In early 2008, Baxter International (NYSE:BAX) began a series of product recalls involving the drug, Heparin, that was manufactured with ingredients sourced from a supplier in China. Yesterday, the first of the product liability litigation cases arising reached the verdict stage.

According the to the Chicago Tribune (9 June, Japsen), a Cook County Circuit Court jury Thursday awarded $625,000 to the estate of a man who his attorneys say was given a dosage of a blood thinner made by Baxter International Inc. that contained a contaminated ingredient found in the company's supply chain in China.

The verdict is the first from a case against Baxter and its supplier, Wisconsin-based Scientific Protein Laboratories, from hundreds of lawsuits filed against the Deerfield-based medical product giant. A mountain of litigation has been leveled against the companies after U.S. regulators determined in 2008 that Baxter's heparin was contaminated, from fake ingredients sourced in China.

The Wall Street Journal (9 June, Kell) quotes Baxter spokeswoman Deborah Spak as saying the company is taking responsibility for legitimate cases of harm related to the contamination seriously, adding that Baxter will "vigorously defend claims that are not consistent with the definition established by public health authorities." Baxter's therapies treat serious medical problems such as cancer, immune disorders and trauma. The company is coming off a challenging year due to economic weakness, costs pegged to the U.S. health-care overhaul and some product-quality and regulatory challenges.  It's stock price has appreciated around 50% over the trailing twelve months and shares rose an additional 0.3% to $59.05 in after-hours trading -- not the sort of economic performance associated with a company facing new challenges.

Turning to the reputation metrics from Steel City Re, Baxter is wrapping up the trailing twelve months ahead at the 88th percentile from a start at the 72nd. Its reputation metric volatility, exponentially weighted, is down to about 6%, its reputation velocity is on the upswing at 7% and its reputation vector is positive at 1%. All are signs of reputational recovery. Economically, it is outperforming the median of its peer group comprising 172 companies in the Pharmaceutical sector by a comfortable 17.82%



Finally, while the sector as a whole is demonstrating increased level of reputational volatility reaching around 36%, the Company's intangible asset fraction got a small boost and is now around 90%, slightly above that of the median of its peer group.

We conclude that as with Johnson & Johnson's supply chain issue of the early 1980's, Baxter took the hit early on (2008) and has since progressed with the expected long-term costs of this quality/safety issue already deeply embedded in the stock price and in reputation-related expectations.

In Douglas Adams’ The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy, “the only thing that went through the mind of the bowl of petunias as it fell was 'Oh no, not again.' Many people have speculated that if we knew exactly why the bowl of petunias had thought that we would know a lot more about the nature of the Universe than we do now.”



We can reasonably assume that similar thoughts raced through the minds of BP (NYSE:BP) executives on 20 April as the Deepwater Horizon drilling rig exploded, caught fire, and sank. And while we are probably equally clueless about the nature of the Company, as are stakeholders who own its reputation, of this we can be certain: it is sinking.

As illustrated in the series of Steel City Re Corporate Reputation Index charts below, BP and the other firms associated with this safety and environmental disaster are experiencing an acceleration of a steady reputational decline. And as noted in the book, Mission Intangible and more recently in an article in CFO magazine, these declines are indications and warnings of an increased risk of a reputational event.

Not that BP is unaware. The New York Times quotes BP CEO Tony Hayward on Friday as saying, “Reputationally, and in every other way, we will be judged by the quality, intensity, speed and efficacy of our response.”

BP has blamed the rig’s owner and operator, Transocean (NYSE:RIG), for the accident. Further investigation is now suggesting that a drilling subcontractor, Halliburton (NYSE:HAL), may have failed to execute a critical task that prevents gas and oil from escaping from the well.

The process is called ‘cementing’ and it is challenging. A 2007 study by the U.S. Minerals Management Service found that cementing was the single most-important factor in 18 of 39 well blowouts in the Gulf of Mexico over a 14-year period. More recently, Halliburton (NYSE:HAL) has been accused of performing a poor cement job in the case of a major blowout in the Timor Sea off Australia last August. An investigation is under way.

