(FORTUNE Magazine) – We are sitting here glumly reading a book called Rating America's Corporate Conscience and trying to think of something discreditable about Pillsbury. This particular effort got under way soon after we flipped open the book, which is subtitled ''A provocative guide to the companies behind the products you buy every day.'' It says there on page 104 that you should buy Haagen-Dazs ice cream because Pillsbury, its producer, is socially responsible. What it doesn't tell you is that millions of American executives have been flunking their wind sprints ever since Haagen-Dazs came along. Rating was produced mostly by people associated with the Council on Economic Priorities, and both the book and the council have been getting endorsed all over the place. The Nexis database notes 86 instances of the mighty American media citing the council since the beginning of 1986. The citations, invariably respectful, typically indicate that the council is finding national defense to be bad for the economy and corporate business to be bad for the environment. The council is typically identified as a ''nonprofit'' or ''independent'' research organization, implying that you had better take its Naderesque judgments to heart. But about the ice cream. Assuming, arguendo, that some liberal fanatics out there wish political input on the country's ice cream vendors, why should they prefer Haagen-Dazs over Lady Borden or Gelare ice cream, both made by Borden? The answer is something you are supposed to divine by examining the scores given to Pillsbury and Borden (and all other consumer goods companies) in seven different categories. Two have to do with national defense: You are asked to assume that contributing to national defense is ipso facto irresponsible. Another score has to do with South Africa, an obvious no-no (although companies there get some credit for complying with the Sullivan Principles, which mandate nondiscriminatory employment practices). Two other scores rate the companies according to the number of women and minority group members at high levels (a yes-yes). There is also a score reflecting ''social disclosure,'' in which a key element seems to be whether the company ever filled out the questionnaire thrust on it by CEP, and another score reflecting the company's charitable contributions. Pillsbury vs. Borden was possibly a close call. Neither had been contaminated by the defense business. Both cravenly responded to the CEP questionnaire. Pillsbury is not in South Africa; Borden is, but it observes the Sullivan Principles. Pillsbury scores higher on charitable contributions, but Borden is ahead on minority officers and directors. We come away thinking of the Pillsbury check mark as ultimately quite mysterious. Another puzzle is how come so many companies get a check mark for some products but not others. Heinz, for example, is rated socially responsible when the rankings concern baked beans, tuna, ketchup, vinegar, frozen cakes and pies, cat food, and dog food; however, the coveted check mark eludes the company when it is being ranked on frozen dinners, frozen vegetables, and baby food. How can this be? The explanation is not that Heinz was edged by some even more responsible company in the latter categories, since CEP frequently awards check marks to more than one competing product. We see no possible explanation for this discrepancy and have thought about it for, oh, 12 seconds. That is as far as we go.