The potential role of philanthropy in humanitarian supply chains delivery: the case of Thailand Open Access

The importance of corporate social responsibility (CSR) has risen over the years because of firms’ impact to society. Firms’ purpose must not solely be focused on profit making but should take into account other issues such as employee and consumer rights, environmental protection, ethical and philanthropic responsibilities (Carroll, 1991; Carroll and Shabana, 2010; Porter and Kramer, 2011). Firms need to adopt CSR strategies in order to become responsible corporate citizen and maintain competitive advantage (Carroll and Shabana, 2010). Competitive advantage derived from CSR can increase firms’ revenue and reputation (Porter and Kramer, 2006; Lee, 2008; Carroll and Shabana, 2010; Rangan et al., 2015).

Strategic philanthropy is a way of doing philanthropy as explained by Carroll (1991) in his CSR pyramid. It refers to firm’s strategy in serving both firm’s interests and a beneficiary community’s interest (Tokarski, 1999; Saiia et al., 2003; Carroll and Shabana, 2010; Gautier and Pache, 2015). Researchers suggested that firm’s strategic philanthropy can be done with relief agencies (e.g. non-profit organizations (NPOs), governments) involved in humanitarian relief programs (Maon et al., 2009; Carroll and Shabana, 2010; Johnson et al., 2011). Johnson et al. (2011) further indicated that firm’s strategic philanthropy can have an important role to play in humanitarian relief programs as they can provide in-kind and in-cash support. Madsen and Rodgers (2015) stated that this type of strategic philanthropy could help gain more stakeholders’ attentions and reflect on firms’ corporate financial performance. The purpose of this study is to provide a framework on how strategic philanthropy can be included in the humanitarian supply chains delivery.

Humanitarian relief has been the focus of many supply chain researchers (Van Wassenhove, 2006; Oloruntoba and Gray, 2006; Pettit and Beresford, 2009; Maon et al., 2009). The literature shows that firm’s supply chain management principles could be well applied in the humanitarian context, which is often referred to as humanitarian supply chains. Important contributions from the literature are the types of disasters (Van Wassenhove, 2006), stages of humanitarian relief processes (Kovács and Spens, 2009), coordination and collaboration in humanitarian supply chains (Pettit and Beresford, 2009; Akhtar et al., 2012).

The difference between a firm’s supply chain and the humanitarian supply chains is that the latter one is more unstable (Oloruntoba and Kovács, 2015) and unpredictable (Van Wassenhove, 2006). This has enhanced the challenge to the management of humanitarian supply chains. Kunz and Reiner (2012) indicated that the consequences of a disaster require many actors and the response to a disaster should not take too long. Pettit and Beresford (2009) and Akhtar et al. (2012) also argued that humanitarian supply chains need better coordination, cooperation, and collaboration.

Strategic philanthropy can be a guiding principle for firms involved in humanitarian reliefs. However, strategic philanthropy is subject to limitations. Researchers have found that most of the philanthropic activities often suffer from a lack of coordination and implementation roadmap as well as being rarely maintained in the long term (Porter and Kramer, 2011; Gautier and Pache, 2015; Rangan et al., 2015). Rangan et al. (2015) further stated that philanthropic activities rarely addressed social and environmental issues. In the context of humanitarian reliefs, Johnson et al. (2011) suggested that firms should develop strategic philanthropic policies that would support more stakeholder collaboration and increase responsiveness to disasters.

This manuscript suggests that firms can develop strategic philanthropy activities within the context of humanitarian supply chain management. A framework is posited to help companies in their strategic philanthropic policy implementation in the case of humanitarian reliefs. A real-life case study is then used to identify key success factors for the proposed strategic philanthropy delivery framework implementation.

This manuscript starts with a review of the literature followed by a proposed strategic philanthropy delivery framework. A case study provide further clarifications of the proposed framework in the following section. Finally, findings, discussions, conclusions, limitations, and potential future studies are suggested.

Carroll (1979, 1991) defined firm’s role into four groups which are economic, legal, ethical, and discretionary/philanthropic responsibilities. Economic and legal responsibilities are important requirements for firms to maintain their business, while the two other responsibilities, ethical and philanthropic, are expected of firms when interacting with society (Carroll, 1991; Carroll and Shabana, 2010). Corporate philanthropy is explained in the Carroll’s (1991) seminal paper (Gautier and Pache, 2015) and refers to “corporate actions that are in response to society’s expectation that businesses be good corporate citizens […] actively engaging in acts or programs to promote human welfare or goodwill” (Carroll, 1991). Researchers suggested that philanthropy can be done through NPOs such as private and public educational institutions, as well as charitable institutions, which are working in helping society and improving community’s quality of life (Carroll, 1991; Carroll and Shabana, 2010). Firms can contribute to society in the form of monetary support (in-cash) as well as other kind of resources (in-kind) such as firm’s knowledge, employees’ and customers’ charitable activities, volunteering, etc.

