Case study reveals local firms actively drive disaster recovery through operations adaptability, highlighting close alignment between corporate continuity goals and humanitarian relief.
Natural disasters disrupt the normal functioning of both communities and businesses. However, past literature often segregates the disaster relief view from the business continuity perspective, leaving a gap in understanding how firms can proactively support relief efforts. Using an embedded case, we focus on the operations of a multinational enterprise in the Fast‐Moving Consumer Goods sector to reveal these mechanisms. Its headquarters and geographic business units represent firms within and outside the disaster's vicinity and show how they work with NGOs and government counterparts in relief efforts. We find that firms within the disaster's vicinity (i.e., local firms or firms whose markets or supplies can be disrupted by the disaster) are motivated to proactively participate in the relief effort. These firms' goals to stabilize the market and economy are well‐aligned with NGOs and the government during disaster preparedness and response. Meanwhile, firms outside the disaster's vicinity mostly report philanthropic donations to support disaster relief, with underlying motivations for branding, tax benefits, and efficiency. Analyses of qualitative interviews and quantitative data under the Complex Adaptive Systems lens also reveal interesting insights into how the non‐profit and for‐profit landscapes overlap during disaster preparedness and response, and how firms within the disaster's vicinity can play a more central role in recovery if they have better operations adaptability capabilities (i.e., coordinated changes instead of changes in individual operations factors). Our findings contribute to both the disaster relief literature and the understanding of complex adaptive systems, especially in disaster contexts.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Hoang et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: