Introduction

Corporate donation behavior refers to companies’ philanthropic activities, which involve allocating resources toward charitable causes. Several theories have been put forward to explain why companies engage in such behavior, ranging from the social responsibility theory to the stakeholder theory. This introduction will review some of the most prominent theories and their contributions to understanding corporate donation behavior.

The social responsibility theory suggests that companies have an ethical obligation to contribute to the well-being of society. According to this theory, businesses are not just economic entities but also social entities with responsibilities beyond maximizing profits. Companies that engage in philanthropic activities are seen as fulfilling their social obligations and contributing to the common good. The social responsibility theory is rooted in the work of economist Milton Friedman, who argued that businesses should focus on making profits and let individuals take care of social issues (Friedman, 1970). However, proponents of the social responsibility theory have challenged this view, arguing that companies have a moral obligation to contribute to society (Carroll, 1991).

Another theory that explains corporate donation behavior is the stakeholder theory. According to this theory, companies are responsible for considering the interests of all their stakeholders, including employees, customers, shareholders, and the wider society. This theory suggests that companies engage in philanthropic activities to maintain positive relationships with their stakeholders and enhance their reputation. By investing in social initiatives, companies can build trust and loyalty among their stakeholders, ultimately translating into financial benefits (Freeman, 1984).

The institutional theory also provides insights into corporate donation behavior. This theory suggests that companies are influenced by the norms and expectations of their institutional environment, which includes regulatory bodies, industry associations, and social networks. Companies that engage in philanthropic activities may respond to these external pressures to conform to social norms and expectations. By doing so, they can signal to stakeholders that they are committed to social responsibility and meet the expectations of their institutional environment (Scott, 2014).

Finally, the resource dependence theory suggests that companies engage in philanthropic activities to gain access to critical resources, such as information, contacts, and goodwill. By donating to charitable causes, companies can build relationships with key stakeholders, such as government officials, community leaders, and non-profit organizations. These relationships can provide access to valuable resources that benefit the company’s operations, such as favorable regulations, contracts, and partnerships (Pfeffer & Salancik, 1978).

In conclusion, social responsibility, stakeholder, institutional, and resource dependence theories provide valuable insights into why companies engage in philanthropic activities. While these theories offer different perspectives, they all suggest that complex factors influence corporate donation behavior, including ethical obligations, stakeholder expectations, institutional norms, and resource considerations.

Our paper explores whether how corporations engage in corporate social responsibility (CSR) makes a difference to brand performance rather than firm performance, particularly at times of crisis such as the pandemic. The top 100 brands globally in 2020 have responded to the coronavirus pandemic by donating cash, donating in kind, providing special services to their customers, and supporting their employees (Mahmud et al., 2021). The research question is, did their actions reflect on the brand value, brand growth, or brand rank change? Which of the four actions, if any, significantly impacted brand performance indicators?

The connection between CSR and corporate financial performance, as opposed to brand performance, has been thoroughly examined through systematic literature reviews (Ali et al., 2023; Barauskaite and Streimikiene, 2021) and meta-analyses (Friede et al., 2015; Margolis et al., 2009; Orlitzky et al., 2003; Raza et al., 2012; Van Beurden and Gössling, 2008; Velte, 2022). Numerous studies affirm the financial benefits of CSR, yet the issue of its strategic value during crises remains unresolved. Despite these conclusions, there is an ongoing debate regarding the best CSR strategy for firms in times of economic downturns (Ashraf et al., 2021; Bae et al., 2021; Glavas & Visentin, 2024; Lins et al., 2017; Marie Lauesen, 2013).

This article begins by reviewing the consequences of the pandemic on the business, customers, employees, and society and how brands responded to the pandemic. The four hypotheses are posited, and the methodology to test them is explained using the Interbrand (2020) report. The findings of the research and the insights they offered, limitations, theoretical and managerial implications, and directions for future research conclude the article.

Brands and the COVID-19 crisis

Brands’ essential premise to business is creating, building, and preserving brand equity, which constitutes significant value for the parent organization (Rahman et al., 2019). Fan (2005, p. 345) explained that if a brand is deliberated in the extended societal perspective, it should signify principled actions and core values. As per Keller and Aaker (1998), a socially responsible brand image implies fostering perceptions of contributing to community programs, supporting artistic and social activities, and generally attempting to improve the welfare of society as a whole.

