Economist poo-poos CSR

The Economist is a good magazine but it can be ever so condecending in a peculiarly english way. "Oh we know better than you but we appreciate that you’re doing your best and you mean well." That sort of thing. (Disclaimer: as an Australian descended from at least one transported convict, I may be overly sensitive to this english trait).
This article on CSR (Economist.com.) argues that CSR is talked about by all big companies, but this victory is hollow (being just a PR triumph, don’t you know), but that’s a good thing because if CSR was taken seriously then it would damage capitalism (god forbid) but that’s not to say that businesses don’t need to act ethically. Of course they do old chap. Damn good thing ethics. Serious need for it these days.
But I thought CSR is about ethics. Its about practical programs to build ethical behaviour into corporate processes and practices.
So the whole article seemed somewhat circular to me and confused.
Maybe the dear chap from the Economist had an extra vera lynn before writing this ‘thoughtful piece’.
As for the prominence of CSR, companies are talking about it because they recognise that communities, customers, employees etc expect them to.
Maybe that’s a PR victory or maybe its just democracy.