CORPORATE SOCIAL RESPONSIBILITY: THE BRAND NEW SPIRIT OF CAPITALISM?

Bahar Ali Kazmi Nottingham University Business School Jubilee Campus, Wollaton Road Nottingham, NG8 1BB, UK lixbak@nottingham.ac.uk Bernard Leca Groupe ESC Rouen 1, rue du Marchal Juin - BP 215 76825 Mont Saint Aignan Cedex FRANCE Tel : +33 (0)2 32 82 57 00 bernard.leca@groupe-esc-rouen.fr Philippe Naccache Grenoble Ecole de Management 12 rue Pierre Smard 38000 Grenoble France Philippe.naccache@grenoble-em.com

We would like to thank Annick Bourguignon, Jean Pascal Gond and Andre Spicer for the exchanges we had on this topic. All mistakes remain ours.

ABSTRACT Boltanski and Chiapello have argued that the dominant justification of capitalism by the end of the 1990s is related to networks and projects. They called it a new spirit of capitalism and have argued that critics of capitalism can contribute to the questioning and amending of this spirit of capitalism. Our intention in this paper is to further develop their approach of assessing and amending the spirit of capitalism. On the basis of a review of management books, we argue that the Spirit of capitalism has evolved during the first decade of the 21st century. We identify Corporate Social Responsibility as the possible Brand New Spirit of Capitalism as it has gained growing interest in management literature. Drawing from Boltanski and Chiapellos work, we argue that Corporate Social Responsibility offers a new justification to motivate employees, to legitimise corporate actions toward the larger society and, hence, offers a new normative framework for corporate existence and performance. We also explore and question the role of critics. We discuss how critics can contribute to the revision and elaboration of Corporate Social Responsibility and, in turn, influence the evolution of the spirit of capitalism and its organisational manifestation i.e. corporations.

Introduction In 1999, Boltanski and Chiapello offered an explanation of why it had become so challenging for critics to explain the evolution of capitalism. By contrasting books for managers, published in the 1960s and in the 1990s, they established the importance of network and project as a basis of corporate organization which was promoted as a new paradigm for business. They argued that the new paradigm of corporate organisation integrated the artistic critique of capitalism that presented the capitalist system as a source of disenchantment, inauthenticity and oppression (Boltanski and Chiapello 2005 pp 38). The integration of the artistic critique led to the development of new way of organising capitalism, and in so doing the capitalist system had disarmed the artistic critique. Boltanski and Chiapello showed the dialectical evolutionary process of capitalism whereby critics of capitalism were first to oppose it, then their critiques were integrated by capitalist organizations to form a new spirit. As Boltanski and Chiapello and several other authors pointed out (e.g. Bell, 1976; Debord, 1977; Jameson, 1991), capitalism rapidly evolves and integrate its own critiques. If critics aspire to influence the evolution of capitalism, they need to frequently re-evaluate and question the spirit of capitalism and the way it integrates its own critiques. The main objective of this paper is to contribute to this critical inquiry by reassessing the situation ten years after Boltanski and Chiapellos work. In the last decade, the critiques of capitalism have changed: Increasingly critics have been questioning and assessing the influence of corporations on their natural and social environments. Corporations have been viewed as a main source of environmental degradation and a tool of maintaining and spreading misery (e.g. Margolis and Walsh, 2003).. Not only critics and activists but the public opinion and the media relay those critics and social movements organized to demand radical changes in the contemporary capitalism. Some critics argue that in order to avoid a worldwide disaster, we need to abandon capitalism and find new ways to organise societies such as environmentalism, community based development, etc. Does capitalism address these new critics, and if so how? To answer the aforementioned crucial question we took several steps. First, following Boltanski and Chiapellos approach we went to libraries searching for books written for managers. We focused on those books that were published in the last decade and addressed the critiques of capitalism. This led us to find out that the new critiques of capitalism were