It has been argued that CSR lack strategic linkages to firms’ main business goal (Porter and Kramer, 2002, 2006; Rangan et al., 2015). Several researchers tried to proposed practical applications for CSR and corporate philanthropy activities to become more strategic (see Kanter, 1998; Porter and Kramer, 2002). Rangan et al. (2015) suggested that most strategic CSR activities and their benefits can be categorized into three main themes: philanthropy, operational improvement, and business-model transformation (as illustrated in Table I).

In addition to CSR, corporate philanthropy has often been criticized by neoclassical economists and agency theorists that it lacks clear economic outcomes such as profit and utility maximization and therefore need to be revisited as “strategic philanthropy” (Gautier and Pache, 2015). These two views have different purposes, whether a firm should do philanthropy solely for giving away or should give in an exchange for some form of returns. Saiia et al. (2003) defined “philanthropic strategy” as “a firm [that] is orderly in the methods and procedures it uses to give away money,” and defined “strategic philanthropy” as “the corporate resources that are given [and] have meaning and impact on the firm as well as the community that receives those resources” (Saiia et al., 2003). They further stated that strategic philanthropy is the opposite end of corporate philanthropy, as returns from such philanthropy should produce a synergistic outcome to both firms and the society as a whole. Tokarski (1999) also defined strategic philanthropy as “the process by which contributions are targeted to serve direct business interests while also servicing beneficiary organizations.” Carroll and Shabana (2010) suggested that this kind of corporate philanthropy can be done simultaneously focusing on both firms’ and society’s interests.

Carroll (1991) mentioned that a firm could use CSR, including philanthropy, to differentiate its positioning apart from competitors. Researchers suggested that competitive advantage derived from strategic philanthropy could increase both firm’s revenue and reputation. Strategic philanthropy can generate sales growth (Lev et al., 2010), increase employees’ moral, improve company’s social standing (Porter and Kramer, 2006; Rangan et al., 2015), and reflect improved corporate financial performance and stock value (Muller and Kräussl, 2011; Madsen and Rodgers, 2015). Researchers suggested that strategic philanthropy may be conducted with relief agencies such as NPOs, non-governmental organizations (NGOs) and governments which are involved in humanitarian reliefs (Thomas and Fritz, 2006; Maon et al., 2009; Carroll and Shabana, 2010; Johnson et al., 2011). Johnson et al. (2011) further indicated that firms’ strategic philanthropy have an important role to play in humanitarian relief programs as they can provide in-kind and in-cash supports. Madsen and Rodgers (2015) also stated that firms providing in-kind supports in humanitarian relief programs could raise attentions from internal and external stakeholders and improve firms’ actual corporate financial performance.

Strategic philanthropy is subject to limitations. Researchers have argued that a firm’s philanthropic activities often lacked strategic value and not linked with its business model (Austin, 2000; Porter and Kramer, 2002; Gautier and Pache, 2015). Porter and Kramer (2011) further argued that some firms over emphasized on creating reputation and were careless on the actual outcomes to the targeted communities. Rangan et al. (2015) stated that most CSR policies, including philanthropic activities, were derived from top management but because of lacked coordination between management levels, the activities did not address beneficiaries’ requirements. They further provided an example of a fast-food company with a blood donation program rather than donate their excess food to the poor and homeless.

In the humanitarian relief context, Johnson et al. (2011) stated that firms’ strategic philanthropy should be more in collaboration, not only within internally and among firms’ supply chain partners but also with public agencies to increase efficiency and effectiveness in disaster response. At the operational level, researchers have suggested that it is important to investigate how firms select and fund relief organizations, how they select disaster causes and target beneficiaries, how they operate their programs and collaborate with other firms (Johnson et al., 2011; Gautier and Pache, 2015). More research on these issues could help academia and practitioners understand more how firms can develop successful philanthropic goals (Gautier and Pache, 2015).

This manuscript uses the definition of disasters and relief phases based on two main references. Van Wassenhove (2006) classified disasters into four types based on two dimensions, speed of disasters (slow-onsets, sudden-onsets) and cause of disasters (natural or man-made), while Kovács and Spens (2009) stated that the causes of disasters might not be mutually exclusive, such as floods could be caused by both nature (heavy rain) and man-made (deforestation). They further proposed that disaster relief could be separated into four distinct phases. In the mitigation phase, analysis, regulations revisions, procedures, and policies are important as they could mitigate society’s vulnerability. In the preparation phase, society and all actors must prepare for and prevent disaster, while immediate response need to be deployed after the disaster. In the reconstruction phase, recovery, rehabilitation, and development are needed. Researchers suggested that disaster relief phases are similar to a cycle loop arranged as preparation, response, reconstruction, and mitigation (Pettit and Beresford, 2005; Scholten et al., 2014). Maon et al. (2009) proposed a dual cycle model indicating that phases were not mutually exclusive and the same actor or many actors could participate in any phase, such as a relief agency could participate simultaneously in mitigation and reconstruction phase while another could focus on the preparation and the response phase.

