGOs, believing that American and British NGOs aremore open to partnerships with businesses than are Europeanones (GPPi interviews, 2006).

4.2 Results of scoping exercise

The scoping exercise includes commercial companies that fitthe following profile: (1) a for-profit organisation, (2) whosecore competence includes a direct link to humanitarian action,and (3) whose services (partially) overlap with servicesprovided by non-commercial actors.

Mainly assembled through internet research and expanded onin interviews, the scoping exercise identified 37 companieswhich offer goods and/or services in humanitarian action on acommercial basis. In accordance with our analysis of financialflows, most commercial providers of humanitarian action arelocated where the money is – in the United States and the UK.The majority of these companies rely almost exclusively on

20

HPG BACKGROUND PAPER

Figure 2: US commitments for disaster preparedness and relief (fiscal years 1998–2006)

38 Response to Freedom of Information enquiry, reference F2006-123.Document on file with the authors.

600

500

400

300

200

100

0

US

$ i

n m

illi

on

s

1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006

Source: Diagram by the authors based on data from response to Freedom of Information enquiry reference, F2006-123

Total Profit

GPPI Brief/paper2nd 12/6/07 3:51 pm Page 20

Page 27: Business engagement in humanitarian relief: key trends and ......business engagement in humanitarian relief highlight the potential for making relief work more effective and efficient

21

HPG BACKGROUND PAPER

funds from USAID or DFID. Many of the firms also holdcontracts with other US government agencies, notably with theState Department and Department of Defense. Most of the UK-based companies work with DFID and other UK governmentagencies. Many of the firms also act as consultants to host-country governments, mainly on economic and developmentpolicies (13); private sector firms (13); internationalorganisations such as the World Bank, OECD and UNDP (26);and INGOs, including Care International and MercyCorps (13).

Most companies did not disclose their annual revenues. Forthose that did, annual turnover from humanitarian relief rangedfrom approximately $20–50m per year.39 As the companieswere reluctant to share information regarding the source of theirfunding, and as they are mainly active in the blurred areabetween relief and development, it is difficult to determinewhether their income is coming from development or reliefbudgets. However, as most of these companies are more activein development than in humanitarian relief, it is reasonable toassume that they are mainly paid out of development budgets.

The majority of companies moved into humanitarian relief inthe 1990s. These companies are generally active in bothnatural disaster and post-conflict settings. A tiny majority ofthe firms moving into humanitarian relief activities do not havea developmental or related background. Our research suggeststhat some major economic consultancies, such as BearingPointand Booz Allen Hamilton, are orienting themselves towardshumanitarian action.40

Some of these companies are operationally active in the field.The majority, however, provide advice to government agencies indonor and recipient countries and to international organisationsand NGOs. Again, it is very difficult to track financial flows, but itseems that at least part of the money channelled through thesecompanies does eventually go to traditional humanitarianagencies, implementing projects on the ground.

Thus, there is more often a cooperative relationship than acompetitive relationship between non-profit and commercialactors. However, it is important to note that these tworelationships are not mutually exclusive. It is perfectly possiblethat commercial and non-commercial actors simultaneouslyhave a cooperative and a competitive relationship — a viewheld by some in the commercial sector, at least (GPPiinterviews, 2006).

4.3 Analysis and conclusions

Having described the profile of commercial actors in humani-tarian action through the scoping exercise, we will now analyse

their significance, the forms and nature of their engagement,their motivation and their impact on the humanitarian sectorand its principles. To address these and to control the results ofthe scoping exercise, we have conducted a small number ofcompany case studies (see Appendix III).

4.3.1 Significance of commercial business engagement in

humanitarian relief

The overall number of companies commercially active inhumanitarian action is very small, especially compared to thenumber of traditional actors in the field. Most of thesecommercial actors still have a focus on social and economicdevelopment; only a handful of them, such as Chemonics,Management System International and PADCO, have expandedinto the field of humanitarian relief since the late 1990s. Itappears that, while these commercial players may provide thesame services as traditional humanitarian actors, they focus onlong-term projects and thus tend to arrive later on the scene, andengage more in social transformation than in immediate relief.41

However, given that business responds to market signals andincentives, it may be assumed that companies will try to enterthe market more aggressively in coming years. Althoughhumanitarian funds still account for only a fraction ofdevelopment funds, they are growing at a higher rate(Development Initiatives, 2006). However, based on theanalysis conducted in chapter 2, such growth is unlikely.

4.3.2 Forms and nature of commercial business engagement

First, the most important clients of these companies aretypically US and UK government agencies, mainly USAID andDFID. Only a small number of commercial actors actuallyimplement projects. Many operate instead as consultants togovernments and other organisations, and subcontract thedelivery of help to (local) NGOs.

Second, companies engaged in humanitarian relief are generallysmaller in size and income than the major traditional actors.42

Others are subsidiaries of big construction firms, or have a corebusiness unrelated to humanitarian action, both of which makeintra-company cross-financing of humanitarian action possible.The fact that the commercial players active in humanitarianaction are either cross-financed or are small businessessuggests that, despite its growth, the humanitarian market isdifficult for development consultancies to enter and thrive in(see chapter 2).

The case studies conducted for this report further reveal thatthere is an apparent similarity between development

39 This equals a tenth of the income of SCF UK in 2005 on the lower end,and a tenth of the income of Care International in 2005 on the upper end ofthe scale.40 The consulting firm McKinsey & Company is also moving intohumanitarian action. However, this engagement has been purely on a pro

bono basis.

41 Interviews with representatives from these companies did not revealwhether the money for this engagement is coming from publichumanitarian or developmental budgets or private budgets from theirparent company.42 Requirements to become a certified 8(a) firm are to be a small business,to be unconditionally owned and controlled by one or more socially andeconomically disadvantaged individuals and to demonstrate the potentialfor success. Certified 8(a) firms have easier access to governmentcontracts.

GPPI Brief/paper2nd 12/6/07 3:51 pm Page 21

Page 28: Business engagement in humanitarian relief: key trends and ......business engagement in humanitarian relief highlight the potential for making relief work more effective and efficient

consultancies and NGOs in respect to self-presentation.Several NGO representatives reported that it is difficult forbeneficiaries to distinguish between for-profit and not-for-profit organis-ations providing relief (GPPi interviews, 2006).Both commercial and non-profit actors have similarmarketing strategies and draw on the same public donors.One substantial difference, though, is that commercial actorsdo not have access to financial contributions from privateindividuals.

4.3.3 Business motivation

Information on the key motivations behind companiesentering the market for humanitarian relief remains scarce.Interviewees often did not understand the purpose of ourinquiries regarding their motivation for entering the marketwith a commercial approach. If at all, they answered by listingtheir strengths vis-à-vis the non-profits, or emphasised that akey rationale was to ‘help people in need’. However, as thesecompanies are for-profit, it can be assumed that financialinterest is a key inspiration for their engagement.

4.3.4 Impact on the humanitarian sector

Competition with NGOs?

The activities of commercial players in humanitarian relief areboth competitive and complementary to those of traditionalactors. Interviewees from non-profit organisations oftenemphasised the competitive nature of their relationship,whereas commercial actors tended to highlight comple-mentary aspects. While commercial players provide similarservices to non-profits, in most cases they do not enter thescene until traditional actors have already establishedthemselves on-site. This suggests that the more specific andimmediate tasks in providing relief, as opposed toreconstruction and long-term development, remain largely thedomain of the traditional (non-profit) players. Intervieweesfrom governments, business networks, NGOs and the ICRC allidentified needs assessment as a core service provided by theUN or NGOs, with longer-term services falling under thecompetency of other actors (GPPi interviews, 2006).Companies tend to be active in long-term rather than short-term projects, they act as consultants to bilateral andmultilateral organisations rather than working directly withbeneficiaries on the ground, and they both subcontracthumanitarian organisations and are subcontracted by them.So far, there is no evidence supporting the belief that there isincreasing competition between commercial and non-profitactors for humanitarian budgets.

Transparency

One frequently voiced concern regarding company engagementrelates to apparently non-transparent government fundingpractices in humanitarian relief. This concern relates mainly tothe US government and the crises in Afghanistan and Iraq. Itwas indeed difficult to gather information on funding flows.However, this was mainly due to the reluctance of commercialactors to provide information on their income.

What is the impact on humanitarian principles?

Commercial actors do not explicitly mention the fundamentalhumanitarian principles of humanity, impartiality, independenceand neutrality as guiding principles. However, most of theemployees in companies that engage in humanitarian relief thatwere interviewed for this study appear to be well aware of theseprinciples. Many had a developmental or humanitarianbackground before joining commercial companies. The explicitlystated principles guiding the work of these firms are customer-oriented and do not exclusively consider the interests ofbeneficiaries. This relates to the fact that these companiesprovide their services to bilateral or multilateral organisations orhost governments, rather than directly to beneficiaries.

There might be a tension between a commercial businessrationale and the principle of humanity, i.e. providing helpsolely based on need. As most companies rely heavily ongovernment funding, they provide help where their clients wantthem to do so. The same argument holds for some major US-based NGOs, which also predominantly rely on governmentfunding, such as Care International. Others, for example MSFFrance or World Vision, dispose primarily of private voluntarydonations. This enables them to respond to neglected crises(see Development Initiatives, 2006: 41).

With respect to impartiality, there is no evidence that commercialactors discriminate against certain beneficiaries, nor is there anytheoretical reason why they should do so. However, as with theirnon-commercial business counterparts, proportionality will notnecessarily be high on the agenda. Yet companies that enter thehumanitarian domain to make a profit are under less pressure toperform well. Businesses engaged on a non-commercial basisare subject to the scrutiny of several stakeholder groups: theirhumanitarian partners, the community they are working in, theirinvestors and their consumers (as their engagement is directedtowards them). Commercially engaged businesses, however, areonly accountable to their contractors. Hence, their engagementis less visible to other stakeholders, and is therefore under lesspressure to perform.

The independence to act according to humanitarian principlesis thus not necessarily a given. This, again, relates not tocompanies being commercially motivated, but to them beingdependent on government funding. They share this problemwith equally dependent non-profit actors. However, as ouranalysis in chapter 2 has shown, commercial actors are lessable to attract the individual private funds that enable them toact independently.

Finally, we could find no evidence establishing any systematicpositive or negative relationship between commercialbusiness engagement in humanitarian relief and the principleof neutrality. It might therefore be assumed that, as with otheractors in humanitarian relief, the neutrality of commercialactors depends on the behaviour of the individualorganisation.

22

HPG BACKGROUND PAPER

GPPI Brief/paper2nd 12/6/07 3:51 pm Page 22

Page 29: Business engagement in humanitarian relief: key trends and ......business engagement in humanitarian relief highlight the potential for making relief work more effective and efficient

23

HPG BACKGROUND PAPER

Efficiency

Representatives from commercial as well as non-profitorganisations are generally open to the argument thatcompetition has the potential to increase the efficiency ofhumanitarian relief. Commercial actors often claim that theyprovide cheaper and more efficient services than their non-profit counterparts. However, here too no reliable data isavailable to assess the issues at hand. The greatereffectiveness of commercial actors can neither be proved norrejected.

4.4 Outlook

In sum, we should expect commercial engagement inhumanitarianism to rise and fall according to the opportunitiesin the market. However, certain structural characteristics of themarket, as discussed in chapter 2, will probably always limit

any such engagement. Furthermore, although commercialactors might be better able to present themselves as efficientand professional – a valuable selling point at times whendonors demand more professionalisation – this will probablybe convincing only in the short term. Our analysis in chapter 2has shown that inefficiencies in humanitarianism partly stemfrom market imperfections, such as information asymmetryand particular incentive structures – something that for-profitand non-profit actors alike confront.

It seems unlikely that commercial actors will challenge thedominance of traditional non-profit actors in the field ofhumanitarian action. So far, commercial activity inhumanitarian relief is a niche phenomenon. Taken together,corporate for-profit engagement in humanitarian action doesnot seem to have the potential to substantially transformhumanitarianism as we know it today.