currently being integrated through the idea of Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR). Second, we coded the identified books using the analytical dimensions proposed by Boltanski and Chiapello. The process yielded the findings related to what critiques were being addressed and how was capitalism justified? We compared and contrasted our findings with the current academic research on CSR which revealed important insights and avenues for further research. First, by contrasting our research findings to the academic literature, we have found crucial justifications for adopting CSR that have yet been largely neglected by the academic literature, and we argue that they deserve further exploration and investigation. Second, the analysis of our sample of management books reveals a nuanced view of CSR as both justifying the contemporary capitalist system as well as an important means of amending it by constraining the accumulation process. Third, our analysis also raises important issues regarding the role of critics. We argue that at time when critical researchers are becoming increasingly frustrated about the need to make critical discourse less theoretical and more efficient, CSR provides a useful trajectory for a renewed critical discourse on the contemporary capitalist system that might shape and contribute to the evolution and transformation of the spirit of capitalism. To present our research, the rest of the paper is structured as follow: First, we present Boltanski and Chiapellos framework. Second, we present our method to emulate their approach. Third we present the results of our analysis. In a fourth part, we discuss those results by contrasting them with the existing debates both on CSR and among critical researchers.

Boltanski and Chiapellos approach to the spirit of capitalism We draw our theoretical and methodological approach from Boltanski and Chiapello (1999). Referring to Weber ([1930] 1992), they name spirit of capitalism the ideology that justifies peoples commitment to capitalism, and which renders this commitment attractive (Boltanski,

2002). According to them capitalism is an absurd system (Boltanski and Chiapello 2005, p 7): Wage-earners loose ownership of the outcome of their labour and hope to be anyone but a subordinate. Capitalists become chained to an insatiable process of endless accumulation. Hence, capitalism itself does not provide justification to the two most crucial actors that operationalise capitalist system. It can only provide a justification to a very few. A first provocative idea developed by those authors is that in order to attract and retain the engagement of workers and capitalists, capitalism need to find a stronger justification and therefore it needs its own critics that it can address and eventually integrate their critiques into the capitalist system. Critics delegitimate the previous spirits of capitalism and strip off their effectiveness revealing their inappropriateness to convincingly address their critiques. The second effect of critics is to oblige the supporters of capitalism to justify it and to improve it in terms of justice, possibly by integrating some of the values heralded by the new critiques of capitalism. Along with other authors (e.g. Debord, 1977; Jameson, 1991) they argue that capitalism amazing capacity to survive is linked to its ability to endogenise the criticisms it faces and thus disarms the forces of anticapitalism. Hence, in order for a new spirit of capitalism to emerge, a new critique must also emerge that justifies capitalism to those who operationalise it. The spirit of capitalism is not merely a rhetorical artefact. It constraints accumulation because there are ways to accumulate that will be viewed as legitimate i.e. consistent with the spirit of capitalism - and others not. In order to convince the actors, the spirit of capitalism should articulate both the critiques of capitalism and the justifications to address them. According to the authors, the spirit of capitalism should address three dimensions: a) The first dimension indicates what is exciting about an involvement with capitalism. How capitalism can provide satisfaction to people and thus should generate enthusiasm b) The second dimension is the issue of security. It relates to the security offered to those involved for themselves and for their children c) The third dimension involves the notion of fairness. The spirit of capitalism should show how capitalism can contribute to public interest and the common good. Fairness also includes a way to distinguish among individuals whose actions must be valued and rewarded because they are being considered as good i.e. in compliance with the spirit of capitalism.

