In an increasingly predictable 5-4 split, the Supreme Court today struck down a portion of the controversial Sarbanes-Oxley Act, though unanimously decided to leave the rest of the legislation intact.

The gist? The Court says the structure of the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board, a not-for-profit corporation with broad regulatory authority over accounting firms that audit publicly traded companies, violates separation of powers principles. Now, the Securities and Exchange Commission will have the power to boot PCAOB board members as it sees fit.

I’ll leave it to legal experts to comment on the case. But what are the reputational questions here for some of our most important institutions?

Though on the broader issue the Court was unambiguous, it was yet another predictable 5-4 ruling along the same ideological fault lines we’ve now come to expect on most major issues. Does this continued pattern diminish the credibility of one of our most revered institutions if it seems to be yet another rendition of the back-and-forth between red and blue in Congress? While I’m hardly a Constitutional scholar, I believe most people – save for the most cynical among us – think of the Court as “above” that. The question … is that changing?

Is the reputation of the federal government such that we trust it to oversee yet another body responsible for protecting the public? (I’m not even going to venture a stab at this one.) What about the reputation of the PCAOB?

Of course, the reasons the board was established – inspecting public accounting firms, enforcing ethical standards for audit reports, and punishing corruption – are right and worthy. But will those in the business community think differently of it now, though its mission of protecting the public from corruption remains?

Today I have more questions than answers. Would love to hear what you think.

cwinters General Corporate PCAOB, SOX, Supreme Court

Our grandparents would have scoffed at the idea that water would become a mega-industry. Why would anyone who survived the depression pay for something they can get for free?
But as questions about the safety of tap water emerged, and the benefits of hydration took root, a new industry was born. Bottled water isn’t a category killer…we still consume lots of soda. It is a category creator.

But what happens when a category comes crashing down and becomes the enemy? And the case is mounting. Tapped, the bottled water version of Food, Inc. highlights the dangers of BPA. Today’s NYT chronicles the crusade of a woman in Concorde Mass to ban bottled water in her town. My colleague Mike Sacks recently blogged about the natural spring equivalent of overfishing, and Nestle’s Northwest fight.

However, this fight isn’t so simple. We are also inundated with information about pharmaceutical remnants in the water supply, and the dangers of tap water, and admonished that 8 glasses a day is the absolute minimum for good health.

What’s a responsible person to do?

The wisdom of the ages came from my ten year old son, Jack. He recently completed a science fair project on recycling and solemnly told me:

• Americans use 2.5 million plastic bottles every year.
• A plastic bottle sits in a land fill for 450 years if we don’t recycle it.

Yup, a ten year old hit the issue right on the head. Clearly, the water companies need to solve the BPA problem. But the second half of the equation is about recycling….to preserve this business, “Big Water” needs to get active in recycling, and incentivize consumers to do it. If they don’t, legislators and regulators like those in Concord, Mass may do it for them.

cwinters General Corporate, Sustainability

Those of us that help build and defend reputations for a living are often enamored of words, what they mean, what they can inspire. We spend a lot of our time helping executives find the right ones.

So I read with interest the New York Times’ roundup of what was said to the graduates of 2010 in commencement addresses across the country.

I was struck by what this array of leaders – some both revered and reviled – had to say. Though many students in their funny hats were likely bludgeoned by clichés and lazy advice, The Times recapped some good stuff.

In particular, I liked what Rachel Maddow said:

Gunning not just for personal triumph for yourself but for durable achievement to be proud of for life is the difference between winning things and leadership.

This statement certainly has application to corporate reputation as well – the difference between selling a lot of stuff without regard to the true cost and doing it responsibly; the difference between a CEO who manages and one who inspires.

My other favorite piece of advice from the roundup? Pattie Smith: “Take care of your damn teeth.”

msacks General Corporate commencement, Leadership

Tilde Harris at GreenBiz.com points us to the 10 Green NGOs Businesses Should Know About. Most of the list should be familiar to anyone working on corporate responsibility and sustainability/environmental issues, but a couple were new to me.

Her broad argument is right on – businesses must engage with the appropriate NGOs to make real progress. If you aren’t, you aren’t serious. It’s that simple.

It makes sense from a business standpoint – these groups have a lot of expertise – and from a reputational/risk mitigation standpoint – association adds credibility and stems rock-throwing from the sidelines.

As Harris puts it: “Many now view NGO-business partnerships as the rule, rather than the exception.”

msacks CSR, Sustainability

The latest in a series of shocking revelations in the BP incident, the CEO acknowledges that their crisis plan was inadequate. ”We didn’t have the tools in the toolbox.”

For communicators (ok, maybe for everyone), the revelation that there really wasn’t much of a crisis plan is nothing short of astounding. And the rapid succession of crisis issues this past year in energy, mining and banking, just to name a few, suggests that the for some of these industries, the lack of preparedness is nothing short of breathtaking.

Should government mandate crisis planning for certain industries? And if so, how should they monitor it?

Click here to take a 5 minute survey to share your views.

Here is my POV about the 4 things that separate the “men from the boys” in terms of good, effective crisis preparedness.