GPPI Brief/paper2nd 12/6/07 3:51 pm Page 23

Page 30: Business engagement in humanitarian relief: key trends and ......business engagement in humanitarian relief highlight the potential for making relief work more effective and efficient

24

HPG BACKGROUND PAPER

GPPI Brief/paper2nd 12/6/07 3:51 pm Page 24

Page 31: Business engagement in humanitarian relief: key trends and ......business engagement in humanitarian relief highlight the potential for making relief work more effective and efficient

25

HPG BACKGROUND PAPER

Chapter 5Conclusions and policy recommendations

Over the past decade, the humanitarian domain has undergonea significant transformation. In many ways, it would seem thatthese developments have prepared the ground for more directand extensive business engagement in humanitarian relief:commercial actors should naturally be attracted by theconsiderable financial size of the market; private firms possessthe business management expertise and tools governmentsincreasingly demand (Thomas/Fritz, 2006); and donors may alsoconsider companies to be more responsive to their demands.

And yet, our review of business engagement in humanitarianrelief, both on a non-commercial and a commercial level,reveals that business engagement in humanitarian relief is notsignificant, either with regard to the number of companiesinvolved or the financial size of the contracts they manage. Thisdoes not imply that business engagement in humanitarianrelief should be considered irrelevant. While still a nichephenomenon, the changing nature of business engagement inhumanitarian relief is interesting and important, and gives riseto a number of challenges and policy recommendations fortraditional humanitarian agencies, donors and businesses.

5.1 Policy recommendations: non-commercial business

engagement in humanitarian relief

It is important for traditional humanitarian agencies – especiallythe large humanitarian relief NGOs and multilateral reliefagencies (i.e. the UN) – to position themselves so as tomaximise the potential benefits to be gained from collaboratingwith companies in humanitarian relief while, at the same time,minimising the risks. This requires an accurate assessment ofthe new opportunities such business engagement opens up.

5.1.1 Fundraising and giving

In the past, expectations among international agencies(particularly the UN) about the willingness of business tocontribute financially to their work may have been toooptimistic. In the UN, for example, partnership with businesshas become a synonym for fundraising (Witte and Reinicke,2005). Our inquiries into partnerships in humanitarian actionhave shown that business prefers to contribute in-kind ratherthan in cash. Hence, except during times of exceptional crises(such as the tsunami), the private sector has not become amajor source of cash for NGOs or the UN. Partnership-buildingshould not, therefore, be considered a fundraising strategy;instead, it should be seen as a means to strategically acquirecertain products or skills.43

A realistic assessment of the willingness of companies tocontribute to humanitarian relief missions must be matchedwith an appropriate assessment of the ability of traditionalhumanitarian agencies to absorb such contributions, most ofwhich are in-kind. Partly due to the novelty of businessengagement in humanitarian relief, the ‘interface capacity’ ofmany traditional humanitarian agencies with business is stillunder-developed. Businesses that are interested in givingshould make use of existing coordination mechanisms, such asthe Consolidated Appeal Process (CAP), the Central EmergencyRelief Fund (CERF) and coordinating NGOs such as Global Handor the World Economic Forum’s Humanitarian Relief Initiative.They should also be aware that cash contributions are mostvaluable when they can be used flexibly.

It is important that donors do not draw the wrong conclusionsabout the increasing non-commercial engagement of businessin humanitarian relief. Voluntary business engagement canonly be complementary to existing initiatives, not a substitutefor them, as it will always vary in relation to economic cycles.The sustainability of corporate engagement, especially in badeconomic times, is an important question, and one that hasyet to be answered. Thus far, governments have not used non-commercial business engagement as a pretext for reducingtheir financial commitments to humanitarian relief – and theyare well advised to maintain such a strategy.

5.1.2 Developing common rules/humanitarian principles

Collaboration with the private sector – irrespective of its form –can only be effective if it is based on common rules andprinciples. One of the hurdles to effective collaboration is a lackof understanding of corporate culture and, perhaps moresignificantly, the lack of effective protocols and procedureslinking corporate partners into work on the ground. Obviously,a prerequisite for the development of effective protocols andprocedures is a mutually understandable language. The workdone by the WEF and OCHA in this regard is a step in the rightdirection.44

Business should continue to invest in educating staff theydeploy in humanitarian relief partnership missions, inparticular on existing humanitarian principles. Companiescould pool training capabilities through initiatives such as theDisaster Resource Network or via the Fritz Institute.

Traditional actors, on the other hand, should not compromiseprinciples for the sake of partnership-building. To preventpossible tensions between corporate behaviour and humani-43 A good example of such strategically important products and skills is the

HELIOS software – a supply chain technology. The Fritz Institute provideshumanitarian agencies with a royalty-free licence to use HELIOS fordisaster relief and other emergencies. See http://www.fritzinstitute.org/prgTech-HELIOS_Overview.htm.

44 See for example the ‘Guiding Principles for Philanthropic Private SectorEngagement in Humanitarian Action Draft for Discussion (27 January 2007)’jointly published by OCHA and the World Economic Forum(http://ochaonline2.un.org/Default.aspx?tabid=1673.

GPPI Brief/paper2nd 12/6/07 3:51 pm Page 25

Page 32: Business engagement in humanitarian relief: key trends and ......business engagement in humanitarian relief highlight the potential for making relief work more effective and efficient

tarian principles, they should engage in raising awareness andshould carefully select their corporate counterparts.

5.1.3 Building partnerships

As our analysis has shown, non-commercial businessengagement will probably remain a niche phenomenon inhumanitarian action. Nonetheless, business engagement inrelief operations has attracted significant attention, and hasgiven rise to frequently controversial debate among NGOs andwithin the UN about the value of building partnerships withcompanies. Our research indicates that partnerships can helpto fill gaps in humanitarian action. But they require time andresources to develop and maintain. Traditional humanitarianactors and businesses should be aware of the limits ofpartnerships – they are by no means a panacea. For example,cooperation with private sector actors in humanitarian actionwill probably remain limited to natural disaster settings.Similarly, companies should not try to emulate what traditionalhumanitarian agencies have been doing for decades, butshould aim instead to supplement these efforts with theirparticular corporate strengths. The case studies suggest thatbusiness engagement in humanitarian relief is most effectiveand sustainable when it builds on the core competences of thecompany.

The most effective partnerships are those that develop stand-by capacity. During or immediately following disasters,partners do not have the time for strategic reviews and thenecessary evaluations to examine whether cooperation makessense in terms of actual outcomes, outputs and impacts.

Finally, as with traditional humanitarian agencies, companiesneed to familiarise themselves with their partners’ culture.Efficiency in the humanitarian realm cannot be measured onlyin terms of the quality and speed of the services delivered, butmust also encompass inclusiveness, empathy with the victimsand compliance with humanitarian principles.

5.1.4 Partner selection

As our analysis has demonstrated, partner selection hasfrequently proved difficult. Companies tend to favour large,established partners with a proven track record. However,selecting a smaller partner organisation might be anadvantage when it comes to flexibility. Compared to the bigplayers, smaller humanitarian organisations may be capableof setting up a partnership faster, because they have lowerlevels of bureaucratisation. Meta-initiatives may be valuablefor identifying reliable partners in the humanitarian reliefdomain, irrespective of size and standing. Careful partnerselection is important with respect to the company’sreputation on the ground. To be perceived as neutral, only abusiness partner that is not associated with any party orprevious misbehaviour should be selected.

5.1.5 Making a difference

Companies should try not to limit their operations to high-profile

or highly-visible regions. While being active in high-profileemergencies may lead more quickly to positive media coverageand greater recognition of the activity, a sustainable positivebrand image is based on credibility. Thus, in the long term,company engagement will only pay off if businesses prove areliable partner, responsive to humanitarian need as well asmedia attention.

5.2 Policy recommendations: commercial business

engagement in humanitarian relief

Our analysis in chapter 4 leads us to conclude that commercialplayers are not significant competitors for money andattention in humanitarian relief. Given the structure of thehumanitarian market, it appears unlikely that this situationwill change in any fundamental way in the coming years.

Companies that have started engaging in the humanitarian reliefarena must become more transparent. In our research, weencountered difficulties in gathering information on the activitiesof these firms. To establish themselves as accepted players inthe humanitarian domain, companies will need to make a morecoordinated effort to inform the public about their work.Government donors have to press for humanitarian relief that ismost beneficial to those in need, irrespective of the legal statusof the organisation providing it. Through systematic evaluations,government donors should determine where commercialproviders – as they claim to do – can indeed generate more valuefor money without undermining humanitarian principles.

5.3 Conclusions

The role of business in humanitarian relief is becoming moreprominent, but it remains a niche phenomenon. At the sametime, it is also clear that much more research is required inorder to solidify the preliminary findings of this study. Twoareas in particular require more attention, from researchersand practitioners alike:

• Possible ways to evaluate outcomes and impacts ofpartnerships. So far, very few partnerships in the humani-tarian relief domain have been evaluated. To some extentthis is a consequence of a lack of will. But evaluationpractitioners also point to methodological difficulties. Whilestandard project and programme evaluation tools andtechniques have improved significantly over the past fewyears, no effective partnership evaluation frameworks havebeen developed. Such frameworks should help to determinewhether individual relief projects have been effective andefficient. In addition, they should assist in determining thespecific added value of the partnership approach.

• An assessment of the extent to which business engagementimpacts on accountability and transparency in the humani-tarian sector. Accountability and transparency are increas-ingly becoming leading tenets of humanitarian action. Thedifficulty of acquiring information from many business actors

26

HPG BACKGROUND PAPER

GPPI Brief/paper2nd 12/6/07 3:51 pm Page 26

Page 33: Business engagement in humanitarian relief: key trends and ......business engagement in humanitarian relief highlight the potential for making relief work more effective and efficient

27

HPG BACKGROUND PAPER

with respect to financial flows heightens concerns about thetransparency and accountability of corporations. However, sofar, there have been no systematic investigations into howbusiness engagement – whether on a commercial or a non-commercial basis – impacts on these principles.45

Research on business engagement in humanitarian relief is inits infancy. Most significantly, research efforts in this fieldsuffer from a lack of reliable data. This data gap needs to befilled. All those engaged in the humanitarian domain – NGOs,governments and businesses – should contribute to this effort.

45 The Global Accountability Report Index covers the world’s 30 mostpowerful organisations – including transnational corporations. Seewww.oneworldtrust.org.

GPPI Brief/paper2nd 12/6/07 3:51 pm Page 27

Page 34: Business engagement in humanitarian relief: key trends and ......business engagement in humanitarian relief highlight the potential for making relief work more effective and efficient

28

HPG BACKGROUND PAPER

GPPI Brief/paper2nd 12/6/07 3:51 pm Page 28

Page 35: Business engagement in humanitarian relief: key trends and ......business engagement in humanitarian relief highlight the potential for making relief work more effective and efficient

29

HPG BACKGROUND PAPERA

pp

en

dix

I

Co

rpo

rate

pa

rtic

ipa

nts

Na

me

of

init

iati

veFo

un

din

gT

yp

e o

f in

itia

tive

Su

b-t

yp

e o

f in

itia

tive

Ind

us

try

se

cto

rsB

ud

ge

tP

art

ne

rsD

isa

ste

r co

nte

xt

Co

ntr

ibu

tio

ny

ea

r

De

uts

che

Po

st

Air

port

Em

erge

ncy

2004

Met

a In

itia

tive

Bus

ines

s-N

GO

Logi

stic

s, T

rans

port

N/A

Wor

ld E

cono

mic

N

atur

al d

isas

ter

Logi

stic

s (s

hipp

ing)