Another provocative idea that Boltanski and Chiapello have offered is to track the spirit of capitalism and its transformation through the books written for managers. Boltanski (2002: 1) argue that this option is helpful in studying change because studying the changes in practices can be problematic given that [practices] can be disparate and dispersed, of varying magnitude, and which can affect the organisation of companies of all sizes and in all sectors. They follow Weber ([1930] 1992) and Sombart (1966) who before them had analyzed texts providing moral education on business practices. With the help of the analysis of management books, Boltanski and Chiapello show how the spirit of capitalism has evolved between the 1960s and the 1990s. During the 1960s the spirit of capitalism focused on the large integrated firm. Security was ensured by in house career development, excitement was generated by the contribution to the welfare state, and fairness was embedded in meritocratic achievement procedures based on negotiated targets. They argue that during the 1990s a different spirit of capitalism emerged emphasizing the importance of networks and projects. Large integrated firms were criticized as overly bureaucratic and slow at responding to the demands of wage-earners. The project based structure was presented as a more exciting configuration of business because it would set wage-earners free from the bureaucracy and facilitate permanent change. Companies were being advised to provide self-help resources to wage earners to maintain their employability and flexibility. Finally fairness was being embedded in the evaluation procedures of wageearners based on their capacity to fulfil projects, their adaptability and mobility. The intention of our paper is to assess the situation ten years later and to investigate the most recent transformation of the spirit of capitalism. In the next section we present the method we have used to achieve out objective. Method Since our intention was to follow Boltanski and Chiapellos work we also emulated their method. The first step of their approach was to go to the library of the HEC business school near Paris to get samples of literature for managers. We went to the same library and added another: the library of the London Business School. This led us to improve the scope of our sample by

internationalising it. The choice of business school libraries is significant because the books in those business libraries are not just for academics but are likely to be browsed and read by either future (students) or current (managers involved in executive education courses) managers and are likely to influence them. Boltanski and Chiapello excluded the academic literature and so did we. This helped us to avoid the risk of engaging in self-referring discourse. Academicians might develop a self referring discourse of their own which is likely to be different from what managers read. However, one crucial observation requires mentioning. We found that some books for practitioners were written by academics (e.g. Allouche et al, 2006 a & b; Cozette et al., 2001; Kotler and Lee, 2005) so the boundary between academic and non academic works is blurred. Corporate Social Responsibility as a new interest area emerged both from the conversations with our colleagues and from the discussions with librarians. Librarians have told us that in the last decade, there has been a major increase in the number of books related to corporate social responsibility and related topics such as sustainable management, business ethics or business-community relationship. They have informed us that they have been reinforcing their stock of books on CSR because of the increased demand of these books from scholars, practitioners and students. Using the London Business School online catalogue, one author used the research term corporate social responsibility and obtained a list of 20 books on this topic. We tried to do the same at HEC but the catalogue proved much more difficult to use and the results, even with the help of librarians, provided inaccurate list of books on CSR.: The shelf marks were confusing because librarians did not apply precise rules to mark the books. Similar books were marked in CSR as well as in sustainable development. Some books had a CSR shelf mark because a tiny part of the book was devoted to CSR. In some section, many books were marked as CSR books, especially in marketing in which the CSR issues were just adumbrated. Also we noticed that most of the books were aimed at academic audience. Along with librarians we decided to select books whose title included Corporate Social Responsibility. We ended up with a list of 12 books. Reviewing those books we excluded the purely academic ones. The final list obtained is in appendix 1.

We coded the slected books along four dimensions inspired by Boltanski and Chiapellos initial work: Results Critiques of Capitalism Most of the books start by stating recent critiques of capitalism, sometimes strongly. The scope of the critiques mentioned in the texts is extremely large. It includes, but is not restricted to, the disruption of local economies and cultures, collusion in abusive regimes; concerns about a race to the bottom from outsourcing practices, ethical scandals, frauds, overt greed that has created enormous disparity between the compensation of chief executive officers and average workers (Waddock, 2005), selling arms to oppressive governments and opposition groups, retrospective litigation, intellectual property rights, impacts of corporate activities on health and workers rights in supply chains (Hancock, 2004), pollution, exclusion, domination and social injustice (de Woot, 2005). In sum, the critiques show the failure of the market mechanisms and the markets invisible hand to ensure a sustainable development (de Woot, 2005). The causes for the failure, often stated, are the growing domination of financial markets and shareholders pressures and the ensuing concern for managers with short term financial performance (e.g. Commenne, 2006; Cozette et al., 2001). The critiques are not limited to bringing forward the actions of those financial stakeholders. For example, some authors assert that Corporate Social Responsibility is a consequence of the increasing importance of companies and the lost of faith in traditional political institutions. Thus, to them, accountability of corporate power is a main driver of CSR (Griffin, 2008). Sparkes (in Allouche, 2006a) argues that the accumulation of corporate power comes from the ontological status of modern corporations in societies. As such corporations can not limit their responsibility to profit maximization within legal and contractual restrictions. They also need to contribute to the common good and managers must consider ethical requirement as well as legal ones. What are the critiques of capitalism that are mentioned Are those critiques addressed? If so, how? What justification of CSR is provided to wage earners? What justification of CSR is provided towards society at large?

