By Stephanie Fierman

Larry King held a two-hour telethon on June 21 to raise funds for those impacted by the BP oil spill titled “Disaster in the Gulf: How You Can Help.”

Am I the only one who doesn’t quite understand this?

It seems uncontested that the spill was caused by a commercial entity that everyone agrees is responsible; that the U.S. government has vowed to hold said entity to its promise of paying for the clean-up and for losses incurred by all affected parties; and BP itself has agreed to do same.

Now I’m not making any claims as to whether BP will or won’t actually do this (or that its version of reimbursement would be agreeable), but this telethon wasn’t saying “We know BP’s 100% responsible, but we don’t believe it’ll come through so we’re doing this just in case.” It was just your regular old telethon to raise money.

So why? Why are we raising money? Why are television watchers being prodded by their favorite celebrities to donate?

Larry King said that “the point of this effort is to get immediate relief to the people and wildlife who (sic) are in urgent need,” and that “the telethon’s proceeds go directly to relief organizations.”

OK, fair enough.  As Mr. King noted when you are out of work you don’t need help tomorrow, you need help today.  But here’s the Reputational rub, if you will. Isn’t BP tasked with providing “immediate relief?”  Doesn’t BP need (and want) to find ways to help the people thrown out of work. One worries for our global business trustscape when a major company is cast in the same light as, well, a hurricane.

I also worry that, in a perverse way, that this kind of giving makes us immune – numb – to disaster and tragedy. Something happens? No need to look too closely: let’s just raise money. Let’s get a bunch of stars to look soulfully into the camera and ask for cash, while we view a dying, oil-blackened bird in split screen. Haiti six months later is still a major scale human disaster, though the media lens and the public have moved on.

And I worry that this makes Americans feel as though we’re doing something – we sent in our $20 bucks, therefore we are good people who care and we can move on. But can we? Are we doing any of the heavy lifting that could actually help managers improve risk management to avoid future outcomes, or to really help the people impacted recover? What does it mean when individuals appear to be picking up the slack for a global corporation?

And I worry, too, about the effect on our collective sense of organizational responsibility. How does this phenomenon impact a company’s commitment to building trust in the marketplace?

It’s easy to pound one’s chest and demand that “those responsible” do more, but I would suggest that, by our own actions, the public may be empowering these same responsible parties to do less. There’s no guidebook that tells an organization exactly what reputable and trustworthy behavior is – society does that. Stakeholders – like you, me and Larry King – do that.

Where do we want to set the bar?  In the midst of a crisis as big, bad and complex as the Gulf, sometimes it’s hard to tell where the bar even is. That said, on one thing, at least, everyone agrees. Help is needed in the Gulf.

A few of us attended the CRO Conference in New York this week. This new organization dedicated to best practices in corporate responsibility already has 15% of the Fortune 500 signed up and it’s growing fast.

The meeting offered plenty of performance take-aways that organizations of every stripe can learn from. Here are a few that we’re chewing on back here in the Garage:

1) Some of the smartest companies are driving their sustainability practices from the outside in, with the customer firmly in sight. (Peter Drucker would have been proud.) Mattel, for example, is not only implementing a more sustainable packaging strategy for “Barbie”, they have eased a big customer frustration: having to cut, pry, twist and pull Barbie out of her well-bolted, plastic shrine. See a fun CNBC clip on Mattel’s strategy here.

2) Not one, but two Fortune 500 CEOs advised that when addressing sustainability issues an important starting point is to deal with the facts — both the convenient and the inconvenient. Then focus on continuous improvement, not instant perfection. Funny how if you strip away the hype and just “get after it”, profits and greater good can come of it.

3) OK, full disclosure, this was a green crowd, but there was thoughtful consensus that it’s a myth that green practices are the enemy of profit. On the most basic level, what company wouldn’t want to reduce costs through less fuel, less water? And did we mention that Mattel’s stock price has been on a tear over the past year?

4) Long-term solutions to many sustainability issues are not going to yield short-term gains. That’s a problem, and a big topic. And it relates to what we refer to here in the Garage as The Math Problem. More on that another day.

5) Climate change will be profoundly important in accelerating both business growth and new wealth. Of course for some, the grim reaper of economics, “creative destruction,” will be in play. What companies are headed for a rough patch? The panel of experts – all consultants trying hard not to offend – demurred. Oh, wait a minute. The word “Detroit” slipped out. And it was predicted that water-intensive agriculture is going to die faster than anybody currently expects.

As fellow Trustmeister Paul Allen has just gotten back from the Galapagos Islands, we can’t help but paraphrase the famous Darwin insight here: “It’s not the strongest that survive, but those that are best able to adapt.” You can read his dispatch shortly.

Finally, one of the biggest points for trustmeisters that came out of the conference: If you don’t know what it is you need to do to have your reputation aligned with your publics, you’re courting real trouble.

Enjoy the weekend.