No abstract

No abstract

This study examines how philanthropy can mitigate liability of foreignness (LOF) in the aftermath of a national disaster. A major disaster restructures the social landscape, creating an avenue for corporate contributions to play a role in recovery and relief efforts. This social restructuring offers a valuable opportunity for multinational enterprises (MNEs) to establish strong local ties. In turn, MNE contributions at such times have a stronger impact on their local acceptance. Thus, MNEs can use these events to strengthen their position in the community and mitigate LOF. Using the context of a national disaster in India, I test these arguments with a sample of 190 MNEs and 660 domestic firms. I found that in the aftermath of the disaster, the increase in MNE contributions was much larger and less strongly tied to promotional activities than the increase in contributions from domestic firms, and this difference persisted over time. Moreover, the performance implication of post-disaster philanthropy was stronger for MNEs than for domestic firms. These findings suggest that philanthropy plays a more strategic role for MNEs in the aftermath of a disaster and it has a pronounced effect on mitigating LOF.

Why do some organizations bounce-back from traumatic events more quickly than others? While the research on organizations offers extensive insights on recovery from economic or technological shocks, there is limited understanding of how organizations recover from life-threatening events such as terrorist attacks. In this study, we build on the research on resilience and argue that organizational recovery from a traumatic event is informed by the perception of threat. Higher perception of threat increases inter-organizational collaboration and the care associated with the deployment of slack as well as to learning. We tested our arguments with a sample of US and non-US firms before and after the 9/11 terrorist attacks and found that, due to spatial proximity, US firms’ higher perception of threat led to a larger increase in the frequency of inter-organizational alliances than that of non-US firms. This preference was more frequently directed towards local partners and demonstrated a distinct emphasis on slack and learning. Contrary to conventional wisdom, our findings suggest that organizational resilience in the face of a traumatic event benefits not from immunity but from spatial proximity to the threat. Proximity increases the perception of threat, and with it, the impetus for adaptation.

Corporations are facing a growing demand for the transparency of political contributions. In the United States, this demand has largely focused on the implementation of a mandatory disclosure law. It rests on the assumption that legal enforcement can make it easier to observe the ties between corporations and political parties. In this study, I challenge this assumption. I build my case by first developing a conceptual foundation of corporate political transparency (CPT). I argue that in the absence of economic benefits, legal enforcement has a limited effect on CPT. Instead of encouraging transparency, mandatory disclosure can lead to the concealment of corporate political contributions. To develop a model of concealment, I borrow the characterizations of disguise from theatrical drama. Using the context of Indian firms, I show the limitation of mandatory disclosure and the efficacy of regulatory incentive. My study highlights the need for a broader debate on CPT to understand the relative implications of regulatory policies.