Those authors either endorse the aforesaid critiques or consider them as assumptions shared by various social actors such as NGOs, media, anti-globalization and anti-corporations campaigners. These actors demand sustainable production and consumption. As such CSR is not something that can be discussed but something imposed by the social actors on corporations. In most books the critiques of capitalism are the starting point on which the thesis of CSR is being built. Only two books do not discuss the critiques (Kotler and Lee, 2005; Peeters, 2007). Both are how to books and start with the taken for granted assumption that CSR matters. Integration of the critiques The critiques of capitalism range from the radical to the reformist alternatives. It is the latter which the authors of the analyzed books have proactively endorsed. With a few authors voice sympathy for radical critiques and non-capitalist alternatives and view them as impractical and inadequate to deliver sustainability (e.g. Commenne, 2006). Majority consider Corporate Social Responsibility as an opportunity to dialogue with the promoters of the radical alternatives and the diverse stakeholders who demand more transparency (Allouche, 2006a; Cozette et al., 2001; Griffin, 2008). They assert that CSR facilitates interface with the radical critics of the contemporary capitalism while remaining within the capitalist system. The authors encourage hands-on management of CSR (e.g. Hancock, 2004). Griffin (2008) argues that facing the radical critics, corporations cannot limit themselves to a passive, conflict-avoiding, stakeholder-pleasing stance that wont work within a new climate of perpetual reputational risk. The reputational damage that can originate from the critiques of capitalism is a recurrent argument to urge companies to do CSR (Allouche et al., 2006a; Cozette et al., 2001; Griffin, 2008; Hancock, 2004). Building on those critiques and the need to address them, some authors move a step further and argue that corporate leadership needs to play stronger role in encouraging their companies to adopt CSR. For example, Hancock (2004) views corporate progress towards greater

responsibility as a push and pull process. Visionary leaders in business pull their organisations and push comes from societies. Addressing those critiques is also presented as implying flexible regulations. Some authors argue that state cannot provide an adequate regulatory framework. Thus, CSR is viewed as an opportunity to develop self regulatory capitalism, presented as better than regulation by law as it would be simpler and cheaper (Peeters, 2007). This includes the multiple codes of conduct, trade associations and self regulation that intend to fill legal vacuum (Allouche, vol1). The international Chamber of Commerce (2006) argues that self-regulation is flexible, favours innovation, and create harmony between economic and social interests. Justification towards wage-earners Justification towards wage-earners does not appear as a strong point in most of reviewed books. The selected texts seem to be more concerned with the justification towards the society at large and external stakeholders. Authors insist that CSR can provide a real opportunity to re-energize companies but tend to remain vague as to how this may be done. Overall authors argue that CSR creates more rewarding and inspiring working environments (e.g. International Chamber of Commerce, 2006). Crucially, many authors assert that CSR can contribute to the recruitment of the best brains (Hancock, 2004; Hawkings, 2006; Allouche, 2006 a). It can motivate employees and make them feel better as they are proud of the company they work in (Kotler and Lee, 2005). de Woot (2005) goes even further and argues that CSR facilitates managers and workers to find new meaning of corporate action, beyond the sole search for short term profitability. CSR allows employees to reconnect corporate performance with the public good of the larger society. Thus, CSR is a way to move beyond the opposition suggested by critics between the specific interest of the corporation and the largest interest of the society. While those critics insist they are divergent, the tenants of CSr in those books insist that they are not. CSR can both motivate the workforce and facilitate innovation and the development of new skills. CSR is presented as bringing a new dimension to work. It induces and promotes organisational learning and innovative cultures that are attuned to social environments in which companies operate. It favours the development of new skills among managerial