Each humanitarian relief phase is related to different activities based on different types of disasters. In the preparation phase, man-made disasters can be prevented, while preparation for natural disasters can be done, for example, relief agencies and society could have a training program for emergency evacuation and a pre-purchasing of relief supplies (Kovács and Spens, 2009). Some researchers also suggested that a sudden-onset disaster that creates a large impact on physical infrastructure needs an immediate response followed by reconstruction, while a slow-onset disaster allows relief agencies to plan and reduce its effect (Oloruntoba and Gray, 2006; Kovács and Spens, 2007).

During humanitarian relief efforts, actors have to form relationships and work together in order to help victims or affected people. To identify these actors and relationships, one has to go back to supply chains management research as theories used in supply chains discipline are also used in the humanitarian supply chains research (Tabaklar et al., 2015). The agency theory and stakeholder theory are two important theories that must be considered.

The agency theory has a dichotomous view based on Fayezi et al. (2012). One aims “on determining the most efficient contract governing the principle-agent relationship” (Eisenhardt, 1989, p. 58), that is both actors aim to “maximise their positions through individual interpretation of the contract” (Fayezi et al., 2012, p. 557). Another relaxes the previous assumption and focuses more in complexities of real-world supply chains management where non-rational behaviors are surrounded by other factors that outweighs contractual relationships (Fayezi et al., 2012). Fayezi et al. (2012) further emphasized that an application of the agency theory related to the supply chains management literature is dearth. As supply chains management and humanitarian supply chains research shares a common pool of theories, the application of the agency theory related to humanitarian relief operations remains yet to be explored. Due to the scarcity of academic papers and the theory definition focusing on two actors, i.e. principle and agent, the agency theory may not be appropriate to explore the holistic view of this manuscript.

Stakeholder theory emphasized that the goal of organization must take into account all groups or individuals who can affect or are affected by the organization’s activities (Freeman, 1994). In the supply chain management perspective, an organization has a role to create joint interests gathered from all other stakeholders and form win-win outcomes over time through supply chains collaboration (Freeman et al., 2004). Many researchers have adopted this theory and provided various models explaining actors and their relationships in humanitarian relief operations (Kovács and Spens, 2007; Balcik et al., 2010; Akhtar et al., 2012).

Kovács and Spens (2007) provided a broad view of actors’ grouping based on involvement level in relief operations. They indicated that a regional perspective consisted of local governments, military, local firms, and regional relief agencies, while an extra-regional perspective consisted of international actors such as the United Nations, larger relief agencies, other extra-regional NGOs, and logistics providers. Maon et al. (2009) categorized customers in humanitarian supply chains as end-consumers (beneficiaries such as victims and survivors), donors (outside stakeholders who donate money and would like to know how their money is utilized), governments (recipient countries), and others such as local communities, military, NGOs, logistic providers.

Global and local relief agencies are primary actors in humanitarian supply chains which receive funding from donors that could either be individual donors, private firms, and government (Kovács and Spens, 2007; Oloruntoba and Kovács, 2015). Researchers recognized that firms have an important role to play as they can provide in-cash and in-kind supports, such as service and knowledge to beneficiaries (Maon et al., 2009; Balcik et al., 2010; Johnson et al., 2011). Hence, a firm could have both philanthropic relationship as a donor and commercial relationship as a seller at price-based cost to the relief agencies (Balcik et al., 2010).

For several years, humanitarian supply chains have adopted a participatory approach. This method allows local communities to participate in the design and the development of humanitarian relief plans processes (Barry and Barham, 2012; Brown et al., 2014). Participation of community leaders and their local communities can help humanitarian reliefs operations more efficiently by mitigating several difficulties such as cultural exclusions, trust in the relief agencies, managing the expectations of the local community, and offering relief agency with local knowledge (Barry and Barham, 2012). Many firms have implemented their humanitarian relief programs through local communities and local leaders, for example, a company trained community leaders and local people on preparing and responding to disasters (Johnson et al., 2011). This participatory approach strategy has a direct impact on humanitarian supply chains performance but the type of impact of this approach in the design of humanitarian supply chains is still under-researched (Oloruntoba and Kovács, 2015). The role of community leaders at each stage of disaster relief need to be further explored.

Researchers suggested that firms may have long-term interaction with relief agencies through strategic partnerships in which firms might share their skills and knowledge to help relief agencies in developing and implementing humanitarian relief programs (Maon et al., 2009; Balcik et al., 2010). Thomas and Fritz (2006) suggested that the establishment of a partnership between firms and relief organizations before a disaster occur can help relief efforts become more effective. The collaborations between these actors usually create win-win outcome. NGOs need resources and more effective relief managements and firms desire to legitimize their CSR activities as both parties ultimately help relief beneficiaries from disasters (Thomas and Fritz, 2006; Maon et al., 2009). According to Maon et al. (2009), three perspectives are offered: financial, capability, and entanglement. These three perspectives can explain how the collaboration between firms and relief agencies can help in improving humanitarian supply chains. As relief organizations engage more with the private sector, their capabilities are increased as they can access firms’ resources such as infrastructure and knowledge, and can improve relief efficiency and effectiveness. In the entanglement perspective, a firm may have a long-term commitment to provide its resources and help manage disasters with relief agencies.