As a case study of risk and reputation management, this has almost all the main elements. Consider the following:

1. Iconic brand, BP, working through subcontractors - a key source of risk (we explore this topic further this Friday, see below)
2. History of failures in managing the processes of assuring safety - a reputation lacking resilience 
3. Marketing campaign built around sustainability laid to waste by a massive oil spill - lack of authenticity

The LA Times notes in a story on 1 May that experts were cautious about attributing blame, pending what are expected to be lengthy investigations by Congress and the Department of Homeland Security, which oversees the Coast Guard.

Satisfy your intellectual curiosity!

If the above issues pique your interest, here are several things you can do right now:

1. Register free of charge for the next IAFS Mission Intangible Monthly Briefing set for Friday 7 May at 12h00 EDT. The conversation will feature Scott Childers from Walt Disney and Bob Rittereiser from Zhi Verden on “Process-driven reputation risk in supply chains”
2. Purchase the book, Mission: Intangible. Managing risk and reputation to create enterprise value, at the IAFS Store (or any online book retailer) 
3. Become a member of the Intangible Asset Finance Society.
4. Join our community on Linked-In.

Next Friday, May 7, the Society's monthly Mission Intangible Monthly Briefing will feature Scott Childers from the Walt Disney Company (NYSE:DIS) who is calling for holistic supply chain vendor management, and Bob Rittereiser from Zhi Verden whose Global Trademaster™ product provides total supply chain visibility. A note this past Monday in the Wall Street Journal explains why this is so important.

On Monday U.S. Federal, state and local law enforcement officials, part of the National Intellectual Property Rights Coordination Center said they made their biggest-ever seizures of counterfeit goods this month in two operations that netted more than $240 million in a sweep of more than 30 U.S. cities. Immigration and Customs Enforcement announced the double-barreled operation on Monday to coincide with World Intellectual Property Day.

Commemorating a day to heighten awareness of intellectual property with arrests may not be festive, but it is appropriate. Fake goods do more than rob intellectual property owners of revenue. Fake goods raise the specter of a full range of reputation-linked issues that go beyond cash flow to create risk in areas as  diverse as ethics (international labor standards), quality, safety, security, and sustainability. The article further notes that next week, the Naval Criminal Investigative Service and the Defense Criminal Investigative Service will begin targeting counterfeit goods that could get into the military supply chain. The U.S. General Services Administration will target fake goods in the federal civilian supply chain.

To target effectively, one needs intelligence. According to Mr. Rittereiser, Zhi Verden’s Global Trademaster™ provides that intelligence; according to Mr. Childers, having that intelligence is a necessary component for world class supply chain management.

Act on your intellectual curiosity!

If the above issues pique your interest, here are several things you can do right now:

1. Register free of charge for the next IAFS Mission Intangible Monthly Briefing set for Friday 7 May at 12h00 EDT. The conversation will feature Scott Childers from Walt Disney and Bob Rittereiser from Zhi Verden on “Process-driven reputation risk in supply chains”
2. Purchase the book, Mission: Intangible. Managing risk and reputation to create enterprise value, at the IAFS Store (or any online book retailer) 
3. Become a member of the Intangible Asset Finance Society.
4. Join our community on Linked-In.

Last Sunday at pharmaceutical giant Eli Lilly's (NYSE:LLY) warehouse near Hartford, Connecticut, thieves stole $75 million dollars worth of anti-depressants and other prescription pills -- enough to fill a tractor-trailer --- now headed for the black market. "It was a very brazen, well planned crime. It appears as though the criminals broke in through the roof, rappeled down through the roof, disarmed the alarm and then proceeded to steal several dozen pallets of pharmaceutical products which were loaded onto a truck and taken", said Ed Sagabiel with Eli Lilly and Company.

We make three points. First, this is a physical security breach that does not, on its surface, appear to have any reputation impact. The financial impact will be minimal because the event is one of the perils commonly covered by property and casualty insurance. The second is that this is the type of physical security risk most companies are best prepared to mitigate - physical removal. Most are not in a position to mitigate the reverse security risk of physical introduction--the type of physical security risk that nearly brought Johnson & Johnson (NYSE:JNJ) to its knees a quarter of a century ago.
 