workers (Allouche, 2006 a). Thus, it facilitates the acquisition of new skills by those employees and thus raises their employability (Hancock, 2004). Justification towards society at large Not surprisingly, the texts we analysed provide justifications to the external stakeholders. Two types of justifications are discernable. A first justification , which can be viewed as, instrumental whereby CSR is presented as a way to improve relations with stakeholders, and other that is comparatively radical and can be labelled as conciliatory, whereby the interest of the corporation might be, to some extend, sacrificed to those of stakeholders. The instrumental justification is presented in two forms. The first insists that CSR is merely an appearance of ethics and is a cheap way to soothe and reassure both internal and external critics about capitalism (Roberts in Allouche, 2006a). Thus, CSR is devoted to increase shareholder value and executive rewards. Following the same line of argument, Griffin (2008) argues that good companies are good neighbours in the communities in which they operate, and are good citizens of their host societies and of the world at large. Doing good and doing well are indivisible. Engaging with CSR agenda will limit the future liabilities of corporations (particularly true of food companies- obesity claims, climate change claims, and human rights claims). According to Griffin, the companies which engage in doing good are supposed to generate more profits. The second encourages companies to adopt CSR in order to exploit the societal resources. For example, Cozette, de Bretagne and Bourguinat (2001) stress upon the need for companies to acquire legitimacy vis-vis of the whole society in order to access resources in societies. Likewise Hennigfeld Pohl and Tolhurst (2006) declare that CSR is a way to both secure access and ensure the maintenance of resources in the interest of business. A second justification can be named conciliatory. In this view corporations should change their behaviors for reasons that are beyond the instrumental ones. The conciliatory justification is also presented in two forms. The first justifies CSR as a way of realigning the interests of diverse stakeholders. For example Jonker and De Witte (2006) suggest that CSR is a movement driven by the need to realign the balance between market, state and civil society. Likewise, Hawkins (2006) argues that global capitalism is filled with needs and desire of three groups of stakeholder, the trading manufactures and services organizations, consumers

and governments. Although these diverse stakeholders do not share the same interests, nonetheless, CSR could be a way to balance them. This point of view is consistent with Allouche (2006 b) who argues that CSR could be a manifestation of the integration of corporate and societal interest. He also states that empirical research does not support the traditional assumption of conflict between business and societal interests. It seems that the central argument of Allouche is the existence of a reciprocal relationship between community and corporate. The second form of the conciliatory justification asserts that managers need to think differently about the measure of growth and performance. It speaks in favor of a new kind of growth and a new way to conceive performance. For instance, The International Chamber of Commerce considers that trade is the only way to eradicate generalized poverty and favor employment, training, and technology. Nevertheless, poor countries are unable to integrate into the global trade. To the International Chamber of Commerce, CSR is a way to integrate poor countries into global trade regimes. Hence, CSR is viewed as a way to develop a new growth, a growth more respectable and sustainable. The issue of sustainable growth is also the Hancocks concern. This author considers that the three linked business goals are sustainable growth, profits with responsibility and investing in the future. Allouche (2006 b) claims that corporate performance should be judged by the quality of its relationships with its stakeholders and not merely by profit. Two books (Kotler and Lee, 2005; Peeters, 2007) do not have any external justification. These books are the only books of our sample to have also not stated any critique of capitalism. We could assume that this stance is linked to a desire to avoid regulation or it can also be viewed as the taken-for-granted assumption that CSR matters. This assumption seems particularly relevant in the case of Peeters reasoning.. He considers that beyond the respect of: human being, society and environment, CSR is a way to increase the image of the companies toward customers and investors, which is a way to favor the company growth. Nevertheless, Peeters does not just remove basic ethical issues, he also considers that regardless of the profit generated by CSR, it could be, through very simple tools -easy to implement - a way to avoid criticism. According to Peeters (2007), critic would impose some normative rules on businesses. Thus, capitalism has to give some evidence about his own ability of regulating itself in order to avoid statist regulation. . Discussion: CSR as a brand new spirit of capitalism