Greyser (1999) reported that corporate reputation could account for 8–15 percent of a company’s stock price, a significant intangible asset worth overseeing by the board of directors rather than passively upholding or saving in crisis (Larkin, 2003). Branding entails a distinct vision and a set of declared values that promote a better world for all (De Chernatony and McDonald, 2003), with positive corollaries for branding as a societal institution. (Hunt, 2019: p. 415). Across five studies, Keenan, Wilson, and John (2022) showed consumer brand preferences are related to brands that donate a higher proportion of their profits, albeit it means less in absolute dollars.

Brands were concerned about keeping their promises to their customers, employees, communities, and shareholders. Many questions were raised regarding the role of brands during the pandemic. We considered brand performance in 2020 based on the Interbrand proprietary framework, which reflects competitive, economic, societal, and technological dynamics on brands. Interbrand measures brand value in terms of brand strength, a key performance indicator based on the brand’s leadership, engagement, and relevance. Ten mutually exclusive factors under leadership, engagement, and relevance are measured to provide the metrics needed to determine brand strength. The operational dimensions specified by Interbrand are reported in Table 1. Brand strength expresses the brand’s ability to drive sustainable business results and healthy growth (Interbrand, 2020, p. 24). Brand growth is the change in brand value from 2019 to 2020.

Table 1 The operational definitions of ten mutually exclusive factors under leadership, engagement, and relevance provide the metrics needed to determine brand strength.
Full size table

Interbrand Best Global Brands 2020 (Interbrand, 2020) is an annual report identifying the world’s 100 Most Valuable Brands. The brand performance is based on three key indicators: brand growth, brand value, and brand ranking compared to 2019. Apple, Amazon, Microsoft, Google, and Samsung were the five leading brands, followed by 95 other brands in the top 100 global brands. Interbrand Best Global Brands 2020 is the sample of this research. Interbrand published a comprehensive, in-depth analysis of global brands, showing how each brand contributed to its market success and the roadmap to thriving in the next few years (Interbrand, 2020).

Knowles et al. (2020) showed how the pandemic changed consumers’ mindsets and attitudes, focusing on function versus brand preference and conspicuous consumption. Once the functionality is satisfied, they prefer brands with pro-social actions and employee support. Brands responded to these shifts in mindsets, attitudes, and behaviors in many ways, but the focus will be on pro-social actions.

The US Chamber of Commerce Foundation issued the Corporate Aid Tracker, which lists the CSR responses of corporations to the COVID-19 crisis in 2020 (USCCF, 2021). We extracted the CSR responses for the Interbrand top 100 brands. Donations in cash or in-kind were common, but we found that top brands in 2020 reported customer services designed and delivered to ease the constraints on mobility by the pandemic as CSR actions. The same applies to employee support not usually given, such as not counting days off if infected by COVID or caring for an infected partner or parent. Such COVID response actions were new and will not continue beyond the pandemic.

“When an individual consumer donates to a charity, the exchange equation is relatively simple. The consumer donates money, possessions, or his labor, and he receives gratitude (perhaps implied) from the charity as well as a self-congratulatory pat on the back” (Dean 2003, p. 92). Corporates and Brands donate cash, in-kind, or services to their customers, or support their employees. The question is, do they get a pat on the back?

The pandemic redefined the implicit convention between brands and the public. As anxiety rose, buyers looked at their brands to invest and inspire by helping the disempowered. Brennan (2020) and Deloitte (2020) reported that during the COVID-19 crisis, companies, in general, have implemented various types of corporate donations to support their employees, customers, and communities. The article will explore the four main strategies the top 100 brands followed in the following paragraphs in addition to Supplementary Appendix 1, where the examples were parsimoniously limited to the top 5 brands, Apple, Amazon, Microsoft, Google, and Samsung.

Donations in cash

Within the 100 brands in the sample, most brands chose donations in cash to respond to the pandemic, mainly in line with social responsibility and institutional theories. They donated money to charities and organizations fighting the coronavirus directly or through innovative research and care for the vulnerable. Cash donations were also directed to support those who lost their jobs or were homemakers. Typically, money is allocated to charity in the annual budget approved by the board and earmarked to specific causes, and this allocation can be redirected at times of crisis (Johnson et al., 2020).

