I would expect the return on investment in philanthropy and CSR to vary by company. Brand image matters more, I suspect, when a consumer is buying a computer or iPod or coffee than when buying gas (ExxonMobil), cable (Comcast), or when the government or a corporate manager is doing the buying (Halliburton). So maybe everyone is acting rationally here?

That makes sense, Vic. Obviously, the number of companies here is too small to say anything definitive, but I just thought it was interesting that two of the three bottom companies were doing pretty well in the stock market, even while their public reputations are tanking. I tend to be skeptical about global claims about the value of "reputational constraints" in corporate governance, so I latch onto anecdotal evidence like this to bolster my world view.

I am not sure that I would say that the reputations of Halliburton, ExxonMobil and Comcast were "tanking" in 2006. Yes, they slipped in relative terms to the bottom of a list of 60 companies, but at least for Halliburton and ExxonMobil, their reputational scores went up slightly in 2006 compared to 2005. Comcast's reputational score only declined 0.52% in 2006 from its 2005 score. Part of the reason that these three businesses ended up further down the list in 2006 than in 2005 was the fact that Harris Interactive added nine new companies to the list that all scored marginally better than Halliburton, Comcast and ExxonMobil. Given the small differences in their reputational scores between 2005 and 2006, I guess I am not surprised that other factors had a greater influence on their stock prices than the changest to their reputations.