Austin (2000) suggested strategic collaboration stages between firms and NPOs based on the nature of the relationship as described in Table II. The higher the level, the more intense the relationship is.

The literature discussed that humanitarian supply chains encounter many challenges. Various types of disasters and humanitarian relief operational phases are the most serious problems. One disaster might create multi-negative effects and this require many actors and various types of supplies to provide relief (Van Wassenhove, 2006; Kovács and Spens, 2009; Kunz and Reiner, 2012). Humanitarian relief activities are often based on short-term issues and long-term relief programs may have conflicting objectives with response phase relief operations (Kovács and Spens, 2009; Kunz and Reiner, 2012).

Responsiveness is a key issue in disaster relief as aid should arrive in time, in the right place, and in the right condition to beneficiaries (Banomyong and Sopadang, 2010). However, the correct relief activities might not reach targeted recipients. The relief programs might not meet the requirements of the affected areas with minimal control over suppliers (Oloruntoba and Gray, 2006). Institutional problems in humanitarian supply chains are another critical issue, NGOs and governments may suffer from insufficient suppliers, limited budget, lack of skilled workers in their institutions, government regulations, and language barriers (Kovács and Spens, 2009; Akhtar et al., 2012; Barry and Barham, 2012). Researchers stated that there was a need for better coordination, cooperation, and collaboration among actors in humanitarian supply chains (Pettit and Beresford, 2009; Maon et al., 2009; Akhtar et al., 2012). Maon et al. (2009) further suggested that determining how these different actors work together and how partnerships need to be built on trust and collaboration is important.

Table III summarizes the discussed literature and illustrates relationships among types of disaster and operations relief phases as well as provides examples of relief activities as described by Johnson et al. (2011). Johnson et al. (2011) summarized the CSR reports of the US companies listed in Fortune Magazine and categorized firms’ philanthropic activities, including examples of both in-kind and in-cash, based on the stages of disaster reliefs. Immediate philanthropic activities were most proper in response and reconstruction phase, while long-term philanthropic activities were most relevant to preparation and mitigation phase. Other examples of disasters were derived from Van Wassenhove (2006).

The case study research has been used widely in humanitarian supply chain research (Kovács and Spens, 2009; Banomyong and Sopadang, 2010; Akhtar et al., 2012). Yin (2013) suggested that case study research allowed researchers to explore real-life experiences in real-world situations. The method is good at investigating how and why relationship mechanisms work in contemporary phenomenon such as studying the present and the recent past (Yin, 2013). It can lead researchers to new insights and develop new theoretical propositions as well as can be used for theory testing (Voss et al., 2002). A single case study is appropriate when researchers desire to determine whether their propositions are correct or should add some more explanations as well as to confirm, challenge, and extend the theory (Yin, 2013). In a triangulating fashion, Voss et al. (2002) and Yin (2013) suggested that a single case research could deal with multiple sources of evidence such as documents, interviews, and observations. They further stated that using in-depth inquiry in a single case allowed researchers to obtain in-depth data related to several contexts at the same site. A single case study could be used as a guide to conduct multiple cases study (Yin, 2013). Through triangulation with multiple data collections and multiple cases, the validity can be increased further (Voss et al., 2002).

This study uses a single case study in a retrospective manner, allowing researchers to collect data on the past event (Voss et al., 2002). However, conducting a single case study research is subject to limitations. It lacks the generalizability of the findings from the case to any broader level (Yin, 2013). Voss et al. (2002) stated that researchers could misjudged a single case by exaggerating easily available data. They also mentioned that conducting a retrospective case might be difficult in determining cause and effect and respondents might not recall some important information that could have problem.

This manuscript aims to test the proposed framework against a case study by examining whether actual practices fit the proposed framework in this specific case as well as how the framework can be applied in this case. The case is also used in observing on how a firm’s strategic philanthropy can be performed successfully in the humanitarian relief.

Procter and Gamble (P&G) Global and its CSR programs related to humanitarian relief efforts have been mentioned by Johnson et al. (2011). The company has a non-profit program called “Children’s Safe Drinking Water” (CSDW) that helps people who have no access to clean water with a water purifier called “PUR™” by donating the product or selling at cost to relief agencies (Christensen and Seagle, 2011; Schrader et al., 2012). PUR™ was developed in collaboration with the US Center for Disease Control and Prevention. A packet with four grams of powder mixture can turn ten liters of contaminated water into clean and drinkable water by removing pathogenic microorganisms and suspending dirt (for details, see Clean Water Project Team, 2013). It costs only US$0.04 per sachet and is easy to use (Baddache, 2007; for cost and benefit comparisons, see Christensen and Seagle, 2011). This could save people from water starvation as well as reduce the relief agencies’ costs of bottled water and transportation. P&G Thailand was involved in the 2011 Thailand flood by donating the water purifier to help people affected by the flood through a relief organization (CSDW, 2011). It is chosen as an illustrative case on how this proposed framework is implemented. Case study research is used to explore and investigate into how relationships among actors in humanitarian supply chains in 2011 Thailand flood were formed and worked in each phase of the flood during the relief efforts.