Wo

rld

Ne

tTe

amFo

rum

Dis

ast

er

Re

sou

rce

N

/A20

01M

eta

Init

iati

veB

usin

ess-

NG

Ono

n-pr

ofit

pri

vate

N

/AW

orld

Eco

nom

ic

Nat

ural

dis

aste

rCo

ordi

nati

on o

f aid

Ne

two

rkfo

unda

tion

Foru

mde

liver

y

Frit

z In

stit

ute

Hum

anit

aria

n20

02M

eta

Init

iati

veD

isas

ter

Relie

fN

/AVa

riou

sA

sses

smen

t/St

udy

Cons

ulti

ng

Impa

ct In

itia

tive

/

Corp

orat

ions

for

Hum

anit

y

Glo

ba

l P

art

ne

rsh

ip f

or

N/A

N/A

Met

a In

itia

tive

Bus

ines

s-N

GO

Dis

aste

r m

itig

atio

nN

/AVa

riou

sN

atur

al d

isas

ter

Coor

dina

tion

of a

id

Pre

pa

red

ne

ss (

GP

P)

deliv

ery

Pri

vate

& P

ub

lic

N/A

1996

Met

a In

itia

tive

Bus

ines

s-N

GO

Cons

ulti

ngN

/AVa

riou

sN

atur

al D

isas

ters

Coor

dina

tion

of a

id

Bu

sin

ess

es,

In

c.de

liver

y

Alc

oa

N/A

N/A

Part

ners

hip

Bus

ines

s-N

GO

Indu

stri

al g

oods

N/A

Inte

rnat

iona

l N

/AN

/A

Resc

ue C

omm

itte

e

Am

eri

can

Exp

ress

N/A

N/A

Part

ners

hip

Bus

ines

s-N

GO

Cred

it c

ards

N/A

Inte

rnat

iona

l N

/AN

/A

Resc

ue C

omm

itte

e

Ast

raZ

en

eca

N/A

2005

Part

ners

hip

Bus

ines

s-N

GO

Phar

mac

euti

cals

USD

750

kIn

tern

atio

nal

Dis

aste

r Lo

gist

ics

Fede

rati

on o

f pr

epar

edne

ss

Red

Cros

s/Re

d

Cres

cent

Ast

raZ

en

eca

N/A

2005

Part

ners

hip

Bus

ines

s-N

GO

Phar

ma

USD

300

kRo

tary

Clu

b of

N

atur

al d

isas

ter

Infr

astr

uctu

re

Aus

tral

ia

BA

SF

BA

SF K

atas

tro

2004

Part

ners

hip

Bus

ines

s-U

NCh

emis

try

N/A

UN

-Hab

itat

Nat

ural

dis

aste

rIn

fras

truc

ure

phen

hilfe

e.V

.(b

uild

ings

)

Blo

om

be

rgN

/AN

/APa

rtne

rshi

pB

usin

ess-

NG

OFi

nanc

eN

/AIn

tern

atio

nal

N/A

N/A

Resc

ue

Com

mit

tee

Bo

sto

n C

on

sult

ing

N

/A20

03Pa

rtne

rshi

pB

usin

ess-

UN

Cons

ulti

ngN

/AW

FPN

atur

al d

isas

ter

Fund

rais

ing/

Gro

up

Cons

ulti

ng

BP

N/A

2004

Part

ners

hip

Bus

ines

s-G

over

nmen

tEn

ergy

USD

250

kG

over

nmen

t N

atur

al d

isas

ter

Educ

atio

n

agen

cies

BP

N/A

2004

Part

ners

hip

Uni

late

ral/

En

ergy

USD

7m

Som

e so

rt g

iven

N

atur

al d

isas

ter

Imm

edia

te a

id

Bus

ines

s-ge

nera

lto

Inte

rnat

iona

l

Red

Cros

s

Re

su

lts

of

sco

pin

g e

xe

rcis

e o

f n

on

-co

mm

erc

ial

bu

sin

es

s e

ng

ag

em

en

t in

hu

ma

nit

ari

an

re

lie

f

(co

nti

nu

ed

)

GPPI Brief/paper2nd 12/6/07 3:51 pm Page 29

Page 36: Business engagement in humanitarian relief: key trends and ......business engagement in humanitarian relief highlight the potential for making relief work more effective and efficient

30

HPG BACKGROUND PAPER

Co

rpo

rate

pa

rtic

ipa

nts

Na

me

of

init

iati

veFo

un

din

gT

yp

e o

f in

itia

tive

Su

b-t

yp

e o

f in

itia

tive

Ind

us

try

se

cto

rsB

ud

ge

tP

art

ne

rsD

isa

ste

r co

nte

xt

Co

ntr

ibu

tio

ny

ea

r

Bra

nd

ix L

an

ka

N/A

2006

Part

ners

hip

Bus

ines

s-U

NA

ppar

elU

SD 1

3kU

ND

PN

atur

al d

isas

ter

Infr

astr

uctu

re (

wat

er)

Bri

sto

l-M

eye

rs S

qu

ibb

N/A

2004

Part

ners

hip

Bus

ines

s-N

GO

Phar

mac

euti

cals

USD

7m

Vari

ous

aid

Nat

ural

dis

aste

rM

edic

ine

grou

ps a

nd N

GO

s

Bro

etj

e O

rch

ard

sN

/AN

/APa

rtne

rshi

pB

usin

ess-

NG

OFo

odN

/AIn

tern

atio

nal

N/A

N/A

Resc

ue

Com

mit

tee

Bru

nsw

ick

Co

rpo

rati

on

N/A

2006

Part

ners

hip

Bus

ines

s-U

NB

oats

USD

330

kU

ND

PN

atur

al d

isas

ter

Tran

spor

tati

on (

boat

s)

Bu

sin

ess

Ro

un

dta

ble

Part

ners

hip

for

2005

Part

ners

hip

Bus

ines

s-N

GO

Wid

e ra

nge

of d

isas

ter

N/A

Vari

ous

Nat

ural

dis

aste

rsD

isas

ter

relie

f

Dis

aste

r Re

spon

sere

spon

se a

nd r

ecov

ery

prof

essi

onal

proj

ects

disa

ster

rel

ief

orga

nisa

tion

s

Ca

pit

al

Gro

up

N/A

N/A

Part

ners

hip

Bus

ines

s-N

GO

Fina

nce

N/A

Inte

rnat

iona

lN

/AN

/A

Resc

ue C

omm

ittee

Cit

igro

up

N/A

2004

Part

ners

hip

Bus

ines

s-U

NFi

nanc

eN

/AO

CHA

Nat

ural

dis

aste

rIn

fras

truc

ture

(tra

nspo

rt/

com

mun

icat

ion)

Co

ca-C

ola

The

Glo

bal W

ater

20

05Pa

rtne

rshi

pB

usin

ess-

UN

-NG

OB

ever

ages

USD

2.2

m (

init

ial)

Uni

ted

Nat

ions

N

atur

al d

isas

ter

Infr

astr

ucur

e

Chal

leng

eFo

unda

tion

, UN

DP,

(w

ater

)

UN

ICEF

De

loit

te T

ou

che

N/A

2005

Part

ners

hip

Bus

ines

s-U

NCo

nsul

ting

N

/AU

ND

PN

atur

al d

isas

ter

Aid

Fac

ilita

tion

Toh

ma

tsu

(14,

000

hour

s)

(Tra

nspa

renc

y)

De

uts

che

Po

stN

/A20

04Pa

rtne

rshi

pB

usin

ess-

Bus

ines

sLo

gist

ics

USD

2.8

meB

ay, E

in H

erz

für

Nat

ural

dis

aste

rLo

gist

ics

Wo

rld

Ne

tKi

nder

(N

GO

)

De

uts

che

Po

st

N/A

2004

Part

ners

hip

Bus

ines

s-U

NLo

gist

ics

N/A

OCH

AN

atur

al d

isas

ter

Logi

stic

s

Wo

rld

Ne

t(t

rans

port

-air

) fo

r

disa

ster

res

pons

e

De

uts

che

Po

stN

/A20

04Pa

rtne

rshi

pB

usin

ess-

UN

Logi

stic

sN

/AU

ND

PN

atur

al d

isas

ter

Logi

stic

s fo

r di

sast

er

Wo

rld

Ne

tpr

epar

edne

ss

De

uts

che

Po

st W

orl

dN

/A20

04Pa

rtne

rshi

pB

usin

ess-

UN

Logi

stic

s, T

rans

port

N/A

UN

OCH

A, U

ND

PN

atur

al d

isas

ter

Logi

stic

s

Ne

t/D

HL

– D

HL

Dis

ast

er

Re

spo

nse

Te

am

s

Eri

csso

nEr

icss

on R

espo

nse

2000

Part

ners

hip

Bus

ines

s-U

NTe

leco

mm

unic

atio

nsN

/AU

N O

CHA

Conf

lict

and

natu

ral

Com

mun

icat

ion

Prog

ram

disa

ster

sse

rvic

es a

nd

awar

enes

s-ra

isin

g

Re

su

lts

of

sco

pin

g e

xe

rcis

e o

f n

on

-co

mm

erc

ial

bu

sin

es

s e

ng

ag

em

en

t in

hu

ma

nit

ari

an

re

lie

f

Ap

pe

nd

ix I

(co

nt)

GPPI Brief/paper2nd 12/6/07 3:51 pm Page 30

Page 37: Business engagement in humanitarian relief: key trends and ......business engagement in humanitarian relief highlight the potential for making relief work more effective and efficient

31

HPG BACKGROUND PAPERE

rics

son

Eric

sson

Res

pons

e 20

06Pa

rtne

rshi

pB

usin

ess-

NG

OTe

leco

mm

unic

atio

nsN

/ATé

léco

ms

Sans

Co

nflic

tCo

mm

unic

atio

n

Prog

ram

Fron

tièr

esse

rvic

es

Eth

os

Wa

ter

N/A

2004

Part

ners

hip

busi

ness

-NG

OW

ater

N/A

Ope

rati

on U

SAN

atur

al d

isas

ter

Wat

er

Fed

Ex

Dis

aste

r G

ivin

g 19

95Pa

rtne

rshi

pB

usin

ess-

NG

OLo

gist

ics

>USD

1m p

er y

ear

Red

Cros

sN

atur

al d

isas

ter

Logi

stic

s

Prog

ram

cash

and

in-k

ind

serv

ices

Go

ldm

an

Sa

chs

N/A

N/A

Part

ners

hip

Bus

ines

s-N

GO

Cons

ulti

ngN

/AIn

tern

atio

nal R

escu

eN

/AN

/A

Com

mit

tee

IDT

N/A

N/A

Part

ners

hip

Bus

ines

s-N

GO

Tele

com

mun

icat

ions

N/A

Inte

rnat

iona

l Res

cue

N/A

N/A

Com

mit

tee

J.P.

Mo

rga

n C

ha

seN

/AN

/APa

rtne

rshi

pB

usin

ess-

NG

OFi

nanc

eN

/AIn

tern

atio

nal R

escu

eN

/AN

/A

Com

mit

tee

Joh

nso

n &

Jo

hn

son

N/A

N/A

Part

ners

hip

Bus

ines

s-N

GO

Hea

lth

Care

N/A

Inte

rnat

iona

l Res

cue

N/A

N/A

Com

mit

tee

KP

MG

N/A

N/A

Part

ners

hip

Bus

ines

s-N

GO

Cons

ulti

ngN

/AIn

tern

atio

nal R

escu

eN

/AN

/A

Com

mit

tee

Mic

roso

ftPr

ojec

t Pr

ofile

1999

Part

ners

hip

Bus

ines

s-U

NIT

N/A

UN

HCR

Refu

gees

Tech

nolo

gy

Mo

toro

la/M

oto

rola

N/A

2004

Part

ners

hip

Bus

ines

s-N

GO

Tele

com

mun

icat

ions

USD

1m

CA

RE

Inte

rnat

iona

lB

angl

ades

h Co

mm

unic

atio

n

Fou

nd

ati

on

(flo

odin

g), D

RC

serv

ices

(im

plem

ent

and

eval

uate

pro

ject

s,

secu

rity

), P

eru

(med

ical

car

e)

Ne

stlé

N/A

2004

Part

ners

hip

Bus

ines

s-U

NW

ater

N/A

UN

HCR

Refu

gees

– E

thio

pia

Infr

astr

uctu

re (

wat

er)

Nik

eTo

geth

er fo

r G

irls

2004

Part

ners

hip

Bus

ines

s-U

NA

ppar

ell

N/A

UN

HCR

Refu

gees

, Ken

yaSp

orti

ng A

ppar

el

No

rte

lN

/AN

/APa

rtne

rshi

pB

usin

ess-

NG

OTe

leco

mm

unic

atio

nsN

/AC

AR

E In

tern

atio

nal

N/A

(no

t ac

tive

yet

)Fu

ndra

isin

g

Pe

psi

Co

.N

/AN

/APa

rtne

rshi

pB

usin

ess-

NG

OB

ever

ages

N/A

Inte

rnat

iona

l Res

cue

Conf

lict

and

natu

ral

Prov

isio

n of

Com

mit

tee

disa

ster

sim

med

iate

aid

(w

ater

,

sani

tati

on)