Here's a worst case spin from a reputation perspective. Fact: Lilly has lost control of $75 million (wholesale) of product. These drugs are all branded and marked as authentic Lilly ethical pharmaceuticals which stakeholders expect will be safe and effective. Suppose branded product reentered the market after being adulterated. Suddenly, the Johson & Johnson fiasco seems like child's play.

You ask for a motive? How about the mother of all insider trades? Would criminals who execute a Mission:Impossible-style heist have the financial acumen to short Lilly equity or go long on Lilly credit default swaps as they flood the market with adulterated pharmaceuticals? Could they recognize returns in excess of $75 million in fungible liquid assets? 

And this brings us to the third point. Superior reputation management includes both crisis management and scenario modeling exercises. Because even rumors suggesting the above could be damaging.

Heads Up - Date Change

The Mission: Intangible Monthly Briefing for April 2010 will be held one week later than usual in deference to those who celebrate Good Friday. On 9 April 2010 at 12h00 EDT, the second Friday of the month, we will host a conversation featuring incoming Integrity and Corporate Responsibility Committee Chairman Paul Liebman from Dell (NASDAQ:DELL) and IA Value Signaling Committee Chairman Jon Low from Predictiv. The title for the one hour moderated discussion is: Ethics - A valuable intangible asset? Mary Adams from Intellectual Capital Advisors hosts.

As always, registration for this popular series is complimentary and slides will be available for download in advance of the event. To register now, click here.

Join Us

If the above intrigues you or challenges you to learn more, look no further. The Intangible Asset Finance Society wants to be your business resource. Join us and be part of an organization that provides a wealth of educational materials, including a new book, to further your executive career, and exciting monthly conferences such as the upcoming one on ethics mentioned above.

It is significant that there is little public gloating from other auto manufacturers as Toyota Motors’ (NYSE:TM) leadership globally offers mea culpas. Although it is Toyota’s reputation that is melting under the heat of headline risk, competitors are only too aware that the next tolling of the bell could be for them.

This is why. While the damaged intangible assets are three of the big six: ethics, safety, and quality, the underlying problem is the global supply chain. According to Bob Rittereiser, CEO of Zhi Verden, a supply chain systems and information management company, “the stark reality today is that the global supply chain is a business operating system with global reach, thousands of participants, established practices, government requirements, blazed paths, known bottlenecks and many known risks, yet no one is in charge!” Or, said differently by John Hurrell, Chief Executive, Association of Insurance and Risk Managers, “The complexity of supply chains puts your reputation in the hands of the lowest common denominator.”

Reputation drives intangible asset value. As reported in Mission: Intangible -- Managing Risk and Reputation to Create Enterprise Value (IAFS with Trafford Press, March 2010), research shows that superior reputations pay off with (i) pricing power , (ii) lower operating costs, (iii) greater earnings multiples, (iv) lower beta (i.e., stock price volatility) and (v) lower credit costs. And when reputation is damaged, these benefits are lost. All told, we estimate the reputational impact, so far, to be a $2 billion cost to Toyota's earnings and a $25 billion cost to its market capitalization.

Previously we shared Toyota's reputation metrics from the Steel City Re Corporate Reputation Index. We take time out from our membership drive to offer this financial breakdown shown at left.

Legend. Income Statement Impact (values in $‘000). Lost sales and a 3% loss in pricing power will reduce Toyota’s gross profit by around $900 million. Costs associated with the worldwide recalls, litigation, insurance subrogation, and regulatory compliance will cost at least another $500 million. The lower credit ratings will increase borrowing costs by at least another $71 million, and non-cash depreciation expenses associated with a 3% write down of Toyota’s automobile asset base will reduce earnings by another $540 million. Data source: Steel City Re.

Join Us

If the above intrigues you, frightens you, or challenges you to learn more, look no further. The Intangible Asset Finance Society wants to be your business resource. Join us and be part of an organization that provides a wealth of educational materials to further your executive career.