Four P&G’s representatives ranging from operational to management level (one CSR manager, one sales and marketing manager, two supply chain managers) who were mainly involved in the 2011 Thailand flood were asked to be the respondents and were informed of the purpose of this study. P&G’s CSDW related documents (CSDW, 2011; Clean Water Project Team, 2013) were reviewed to obtain initial data and information of P&G’s standpoint. Semi-structured interviews based on the literature and the documents were conducted to gain primary data. Open-ended questions were initially used and then the questions became more specific (Voss et al., 2002). The respondents were asked about their roles in the flood relief as well as the process of how each actor worked. After the main interviews were conducted for an hour for each person, detailed notes were taken and conversations were made with the respondents who wished to add more insights. To mitigate the limitations and to ensure reliability and validity of the case, interviewed data were triangulated with multiple sources from published documents, news, reports, and websites related to P&G’s CSDW involved in the 2011 Thailand flood. Triangulations revealed common patterns of how CSDW program was processed. Sequences of events and relationships between constructs (activities and actors) were established.

Respondents and other data sources show a convergence of evidence indicating that several main actors as well as their relationships were established in three phases of the flood disaster, i.e. preparation, immediate response, and reconstruction phase. Figure 1 illustrate the role played by all actors in each disaster phase during the flood.

P&G’s CSDW program participated in the 2011 Thailand flood by donating and distributing PUR™ packets to the affected people through a relief agency, the Princess Pa Foundation under the Thai Red Cross Society (hereafter “Princess Pa Foundation”). The foundation collaborated with P&G Thailand and enabled the company to access to the affected community and distributed an estimated two million PUR™ packets to the people who suffered from the flood. The Princess Pa Foundation was established during the 1995 Bangkok flood by Princess Bajrakitiyabha. It is a non-profit making humanitarian organization operating under the Thai Red Cross Society, a major humanitarian relief organization in Thailand. Its main objectives are to support and complement other actors in humanitarian relief actions as well as to supply drinking water to those suffered from a severe flood disaster (Princess Pa Foundation, 2004).

With the help from the Princess Pa Foundation and the Thai Government, community leaders who lived in the flood area were identified. Community leaders played an important role in coordinating with P&G and the foundation in humanitarian relief efforts. They had the best knowledge related to the need of their communities, knew where and when to use PUR™ packets, and helped other actors in coordinating with the people under their charge. P&G connected and established relationship with these community leaders through the foundation’s network. As the foundation has conducted humanitarian relief, especially since the 1995 flooding, this nourishes a strong connection with these community leaders. P&G took the initiative to give knowledge and train volunteers of the Princess Pa Foundation and the Thai Red Cross Society on the proper use of P&G water purification packets. These volunteers consequently were able to train the community leaders who played a critical role in storing and distributing PUR™ packets as well as training and convincing their villagers to use the product in the proper way.

Modern trade retailers acted as distributors of PUR™ packets during the flood. They had an important role in the preparation and response phase. These six retailers were Tesco, 7-11, Big-C, Tops, Foodland, and the Mall group. They are all P&G key customers in Thailand. In a normal situation, in a commercial relationship, P&G sell its products to the retailers who distribute and sell P&G’s products to consumers. On top of this commercial relationship, the Customer Business Development team of P&G and procurement team as well as key managers from the retailers interacted to work continuously in improving service level, supply chain performance, and key promotion activities. This is of benefit to both parties, and raised the relationship level in the supply chain.

During the flood, P&G exercised its partnership with retailers by engaging them to join its CSR program, where both had the aim to help consumers who were affected by the flood. P&G leveraged the retailers’ core competency by using their stores located nearby flooded areas to store PUR™ packets and distribute the product to the affected people.

The case study shows that if a firm wants its strategic philanthropy to become successful in the humanitarian relief contexts, it has to consider the role of the other actors. The firm need to think about how it can utilize others actors’ core competencies to support its strategic philanthropic program. In this case, the relief agency, community leaders, and modern trade retailers were parts of the success of the P&G’s strategic philanthropic program.