Pe

psi

Co

N/A

N/A

Part

ners

hip

Bus

ines

s-N

GO

Bev

erag

esN

/AIn

tern

atio

nal R

escu

eN

atur

al d

isas

ter

N/A

Com

mit

tee

Pfi

zer

N/A

2004

Part

ners

hip

Bus

ines

s-U

NPh

arm

aceu

tica

lsN

/AU

NIC

EF, W

HO

Nat

ural

dis

aste

rLo

gist

ics

Pri

ceW

ate

rho

use

N/A

2004

Part

ners

hip

Bus

ines

s-U

N-N

GO

Acc

ount

ing/

Cons

ulti

ngN

/AU

nite

d N

atio

ns

Nat

ural

dis

aste

rTe

chno

logy

(tr

acki

ng)

Co

op

ers

Foun

dati

on, U

ND

P,

UN

OCH

A

Pri

ceW

ate

rho

use

N/A

2005

Part

ners

hip

Bus

ines

s-U

NFi

nanc

eN

/AU

NN

atur

al d

isas

ter

Aid

Fac

ilita

tion

Co

op

ers

(Tra

nspa

renc

y)

Pro

cte

r a

nd

Ga

mb

leN

/A20

05Pa

rtne

rshi

pB

usin

ess-

USA

IDCl

eani

ng p

rodu

cts/

U

SD 6

00k

USA

IDN

atur

al d

isas

ter

Imm

edia

te A

id (W

ater

)

cons

umer

goo

ds

(co

nti

nu

ed

)

GPPI Brief/paper2nd 12/6/07 3:51 pm Page 31

Page 38: Business engagement in humanitarian relief: key trends and ......business engagement in humanitarian relief highlight the potential for making relief work more effective and efficient

32

HPG BACKGROUND PAPER

Co

rpo

rate

pa

rtic

ipa

nts

Na

me

of

init

iati

veFo

un

din

gT

yp

e o

f in

itia

tive

Su

b-t

yp

e o

f in

itia

tive

Ind

us

try

se

cto

rsB

ud

ge

tP

art

ne

rsD

isa

ste

r co

nte

xt

Co

ntr

ibu

tio

ny

ea

r

Ro

lls

Ro

yce

N/A

2004

Part

ners

hip

Bus

ines

s-U

NCa

rsN

/AU

ND

PN

atur

al d

isas

ter

Logi

stic

s/

Tech

nolo

gy

Ro

lls

Ro

yce

N/A

2006

Part

ners

hip

Bus

ines

s-G

over

nmen

tCa

rsU

SD 3

20k

Gov

ernm

ent

Nat

ural

dis

aste

rH

ealt

h

agen

cies

Ro

lls

Ro

yce

N/A

2006

Part

ners

hip

Bus

ines

s-G

over

nmen

tCa

rsU

SD 7

1kG

over

nmen

t N

atur

al d

isas

ter

Educ

atio

n

agen

cies

SA

S G

rou

pN

/A20

04Pa

rtne

rshi

pB

usin

ess-

gene

ral

Aer

onau

tics

N/A

Save

the

Chi

ldre

nN

atur

al d

isas

ter

Tran

spor

tati

on

(air

lifts

)

Tim

e W

arn

er

N/A

N/A

Part

ners

hip

Bus

ines

s-N

GO

Com

mun

icat

ions

/Med

iaN

/AIn

tern

atio

nal R

escu

eN

/AN

/A

Com

mit

tee

TNT

Mov

ing

the

Wor

ld20

02Pa

rtne

rshi

pB

usin

ess-

UN

Logi

stic

s, T

rans

port

USD

10m

(20

05)

WFP

Nat

ural

dis

aste

r/Lo

gist

ics

(Air

and

fam

ine

relie

fSu

pply

Cha

in)

UP

S F

ou

nd

ati

on

N/A

N/A

Part

ners

hip

Bus

ines

s-N

GO

Logi

stic

s, T

rans

port

N/A

Vari

ous

prof

essi

onal

Con

flict

and

nat

ural

Lo

gist

ics

disa

ster

rel

ief

disa

ster

s

orga

nisa

tion

s

Vo

da

fon

e G

rou

p

N/A

2004

Part

ners

hip

Bus

ines

s-N

GO

Tele

com

mun

icat

ions

USD

19m

(5

year

s)U

nite

d N

atio

ns

Nat

ural

dis

aste

rTe

chno

logy

(Ea

rly

Fou

nd

ati

on

Foun

dati

on, V

oxiv

aw

arni

ng)

Ast

raZ

en

eca

N/A

2004

Sing

le c

ompa

ny

Uni

late

ral/

Ph

arm

aceu

tica

lsU

SD 2

mN

/AN

atur

al D

isas

ter

Med

icin

e

enga

gem

ent

Bus

ines

s-ge

nera

l

IBM

IBM

Cri

sis

Resp

onse

2004

Sing

le c

ompa

ny

Uni

late

ral/

IT

USD

3.2

mVa

riou

s bu

t no

N

atur

al d

isas

ter

Tech

nolo

gy a

nd a

id

enga

gem

ent

Bus

ines

s-ge

nera

lco

nsis

tent

par

tner

faci

litat

ion

(com

mun

icat

ion)

Mic

roso

ftN

/A20

04Si

ngle

com

pany

U

nila

tera

l/

ITU

SD 4

00k

N/A

Nat

ural

dis

aste

rTe

chno

logy

ser

vice

s

enga

gem

ent

Bus

ines

s-ge

nera

l

Pfi

zer

N/A

2004

Sing

le c

ompa

ny

Uni

late

ral/

Ph

arm

aceu

tica

lsU

SD 5

0mN

/AN

atur

al d

isas

ter

Med

icin

e/

enga

gem

ent

Bus

ines

s-ge

nera

lin

fras

truc

ture

Re

su

lts

of

sco

pin

g e

xe

rcis

e o

f n

on

-co

mm

erc

ial

bu

sin

es

s e

ng

ag

em

en

t in

hu

ma

nit

ari

an

re

lie

f

Ap

pe

nd

ix I

(co

nt)

GPPI Brief/paper2nd 12/6/07 3:51 pm Page 32

Page 39: Business engagement in humanitarian relief: key trends and ......business engagement in humanitarian relief highlight the potential for making relief work more effective and efficient

33

HPG BACKGROUND PAPERA

pp

en

dix

II

Re

su

lts

of

sco

pin

g e

xe

rcis

e o

f co

mm

erc

ial

bu

sin

es

s e

ng

ag

em

en

t in

hu

ma

nit

ari

an

re

lie

f

Co

mp

an

yW

ha

t th

ey

do

He

ad

qu

art

ers

Ma

in c

lie

nts

Es

tab

lis

hm

en

t/S

ett

ing

*R

ela

tio

ns

hip

M

oti

vati

on

fo

r s

ell

ing

Fe

ma

le-

ow

ne

dS

ize

**

An

nu

al

ex

iste

nce

in

w

ith

NG

Os

this

se

rvic

ere

ven

ue

hu

ma

nit

ari

an

fie

ld

Ag

ulh

as

De

ve

lop

me

nt

Econ

omic

and

U

KD

FID

, EU

, hos

t N

/ACo

nflic

tPr

ofes

sion

alN

/AN

/ASe

rvic

es in

N

/A

Co

nsu

lta

nts

Ltd

.in

stit

utio

nal

gove

rnm

ents

,ov

er 4

5

deve

lopm

ent;

O

DI,

UN

coun

trie

s

polic

y m

akin

g

AIS

De

ve

lop

me

nt

Econ

omic

N

ew M

exic

o,

USA

ID19

60s

Conf

lict

and

Pr

ofes

sion

alN

/AYe

sN

/AN

/A

deve

lopm

ent;

U

Sna

tura

l dis

aste

r

envi

ronm

enta

l

man

agem

ent

Am

eri

can

Ma

nu

fact

ure

rsPr

ocur

emen

t H

oust

on, U

SPr

ivat

e se

ctor

19

83; a

ppro

x.

Conf

lict

and

Prof

essi

onal

and

N

/AYe

sSe

rvic

es in

N

/A

Exp

ort

Gro

up

serv

ices

;cl

ient

s, U

SAID

1996

hum

anit

aria

n

natu

ral d

isas

ter

com

peti

tive

over

90

tech

nica

lfie

ldco

untr

ies

assi

stan

ce

Ass

oci

ate

s in

Ru

ral

Econ

omic

B

urlin

gton

, US

Asi

an D

evel

opm

ent

1977

Co

nflic

t an

d Pr

ofes

sion

al a

nd

N/A

Yes

28 fi

eld

offic

esN

/A

De

ve

lop

me

nt

deve

lopm

ent;

Ban

k, C

AR

E, h

ost

natu

ral d

isas

ter

com

peti

tive

abro

ad

envi

ronm

enta

l go

vern

men

ts, M

ercy

man

agem

ent

Corp

s In

t’l, U

N,

USA

ID, W

orld

Ban

k

ATO

S C

on

sult

ing

Info

rmat

ion

Lond

on, U

KD

FID

N/A

Conf

lict

Prof

essi

onal

N/A

No

Ove

r 60

UK

N/A

Lim

ite

dte

chno

logy

; of

fices

finan

cial

ser

vice

s;

infr

astr

uctu

re

man

agem

ent

Ba

nk

ab

le F

ron

tie

r Ec

onom

ic

Cam

brid

ge, U

SD

FID

, pri

vate

sec

tor

N/A

N/A

Prof

essi

onal

N/A

No

1,60

0 st

aff

N/A

Ass

oci

ate

sde

velo

pmen

t;

clie

nts

finan

cial

ser

vice

s

Bir

ks

Sin

cla

ir &

Ec

onom

ic a

nd

Dur

ham

, UK

DFI

D, E

C, W

orld

Ban

kN

/AN

/APr

ofes

sion

alN

/AN

/ASe

rvic

es in

N

/A

Ass

oci

ate

s L

tdin

stit

utio

nal

over

40

deve

lopm

ent

coun

trie

s

CD

M I

nte

rna

tio

na

lD

isas

ter

Cam

brid

ge, U

SA

fric

an/A

sian

19

60s

as s

ubsi

diar

y Co

nflic

t an

d Co

mpe

titi

veN

/AN

oN

/AN

/A

assi

stan

ce;

Dev

elop

men

t B

ank,

to C

DM

; app

rox.

198

0na

tura

l dis

aste

r

econ

omic

and

C

AR

E, D

FID

, hos

thu

man

itar

ian

field

inst

itut

iona

l go

vern

men

ts, S

ave

deve

lopm

ent;

th

e Ch

ildre

n, U

N,

envi

ronm

enta

l U

SAID

, WH

O, W

orld

man

agem

ent;

B

ank,

Wor

ld V

isio

n

heal

th s

ervi

ces

(co

nti

nu

ed

)

GPPI Brief/paper2nd 12/6/07 3:51 pm Page 33

Page 40: Business engagement in humanitarian relief: key trends and ......business engagement in humanitarian relief highlight the potential for making relief work more effective and efficient

34

HPG BACKGROUND PAPER

Co

mp

an

yW

ha

t th

ey

do

He

ad

qu

art

ers

Ma

in c

lie

nts

Es

tab

lis

hm

en

t/S

ett

ing

*R

ela

tio

ns

hip

M

oti

vati

on

fo

r s

ell

ing

Fe

ma

le-

ow

ne

dS

ize

**

An

nu

al

ex

iste

nce

in

w

ith

NG

Os

this

se

rvic

ere

ven

ue

hu

ma

nit

ari

an

fie

ld

Ch

ecc

i a

nd

Ec

onom

ic a

nd

Was

hing

ton

A

sian

Dev

elop

men

t 19

51

Conf

lict

Com

peti

tive

N/A

No

Serv

ices

in

N/A

Co

mp

an

yin

stit

utio

nal

D.C

.,US

Ban

k, h

ost

over

145

Co

nsu

ltin

gde

velo

pmen

tgo

vern

men

ts, U

SAID

,co

untr

ies

Wor

ld B

ank

Ch

em

on

ics

Dis

aste

r as

sist

ance

; W

ashi

ngto

n U

SAID

(90

%)

1975

; app

rox.