Innovation: Hot Policy and Practice Issues

Be sure, by the way, to register for a complimentary seat at the 5 March Mission:Intangible Monthly Briefing, held by phone at 12h00, EST. It's an innovation smack down. Athena Alliance President and intangible asset policy expert Kenan Jarboe goes head to head with Steel City Re's Judith Giordan, Managing Director of IA Finance and former senior technology executive with Pepsi, Henkel, International Flavors & Fragrances, and Polaroid. Yes, as always, registration is complimentary and slides are already posted on the website events page.

In the Society’s pantheon of intangible assets that create enterprise value, one has defied efforts to build for it a universally compelling business case. Sustainability, unlike ethics, innovation, quality, safety and security, is not a practice that in our experience reliably has created enterprise value for its practitioners. Further, if one subscribes to the theory that there is wisdom in crowds, than the murkiness surrounding the value of sustainability persists. This is why. According to a recent survey of 1,400 CFOs from a stratified random sample of U.S. companies with 20 or more employees, two-thirds of CFOs don't expect to boost sustainability efforts in next 12 months.

When asked whether they expect their companies’ emphasis on green initiatives to increase, decrease or remain the same in the next 12 months, 68 percent of chief financial officers (CFOs) interviewed said they anticipate no changes. More than a quarter (28 percent), however, said they expect an increased focus on the issue.

When we first saw this report, we assumed that those expecting to increase their focus would be companies that distributed product through Wal-Mart (NYSE:WMT). More generally, we expected retailers and and their supply chains would be investing in green to conform with Wal-Mart’s sustainability requirements – or at least remain competitive.

We were not wrong. Looking horizontally at the data, while overall 28% expected to increase investments, 33% of the CFOs from companies in the retail sector expected to do so. Furthermore, while overall 5.15% expected to increase investments significantly, 6.3% of the CFOs from the retail sector were gearing up for bigger green initiatives.

However, we were surprised by some of the findings. First, the sector from which a plurality of CFOs expected to increase investments the most was finance – nearly 36%. At the other end of the spectrum was transportation – only 19%. However, nearly half of those in the transportation sector expected to make significant increases.

Growth and/or maintaining the status quo were not on everyone’s agenda. Sectors planning to cutback, according to the CFOs surveyed, include business services, construction and – ready for this – retail at 5.2, 4.8, and 3.8% respectively.

The survey was developed by Robert Half Management Resources.

Supply chain continue to hurt Boeing's (NYSE:BA) reputation. Strategies executed earlier in the 787 program to (1) reduce costs and (2) garner intangible political benefits associated with global job creation introduced lurking risks in the supply chain that are dogging this company. At the heart of the matter is oversight and control.
 
Indeed, a key economic lesson learned these past two years is that iconic firms with global operations, a stable of business partners, and reputations for ethics, safety, security, and quality; must have better managerial oversight of their partners. There are several strategies for improving oversight. To protect and restore its reputation rapidly, Boeing appears to be pursuing a strategy of total control by acquiring troubled suppliers. It is not an inexpensive proposition. The latest acquisition is reported today in the Financial Times:

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/cd36e146-6b56-11de-861d-00144feabdc0.html

"Boeing has been forced to take over one of the key suppliers to the 787 Dreamliner, its troubled new jet, in an effort to gain tighter control of the production process.

It has agreed to pay at least $580m for the facility that makes chiefly composite sections for the 787, a planned family of long-range jets that is running more than two years behind schedule.

The purchase of the South Carolina plant from Vought Aircraft Industries - owned by the Carlyle Group, the private equity firm - is the second time Boeing has been forced into an acquisition to strengthen its global supply chain.

Last year, the US aircraft maker took over Vought's stake in Global Aeronautica, a joint venture with Alenia of Italy that assembles 787 fuselage sections. Vought said it received $55m from that deal."

The Boeing Company (NYSE:BA) reported today that it would again delay the first flight of its new jet, the 787, the latest setback in a program that is considered crucial to the plane maker’s future. The New York Times reports that Howard Rubel, an analyst at Jefferies & Company, said the problem “doesn’t help the company’s credibility.”