Firms and relief agencies can take advantages of each other’s core competencies to deliver better relief efforts (Thomas and Fritz, 2006). As suggested in the literature, a relief agency, i.e. Princess Pa Foundation, played a critical role in this humanitarian supply chain. Together with P&G Thailand, both parties participated in all phases but mostly in the preparation and response phases. In the case of P&G Thailand, where customers in humanitarian supply chains were the people affected by the flood, they knew where the product came from as well as who came to help them to relief their suffering. This might positively affect firm’s reputation as suggested in the literature that a firm’s in-kind donation in disaster relief activities could produce reputations and competitive advantage through stakeholders’ attention. However, from end-consumer viewpoints, huge public relations and donations from a firm’s philanthropic programs may have less credibility (Öberseder et al., 2011). P&G might have this desire to enhance its reputation but in order to reduce its public relation risk and to legitimize its CSR program, the firm donated its product through the Pa Foundation that is considered neutral position as a NPO. The case further provide another insight that, as a Thai royal foundation operating in the humanitarian relief field for many years, it enabled the firm to not only identify community leaders but to quickly gain trust in the affected communities. Local people believed, trusted, and used the product distributed by P&G through the foundation.

Participations of local actors, such as local people, local governments, and local businesses, in the disaster planning process is important, and these actors will play a major role in response and recovery phases (Brown et al., 2014; Oloruntoba and Kovács, 2015). Based on the case, which is consistent with the literature, the community leaders were key actors in all the phases as they helped connect all involved in the relief effort. Empowering local leaders and engaging them in the relief phases helped relief activities become more efficient as they have the authority to talk with their people and the respect in balancing benefits between relief agencies and their people (Barry and Barham, 2012). Hence, community leaders were the key intermediaries between not only the affected people and the relief agencies but also the firm. They helped P&G in storing the product and convincing their people to use the product when the emergency occurred.

Previous studies have suggested the role of retailers in distributing supplies for humanitarian relief efforts. Regional retailers can play an important role in distributing supplies in disaster areas (Kovács and Spens, 2007). They are the coordinator at the last mile nodes in humanitarian relief efforts (Sodhi and Tang, 2014). Banomyong et al. (2009) stated that retailers could support relief actors by providing their capabilities in accessing and distributing relief supplies to the local people in affected areas where their stores were located in there. Retailers’ logistics networks capabilities are usually high performing and therefore, with their strengths, responsiveness in humanitarian relief efforts can become more effective. As shown in this case, P&G used the modern trade retailers’ logistics capabilities in distributing its product in several flooded areas.

It must be noted that retailers that are located within a local community will also have their own strategic philanthropic programs (Amato and Amato, 2012). They may prefer to join a firm’s philanthropic program if it can fulfill their own philanthropic purpose. If a firm wants to be successful in its strategic philanthropy, it must consider the potential role of modern trade retailer. Firms participating in humanitarian relief efforts with a philanthropic purpose can create win-win situations for all involved actors. Relief agencies could decrease their overall logistics costs, while victims and affected people will receive sufficient help on time and firms might receive some benefits beyond positive reputation.

The case expands from the proposed framework on how P&G CSDW worked. This section presents the coordination mechanisms in each phase of the disaster relief. Several key success factors are identified related to P&G’s strategic philanthropic program.

Figure 2 shows how P&G Thailand executed its strategic philanthropy in the preparedness phase. The firm initially worked with the Thai Government and Princess Pa Foundation to identify flood-prone provinces such as Chiang Mai, Utaradit, and Nakorn Srithammarat and their community leaders. Instead of using the usual central storage locations of the Thai Red Cross and other military areas, which would increase the transit time to reach the targeted communities, the company donated PUR™ packets to Princess Pa foundation to be stored and distributed with a survival kit to community leaders. About one month before the flood, P&G Thailand communication leader and a representative from the foundation trained 100 community leaders in each flood-prone province who had to further train their villagers on how to use the product, follow-up to ensure the proper use, and keep reporting to the foundation on the village demand for the product. Community leaders were also required to store some PUR™ packets, approximately 2,400-4,800 packets, at their home to prepare for the distribution. During this phase, P&G Thailand did not actively engage with its retailers much. There was no established contract with them to store PUR™ packets at retailers’ stores in the high-risk areas. Instead, P&G Thailand continually strengthened their supply chain partnership level through commercial and non-commercial activities. P&G also continually informed its retailers about its CSR programs, including the CSDW program, through Medias, social media, and direct interactions via meetings and workshops.

Three key success factors in preparedness phase were identified that helped P&G’s strategic philanthropy become successful: working with the foundation allowed P&G Thailand to reach the affected communities and enabled it to execute its program with the affected people; identifying the community leaders in the flood-prone areas as well as training those community leaders; and use of community leaders to convince affected people to cooperate on relief efforts.

As the flood occurred (Figure 3), P&G Thailand considered whether the distribution of PUR™ packets appropriate or not. The company assessed the water quality level such as the availability of drinking water sources and water quality in the flood areas, the readiness of target communities if they had well-trained people and capable of using the product, and the availability of materials such as water buckets and cotton filters for making the clean water. PUR™ packets attached with a Thai language instruction were distributed from the trained community leaders. Afterward, these community leaders together with P&G communication leader and Princess Pa Foundation volunteers followed-up with households to ensure the appropriate use of PUR™. According to the established partnership with the retailers, P&G representatives reached out to the managers of those retailers. During this phase, the Customer Business Development team asked for an engagement from the retailers in helping in the flood relief. Leveraging the retailers’ core competencies of having retail stores across countries, one million packets were stored and distributed from several retailers’ stores operating nearby to the flooded areas.