Donations in kind

A donation in kind means that the company would design, develop, manufacture, or acquire products or services through its supply chain to give away to the community in line with the stakeholder and resource dependence theories. This was more attractive from a business perspective than donating cash to a third party to deploy (Sert et al., 2018). In most cases, the reported donation in-kind is the market price, not the actual cost of donated products or services. For example, Google donated $340 million in Google Ads credits available to small and medium businesses with active accounts over the past year or $20 million in Google Cloud credits for academic institutions and researchers. The out-of-pocket cost to Google would be a small percentage of the announced figures. Google reported the opportunity cost if those credits were sold, which was highly unlikely under the circumstances.

The in-kind donations were also newsworthy, acquired media coverage, and created brand awareness. Forbes mentioned that more than 20 brands donated in kind, including Nike, which donated all of its current inventory of Air Zoom Pulse to frontline healthcare workers helping people infected by the coronavirus (Snowden, 2020). Most cleaning products’ brands developed and produced antiseptic product lines or added antiseptic attributes to their current products. The marketing and publicity implications of such donations are undeniable. Internally, employees associate with in-kind donations as they participate in the donation’s design, production, distribution, or publicity.

Customer services

It was considered a challenging transition for many brands because they were undergoing a challenging time adopting new methods to protect their customers and sustain their businesses as per the stakeholder and institutional theories. Providing support services and tools to reach out and help customers remain engaged with the brand was preferred. However many top brands launched new research and development programs or accelerated existing ones to engage customers online and deliver products and services remotely. Experience brands such as live sports and entertainment struggled to keep their customers coming and keep them safe. When your value proposition is to bring people physically closer to enjoy an experience, it is hard to do that and still ask them to preserve social distancing.

Employee support

When the pandemic hit the world, some brands offered employees different services and facilities to facilitate their work routine, like providing work-at-home solutions, extra days off, medical screening, surveillance, and care, including psychological support (International Labor Organization, 2020). While employee support is mainly driven by ethical obligations, stakeholder expectations, and institutional theories, in practice, the nature of the job, the digital literacy of the workers, suppliers, and customers, and the access to hardware, software, and broadband internet all effectively mitigate the implementation of remote work solutions.

Implications for brand performance

All four responses are forms of CSR meant to enhance the brand’s reputation. Recent studies reported that CSR and corporate reputation positively affect industrial brand equity and brand performance (Cowan and Guzman, 2020; Wang, Yu, & Hsiao, 2021). Naidoo and Abratt (2018) believed that CSR helps develop social brand equity, as opposed to commercial brand equity. Earlier studies reported that corporate reputation and industrial brand equity partially mediated the relationship between CSR and brand performance (Lai et al., 2010).

It also has a direct positive impact on the brand image and brand reputation. Hur et al. (2013) showed that corporate brand credibility mediated the relationship between CSR and corporate reputation. The acts and attitudes of a company’s management determine its corporate image, and CSR involvement can be the most successful way to achieve a brand personality (Tarabashkina et al., 2020), an impressive assortment of human-like associations about brands, which collectively create a brand image (Geuens et al., 2009). As a result, many businesses justify CSR initiatives by claiming to boost their brand image and create a positive reputation (Hetze, 2016).

CSR has long been considered an essential factor in business performance. Another advantage of CSR initiatives is the opportunity to improve brand attitudes and authenticity (Childs et al., 2019) and differentiate their products. Bhattacharya et al. (2020) suggested that companies can distinguish their brands by investing in CSR. Bhattacharya and Sen (2004) report that 84 percent of Americans will be willing to switch to brands associated with a good cause if price and quality are comparable.

Shin et al. (2021) showed that credible brand responses to customers and employees during the pandemic positively impacted brand performance regarding brand loyalty, equity, awareness, and image. Salinas (2020) reasoned that donations create value through proactive partnership and cooperation with other related players and stakeholders, improving their recognition and reputation and, therefore, their long-term profitability and brand value.

American individuals, foundations, and corporations gave $450 billion to US charities in 2019 (USCCF, 2021). CSR brand efforts are of interest and value when building brand equity. It is central to most brands’ brand-building efforts from a consumer or business-to-business brand equity perspective. Yet, measuring the impact of these donations on brand equity is a question waiting to be answered. Given that these donations take several forms, as explained earlier, which of those forms is more effective in terms of brand value or brand growth? This article is exploratory, filling a clear gap in the literature. Our expectations are positive, based on all the literature reviews and the theories., we posit the following four hypotheses.

H1: Donations in cash will positively affect brand performance in terms of brand value, brand growth, and brand ranking in 2020 versus 2019.

