Cited by 386Corporate Social Responsibility ReportingCorporate Identity and ReputationNonprofit Sector and Volunteering

Doing good deeds in times of need: a strategic perspective on corporate disaster donations

Open access
Muller, Alan, Kräussl, Roman·2011·Strategic Management Journal

Abstract

Major corporations often respond charitably in times of disaster. However, disasters can also impose nontrivial costs on firms themselves, and under adverse conditions, firms typically donate less, not more. This paper takes a strategic perspective on corporate magnanimity in times of crisis by looking at the relationship between firm value, reputation, and donations by U.S. Fortune 500 firms in the case of Hurricane Katrina. In general, we find that Katrina's landfall was associated with significant negative abnormal stock returns. In particular, we find that a reputation for social irresponsibility was associated with both the greatest drop in stock prices and the greatest likelihood of making a subsequent charitable donation in response to the disaster. Copyright © 2011 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1002/smj.917

Cites

68 of 68 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Firms may take advantage of strategic opportunities to bolster their image, particularly when they are perceived as socially irresponsible.

    “firms may take advantage of strategic opportunities to bolster their image, particularly when they are perceived as socially irresponsible (Brammer and Millington, 2005;Muller and Kra ¨ussl, 2011).”

    From Strategic Silence: Withholding Certification Status as a Hypocrisy Avoidance Tactic (2018) · cites this paper as Muller and Kraussl, 2011

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

2 of the 70 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Muller, A., & Kräussl, R.
Affiliations
  • University of Amsterdam (NL)
  • Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam (NL)
Corresponding author
Muller, Alan
Venue
Strategic Management Journal
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2011-02-18
Volume
32
Issue
9
Pages
911-929
ISSN
  • 0143-2095 (ISSN-L)
  • 1097-0266
OpenAlex
W2117375857
Cited by
385
References
70
Citations by year
2026: 19 · 2025: 34 · 2024: 32 · 2023: 38 · 2022: 29 · 2021: 32 · 2020: 33 · 2019: 19 · 2018: 29 · 2017: 24 · 2016: 25 · 2015: 21 · 2014: 21 · 2013: 13 · 2012: 13
FWCI
52.87
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Strategic Management Journal (publishedVersion)
  • SSRN Electronic Journal (acceptedVersion)
  • UvA-DARE (University of Amsterdam) (publishedVersion)
  • VU Research Portal (publishedVersion)
  • University of Washington Tacoma Digital Commons (University of Washington Tacoma) (submittedVersion)
  • Digital Academic REpository of VU University Amsterdam (Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam) (submittedVersion)
  • Data Archiving and Networked Services (DANS) (submittedVersion)
Funders
Simon Fraser University
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Business, Management and Accounting › Strategy and Management › Corporate Social Responsibility Reporting
  • Social Sciences › Business, Management and Accounting › Strategy and Management › Corporate Identity and Reputation
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Nonprofit Sector and Volunteering
Keywords
corporate philanthropy, Hurricane Katrina, corporate reputation, social irresponsibility, abnormal returns, firm value, Fortune 500 companies, charitable giving, corporate crisis response

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review