The case illustrate that working with the community leaders was the key success factor in this phase as they were the key informers who reported situations related to their communities together with the representatives of the relief agencies and P&G who communicated and followed up on the proper use of the product in the affected communities. Retailers’ logistics system was another key success factor as it helped in the distribution of PUR™ packets to the affected people.

After the flood (Figure 4), the Princess Pa Foundation maintained its connection with the community leaders to ensure the sufficient supply and the proper use of PUR™ product by regularly assessing and using a questionnaire for the community follow-up. P&G continually connected closely with the foundation to provide knowledge and training on how to use the product as needed.

In the reconstruction phase, knowing the requirement and meet it was the key success factor for P&G Thailand in executing its philanthropic program. As the company followed up its performance, future relief plan and execution could therefore be more effective with the lessons learned from the past event.

Based on Austin (2000), collaboration relationship between P&G Thailand and Princess Pa Foundation can be illustrated as follows. P&G Global has had a long history of philanthropy and spend much resources in its philanthropic programs (Christensen and Seagle, 2011). In the 2011 Thailand flood, P&G Thailand donated many packets of PUR^TM in numerous disasters through the Princess Pa Foundation. The firm had a particular strategic plan that connected to the firm’s philanthropic mission called the CSDW program. It also participated in all the phases of disaster reliefs and had high engagement with many key actors in the situation. Interactions and managements in each phase were complex and intensive. Hence, the authors would like to note that P&G Thailand had an integrative collaborative relationship with the Princess Pa Foundation.

The proposed framework and the case study in this manuscript can be used as an illustrative example for firms wanting to successfully operationalize their strategic philanthropy during disaster relief. The proposed framework can help practitioners on knowing which disasters and which phases they should participate in as well as how and when to engage in relief efforts. Figure 5 summarizes steps and tools that may useful in identifying the type of strategic philanthropic program to be developed within the humanitarian relief context. It also illustrate key actors as well as key success factors in each phases of relief efforts that may help the success of firm’s strategic philanthropy.

Van Wassenhove’s (2006) model can help firms to identify, from the types of disaster, if its products or services are appropriate. Firms can search and establish relationship with relief agencies which are more involved in selected disaster. The model of disaster relief stages can guide firms to know the phase that suits firms’ capability. However, firms must coordinate with relief agencies in identifying which relief stages would be the most beneficial.

Firms need to have clear protocols and action plans for every phase of humanitarian reliefs they are going to be involved in. This can be done with the participation of all related actors in humanitarian supply chains. In the preparedness phase, relief agencies and community leaders are important as they can build trust and assist firms in accessing the community. Working with relief agencies in identifying community leaders and training them are the key success factors in this phase. In the response phase, community leaders are still the intermediaries between the relief institutions and the affected people while modern trade retailers and their logistic systems can help improve relief efforts responsiveness as they are in the affected areas and can distribute supplies as needed. At the reconstruction phase, knowing and meeting up the follow up requirements are critical in this phase. Firms must continue to collaborate with relief agencies and the community leaders to recover the losses, ensure the sufficient supplies, follow-up and evaluate the execution, revise and improve the relief plans and policies. Maintaining the relationship with relief agencies and all actors is critical for the future execution. With a well-prepared plan and collaboration among those actors, efficiency and effectiveness of humanitarian relief efforts as well as responsiveness to the disasters can be enhanced.

In terms of corporate philanthropy, the case provides some suggestions. First, PUR^TM was not successful in commercial market as the focus was for selling the product to poor people at the bottom of pyramid however, it is successful when it became part of a philanthropic purpose (Christensen and Seagle, 2011). This suggests that people might not know the usefulness of the product as well as might not be concerned with the necessity to have the product in response to emergencies. As the product might be solely appropriate for a specific emergency case such as lacking of drinking water, this might not be usual for people to buy and store it in their homes. According to Berger et al. (2007), a company initiates its CSR due to three reasons that are for non-economic, for purely economic, and for both reasons. As philanthropic responsibility is a part of CSR dimensions, a company’s philanthropy in the context of humanitarian reliefs might fit into any reason explained above.