H2: Donations in kind will positively affect brand performance in terms of brand value, brand growth, and brand ranking in 2020 versus 2019.

H3: Special services to customers will positively affect brand performance in terms of brand value, brand growth, and brand ranking in 2020 versus 2019.

H4: Special support to employees will positively affect brand performance in terms of brand value, brand growth, and brand ranking in 2020 versus 2019.

Methods

The research is trying to answer several questions. How have these 100 brands responded to the pandemic crisis? Which response pattern was most effective in brand performance, value, growth, and ranking compared to 2019?

The researchers studied the top 100 brands Interbrand selected in 2020 and their response patterns to answer these questions. The description of Interbrand methodology is available in the Rocha (2015) report, but the details are proprietary. Based on the literature review, the four types of brand responses to COVID-19 are donations in cash to help the community, donations in kind to help the community, special services to customers, and initiatives providing support and care to employees. The researchers studied the impact of each type of response on brand performance operationalized as three dependent variables: brand growth, brand value, and brand ranking compared to 2019.

The independent variables were the responses of each brand, identified through the US Chamber of Commerce Foundation report (USCCF, 2021), online searches, and company pages on LinkedIn, Facebook, and Twitter. Appendix 1 is a sample of the entries for the top 5 brands. Interbrand (2020) lists the Interbrand 2020 top 100 brands, their rank, brand value, and brand growth. Note that five brands entered the Interbrand 100 for the first time, namely Instagram, YouTube, Tesla, Burberry, and Zoom. There were five missing values when brand growth and rank change were measured.

The response orientation scores

To provide a quantitative measure for the independent variables, the CSR responses of each company in 2020 described above were labeled and tallied under one of four response orientations (donations in cash, in kind, customer services, or employee support). Each company has four scores indicating how many responses are classified under each response orientation (RO). Those tallies were then normalized as RO Scores (percentages) using the max-min normalization formula (Taher, 2023):

$${{\rm{RO}}}_{{\rm{norm}}}={{\rm{RO}}}_{{\rm{tally}}}-\,\min ({{\rm{RO}}}_{{\rm{tally}}})/\,\max ({{\rm{RO}}}_{{\rm{tally}}})-\,\min ({{\rm{RO}}}_{{\rm{tally}}}),$$

and since max(ROtally) = sum of tallies, and min(ROtally) = zero, the normalized ROscore in percentage form is:

$${\rm{RO}}\,{\rm{score}}\,( \% )=({{\rm{RO}}}_{{\rm{tally}}}\times100)/({\rm{sum}}\,{\rm{of}}\,{\rm{RO}}\,{\rm{tallies}}).$$

Therefore, if a company had three responses, each score would account for a 33.3% RO score, but if the company had four responses, each score would account for a 25% RO score. For example, a company declaring five responses may have a tally of 40% employee support for two responses, 40% donations in cash for two responses 20% customer services for one response, and 0% donations in kind for no responses.

Strong brands influence customer choice and create loyalty (Dapena-Baron et al., 2020; Confente and Kucharska, 2021); attract, retain, and motivate talent as an employer brand (Ambler and Barrow, 1996; Martin and Beaumont, 2003); and reduce the cost of financing the business (Rahman et al., 2019; Sinclair and Keller, 2014). Interbrand brand valuation methodology was devised to integrate all three aspects: the brand’s impact on the consumer’s behavior, the brand’s competitive attractiveness, and the branded products’ financial performance (Rocha, 2015). Ultimately, the dependent variables are the brand value, brand growth, and brand rank change reported by Interbrands (2020).

Analysis

The analysis aims to see if the normalized value scores as an independent (predictor) variable have a significant positive impact or relationship with any of the three brand performance indicators as a dependent (predicted) variable. In this case, there are three brand performance indicators given by Interbrand 100: brand growth, brand value, and band rank change.

Interbrand’s sample size was 100 brands, which did not allow path modeling to test all the independent and dependent variables in one model. Therefore, the best option was to use three regression models, one for each dependent variable (brand performance indicator), with the four independent response orientations.

$${{{Y}}}_{(1-3)}={{a}}+{{{b}}}_{1}{{{X}}}_{1}+{{{b}}}_{2}{{{X}}}_{2}+{{{b}}}_{3}{{{X}}}_{3}+{{{b}}}_{4}{{{X}}}_{4}$$

Y1 is brand value, Y2 is brand growth, and Y3 is brand ranking in 2020 versus 2019. The a is a constant, b1, b2, b3, and b4 are the regression coefficients, X1 is the response orientation donations in cash, X2 is the response orientation donations in kind, X3 is the response orientation customer services, X4 is the response orientation employee support.

