Several local businesses, particularly those that appeal to younger customers, are incorporating charity into their business model. Buy their service or product, and a portion of the money you spend will go to a cause, perhaps even one you select.

That trend was explained last week in the Business Journal’s centerpiece article headlined “Giving In” by tech reporter Natalie Jarvey.

Who could object to a business incorporating a little good will into its operating routine?

Well, I can. At least, it makes me uneasy.

It’s not that I object to charities. Most (certainly not all) do terrific and necessary work. But I get squirmy when people try to meld the goals and purposes of businesses with those of charities. It’s like church and state. They’re perfectly fine but shouldn’t be combined.

Let’s take a moment and reflect on how the innovation/price cycle of capitalism works – or at least, how it’s supposed to work. It goes something like this:

An ingenious person devises a better mousetrap and manages to build a little business around the new product. At first, the retail cost of the product is high, but that high price is needed to cover the big costs of a startup. A competitor takes notice of the bounty of money to be made with the expensive new device, and he figures he knows how to make a mousetrap that’s just as good, maybe better, at a lower cost. Soon, others join in, speeding up the cycle by making similar devices that are even better or even cheaper, or maybe both. The originator of the better mousetrap needs to become more efficient and innovative and come out with a new and improved model.

Want a current example of how this innovation cycle produces ever-better and ever-cheaper products? Tablet computers.

There is magic to this cycle, and a kind of economic morality. After all, wealth is created for the innovators and any stockholders, jobs are produced for workers, and the customers’ lives are improved because they get a stream of innovative products that keep getting better and cheaper. There’s a justice to all that, assuming the process works right.

And that’s the problem with a business incorporating charity in its operating model. It may interfere with that delicate process.

For one thing, it diverts money from the startup business. If, say, 10 percent of every sale goes to a charity, that means the business may not get the crucial money it needs to grow and invest in itself and improve its process. (In the article last week, one company reported that investors balked at the business model in which 10 percent of its revenues went to charity.)

For another, it may take sales away from the most efficient operators. If two businesses offer similar products or services, some customers may prefer to buy from the one that gives a portion of revenue to charity, even if that business has higher prices. That deprives the efficient business from getting sales it normally would get.

Look, charities need money to do their important work. But that’s separate from businesses, which need money to grow and carry out their important role in our economy. And the system normally sees to it that the innovative and the efficient get that money.

And if your business is efficient and makes a profit, or if you personally are doing well or reasonably so, then the system encourages you to give to charities. It’s called the charitable deduction.

It’s a pretty good system. And it works because the goals and purposes of businesses are kept separate from charities.

Charles Crumpley is editor of the Business Journal. He can be reached at [email protected].