This manuscript has used P&G as an illustrative case. The company is known as one of the best practice supply chain management in the world (Aronow et al., 2014, 2016). This helps the firm to distribute aid efficiently to targeted locations and people in time. However, in many cases, most firms may not have such capability as some firms may have weaker supply chains or suffer from a lack of integrated logistics system. Relief aid then may be lost or arrive late and, hence, their strategic philanthropy may not be successful. Researchers suggested that logistics service providers can play an important role in humanitarian supply chains as they can cooperate with public and private organizations and support humanitarian logistics operations (Kovács and Spens, 2007, 2009; Vega and Roussat, 2015). There are examples of logistics service providers participating in humanitarian operations. Kovács and Spens (2007) provided an example of how DHL helped in the distribution of aid to beneficiaries. Johnson et al. (2011) observed that UPS used its assets to help relief operations in the response phase while FedEx donated trucks to a relief organization. Figure 6 posits that logistics service providers could act as another key actor in humanitarian supply chains by enhancing the philanthropic firm’s logistics performance and improve the firm’s humanitarian relief efforts. Logistics service providers could be the solution for a firm with weak supply chains and assist the firm to meet its strategic philanthropic commitment.

This manuscript explored how strategic philanthropy was delivered within the context of humanitarian supply chains. The case study of P&G Thailand involvement in the 2011 Thailand flood disaster illustrates how all actors can collaborate in humanitarian supply chains, specifically in each phase of the humanitarian relief efforts. A roadmap derived from the case is presented as a guideline and provides assessment tools that can help firms wanting success in delivering strategic philanthropy in the humanitarian relief context. Firms participating in humanitarian relief efforts need to create win-win outcomes to all parties in humanitarian supply chains.

The case study, from a CSR perspective, could help practitioners in developing successful strategic philanthropy in the humanitarian relief context. Lessons learned from P&G Thailand’s CSDW provide clear guidelines that could be generalized to other firms and organizations interested in supporting humanitarian relief efforts. They could utilize the framework and the roadmap as a guideline on how to identify disaster types, how to engage with the key actors, and how to implement and deliver their philanthropic programs within humanitarian supply chains. If relief efforts have to start before disasters, a company’s CSR programs have to initiate even before any disaster is identified. With proactive engaging and end-to-end processes as well as collaboration with all actors and integration of all partners’ competencies, values, and goals, the strategic philanthropy program can be of benefit to all parties.

This manuscript suggests that every firm can initiate strategic philanthropy within the humanitarian relief contexts. The variety within the commercial sectors can support various types of humanitarian relief efforts. Different firms can supply various resources in different disaster types and different relief phases. This might mitigate the problems such as insufficient resources and humanitarian logistics costs. With good planning in each phase, humanitarian relief efforts could be prolonged and humanitarian supply chains could become more efficient and effective in terms of physical and information flows. Modern trade retailers and community leaders could help to increase the access and the distribution of relief supplies to the target communities while community leaders can help to communicate and connect with the local people.

This research is subject to limitations. Strategic philanthropy is just one concept in the CSR dimensions stated by Carroll (1991). The authors did not explore the full concept of CSR. The proposed framework and roadmap is appropriate for in-kind but not for in-cash donations. Future research should identify more cases related to other types of disasters as well as other types of products and services supplied in humanitarian relief programs.

In the literature, the role of logistics service providers in humanitarian relief has not been studied much (Kunz and Reiner, 2012; Vega and Roussat, 2015). Further research should explore on how logistics service providers can help improve humanitarian relief supply chains through a firm’s strategic philanthropy. Researchers suggested that logistics service providers act as a part of humanitarian reliefs by supporting in-kind or in-cash donations as this facilitates them to meet their CSR commitments (Vega and Roussat, 2015). Yet, the literature shows that the links between humanitarian logistics and logistics service providers’ CSR strategies are still under-researched (Piecyk and Björklund, 2015). As philanthropy is part of CSR, this manuscript could be a guideline for future studies to explore how logistics service providers can further participate in humanitarian reliefs. Furthermore, in term of partnership, future research should explore on how partnerships among firms, logistics service providers, and, relief organizations can be formed under strategic philanthropy.

Trust among partners is critical for humanitarian supply chains as it can improve efficiency and effectiveness of disaster responses (Pettit and Beresford, 2009; Tatham and Kovács, 2010). The role of trust in humanitarian supply chains have been studied in several relationships and contexts such as trusts among relief organizations (Stephenson, 2005), trusts between firms and relief agencies (Thomas and Fritz, 2006), and the role of swift trust in sudden-onset disasters (Tatham and Kovács, 2010). Future research should study more on the role of community leaders and institutions in building trust with the affected people in the communities. Furthermore, trust that is formed from a partner’s reputation can have impact on the level of commitment among supply chain partners (Kwon and Suh, 2004). Information about reputation of a relief agency is important for trust building in humanitarian supply chains (Tatham and Kovács, 2010). Investigation on how trust among actors and reputations of each actor, such as community leaders, relief agencies, and companies, can have impact on the affected people and how the commitment among humanitarian relief supply chain partners would contribute to the success of relief efforts.

The authors would like to thank Sivinee Pinthong for her support in the data collection related to P&G Thailand’s CSDW and her initial inputs on the initial version of the manuscript. The authors wish to thank the anonymous reviewers for their insightful comments.