Unbound Edition - Online Codes of Conduct: Protecting Corporate Reputation or Limiting Freedom of Speech?

From blogging under a pseudonym to posting comments using an alias, anonymity has been one of the Web’s most beloved features since the early days of chat rooms. But when you’re the CEO of a major company, are you ever really anonymous?

Corporate executives like John Mackey of Whole Foods Market have found out the hard way that sock-puppeting, or, “creating a fake online identity to praise, defend or create the illusion of support for one’s self, allies or company,” is bad business on the Web.

Now, Whole Foods is amending its code of business conduct to ban senior executives and directors from posting anything online about the company, competitors or vendors.

What do you think? Should companies restrict their executives from posting online or is it just a matter of needing to be transparent?

...
written by bryan, November 12, 2007 03:51 PM

I understand their reasoning and timing, but I don't see how a progressive, forward-thinking company like Whole Foods could stifle self expression like this. Some clear guidelines (which would obviously include full transparency) seem like a better alternative to banning such communications outright.

please.
written by Insert Fake Name Here, November 12, 2007 03:52 PM

Imagine if no one could do anything online under an assumed name. Interest and content would drop by half. Let the executives do their role playing. We all do. No harm done.

pretty please
written by ingonito, November 12, 2007 04:13 PM

I don't think executives should be held up to a higher standard than the rest of us when writing about personal matters or things that aren't directly involved with their businesses. They too deserve anonymity on the web, just like the rest of us enjoy. But when commenting on competitors, pending deals, etc. as was the case with Mackey, it's cowardly at best and illegal at worst.