• An integrated plan that deals with both operations, and communications/stakeholder management. Nothing does more damage than actions that don’t synch with the words…building your plans together ensures a coordinated response.
• A process with clearly defined roles and approaches to decision making….not a plan built on individuals, who may or may not be available. Person-centric plans are reputational Kryptonite…they rarely work, and when they do, they are too slow to be effective in an environment where the proverbial “first hour” has become 60 seconds.
• A mechanism that allows for speed, and use of judgment and application of your principals – because no plan can plan for everything….and if you try, it becomes too big and cumbersome to use effectively. A crisis plan should be able to be carried in your pocket, not your wheelbarrow.
• Total Stakeholder Approach…my recent blog about President Obama saying the BP CEO wouldn’t work for him says it all. And do we really think the families of the 11 men killed care that Mr. CEO wants his life back?

cwinters Crisis Communications BP, Crisis

Pundits and newsmakers around the globe are tweeting and re-hashing President Obama’s interview on the Today Show this a.m., giving lots of attention to the comments about knowing whose ass to kick.

But for careful watchers of reputation issues, another very interesting exchange occurred when Lauer asked the President if he’s spoken to BP’s CEO.

President Obama’s response came without hesitation. No, he said, because he is interested in “action, not words.” Moments later, after reviewing the CEO’s many statements attempting to minimize the issues, Obama said, “He wouldn’t be working for me.”

Some simple rules of crisis management: Engage your third party influencers. Keep them informed. Make them part of your solution. Then back those words up with action.

None of us know the outcome of this situation. But having the President of the United States suggests you should lose your job can’t be a good thing.

Lauer later criticized President Obama for not picking up the phone to reach out to the BP CEO, and the balance of power was clear … they’ve been in touch and told BP what to do. If BP hopes to protect and preserve its reputation, which may be impossible at this stage, the responsibility for initiating that dialogue lies with the company, not with the White House.

cwinters Crisis Communications, General Corporate BP, Obama, Today Show

We’ve written a bit about BP’s response to the spill in the Gulf of Mexico.

So, I wanted to point you to Carreen’s commentary in Advertising Age on BP’s communications efforts relative to its new round of print and TV apology ads in a story by Michael Bush.

Let us know what you think.

Also, check out this BP logo redesign contest. Some biting, some funny, some arresting.

msacks Crisis Communications BP

Mark Twain said, “Never pick a fight with a man who buys his ink by the barrel.” But what happens when both sides have ink (print, digital and otherwise) to spare?

You get this: The Wall Street Journal and The New York Times have been mixing it up ever since Rupert Murdoch bought The Journal.

Now, we’re reaching a bit of a crescendo in this scrap. The Times is taking exception to the tongue-in-cheek, finger-in-the-eye ad campaign that The Journal has been running since introducing its Greater New York section, widely considered to be another strategic move to supplant The Times.

Perhaps not as down and dirty as the Hearst v. Pulitzer fight for audience supremacy of the New York newspaper business in the 1890s, but still fun to watch.

Relative to reputation, something like this – to a degree – gives both media brands a bit of a shot in the arm because it forces both to improve. Every now and again, we like to see two big boys going after each other. Pepsi v. Coke. Bud Light v. Miller Light. Apple v. Mac. And if the end result is excellent journalism, we all benefit.

To paraphrase another great thinker and social observer, Clemenza from The Godfather, let’s go to the mattresses.

This is what I’m talking about. A battle in and for the streets of New York.

msacks General Corporate New York Times, Wall Street Journal

In the world of business media, there are rankings and ratings and lists galore. Carreen just wrote about one.

Marc Gunther at GreennBiz.com now tells us that Underwriters Laboratories, an non-profit organization that helps set standards and provides certifications, in partnership with Greener World Media (publisher of GreenBiz), is taking on the difficult task of creating and launching a sustainability rating system.

I’m excited to see what the ratings and standards look like. Because Gunther is absolutely spot on: “This is a big deal because it could help bring credibility and clarity to the very crowded and confused business of sustainability ratings, rankings and eco-labels.”

For many sustainability or green ratings and rankings, the methodologies are always a little shaky. They seem easily gamed through voluntary reporting, they allow for omission of key elements of sustainability, and the results never seem to really stack up. It never seems “right” when an oil company tops a list of “green” companies. As such, it undermines the business value of sustainability when it seems you can get the credit without doing the hard, long work. A widely accepted, credible and comprehensive point system will begin to force out the posturing and the true leaders on sustainability will rise to the top.

msacks CSR, Sustainability CSR, rankings, Sustainability

So I was looking at the 2010 Fortune Most Admired List today. Google, Amazon, Apple, Berkshire Hathaway, and Johnson & Johnson fall in the top 5.

Quick quiz: How many of them have a CEO that you can name, or point out in a crowd?

Some clients tell me that their CEO and/or leadership team doesn’t need to have a profile. I always beg to differ. I remind them that reputation can account for as much as 63 percent of valuation (KRC Research) or I quote the famous Bloomberg BusinessWeek stat that says reputation fills from 30 to 70 percent of the gap between book value and market cap.

This year’s Fortune list is my new case in point.

cwinters General Corporate Fortune Most Admired