Results

The main research question of this article is: do COVID-19 responses (donations in cash, donations in-kind, customer services, employee support) have a significant positive impact on brand performance (indicated by brand value, brand growth, and brand ranking in 2020 versus 2019)? Table 2 summarizes the results of the three regression models tested for the three dependent variables.

Table 2 The impact of donation type on the brand performance indicators.
Full size table

The brand growth model showed significant relationships between brand growth and donations in kind (b2 = 0.686, t = 2.169, p = 0.033) and brand growth and customer services (b3 = 0.741, t = 2.314, p = 0.023). The brand value and rank change models showed a poor overall correlation and no significant relationship with the four independent variables. This finding will be revisited in the discussion later.

The results show that across the four COVID responses, donations in cash, donations in-kind, customer services, and employee support, all COVID responses had no significant positive impact on brand value and ranking in 2020 versus 2019. However, brand growth, customer services, and donations in kind are the only responses that showed a significant positive impact.

Discussion

The study’s overall objective is to understand the impact of COVID responses on brand performance, including brand value, brand growth, and brand ranking in 2020 versus 2019. The sample chosen was analyzed based on the top 100 brands in 2020, according to Interbrand (2020). the results showed no significant relationship between the four types of responses to the pandemic and brand value. The four types of responses to a pandemic crisis are short-term acts demonstrating social responsibility and depicting an altruistic brand persona. On the other hand, brand value is a long-term cumulative endeavor.

Moreover, donations in kind and exceptional customer services are typically branded and accompanied by tokens to remind the customer of the brand, and, therefore, they significantly impact the brand affection, partially supporting H2 and H3. Employee support may lift morale and reduce stress, but the impact on the bottom line is soft and delayed, failing H4. Customers will not cherish cash donations to charities or government agencies long enough to reflect in the bottom line, not supporting H1. That may be why some corporates have branded foundations to reap some of the value donated. One of the authors witnessed a shareholder board member of a bank question allocations for cash donations, rhetorically asking if banks go to heaven.

All four responses are forms of CSR meant to enhance the brand’s social equity (Naidoo and Abratt, 2018), brand reputation (Cowan and Guzman, 2020; Wang, Yu, and Hsiao, 2021), and ultimately brand performance (Lai et al., 2010). However such enhancements result from long-term, consistent actions to build brand social equity and reputation. This study only covers one year of the pandemic era, which is not enough to realize the effect of CSR activities.

That explains why only customer services and in-kind donations produced brand growth in the short-term. Both activities demonstrated leadership, engagement, and relevance to the consumer, the three factors indicating brand strength in Interbrand. The branded customer services tailored to the confinement restrictions and branded in-kind donations showed initiative, relevance, and engagement and helped the brand image (Geuens et al., 2009). Our sampling frame was the top 100 brands in 2020, so they fulfilled the mediating and moderating factors between CSR actions and brand performance, such as brand credibility (Hur et al., 2013), brand attitudes and authenticity (Childs et al., 2019) and brand reputation (Lai et al., 2010).

Our top 100 brands have their recognition and reputation by default. Therefore, Salinas’ (2020) recommendation to participate in proactive partnerships and cooperation with other related players and stakeholders to add value to the donations is not helpful. Our findings support Bhattacharya and Sen (2004) and Shin et al. (2021) that relevant brand responses during the pandemic will positively affect brands. But our three conditions: leadership, engagement, and relevance derived from Interbrand indicators of brand strength, apply, particularly in the short-term.

Theoretical implications

The hypotheses were developed based on the recent evidence that brand performance is positively affected by CSR (Cowan and Guzman, 2020; Wang, Yu, & Hsiao, 2021) and corporate reputation (Lai et al., 2010, Salinas, 2020), and mediated by brand credibility (Hur et al., 2013, Shin et al., 2021) and brand differentiation (Bhattacharya et al., 2020). However, their evidence is based on asking consumers about their actual behaviors or intentions toward the socially responsible actions of the brand. In reality, the cumulative effect of credibility, reputation, and differentiation through social action takes years to brew and becomes realized financially as brand value and rank change.