This paper has analyzed how capitalism is now addressing the new critiques that insist on the negative societal impacts of the contemporary capitalism. It argues that Corporate Social Responsibility is being viewed as a way to face the new critics and to integrate their critiques into contemporary capitalist system rather than engage into radical alternatives. In this section we intend to discuss the results of our study. First, we resituate CSR in the larger framework of Boltanski and Chiapellos research on the spirit of capitalism and discuss the insights that can be gain from applying this framework. Insights for research on the spirit of capitalism Based on our findings we argue that CSR constitutes a new spirit of capitalism. The previous spirit of capitalism, as identified by Boltanski and Chiapello (2005) addressed critiques of hierarchy as boring and not adapted to the imperative of permanent change by offering a network/project based model of development for companies. The earlier critique did not address the environmental and societal effects of capitalism. The new critique of capitalism that has emerged in the last decade insists on the environmental and social failure of contemporary capitalism. We argue that CSR is the answer to this critique Table 1 offers a comparison between the previous spirit of capitalism and this new one. Table 1 Comparison of CSR and the previous spirits of capitalism Second spirit 1940-1970 Career opportunities Power positions Effectiveness possible in freedom countries Long term planning Careers Welfare state Third spirit 1980-2000 No more authoritarian chiefs Fuzzy organisations Innovation and creativity Permanent change For the mobile and the adaptable Companies will provide self-help resources To manage oneself New form of meritocracy valuing Fourth Spirit 2000-onward Feeling well by doing good Moral development Learning new skills (managing social and environmental agendas) Sustainability Secured future opportunities and growth Integrate business and societal interests

Excitement

Security

Fairness

Meritocracy valuing effectiveness

mobility, ability to nourish a network, Each project is an opportunity to develop ones employability (the first three columns are adapted from Boltanski, 2002)

Management by Objectives

Self-regulated companies Distributing wealth Participating in the provision of common good

The spirit of capitalism approach insists on three dimensions: excitement, security and fairness. The review of the books on CSR seems to suggest that excitement can be obtained by the positive feelings CSR provides to wage-earners who would feel better and will have more commitment towards their companies if it will be stronger on CSR. Corporate Social Responsibility is also considered as an opportunity for self development and the acquisition of new competence such as the skills needed to manage social and environmental agendas. Corporate philanthropy, relations with NGOs and social entrepreneurship initiatives are suggested as opportunities to both motivate wage-earners and cast a good image in the society. Security is a strong point of CSR since a dominant argument is the sustainability of the development it offers for both wage-earners and the future generations. What is mentioned here is collective security and there are little insights in the reviewed books on how CSR can contribute to ensure or improve the individual security of wage-earners involved. It seems that the excitement dominates at individual level. The same observation stands valid in reference to the fairness mechanisms offered in the texts we analysed. Majority of the books are well articulated on how capitalism infused with CSR can contribute to public interests and the common good. Those contributions are central in the elaboration of CSR, although its justification varies depending on authors. Some argue that it is a moral or societal necessity while authors insist most on the benefit the company might derive from it, for example to access resources or increase reputation. However, the fairness argument is developed for companies but does not address individuals who work for those companies. It seems that the texts we analysed have stronger focus on the benefits for society and companies, and they give insignificant attention to the benefits that wage-earners might obtain directly from the adoption of CSR. We suggest that the lack of attention to the wage-earners benefits is an important finding. The justifications of CSR are mainly embedded in the discourse of organisational performance and change. As such incentives to implement CSR are addressed to company rather then individuals working for them. The CSR promoters provide weak (feel good) justifications

