An editorial in Monday's Wall Street Journal, "The Case against Corporate Social Responsibility," by Associate Professor Aneel Karnani of the University of Michigan's School of Business, joins a number of other recent well-meaning, but uninformed, essays critical of corporate responsibility.

In July, for example, Chrystia Freeland lit up the blogosphere with her article in the Washington Post suggesting the CR practitioner community is to blame for the Gulf of Mexico oil spill.

While legitimate criticism of corporate responsibility is healthy and welcome, suggesting it will destroy the free enterprise system is nothing more than hyperbole.

Karnani's essay recycles the old Milton Friedman theory that the social responsibilities of a business in a free enterprise system are to make as much as money as possible unencumbered by outside interference from government bureaucracy or a meddlesome civil society. Karnani suggests companies must choose one of two conflicting paths: pursuit of the bottom line or pursuit of social welfare: "Can companies do well by doing good?" asks Karnani. "Yes -- sometimes. But the idea that companies have a responsibility to act in the public interest and will profit from doing so is fundamentally flawed.

The idea that companies seek to generate profits at the expense of the public interest is the real flawed argument.

Companies are able to realize profits precisely because they fulfill a public interest; identifying a social need, developing a product or service to fulfill that need and charging an amount commensurate with the perceived benefit or value provided. True this exchange isn't always so simple. Alcohol, tobacco and weapons have legitimate yet narrowly defined societal benefits and arguably significant societal costs. Generally, however, companies that don't fulfill a public interest are not likely to succeed. Similarly those that would intentionally generate profits at the expense of the public interest are likely to have a limited run.

Karnani believes that the private sector is drifting blindly from Friedman's tried and true principles toward the beguiling and dangerous cult of corporate responsibility. He sounds the alarm that while CR may look appealing, that it's really an illusory construct and a direct threat to traditional profit making. Corporate leaders who succumb to the false promises of CR do so at their own peril, Karnani warns.

Karnani replays the tired adage that "executives are hired to maximize profits; that is their responsibility to their company's shareholders" and that CR is contradictory to good governance which "demands that managers fulfill their fiduciary duty to act in the shareholders' interest."

Perhaps Karnani is unaware that good governance is considered an important cornerstone of CR; in fact it's one of five critical aspects of the Tomorrows Value Rating assessment methodology. Karnani is correct that corporate managers have a fiduciary duty to their shareholders; however, unlike Karnani, the investment community considers CR issues to be relevant to corporate financial performance and firmly within the bounds of fiduciary duty. If "complete information" that empowers investors to make informed decisions is a tenet of our free market economy Karnani should encourage greater transparency regarding CR risks and opportunities.