Not so fast, Mr. Rubel. Credibility has many facets. The most important driver of reputation in the commercial aerospace sector is safety, and with the recent string of air disasters involving aircraft made by Boeing’s rival EADS NV (EPA:EAD), safety is very much on every stakeholder's mind.

The operational setbacks both Boeing and EADS have suffered highlight the difficulty of pulling off increasingly complex engineering feats involving new materials and global supply chains. And at least one financial lesson from the effort to create a global supply chain is that the savings from direct and tangible costs are being offset by intangible costs arising in the risks of a greater business network entailing less visibility and control.

Managing a complex supply chain is a business process, and failure to do it well – when stakeholders have been led to expect benefits – can be costly in terms of reputation. So returning to Howard Rubel’s comments, what is the net reputation impact?

We turn to the data from the Steel City Re IA (Corporate Reputation) Index. The Index, which correlates with reputation surveys such as those published by Forbes, Fortune, and Harris Interactive, captures the financial implications of stakeholder behaviors and expectations of stakeholder behaviors as determined by corporate reputation. The Index is a good leading indicator of financial performance and returns on equity.

The index shows that over this past year, Boeing’s reputation ranking has sunk from the 69th percentile to the 48th percentile among the 47 companies in the Aerospace and defense sector. Worst, volatility has been climbing and the Exponentially Weighted Moving Average volatility is now four log orders of magnitude. Not surprisingly, return on equity is 14% below the median of the peer group.



Looking at industry more broadly, we see that the overall reputation ranking of the Aerospace and defense sector relative to other industry sectors has been generally rising while variance within the group has been declining and assuming greater homogeneity.



Within this environment, the outstanding reputation holders comprising the top decile as measured by the Steel City Re Reputation Index are: American Science & Engineering (NASDAQ:ASEI); Precision Castparts Corp. (NYSE:PCP); TransDigm Group (NYSE:TDG); and United Technologies Corp (NYSE:UTX).

United Technologies interests us because our colleague, Nancy Lintner, former Chief Marketing Officer and a speaker at one of our annual meetings, developed an award winning communications campaign that highlighted a number of corporate intangibles. Over the past year, the Reputation Index ranking for United Technologies has climbed slightly from an already high 89th percentile to the 92nd percentile, and its EWMA volatility has declined. The company has rewarded investors with an ROE that is 6% above the median return of the Aerospace and defense peer group.

This note explores whether a proposed transaction by a $75B beverage company, Pepsi Inc. (NYSE:PEP), is motivated by costs savings, brand enhancement, or reputation protection. Seeing no perceptible movement in the reputation index of either the company or its arch rival, we conclude that notwithstanding which of the three was the initial trigger, the greatest value may be in reputation risk management.

On 20 April 2009, Pepsi proposed buying the outstanding shares it does not own in its two largest bottlers, Pepsi Bottling Group (PBG.N) and PepsiAmericas (PAS.N), in a $6 billion cash and stock deal. Many in the financial press suggested it was a cost-cutting initiative. Jon Baskin, a marketing iconoclast, a keynote speaker at the Society’s 2008 annual conference, and the author of the book, “Branding OnlyWorks on Cattle,” opined that the move represented brilliant, strategic branding. In Jon’s words:

Think about it. New packages and formulations, available at new and different locations, priced and supported in novel ways...all thanks to a holistic approach to the brand, vs. some archaic top-down application that sees it only as image and words. It's these actions, and real investments, that will build sustainable, long-term brand growth.

Cost savings and long-term brand growth are both good things, reflect well on management and enhance reputation. So, with two weeks having now elapsed during which the market has had an opportunity to digest the news, and while the deal is still in the negotiation phase (the bottlers rejected it on Monday), we called on the Steel City Re corporate reputation index to see what impact the news has had on the reputations of Pepsi and its arch rival, The Coca Cola Company (NYSE:KO).

As shown in the charts below, the short answer is “not much.” Pepsi tops the fifteen-member Soft drink sector; Coke is in the 92nd percentile. Volatility is nil. In fact, in the midst of the most tumultuous market since the great depression, these two iconic firms emerge with nearly identical profiles comprising exceedingly stable reputation metrics. With Pepsi and Coke’s market caps at $75B and $100B respectively, are they too big to budge?






