Who's money is it?

I fail to understand why a company would want to take on the liability of having to answer to, or justify a "one-size fits all" asset allocation solution, regardless of the participant's age, risk tolerance, etc...as an option. Allowing for participant direction seems to eliminate the venom more completely. Just in the same way that when I exchange my time and labor for an employer's wages, the employer's money then becomes "my" money. The same is true as soon as an employer's contributions to a retirement plan become vested and owned by the participant... and realistically, even beforehand. Why would a trustee/fiduciary knowingly take on the liability to have to potentially justify the fact that their 24 year olds were invested in the same manner as their 60 year olds? Why take on the risk of having to answer to or justify their actions (or lack thereof), when allowing for participant direction seems to render this more of a moot point? I've often heard from employers on these pooled and trustee directed plans, things like...."Well, you see...my employees don't"....Insert excuse here...."Know about investing"..."understand retirement plans"..."understand the market"...blah, blah, blah... Perhaps this is a scenario where possible good intentions were not fully thought through in light or risk assumed? Was the advice to keep the status quo fully informed or perhaps potentially conflicted by those who would seek to protect their revenue? Let's hope that the employer's good intention approach prevailed in wanting to better support their employee's ability to succeed in retirement...If it was in fact a "lack of education" concern cited, then perhaps they should evaluate their expectations and needs for the level(s) of employee support provided as a component of how their plan is served and supported. Crazy thought here, but perhaps they could hire an advisor or provider to address those "specific" concerns addressing "support". Those same "my employees..." excuses justifying the one-size fits all approach to managing other's retirement assets, won't likely hold up in court if called to do so. If called, best for them to have tons and tons of documentation on their decision making processes as a trustee/fiduciary (anyone with decision making authority) responsible and accountable for controlling other's vested assets. In the trustee directed and or pooled asset plan scenario, plan sponsors need to realize that it's not the advisor's plan, assets, fiduciary duty or liability on the line. Plan sponsors are liable for their decision making process on employees owned plan assets (vested or not) and are responsible (and perhaps personally liable) to answer to and perhaps defend what was, or was not done at any given point in time relative to any specific participant's best interest.