Joe Nocera, the Times' Saturday business columnist (and Pulitzer nominee!), is generally compelling and fun to read. But his piece this weekend is irksome. Nocera sets out to argue that, in his words, "socially responsible investing oversimplifies the world, and in so doing distorts reality." He continues, "Rare is the company, after all, that is either all good or all bad. To put it another way, socially responsible investing creates the illusion that the world is black and white, when its real color is gray." Nocera also claims that the system investors have for rating companies is neither adequate nor objective. His main examples here are Reebok and Nike, the latter of which has gotten significant heat over the years for its (far from great) labor practices. At the same time, Reebok has generally avoided opprobrium. By the end the column, he's thrown up his hands: "It would be nice if we could invest our money only in companies that had terrific human rights record, fabulous environmental values and wonderful compassionate cultures. Too bad it's impossible." Put aside the fact that a lot of people think Nike is worse than Reebok. And then ignore the argument that even if they're both bad, it probably makes some sense to punish at least one of them. Nocera seems to be arguing two contradictory points: first, that we can't really know how bad companies are; and second, that Reebok is in fact just as bad as Nike. If Nocera wants fairer and more accurate ratings, fine. He should write a column with suggestions on how to accomplish this goal. But to trash the people who are trying to make responsible investments, and then conclude by saying, in essence, "Life is complicated, what can you do?", feels cheap. We don't need business columnists to tell us how confusing and messy the big bad world is. Update: Brad Plumer had an excellent piece on the subject earlier this year. --Isaac Chotiner