200

1 Co

nflic

t an

d Pr

ofes

sion

al a

nd

Mee

t ne

ed fo

r po

st-

No

Ove

r 20

00

USD

250m

econ

omic

and

D.C

., U

S hu

man

itar

ian

field

natu

ral d

isas

ter

com

peti

tive

conf

lict

acti

viti

esst

aff;

ser

vice

s in

135

to

tal;

USD

inst

itut

iona

l co

untr

ies

20–3

0m in

deve

lopm

ent;

hu

man

itaria

n

envi

ronm

enta

l U

SD50

m fo

r

man

agem

ent;

al

l pro

ject

s in

finan

cial

ser

vice

s;

Cris

is

heal

th s

ervi

ces

Prev

enti

on &

Reco

very

depa

rtm

ent

Cre

ati

ve

Ass

oci

ate

sIn

stit

utio

nal

Was

hing

ton

USA

ID (

90%

),

1977

Co

nflic

tCo

mpe

titi

veN

/AYe

s20

0 st

aff;

14

USD

73m

tota

l

Inte

rna

tio

na

l, I

nc

deve

lopm

ent

D.C

., U

SW

orld

Ban

kfie

ld o

ffic

esin

fisc

al y

ear

abro

ad20

03

Cro

wn

Ag

en

tsD

isas

ter a

ssis

tanc

e;Su

tton

, UK

DFI

D, E

C, h

ost

1833

Co

nflic

t an

d Pr

ofes

sion

alN

/AN

/A1,

000

staf

f;

USD

37m

tota

l

econ

omic

and

gove

rnm

ents

, UN

,na

tura

l ap

prox

. 40

in fi

scal

yea

r

inst

itut

iona

l W

orld

Ban

kdi

sast

erfie

ld o

ffic

es20

03

deve

lopm

ent;

ab

road

;

finan

cial

ser

vice

s;

serv

ices

in

proc

urem

ent

over

110

coun

trie

s

Cu

i P

RO

DE

ST

Conf

lict

Ro

me,

Ital

yH

ost

gove

rnm

ents

, N

/ACo

nflic

t an

d N

/AN

/AN

o20

00 s

taff

N/A

man

agem

ent;

U

S D

epar

tmen

t of

na

tura

l

disa

ster

ass

ista

nce

Stat

e, U

N, U

SAID

, di

sast

er

Wor

ld B

ank

De

ve

lop

me

nt

Dis

aste

r as

sist

ance

; B

ethe

sda,

US

Afr

ican

Dev

elop

men

t 19

70

Conf

lict

and

Com

peti

tive

N/A

No

2800

sta

ff;

N

/A

Alt

ern

ati

ve

s In

c.en

viro

nmen

tal

Ban

k, h

ost

natu

ral

serv

ices

in

man

agem

ent;

go

vern

men

ts, p

riva

te

disa

ster

over

150

econ

omic

and

se

ctor

clie

nts,

USA

ID,

coun

trie

s

inst

itut

iona

l W

orld

Ban

k

deve

lopm

ent;

finan

cial

ser

vice

s;

heal

th s

ervi

ces;

polic

y m

akin

g

Ap

pe

nd

ix I

I (c

on

t)

Re

su

lts

of

sco

pin

g e

xe

rcis

e o

f co

mm

erc

ial

bu

sin

es

s e

ng

ag

em

en

t in

hu

ma

nit

ari

an

re

lie

f

GPPI Brief/paper2nd 12/6/07 3:51 pm Page 34

Page 41: Business engagement in humanitarian relief: key trends and ......business engagement in humanitarian relief highlight the potential for making relief work more effective and efficient

35

HPG BACKGROUND PAPERD

ev

elo

pm

en

t Ec

onom

ic a

nd

Arl

ingt

on, U

SA

fric

an/A

sian

19

69

N/A

Prof

essi

onal

and

N

/AN

/A7

field

off

ices

N

/A

Ass

oci

ate

sin

stit

utio

nal

Dev

elop

men

t B

ank,

co

mpe

titi

veab

road

;

deve

lopm

ent;

ho

st g

over

nmen

ts,

serv

ices

in

heal

th s

ervi

ces

UN

, USA

ID, U

S ov

er 1

00

Dep

artm

ent

of S

tate

, co

untr

ies

WH

O, W

orld

Ban

k

DP

K C

on

sult

ing

Inst

itut

iona

l Sa

n Fr

anci

sco,

A

sian

Dev

elop

men

t N

/ACo

nflic

tPr

ofes

sion

al a

nd

N/A

No

N/A

N/A

deve

lopm

ent;

US

Ban

k, h

ost

com

peti

tive

tech

nica

l ass

ista

nce

gove

rnm

ents

, UN

,

USA

ID, W

orld

Ban

k

Em

erg

ing

Ma

rke

ts

Econ

omic

and

B

russ

els,

D

FID

, EU

, USA

ID,

1991

Co

nflic

tCo

mpe

titi

veN

/AN

oN

/AN

/A

Gro

up

inst

itut

iona

l B

elgi

umW

orld

Ban

k

deve

lopm

ent;

finan

cial

ser

vice

s;

heal

th s

ervi

ces

En

terp

lan

Ltd

Econ

omic

and

Re

adin

g, U

KA

fric

an/A

sian

19

85

Conf

lict

and

Prof

essi

onal

N/A

No

Serv

ices

in

N/A

inst

itut

iona

l D

evel

opm

ent

Ban

k,na

tura

l ov

er 1

00

deve

lopm

ent

DFI

D, E

U, h

ost

disa

ster

coun

trie

s

gove

rnm

ents

, pri

vate

sect

or c

lient

s, U

SAID

En

vir

on

me

nta

l En

viro

nmen

tal

UK

Asi

an D

evel

opm

ent

1971

N

/APr

ofes

sion

alN

/AN

/Aov

er 2

500

U

SD42

5.4m

Re

sou

rce

s m

anag

emen

t;

Ban

k, D

FID

, EU

, st

aff;

100

tota

l in

fisca

l

Ma

na

ge

me

nt

Gro

up

heal

th s

ervi

ces;

priv

ate

sect

or c

lient

s,fie

ld o

ffic

esye

ar 2

005

inst

itut

iona

l U

N, W

orld

Ban

k in

39

deve

lopm

ent

coun

trie

s

Futu

res

Gro

up

Hea

lth

serv

ices

; W

ashi

ngto

n H

ost

gove

rnm

ents

, 19

71

Conf

lict

Prof

essi

onal

N/A

N/A

Serv

ices

in

N/A

Inte

rna

tio

na

l/po

licy

mak

ing;

D.C

., U

S pr

ivat

e se

ctor

clie

nts,

over

100

Co

nst

ell

a F

utu

res

tech

nica

l ass

ista

nce

USA

IDco

untr

ies;

46 fi

eld

offic

es in

34

coun

trie

s

Ge

ne

sis

An

aly

tics

Ec

onom

ic a

nd

Sout

h A

fric

aD

FID

, hos

t N

/AN

atur

al

Prof

essi

onal

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

(Pty

) L

td.

inst

itut

iona

l go

vern

men

ts, O

ECD

, di

sast

er

deve

lopm

ent

priv

ate

sect

or c

lient

s,

USA

ID, W

orld

Ban

k

Inte

rna

tio

na

l D

isas

ter

assi

stan

ce;

Was

hing

ton

Afr

ican

/Asi

an

1978

; app

rox.

Co

nflic

t an

d Pr

ofes

sion

al a

nd

N/A

No

Serv

ices

in

USD

52m

tot

al

Re

sou

rce

s G

rou

pec

onom

ic a

ndD

.C.,

US

Dev

elop

men

t B

ank,

19

96 h

uman

itar

ian

natu

ral

com

peti

tive

mor

e th

an

in fi

scal

yea

r

inst

itut

iona

l C

AR

E, M

ercy

Cor

ps,

field

disa

ster

137

coun

trie

s20

03

deve

lopm

ent;

pr

ivat

e se

ctor

clie

nts,

envi

ronm

enta

l U

N, U

SAID

, WH

O,

man

agem

ent

Wor

ld B

ank

(co

nti

nu

ed

)

GPPI Brief/paper2nd 12/6/07 3:51 pm Page 35

Page 42: Business engagement in humanitarian relief: key trends and ......business engagement in humanitarian relief highlight the potential for making relief work more effective and efficient

36

HPG BACKGROUND PAPER

Co

mp

an

yW

ha

t th

ey

do

He

ad

qu

art

ers

Ma

in c

lie

nts

Es

tab

lis

hm

en

t/S

ett

ing

*R

ela

tio

ns

hip

M

oti

vati

on

fo

r s

ell

ing

Fe

ma

le-

ow

ne

dS

ize

**

An

nu

al

ex

iste

nce

in

w

ith

NG

Os

this

se

rvic

ere

ven

ue

hu

ma

nit

ari

an

fie

ld

Inte

rWo

rks

LLC

Dis

aste

r as

sist

ance

; M

adis

on, U

SC

AR

E, p

riva

te s

ecto

r 19

90Co

nflic

t an

d Pr

ofes

sion

al a

nd

Bel

ief i

n hu

man

itar

ian

N/A

9 st

aff;

N

/A

econ

omic

and

cl

ient

s, S

ave

the

natu

ral

com

peti

tive

caus

es; a

bilit

y to

be

serv

ices

in

inst

itut

iona

l Ch

ildre

n, U

N, U

SAID

, di

sast

erfle

xibl

e, e

ntre

pren

euria

l,ov

er 1

05

deve

lopm

ent;

W

FP, W

orld

Ban

kin

nova

te a

s a

for-

prof

itco

untr

ies

envi

ronm

enta

l

man

agem

ent

Ma

na

ge

me

nt

Dis

aste

r as

sist

ance

; W

ashi

ngto

n A

fric

an/A

sian

19

81

Conf

lict

and

Prof

essi

onal

and

N

/AYe

s90

sta

ffU

SD20

m

Sys

tem

s ec

onom

ic a

nd

DC,

US

Dev

elop

men

t B

ank,

natu

ral

com

peti

tive

tota

l

Inte

rna

tio

na

lin

stit

utio

nal

CA

RE,

hos

t di

sast

er

deve

lopm

ent;

go

vern

men

ts, p

riva

te

envi

ronm

enta

l se

ctor

clie

nts,

USA

ID,

deve

lopm

ent

UN

, Wor

ld B

ank,

Wor

ld V

isio

n

Oxf

ord

Po

licy

Ec

onom

ic a

nd

Oxf

ord,

UK

DFI

DN

/AN

/APr

ofes

sion

alN

/AN

oN

/AN

/A

Ma

na

ge

me

nt

inst

itut

iona

l

deve

lopm

ent;

polic

y m

akin

g

PAD

CO A

ECO

MD

isas

ter

Was

hing

ton

Hos

t go

vern

men

ts,

1965

; 200

2 Co

nflic

t an

d Pr

ofes

sion

al a

nd

Mee

t ne

ed fo

r po

st-

No

100

staf

f in

Ove

r U

SD

assi

stan

ce;

DC,

US

priv

ate

sect

or c

lient

s,hu

man

itar

ian

field

na

tura

l co

mpe

titi

veco

nflic

t ac

tivi

ties

DC,

100

sta

ff

55m

tot

al in

econ

omic

and

U

SAID

, UN

, di

sast

erin

doz

en

fisca

l yea

r

inst

itut

iona

l W

orld

Ban

kof

fices

abr

oad

2005

deve

lopm

ent;

(P

AD

CO)

(PA

DCO

)

finan

cial

ser

vice

s

PM

TC

In

tern

ati

on

al

Econ

omic

and

B

edfo

rdsh

ire,

C

AR

E, D

FID

, EU

, UN

1993

N

/APr

ofes

sion

alN

/AN

o14

sta

ff in

UK,

N

/A

Ltd

inst

itut

iona

l U

K10

sta

ff in

tw

o

deve

lopm

ent;

of

fices

abr

oad

envi

ronm

enta

l

man

agem

ent

QE

D G

rou

pEc

onom

ic a

nd

Was

hing

ton

USA

ID, U

S N

/ACo

nflic

tPr

ofes

sion

alN

/AYe

sN

/AU

SD6.