The corporate social solidarity actions in 2020 may result in brand growth in the same year, particularly if the actions were designed to increase usage and market share. The results showed that customer services and in-kind donations were significantly related to brand growth. Customer services and in-kind donations were meant to keep the existing customers engaged and develop business habits in more profitable, long-term ways for the company. Banks and other service providers offer incentives to their customers to go online and disincentives to stay offline because their costs drop and profits rise that way. In-kind donations were generous and targeted behavioral changes by the customers to benefit the company and the consumer.

This research has another contribution to offer to theory. Donations were found to have an impact on the performance of organizations in the long-term, mediated and moderated by several factors. Our research presented leadership, engagement, and relevance used by Interbrand to indicate brand strength as three conditions for the short-term impact of donations on brand growth. Donation in-kind and branded customer services enhanced brand growth in the same year. More research on that finding can attract brand scholars and managers alike.

Managerial implications

The best type of corporate donation depends on the corporate mission and goals, the specific needs of the community or cause being supported, the resources available to the company, and the desired impact of the donation. Some companies focus on cash donations to support the financial needs of non-profit organizations. While others may provide in-kind donations such as products, services, or volunteer time to meet specific needs. Similarly, corporate sponsorship or cause-related marketing may build brand awareness and promote the company’s commitment to social responsibility (National Council of Non-profits, 2021).

The most commonly used type of corporate donation is cash donations, followed by in-kind donations and corporate sponsorship (Council on Foundations, 2021). However, the choice of donation type may also depend on external factors such as tax incentives, regulations, and industry standards. Ultimately, the decision should be based on a careful assessment of the goals and resources, the specific needs of the community, or the cause being supported.

When committing resources to social solidarity programs, the recommendation for brand managers and top management is to decide whether their intentions include brand performance. If building brand assets is one of the success indicators, then the priority should be to serve customers and secure publicity for the company’s social investments. Organizations should plan for the long-term, commit to a relevant cause they would be proud to associate with and allocate enough resources to make a difference and communicate it well.

Limitations

This study’s sample and data collection was limited to one source, the Interbrand (2020) report. The report provided a comprehensive and in-depth analysis of global brands based on well-grounded, well-documented, and tested methodologies that have been consistently applied for years (Rocha, 2015). According to Interbrand, brand performance is based on three key indicators: brand value, brand growth, and brand rank change (see Table 1). Another limitation is that the Interbrand methodology is proprietary to Interbrand and cannot be reported in this article.

Five new brands joined the list in 2020 and are considered missing data for the rank change. Moreover, the classification of the responses was limited to four categories: cash donations, donation in-kind, customer services, and employee support. Moreover, brand performance may have confounded the research results. The pandemic helped industries like online media, e-commerce platforms, and pharmaceuticals. Brands in those industries enjoyed a consumption tide, while brands of experiential nature, such as tourism, sports, live entertainment, and physical retailing, suffered the ebb. This demand ebb and tide confounded the brand ranks relative to the year before.

Directions for future research

The research highlighted the potential of in-kind donations and customer services for supporting brand growth if focused on customers and well communicated. Scholars should devote more research to designing and testing the optimum conditions for social solidarity programs involving in-kind donations and customer services to maximize brand growth. More research is needed to understand the parameters that may improve the effectiveness of both cash donations and employee support programs to propel brand performance while controlling for industry effects. Table 2 indicates that cash donations and employee support are close to significantly and positively affecting brand growth if their use is better guided by research.

There is potential for utilizing the Interbrand list historically to produce longitudinal research to test the cumulative effect of social responsibility programs over the years on brand value. Qualitative research can potentially develop a profound understanding of the route from CSR to brand performance. One area to explore is the effect of the top management intention on the brand performance of social responsibility programs. Finally, a concise yet comprehensive typology of CSR programs intended to enhance brand performance positively is still needed.

Additional analyses and a reframing of the research question would be necessary to provide a more nuanced understanding of firm actions in response to the COVID-19 pandemic. For example, for firms making cash donations, distinguishing between donations to their foundations versus community foundations would provide additional insights. Industry, product category, and firm size controls could reveal new insights. While topics related to the COVID-19 pandemic are relevant and timely, future research could expand the timeframe beyond the 2020 COVID-19 pandemic year and to other global disruptions. We are still assessing the effects of a year of seismic turbulence, rapid impact, and bracing for other health and geopolitical crises. The value of the Top 100 Best Global Brands has increased by 9%, in that year, led by technology brands, to reach an overall value of over $2 trillion (Interbrand, 2020).