Many of Britain’s best known PR agencies lent staff or donated goods in-kind or “surplus stock from their store cupboards” for the auction, which organisers had hoped would raise thousands of pounds for the on-going relief effort.

But what if there is a cynical motive behind such corporate actions? Do you remember how many in the Middle East and Indonesia felt that America was trying to gain political capital by being seen to head the tsunami relief? What if companies were doing the same?

Initially America was criticised for being slow to respond, and its image was seen to take a battering in South East Asia. So when Colin Powell, the then American Secretary of State visited the stricken region in January he let slip he hoped the American relief would give “the Muslim world and the rest of the world an opportunity to see American generosity, American values in action. ... I hope that, as a result of our efforts, as a result of our helicopter pilots' being seen by the citizens of Indonesia helping them, that value system of ours will be reinforced”.

The International Herald Tribune reported Colin Powell’s comments under the headline “Aid has Image value”. The logic is that if giving money has “image value” to governments, it must have the same “image value” for companies. An unscrupulous company could exploit the tsunami relief effort to enhance their reputation.

We know companies have exploited disasters in the past. But since September 11th happened when some corporations were criticised for publicising how much they had helped in the wake of the disaster, PR companies have been advising clients on how to give money more surreptitiously.

Under the headline “PR firms advise clients on ways to tout tsunami relief”, the magazine of the PR industry, PR Week reported how: “As companies of all stripe rushed to raise or donate funds to Southeast Asia last week, much of the PR industry advised clients on how they should - and often, should not - publicise such efforts.” The magazine reported one PR executive saying “It is always tricky for a company to strike the right tone in making a contribution of money or resources to help after a human tragedy. No company wants to seem exploitative or inappropriate”.

Although companies do not want to be seen to be exploitative, that does not mean that they are not. We know that global multinational companies spend billions promoting their brands and protecting their image. Some global brands – for example Coca-Cola and Microsoft - are worth billions of dollars too. Corporations spend billions on advertising – hiring advertisers to promote their products on a whole range of medium from television; newspapers, billboards and increasing on the internet. At least ten global companies spend $1 billion or more per year on their advertising.

But advertising your products is no longer seen as being enough for companies to “engage” with their consumers and the broader public. “Corporate advertising today is bad, it's poor, it's not doing the job”, argues Steve Lombardo, from the global PR company Edelman . Some companies have scores of people purely devoted to managing the company’s public and financial reputation; their in-house PR departments. Most of the big companies also employ external public relations companies to enhance their image in a variety of ways that an unsuspecting public very rarely gets to know about or understands.

Companies also promote their image by giving millions a year to community groups. For example, the world’s largest oil company Exxon / Mobil is the main oil company trying to delay any action to stop global warming. Yet the company also gives $100 million to community groups and non-profit organisations. Although many of these groups actively work to dismiss any action of climate change, others work on issues such as education and HIV and Aids.

So does giving money improve your image? Of course it does. In January, PR Week noted that one of the companies at last weekend’s event in London, Vodafone had “soared 25 places to the number two slot” of the magazine’s ‘Reputation Monitor’ a guide to how well companies are being perceived by the media . PR Week noted: “The mobile phone operator amassed positive coverage after it kick-started an unprecedented demonstration of charitable support from Britain’s largest companies with a £1m donation towards the Asian tsunami disaster relief efforts”.

Vodafone saw its reputation rise by being seen to help those in need. Whilst one million pounds seems a lot of money, this coming April Vodafone is forecast to smash the UK record for greatest ever profits by becoming the first British company make a profit of £10 billion. Obscene profits make bad headlines, donations to good causes make good headlines.

Another company under fire in the UK for making expected record profits is the supermarket giant Tescos. The company has also recently been criticised by environmental groups and farming organisations for driving down prices and forcing farmers out of business. That makes bad headlines, whereas corporate giving makes good ones.

PR Week also reported how Tesco had “led the way for supermarkets by donating £100,000”, which had contributed to its climb back up the “Reputation Monitor”, along with its “cutting the price of 500 products by an average of nine per cent” .

Since the tsunami many global companies have given huge amounts of money. The list is long, so to name just a few: The drugs company Pfizer gave $35m in cash and medicine to relief agencies, Coca-Cola donated $10m Proctor & Gamble shipped 200,000 water-purifying kits to Sri Lanka. General Motors announced it had given $2m and would provide vehicles to transport supplies to the stricken region. Dow Chemical Co announced a contribution of US$5 million. But these figures are tiny compared to the good a donation can do and the damage that no donation could inflict.

The global fast food giant Mcdonalds also promised an initial $500,000. “Giving back to communities has always been important to the McDonald’s system, and we are committed to doing our part to help the children and families affected by the Asian tsunami as they rebuild their communities and their lives,” argues Jim Skinner, McDonald’s chief executive officer.

“We’re very fortunate that a majority of our restaurants in South Asia were up and running within hours after the tsunami’s impact” adds Mike Roberts, McDonald’s president. “Today our restaurants in the affected areas continue to provide food, water and other assistance to victims and relief workers. When there’s a need, McDonald’s is always there to help .”

The concept of someone being “always there to help” is an enduring image at a time of crisis. A friend in times of trouble. It is hard not to be cynical about how a corporation that has done much to spread American fast-food mentality around the globe with all the inherent problems of obesity, becomes your friend in need. But it would not be the first time a controversial company crowed about their philanthropy. The list is long of mining, tobacco, biotech companies all boasting about corporate donations. For example, five years ago the tobacco giant Philip Morris, was widely condemned for a $100m advertising campaign that promoted its charitable works whilst conventionally forgetting the deadly and addictive nature of its products.

Giving money to the tsunami also helps controversial companies promote other PR tactics too. Last month at the Ethical Corporation’s conference on “Business / NGO Partnerships and Engagements” Arian Ardie, from the Asian Pulp and Paper Company let slip that: ‘the tsunami is a great opportunity to work with NGOs who would previously have been opposed to working with us’.

Asian Pulp and Paper has long been accused of destroying natural forests, but were already working with one environmental NGO; the World Wide Fund for Nature (WWF). In 2003, APP had signed a letter of intent with WWF to deliver a sustainability action plan for its wood supply. However, last year WWF refused to endorse the action plan the company drew up . It remains to be seen whether APP will exploit the tsunami to foster a new action plan.

An article in Ethical Corporation magazine even goes so far as to argue that the tsunami is a good business opportunity. “Some consider that what may be needed is for companies to throw off the cloak of self-interest. The best thing they might do is to approach the situation as it now stands as if it were a legitimate business opportunity lacking only one important financial or brand reward .”

So we come full circle. The bottom line is that business sees natural disasters as business opportunities. But you don’t dare say that they are. They are a chance to enhance your corporate reputation, but only if you are seen as working in the public interest not self-interest.

Money and aid will be needed for Southern Asia for decades to come. We should all help as much as possible. But we have to make sure that the tsunami relief effort is not exploited by business for pure corporate interest.