7m

inst

itut

iona

l D

C, U

SD

epar

tmen

t of

Sta

te,

tota

l

deve

lopm

ent;

W

orld

Ban

k

heal

th s

ervi

ces;

polic

y m

akin

g;

tech

nica

l

assi

stan

ce

Ap

pe

nd

ix I

I (c

on

t)

Re

su

lts

of

sco

pin

g e

xe

rcis

e o

f co

mm

erc

ial

bu

sin

es

s e

ng

ag

em

en

t in

hu

ma

nit

ari

an

re

lie

f

GPPI Brief/paper2nd 12/6/07 3:51 pm Page 36

Page 43: Business engagement in humanitarian relief: key trends and ......business engagement in humanitarian relief highlight the potential for making relief work more effective and efficient

37

HPG BACKGROUND PAPERS

eg

ura

Co

nsu

ltin

gEc

onom

ic

Bet

hesd

a, U

SH

ost

gove

rnm

ents

, N

/ACo

nflic

tPr

ofes

sion

alN

/AN

/AN

/AN

/A

deve

lopm

ent

priv

ate

sect

or c

lient

s,

USA

ID, W

orld

Ban

k

So

cia

l D

eve

lop

me

nt

Dis

aste

r as

sist

ance

; Lo

ndon

, UK

Hos

t go

vern

men

ts,

N/A

N/A

Prof

essi

onal

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

Dir

ect

Ltd

econ

omic

and

NG

Os,

inte

rnat

iona

l

soci

al d

evel

opm

ent;

ag

enci

es

heal

th s

ervi

ces

Th

e I

DL

Gro

up

Econ

omic

and

B

rist

ol, U

KD

FID

, int

erna

tion

al

1993

Co

nflic

t an

d Pr

ofes

sion

al a

nd

N/A

No

16 s

taff

N/A

inst

itut

iona

l ag

enci

es, p

riva

te

natu

ral

com

peti

tive

deve

lopm

ent;

se

ctor

clie

nts

disa

ster

envi

ronm

enta

l

man

agem

ent

Th

e L

aw

an

d

Econ

omic

and

Lo

ndon

, UK

DFI

D, E

U, U

N,

N/A

Conf

lict

and

Com

peti

tive

N/A

N/A

1 of

fice

N/A

De

ve

lop

me

nt

inst

itut

iona

l W

orld

Ban

kna

tura

l ab

road

Pa

rtn

ers

hip

deve

lopm

ent

disa

ster

Th

e S

erv

ice

s G

rou

p

Econ

omic

A

rlin

gton

, US

Afr

ican

/Asi

an

appr

ox. 1

980s

Co

nflic

tPr

ofes

sion

alN

/AN

/AO

ver

100

N/A

Inc.

(T

SG

)de

velo

pmen

tD

evel

opm

ent

Ban

k,st

aff;

ser

vice

s

host

gov

ernm

ents

, in

120

priv

ate

sect

or c

lient

s,

coun

trie

s

US

IAD

, Wor

ld B

ank

Th

e V

eru

lam

Gro

up

Econ

omic

and

U

KD

FID

, EU

1995

Co

nflic

t an

d Pr

ofes

sion

alN

/AN

/A15

sta

ff;

N/A

inst

itut

iona

l na

tura

l 3

offic

es

deve

lopm

ent

disa

ster

abro

ad

Trip

le L

ine

Ec

onom

ic a

nd

Lond

on, U

KC

AR

E, D

FID

, EU

, N

/ACo

nflic

t an

d Co

mpe

titi

veN

/AYe

s8

staf

fN

/A

Co

nsu

ltin

g L

td.

inst

itut

iona

l U

SAID

, UN

, WTO

natu

ral

deve

lopm

ent

disa

ster

Vo

xiva

Info

rmat

ion

Was

hing

ton

Hos

t go

vern

men

ts,

N/A

Conf

lict

and

Prof

essi

onal

N/A

No

3 of

fices

N

/A

tech

nolo

gy;

DC,

US

USA

ID, W

orld

Ban

kna

tura

l ab

road

tech

nolo

gica

l di

sast

er

assi

stan

ce a

nd

supp

ort

WY

G I

nte

rna

tio

na

lEc

onom

ic

UK

DFI

D, h

ost

late

198

0s

Nat

ural

Pr

ofes

sion

alN

/AN

/A20

37 s

taff

; U

SD27

0m

deve

lopm

ent

gove

rnm

ents

disa

ster

over

50

field

tu

rnov

er in

offic

es in

23

2005

coun

trie

s

*The

cla

ssifi

cati

ons

used

are

con

flict

and

nat

ural

dis

aste

r. H

ere,

con

flict

is a

lso

used

to

desc

ribe

pos

t-co

nflic

t se

ttin

gs.

**Si

ze is

mea

sure

d by

the

num

ber

of s

taff

, off

ices

and

cou

ntri

es in

whi

ch t

he c

ompa

ny h

as b

een

acti

ve s

ince

it w

as e

stab

lishe

d.

GPPI Brief/paper2nd 12/6/07 3:51 pm Page 37

Page 44: Business engagement in humanitarian relief: key trends and ......business engagement in humanitarian relief highlight the potential for making relief work more effective and efficient

In order to gain a better understanding of the structure,management and contribution of the initiatives under review,five case studies were conducted. In selecting the five cases, anumber of criteria were applied. First, given that the discussionsshould illustrate the full breadth of business engagement inhumanitarian action, a balance of types of initiative (single-company initiatives, partnerships, meta-initiatives) was chosen.The cases also reflect the diversity of industries engaged inhumanitarian action, while still highlighting the specialcontribution made by logistics and IT/telecommunicationsfirms. Despite the fact that most initiatives focus on relief afternatural disasters, an example of post-conflict aid is alsoconsidered, in order to provide a comprehensive picture of thetypes of business engagement. Finally, while most of theinitiatives are relatively new, one longer-term initiative wasincluded to give perspective on how such initiatives evolve overtime. As indicated above, the role of small- and medium-sizedcompanies is not covered in our research. Many small-businessinitiatives are set up to help with disaster relief if the companiesare already based where a disaster strikes, but in looking fortrends we chose to focus on large firms, which are most likely tohave an impact on the humanitarian sector.

Case 1: Deutsche Post World Net/DHL Partnership with

the United Nations: ‘We deliver help’

DHL is a subsidiary of Deutsche Post World Net, an inter-nationalexpress and logistics provider. Its partnership with UNDP andOCHA was launched in December 2005. In coordin-ation withOCHA, Disaster Response Teams are deployed for up to threeweeks, to manage airport logistics and in the immediateaftermath of major sudden-onset disasters. Currently, there is aSingapore-based Team for Asia and the Pacific Region and aMiami-based Team for Latin America. A Team for the Middle Eastand Africa is planned.46

The partnership with UNDP is still in development, but potentialfuture projects include disaster preparation, public education,emergency logistics planning and tracking relief supplies.47 TheDHL Disaster Response Team’s first deployment was in May2006, when Bakornas, the Indonesian government relief agency,asked the Disaster Response Team to provide logistical supportand expertise in the aftermath of an earthquake in Java.48

Rather than providing direct financial support to humanitarianrelief missions, DHL seeks to support its humanitarian relief

partners, such as the UN, primarily by contributing its corecompetency in transport and logistics. According to DeutschePost World Net, giving in-kind through expertise and employeevolunteers has kept the fixed costs, after the initial set up,relatively low.49 The partnership is also ‘the perfect way todemonstrate our strong commitment to Corporate SocialResponsibility’, according to Monika Wulf-Mathies of DeutschePost World Net (see Deutsche Post World Net, 2006). It hasreportedly enhanced productivity and decreased staff turnover.The partnership allows DHL to increase brand visibility and towork with the UN, which it chose as a partner due to the UN’s‘credibility and legitimacy and, of course, its global reach’.50

Disaster Response Teams are deployed when circumstancesare deemed appropriate for involvement by DHL, and aninvitation is extended from the host government. Involvementis restricted to major sudden-onset natural disasters becauseof the likelihood of airports becoming overwhelmed. TheDisaster Response Teams are too new to distil lessons fromthem, and no independent evaluation of DHL’s partnershipwith the UN has been conducted.

Case 2: TNT’s ‘Moving the World’ programme

Launched in 2002, ‘Moving the World’ brought together thelogistics company TNT – a division of TPG, a Dutch mail andlogistics company, with annual revenues of approximately $14.4billion (2003) – and WFP (see Maitland, 2004; for a shortdescription of the partnership see also Witte and Reinicke, 2005:25). TNT selected WFP as a partner organisation because of itsexperience in logistics, its global reach and its positive brandimage. It was also a good organisational fit (WFP’s executivedirector has a corporate background that reportedly facilitatedcommunication and understanding).51 Through the partnership,TNT has agreed to contribute €5 million a year (approximately$6.3 million) for five years, and jointly cooperate in five areas:school feeding support, private sector fundraising, emergencyresponse, logistics and transparency and accountability.

An extension to the partnership is anticipated once theagreement officially expires in 2007 (see Tomasini andWassenhove, 2004, and Samii, 2004). However, while publicevaluations from WFP have commented favourably onexperiences with TNT, WFP also notes that it is searching foradditional logistics partners to complement TNT’s role inproviding warehousing space, office equipment and airport

38

HPG BACKGROUND PAPER

Appendix IIICase studies of business engagement in humanitarian relief

46 Interview by the authors with representative of Deutsche Post WorldNet, May 2006.47 Interview by the authors with representative of Deutsche Post WorldNet, May 2006 and Deutsche Post World Net, 2005.48 Interview by the authors with a representative of Deutsche Post WorldNet, October 2006.

49 Interview by the authors with a representative from Deutsche Post WorldNet, 18 May 2006. No detailed numbers were available from Deutsche PostWorld Net.50 Interview by the authors with representative from Deutsche Post WorldNet, 18 May 2006.51 Ibid.

GPPI Brief/paper2nd 12/6/07 3:51 pm Page 38

Page 45: Business engagement in humanitarian relief: key trends and ......business engagement in humanitarian relief highlight the potential for making relief work more effective and efficient

39

HPG BACKGROUND PAPER

handling assistance (WFP website – http://documents.wfp.org/stellent/groups/public/documents/eb/wfp080322.pdf ).

The key motivation behind the partnership, according to TNTexecutives, is to make a contribution to ending world hunger.52

TNT recognises that, as a logistics company, it can offer more byleveraging its core business expertise and assets in apartnership, than by simply donating money (see Maitland,2004). However, the partnership has also been a strategicresponse to growing stakeholder pressure to demonstrate CSR.Indeed, when TNT began initial planning for its engagementwith WFP, most of its main competitors were already engaged insuch CSR activities (see Tomasini and Wassenhove, 2004).

Through the partnership, TNT also seeks to increase cohesionbetween the three business units (mail, logistics, express)operating under its name, improve brand image, motivate staffand attract prospective employees. Finally, it hopes to gain acompetitive edge by expanding on its core competencies,protecting its supply chain and ensuring the quick recovery ofbusiness operations in the event of a disaster. TNT treats thepartnership like a business unit, with a budget, targets andquarterly progress reviews (see Maitland, 2004). To ensure thelong-term commitment of TNT, each member of the executiveboard sponsors part of the programme (see Maitland, 2004;Tomasini and Wassenhove, 2004).

Case 3: Management Systems International (MSI)53

MSI is a privately owned consulting firm based in Washington.Founded in 1981, the firm currently has approximately 90employees and annual revenues of approximately $20 million.Besides offering management services in private sectordevelopment, governance and environmental issues, MSI alsoprovides services to USAID under the Instability, Crisis, andRecovery Program (ICRP). MSI’s programme includes earlywarning and analysis of conflicts, and the design of conflict-sensitive programmes in areas such as health, democracy andgovernance. In addition to the ICRP, MSI works in cooperationwith the USAID Office of Conflict Management and Mitigation(CMM) in the disarmament, demobilisation and reintegrationof ex-combatants. It also provides mediation and negotiationservices, as well as training for USAID staff and local NGOs onconflict-sensitive programming.