Big, yes, but not too big to trip and fall. As we see it, both pay exquisite managerial attention to their reputations. Ethics, quality, safety, security and sustainability are all watchwords. Innovation is alive and well. So the competition between these two is analogous to that of two chess grandmasters. They see all, know all, and understand the implications of every move and its derivatives. The game, therefore, is waiting for one or the other to make a mistake. It is a game where risk management is the winning play. And given the relative values of the physical assets and intangible assets at the two companies, reputation loss arising from a business partner where visibility and control are weaker – supply chain headline risk, if you will – is one of the major risks we believe needs to be managed.

So let us put our own spin on Pepsi’s announced acquisition: from an intangible asset finance management perspective, it is a prudent move to manage reputation risk arising from a third party. While it may not increase Pepsi’s brand value or enhance its reputation, it may prevent the sort of reputation loss that destroyed nearly 14% of Coke’s value 10 years ago.

My colleague and former Assistant Secretary, Department of Homeland Security, Robert Liscouski recently posted this comment on the Adfero national security blog site. I reproduce his comments here because they address the intangible asset finance value of security. His observations affirm that when companies abrogate managerial responsibility for risk management, whether it is in the financial sector or the marine sector, corporate reputation is damaged and economic returns suffer. Conversely, companys are rewarded for paying attention to that which is valued by its stakeholders. Bob writes:

Here’s the question – who pays for the protection afforded to private companies engaged in protecting America’s critical assets? The answer is: it depends.

Chemical plants, nuclear power plants, airlines, telecommunications companies, transportation companies, you name it – most of the costs associated with protecting private companies are borne by the companies, their shareholders and when possible, their customers. With a glaring exception – if you are a foreign shipping company and one of your ships transits the Gulf of Aden and is hijacked by four criminals intent on gaining ransom money – the US Navy and insurance companies are happy to pick up the tab for the rescue and protection of the crew, the ship and its cargo. One might think this is a justifiable national security response because the shipping company is threatened from conducting its operations. However, these pirates are common criminals, not terrorists and the shipping companies are choosing to undertake the risk but not take appropriate measures to prevent the hijackings because they can rely on the US and other navies for protection – at the cost of the US taxpayer. So the US taxpayer is not only burdened with failed management of US financial institutions and auto makers, along with irresponsible credit card and mortgage holders, but now we’re subsidizing foreign companies who refuse to implement solutions to minimize or avoid the risk to their ships and their clients’ cargo.

Which brings forth the question, why are shippers deferring to the navies of the world? The easy answer is the US Navy isn’t going to charge the shipping companies. However, there is more - the shippers, as a group, have failed to grasp the reputation benefits associated with improved security, reduced risk and better service. Some companies do understand the value of protecting their reputation – contrast Dry Ships Inc. (NASDAQ:DRYS) vs. Diana Shipping Inc. (NYSE:DSX). Since experiencing a hijacking in February 2009 Dry Ships Inc., the company's reputation as measured by the Steel City Re IA index has tumbled from the 80th percentile to 36th percentile, based on the market’s perception that they are not managing security issues well. Diana by contrast has gained on the Steel City Re reputation index moving from the 30th percentile to the 80th.



Diana has out performed its peers by 24% while Dry Shipping has under performed by 18%. Why do these percentages matter? Because they demonstrate the value of good security programs, their recognition by the markets and the impact on their shareholder value.



This is something our government needs to underscore with the private sector – good security is good for business. And by security, I don’t mean staffing the ships with heavily armed mercenaries. As romantic an alternative that as that might be against a romanticized criminal, it isn’t a practical solution. A meaningful security solution entails planning, analysis, and risk mitigation and avoidance to keep ships out of harms way. The US Navy, while fully capable of such a task, neither has the time or resources in its current configuration to deal with seaborne criminals.

We need to rethink our policy and its implication for Homeland Security. Security is key function to businesses and there are measures shipping companies (foreign and domestic) can take to reduce the burden on the US and the US Government should have other priorities than to once again bail out more unwilling or irresponsible managers.