Besides USAID, the firm’s other major clients includemultilateral organisations, universities, NGOs and privatecorporations. MSI’s partners in the planning and implement-ation of projects are other development consultancy firms suchas ASID, Cui PRODEST, Louis Berger Group and Vision Latina;universities and research institutes; and NGOs such asInternational Alert and Mercy Corps. Information on the

principles and motivations underlying MSI’s work is notavailable, as statements were not clear from their websitehomepage and MSI did not afford us an interview.

Case 4: Planning and Development Collaborative

International (PADCO)54

Founded in 1966, PADCO is an international developmentconsulting firm and an operating company of AECOM, aconsortium of major architecture and engineering firms. PADCOis based in Washington, and employs approximately 200 peoplein approximately a dozen country offices. It has annual revenuesof over $55 million. Its main clients are USAID, the World Bank,the Asian Development Bank, other bilateral and multilateraldonors, national and local governments and private sectorcompanies. Its areas of expertise are (1) conflict resolution,comprising peace-building, reconciliation, early warning,conflict prevention, dispute resolution and mediation; (2)democracy and governance; (3) humanitarian response andreconstruction, including response to natural and man-madedisasters and complex emergencies, disaster mitigation,community-based reconstruction and field-based grantsmanagement; (3) sustainable economic development; and (4)urban services.

PADCO works for USAID under the Managing African Conflict(MAC) programme, which began in 2003 and runs until 2008.Under this contract, PADCO provides services in conflictprevention, mitigation and response for USAID missionsthroughout Africa. These services mainly comprise trainingand technical assistance to intergovernmental, governmentaland non-governmental actors in the field. Beyond this generalconflict resolution engagement in Africa, PADCO managed aproject in Senegal in 2004–2005. The project included anassessment period as well as a technical assistance, orcapacity-building, phase. Another conflict resolution projecttook place in Uganda 2004–2005, in which PADCO assisted theUgandan government in the preparations for peace talks.Finally, PADCO has a two-year community-based peace andreconciliation initiative in Burundi.

In the field of disaster response and reconstruction, PADCOhad two major projects throughout 2004 and 2005. The 2005‘Caribbean Regional Community Revitalization’ project inTobago and the Bahamas was a disaster mitigation project. Itincluded recovery activities such as housing repair, housingconstruction and land stabilisation to mitigate the risk offuture landslides and flooding after Hurricane Ivan. The‘Grenada and Jamaica Community Revitalization I and II’project was a two-year initiative running during 2004–2005.Here, PADCO repaired damaged houses, managed communityclean-up and undertook land and watershed rehabilitationefforts. It also assisted in restoring health clinics and primary52 Interview by the authors with an NGO representative, June 2004.

53 This case example is based on information from the company’shomepage (www.msiworldwide.com), as well as on information providedby the Windfalls of War Project of the Center for Public Integrity(www.publicintegrity.org/wow/bio.aspx?act=pro&ddlC=36).

54 This case example is based on information from the company’shomepage (www.padco.aecom.com) and on an interview with arepresentative of PADCO conducted by the authors in July 2006.

GPPI Brief/paper2nd 12/6/07 3:51 pm Page 39

Page 46: Business engagement in humanitarian relief: key trends and ......business engagement in humanitarian relief highlight the potential for making relief work more effective and efficient

schools, providing the latter with equipment and furniture.PADCO presented workshops and training programmes on thefinancial management and construction of housing, oncommunity clean-up initiatives, and on disaster preparednessand mitigation. In addition, the firm negotiated and awardedsubcontracts and grants to contractors and NGOs forrenovation and repair services. In Grenada and Jamaica,PADCO partnered with local NGOs, local building contractors,community-based organisations, ministries and government-sponsored emergency response organisations.

PADCO bases its work on the principles of integrity, fairnessand responsibility.55 The motivation underlying PADCO’sengagement in humanitarian assistance is allegedly the sameas those inspiring traditional actors, although hints ofstrategic marketing are detectable in official statements. ‘Weare in business to help meet the needs of the millions ofvictims worldwide and provide the finest professional servicesthat can be contracted for recovery from both man-madecomplex and natural disasters’.56

Case 5: CDM International

CDM was established in 1947 as a professional partnership, andlater developed into a consulting, engineering, construction andoperations firm. CDM is a subsidiary of Camp Dresser & McKeeInc., along with CDM Construction Inc. and CDM FederalPrograms Corporation, and is at present employee-owned. CDMhas headquarters in Cambridge, Massachusetts, and provides

consulting, project management, sustainable development,engineering, construction and related services. Compared withMSI and PADCO, CDM is less involved in the implementation ofprojects (with the exception of its engineering and constructionwork), than in programme planning and design. Its main clientsare businesses and industries, development agencies, bilateraland multilateral donors, government ministries, public agenciesand US government agencies. One of CDM’s areas of expertiseis disaster relief and reconstruction in humanitarianemergencies such as earthquakes, floods, hurricanes,landslides, droughts, epidemics, famines and crises resultingfrom armed conflict. The firm provides human resources andmanagement capacities to respond to these disasters. Furtherservices include short-term emergency relief, long-termrecovery through large-scale infrastructure reconstruction,programme management, procurement and institutionalcapacity-building. Following the 2000 flooding in Mozambiqueand Madagascar, CDM took the lead on a joint project with theUSAID Office for Foreign Disaster Assistance to undertake aflood-related water, sanitation and health needs assessment.CDM deployed water, sanitation and health specialists toperform assessments, compile data and identify the number ofaffected people. Similar projects were launched in response tofood shortages in Ethiopia and after Hurricane Mitch inNicaragua in 1998.

CDM does not refer to any humanitarian or related principleson its website. It simply states that CDM is ‘committed toethical conduct in our business practices’ (see www.cdm.com/code_of_ethics.htm). Detailed information concerningprinciples and motivations could not be collected, as CDM didnot give us an interview.

40

HPG BACKGROUND PAPER

55 See www.padco.aecom.com/About/39/47/index.jsp.56 Interview with a representative of PADCO conducted by the authors inJuly 2006.

GPPI Brief/paper2nd 12/6/07 3:51 pm Page 40

Page 47: Business engagement in humanitarian relief: key trends and ......business engagement in humanitarian relief highlight the potential for making relief work more effective and efficient

41

HPG BACKGROUND PAPER

Agnew, Meaghan and Jaye Scholl (2005) ‘Coming to the Rescue’ inUSC Trojan Family Magazine.

Anderson, Mary B. (1999) Do No Harm: How Aid Can Support Peace

– or War. Boulder, CO: Lynne Rienner.

Barnett, M. (2005) ‘Humanitarianism Transformed’, Perspectives on

Politics 3:723–40.

Bennett, J. (2001) Business in Zones of Conflict. New York:International Peace Academy.

Binder, A. (2005) Getting Busy for Peace. Local Business

Engagement for Peace-building in Sri Lanka. Tübingen: EberhardKarls University.

Blondel, J. (2000) ‘Is Humanitarian Action Everybody’s Affair?Reflections on an Overworked Concept’, International Review of the

Red Cross.

Bojicic-Dyelilovic, V. (2002) ‘World Bank, NGOs and the PrivateSector in Post-War Reconstruction’, International Peacekeeping,9:81–98.

Buse, K. and K. Lee (2005) ‘Business and Global Health Governance’,in Discussion Paper No. 5.

Calhoun, C. (2004) ‘Fear, Intervention, and the Limits of CosmopolitanOrder’, in The Transformations of Humanitarian Action.

Campher, H. (2005) Disaster Management and Planning: an IBLF

Framework for Business Response. London: International BusinessLeaders Forum.

Carbonnier, G. (2004) ‘Privatisations, Sous-traitance et PartenariatsPublic-Privé: Charity.com ou Business.org?’, Revue Internationale

de la Croix Rouge, 86.

Christoplos, I, A. Liljelund and J. Mitchell (2001) ‘Re-framing Risk:The Changing Context of Disaster Mitigation and Preparedness’,Disasters, 25:185–198.

Cooley, Alexander (2004) ‘The Marketplace of Humanitarian Action: APolitical Economy Perspective’, The Transformations of Humanitarian

Action.

Cooley, A. and J. Ron (2002) ‘The NGO Scramble: OrganizationalInsecurity and the Political Economy of Transnational Action’,International Security, 27:5–39.

Dalton, M., K. von Hippel, R. Kent and R. Maurer (2003) Study Four:

Changes in Humanitarian Financing: Implications for the United

Nations.

Darcy, J. (2004) ‘Acts of Faith? Thoughts on the Effectiveness ofHumanitarian Action’, The Transformations of Humanitarian Action.

de Torrente, N. (2005) ‘The Professionalization and Bureaucratisationof Humanitarian Action: Some Reflections from MSF’s Experience’,SSPC Initiative Report.

de Waal, A. (1997) Famine Crimes: Politics and the Disaster Relief

Industry in Africa. Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press.

Deutsche Post World Net (2005) ‘Statement by Monika Wulf-Mathies, Managing Director Corporate Public Policy andSustainability, Deutsche Post World Net’, New York.

Deutsche Post World Net (2006) ‘United Nations Signs DisasterManagement Partnership With DHL’.

Deutsche Post World Net (2006) ‘DHL Sets Up Disaster ResponseTeam in Singapore’.

Development Initiatives (2003) Global Humanitarian Assistance 2003.

Development Initiatives (2005) Global Humanitarian Assistance

Update 2004–05. Geneva: Geneva Humanitarian Forum.

Development Initiatives (2006) Global Humanitarian Assistance

2006. Geneva: Geneva Humanitarian Forum.

DFID (2006) Response to Freedom of Information Act, enquiryreference F2006-123.

Duffield, M. (2001) Global Governance and the New Wars: The

Merging of Development and Security. New York: Zed Press.

Duffield, M. (2001) ‘Governing the Borderlands: Decoding thePower of Aid’, Disasters 25:308–320.

Dunfee, T. W. and D. Hess (2000) ‘The Legitimacy of DirectCorporate Humanitarian Investment’, Business Ethics Quarterly

10:95–109.

Easley, D. and M. O’Hara (1983) ‘The Economic Role of the NonprofitFirm’, The Bell Journal of Economics 14:531–538.

Easterly, W. (2002) ‘The Cartel of Good Intentions: Bureaucracy vs.Markets in Foreign Aid’, Policy Reform.

Evans, G. and M. Sahnoun (2002) ‘The Responsibility to Protect’,Foreign Affairs 81.

Farkas, O. and A. Warnes (2006) ‘Corporate-NGO Partnership:Lessons from the Tsunami’. Global Future 6(2).

Fearon, J. D. (2004) ‘Measuring Humanitarian Impact’, The

Transformations of Humanitarian Action.

Financial Tracking Service (2004) ‘Criteria for Inclusion of ReportedHumanitarian Contributions into the Financial Tracking ServiceDatabase, and for Donor Appealing Agency Reporting to FTS’.

Financial Tracking Service (2006) Global Humanitarian Contributions

in 2006: Totals by Donor.

Finnemore, M. (1996) ‘Constructing Norms of HumanitarianIntervention’, The Culture of National Security: Norms and Identity

in World Politics, edited by Peter J. Katzenstein. New York: ColumbiaUniversity Press.

GAO (2002) Foreign Assistance: USAID Relies Heavily on Non-

governmental Organisations, but Better Data Needed to Evaluate

Approaches. Washington DC: United States General AccountingOffice.

General Services Administration, Department of Defense andNational Aeronautics and Space Administration (2005) Federal

Acquisition Regulation.

Gerson, A. (2001) ‘Peace Building. The Private Sector’s Role’,American Journal of International Law 95:102–119.

Globalgivingmatters (2005) ‘Lessons Learned from Private SectorStrengthen Links in Humanitarian Supply Chain’, www.synergos.org/globalgivingmatters/features/0501humanitarianlogistics.htm.

Gostelow, L. (1999) ‘The Sphere Project: The Implications of MakingHumanitarian Principles and Codes Work’, Disasters 23:316–25.

Haddad, L. (2004) L’humanitaire et le Business. Paris: L’École deParis du Management.

Harford, T, B. Hadjimichael and Michael Klein (2004) ‘Aid AgencyCompetition: A Century of Entry, But No Exit’, Public Policy for the

Private Sector.

References

GPPI Brief/paper2nd 12/6/07 3:51 pm Page 41

Page 48: Business engagement in humanitarian relief: key trends and ......business engagement in humanitarian relief highlight the potential for making relief work more effective and efficient

42

HPG BACKGROUND PAPER

Harmer, A. L. Cotterrell and A. Stoddard (2004) ‘From Stockholm toOttawa: A Progress Review of the Good Humanitarian DonorshipInitiative’, HPG Research Briefing. London: Overseas DevelopmentInstitute.

Harmer, A. and J. Macrae (2004) Beyond the Continuum: The

Changing Role of Aid Policy in Protracted Crises, HPG Research

Report. London: Overseas Development Institute.

Hopgood, S. (2005) ‘The Professionalisation and Bureaucratisationof Humanitarian Action’, in The Transformations of Humanitarian

Action.

Hudson, J. and S. Knott (2005) Why Try to Quantify the

Unquantifiable?. Zurich: UBS Investment Bank.

Humanitarian Policy Group (2002) The New Humanitarianisms: A

Review of Trends in Global Humanitarian Action. London: OverseasDevelopment Institute.

Humanitarian Policy Group (2004) Measuring the Impact of

Humanitarian Aid: A Review of Current Practice. London: OverseasDevelopment Institute.

IBM (2004) Innovations in Corporate Responsibility.

IBM (2005) IBM Response to the Southern Asia Tsunami – Final

Report.

IFRC (2005) World Disasters Report 2005. Geneva: InternationalFederation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies.

Kanter, R. M. (1999) ‘From Spare Change to Real Change: The SocialSector as a Beta Site for Business Innovation’, Harvard Business

Review.

Kelly, C. (1998) ‘On the Relief-to-Development Continuum’, Disasters

22:174–175.

King, N. Jr. (2003) ‘For One Small Education Company, Iraqi SchoolsAre a Huge Challenge’, Wall Street Journal.

Leader, N. (2000) ‘The Politics of Principle: the Principles ofHumanitarian Action in Practice’. London: Overseas DevelopmentInstitute.

Levine, I. (2004) ‘A Clouded Perspective: What Is the Field ofHumanitarianism?’, The Transformations of Humanitarian Action.

Lim, A. A. (2003) ‘The Role of the Business Sector in DisasterPreparedness and Response’, in The International Conference on

Total Disaster Risk Management. Kobe, Japan.

Lindenberg, M. and C. Bryant (2001) Going Global: Transforming

Relief and Development NGOs. Bloomfield, CT: Kumarian Books.

Lohr, S. (2001) ‘A Nation Challenged: The Recovery Expert’, New

York Times.

Maitland, A. (2004) ‘Mailman with a Hunger to Help’, Financial

Times.

McMahon, P, T. Nyheim and A. Schwarz (2006) ‘After the Tsunami:Lessons From Reconstruction’, McKinsey Quarterly.

Minear, L. (1999) ‘The Theory and Practice of Neutrality: SomeThoughts on the Tensions’, International Review of the Red Cross

81:63–71.

Moore, J. (2005) ‘BearingPoint Gets More USAID Work’, FCW Media

Group.

Moore, J. (2005) ‘BearingPoint Serves Diplomacy’, FCW Media Group.

Motorola (2004) ‘Motorola and CARE Bangladesh CelebrateInauguration of Radio Communications Systems’, Dhaka,Bangladesh.

Motorola (2004) ‘Motorola and CARE Connect in Remote Parts ofBangladesh, Congo, and Peru’, Atlanta, GA.

Nelson, J. (2000) The Business of Peace: The Private Sector as

Partner in Conflict Prevention and Resolution. London: InternationalAlert, IBLF, CEP.

OCHA (2003) Glossary of Humanitarian Terms: In Relation to the

Protection of Civilians in Armed Conflict. New York: United Nations.

OECD (2001) Corporate Social Responsibility: Partners for Progress.Paris: OECD.

OECD/DAC Working Party on Aid Evaluation (1999) Guidance for

Evaluating Humanitarian Assistance in Complex Emergencies.Paris: OECD.

People’s Daily Online (2003) UN in Market for Direct Buying fromChina, http://english.people.com.cn/200310/13/eng20031013_125915.shtml, 13 October 2003.

Pictet J. (1979) The Fundamental Principles of the Red Cross:

Commentary.” International Committee of the Red Cross, http://www.icrc.org/web/eng.

Reindorp, N. and P. Wiles (2001) Humanitarian Coordination:

Lessons from Recent Field Experience. New York: Office for theCoordination of Humanitarian Affairs (OCHA).

Renz, L. and S. Lawrence (2006) Giving in the Aftermath of the Gulf

Coast Hurricanes: Report on the Foundation and Corporate

Response. New York: Foundation Center.

Rieth, L. and M. Zimmer (2004) Transnational Corporations and

Conflict Prevention: The Impact of Norms on Private Actors.Tübingen: Tübinger Arbeitspapiere Nr. 43.

Roberts, A. (1999) ‘The Role of Humanitarian Issues in InternationalPolitics in the 1990s’, International Review of the Red Cross.

Roberts, S., J. Keeble and D. Brown (2002) The Business Case for

Corporate Citizenship. Cambridge: Arthur D. Little, Inc.

Rose-Ackerman, S. (1996) ‘Altruism, Nonprofits, and EconomicTheory’, Journal of Economic Literature 34:701–728.

Samii, R. and L. N. Van Wassenhove (2004) The TPG-WFP Partnership

– Learning How To Dance. Fountainbleau, France: INSEAD.

San Francisco Chronicle (2005) ‘On The Record: Lynn Fritz’, 27March 2005.

Sarkar, D. (2005) ‘USAID Awards $77 Million Contract’, FCW Media

Group.

Social Investment Forum (2006) 2005 Report on Socially

Responsible Investing Trends in the United States. Washington DC:Social Investment Forum.

Tamkin, P., J. Hillage, J. Cummings, P. Bates, L. Barber and N. D.Tackey (2000) ‘Doing Business Better. The Long Term Impact ofInvestors in People’, FOCUS Central London.

Terry, F. (2002) Condemned To Repeat? The Paradox of

Humanitarian Action. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.

The Daily Star (2004) Radio Communication to Help Save Lives in

Flood-Prone Areas. 1 December 2004.

The Economist (2006) ‘Dubai Does Aid, Too: The Plushest of NewHomes for the International Aid Industry’, The Economist.

The Irish Times (2005) ‘Nightmare of Aid Logistics Now WorkingLike a Dream’, 11 January 2005.

Thomas, A. (2004) ‘Evaluating Humanitarian Logistics’, Inter-

national Aid and Trade Review, 102–106.

Thomas, A and L. Fritz (2006) ‘Disaster Relief Inc.’, Harvard

Business Review, November.

Tomasini, R. M. and L. N. Van Wassenhove (2003) Coordinating

Disaster Logistics After El Salvador’s Earthquakes Using SUMAS’s

GPPI Brief/paper2nd 12/6/07 3:51 pm Page 42

Page 49: Business engagement in humanitarian relief: key trends and ......business engagement in humanitarian relief highlight the potential for making relief work more effective and efficient

43

HPG BACKGROUND PAPER

Humanitarian Supply Management System. Fontainebleau: INSEADTeaching Case.

Tomasini, R. M. and L. N. Van Wassenhove (2004) ‘Moving theWorld: The TPG-WFP Partnership – Looking for a Partner’.Fontainebleau, France: INSEAD.

Telford, J. and J. Cosgrave (2006) Joint Evaluation of the

International Response to the Indian Ocean Tsunami: Synthesis

Report, Tsunami Evaluation Coalition.

Twigg, J. (2001) Corporate Social Responsibility and Disaster

Reduction: A Global Overview. London: Benfield Greig HazardResearch Centre, University College London.

Twigg, J. (2002) Corporate Social Responsibility and Disaster

Reduction – Conclusions and Recommendations. London: BenfieldGreig Hazard Research Centre, University College London.

United Nations (2006) ‘The Strength of the Human Spirit: Engagingthe Business Sector to Build Back Better. Review of Progress toDate and Recommendations for Further Action’, Draft Report, June2006. New York: United Nations.

UNDP (2006) ‘Recognizing and Incorporating All Resources.Integrating Private Sector Contributions into Aid CoordinationMechanisms’, The Tsunami Case, UNDP Regional Centre Bangkok.

Väyrynen, R. (2000) ‘Preventing Deadly Conflicts: Failures in Iraqand Yugoslavia’, Global Society 14:5–33.

Waddock, S. A. and S. B. Graves (1997) ‘The Corporate Social

Performance-Financial Performance Link’, Strategic Management

Journal, 18:303–319.

Warhurst, A. (2006) ‘Disaster Prevention: A Role for Business?’,Provention Consortium.

Warnes, A. (2006) Water Conditioning and Purification, 48(3).

Waters (2004) IBM is Master of Disaster.

Whiteman, G. A., J. Muller, J. van der Voort, L. van Wijk, L. Meijs andC. Piqué (2005) ‘The Tsunami’s CSR Effect: MNEs and PhilanthropicResponses to the Disaster’, Research in Management. Rotterdam:Erasmus Research Institute of Management.

Woodworth, B. (2001) The India Earthquake: International Disaster

Response.

Woodworth, B. (2005) Enhanced Partnerships for Global

Humanitarian Relief and Diplomacy, edited by IBM Global Services– IBM Business Resilience and Continuity Services.

World Bank Independent Evaluation Group (2006) Hazards of

Nature, Risks to Development: An IEG Evaluation of World Bank

Assistance for Natural Disasters. Washington DC: InternationalBank for Reconstruction and Development/World Bank.

World Economic Forum (2000) Partnerships Are Key to Philanthropy

in the Future.

World Economic Forum (2003) ‘The Corporate Role in DisasterRelief Efforts’, Interview with Bob Bellhouse.

GPPI Brief/paper2nd 12/6/07 3:51 pm Page 43

Page 50: Business engagement in humanitarian relief: key trends and ......business engagement in humanitarian relief highlight the potential for making relief work more effective and efficient

44

HPG BACKGROUND PAPER

GPPI Brief/paper2nd 12/6/07 3:51 pm Page 44

Page 51: Business engagement in humanitarian relief: key trends and ......business engagement in humanitarian relief highlight the potential for making relief work more effective and efficient

i

Contents

List of abbreviations iii

Executive summary

1

Chapter 1 Introduction 3

Chapter 2 The humanitarian domain: key trends and developments 5

2.1 The transformation of the humanitarian domain: an emerging market? 52.2 The humanitarian domain as a quasi-market dominated by several big players 62.3 Conclusion 7

Chapter 3 The new face of corporate philanthropy? The changing nature of business engagement in 9

humanitarian relief

3.1 Results of scoping exercise 93.2 Analysis and conclusions 123.3 Outlook 17

Chapter 4 A profitable market? Commercial business engagement in humanitarian relief 19

4.1 Donors and commercial business engagement in humanitarian relief 194.2 Results of scoping exercise 204.3 Analysis and conclusions 214.4 Outlook 23

Chapter 5 Conclusions and policy recommendations 25

5.1 Policy recommendations: non-commercial business engagement in humanitarian relief 255.2 Policy recommendations: commercial business engagement in humanitarian relief 265.3 Conclusions 26

Appendix I 29

Appendix II 33

Appendix III 38

References 41

GPPI Brief/paper2nd 12/6/07 3:51 pm Page i

Page 52: Business engagement in humanitarian relief: key trends and ......business engagement in humanitarian relief highlight the potential for making relief work more effective and efficient

HumanitarianPolicy Group

hpg

Overseas Development

Institute

Humanitarian Policy GroupOverseas Development Institute111 Westminster Bridge RoadLondon SE1 7JDUnited Kingdom

Tel. +44 (0) 20 7922 0300Fax. +44 (0) 20 7922 0399

E-mail: [email protected]: www.odi.org.uk/hpgand www.odihpn.org