to wage-earners to convince them to adopt CSR. It seems odd that books for managers call for the respect of some values and intend to motivate some behaviour linked to those values and yet do not suggest reviewing and reward systems against their ability to consider those values and behaviours. We suggest this finding needs further exploration and investigation as the lack of tangible and direct incentives for wage-earners might impede the adoption, implementation, and diffusion of CSR as a new spirit of capitalism. Boltanski and Chiapello suggest that the benefits to individuals who work for companies had been central in the diffusion of the previous spirits. Insights for academic research on CSR Following Boltanski and Chiapellos approach also provide insights for academic research on CSR. To justify the implementation of CSR in corporations, academic research in management tends to focus on the relationship between Corporate Social Performance/Financial Performance. It develops a view which we may call functionalist according to which companies might get a direct financial benefit by doing CSR. Having a good corporate social performance would then have a direct positive correlation to their financial performance. Yet, despite several analyses and meta-analyses there is little empirical evidence to support the correlation between CSR and FP (e.g. Margolis and Walsh, 2003) and while a positive correlation can be found it is minimal (Orlitzky, Schmidt and Rynes, 2003). It is important to highlight that the CSP/FP equaltion is largely ignored by the books for managers. Only a small number of books make promises of direct increase in financial performances linked to CSR. Majority of the books introduce a much wider scope of justifications for doing CSR. The books for managers do not suggest that CSR is a new way to increase financial results. The justifications they bring forward go well beyond the financial logic. The spirit of capitalism, advocated by the books we analysed, gives importance to the achievement of the harmonious relationship between corporations and their environment: The needs to justify corporate activity toward the larger society, to manage reputational risk, to find remedies to the ills of capitalism are more often mention than the financial benefits. We would argue that the vast majority of academic research is much more conservative in searching for justifications of CSR than the authors of those books. As such this study is an

invitation to scholars to move beyond the Corporate Social Performance/Financial Performance correlation. The present research, along with some previous ones (e.g. Agluiera, Rupp, Williams and Ganapathi, 2007; Berger, Cunnings and Drumwright, 2007) suggest that financial performance is not the only reason to do CSR, and, we would add based on the books we reviewed, most probably not a dominant one. Books for managers and academic research do not have the same purpose. While books for managers intend to be performative and to influence managerial practices, most academic research aims at being more generalised and study social phenomena rather than shape them. Nevertheless, as books for managers suggest alternative justifications and ways for doing CSR, they also propose different trends for academic investigations. Such investigations should include whether the alterative justifications and ways, suggested by books for managers, are actually considered by managers and the extent to which they play a role in the diffusion of CSR. This calls for academic research on CSR to do more case studies of implementation to avoid research efforts to become entirely self-referential (Siggelkow, 2007) Insights on the role of critics in the development of CSR Analysis of the evolution of CSR through Boltanski and Chiapello approach also provides crucial insights about the role of critics. Critical researchers on CSR are very sceptical on the potential of this concept. They argue that CSR is mainly greenwashing and a way to legitimize capitalism. For example, Banerjee (2007) argues that despite its emancipatory rhetoric, discourses of corporate citizenship, social responsibility and sustainability are defined by narrow business interests and serve to curtail interests of external stakeholders. In this vein, critical researchers should reject CSR as just a rhetorical justification of capitalism. Boltanski and Chiappelo suggest another possibility and option. While they agree that capitalisms answers to critics might be just to elude them by developing a rhetorical discourse, they also suggest that another possible option is to observe, explain and critique how capitalism integrates the views of its own critics. They adopt a critical and reformative standpoint. They suggest that the relationship between capitalism and its critics is not one of strict confrontation but it is dialectical i.e. critics are likely to influence the spirit of

capitalism. CSR is not just green washing, it does integrate some of the critiques of capitalism and it can further evolve. This suggests that critical researchers might consider playing a different role and contribute in further developing the concept and practices of CSR. While their role should remain to denounce purely rhetorical uses of the concept, they might also want to contribute to the improvement of CSR. This can be achieved by introducing theoretically sound and empirically informed critiques of CSR practices, policies and actions and by suggesting alternatives. At time when critical researchers have increasing been concerned on how to render critical more performative (Spicer, Alvesson & Krreman, 2007) CSR offers a useful starting point. Limits and further directions This research is a very first work on the question of CSR as a new spirit of capitalism. Thus, our results have to be considered only as exploratory. However they offer a new way of conceptualising CSR. Our approach places Corporate Social Responsibility as a part of historical evolution of the spirit of capitalism and suggests that CSR is both a justification of capitalism and a constraint on the capitalist accumulation process. This conceptualisation of CSR opens up two distinct research trajectories. First it invites researchers to explore how CSR justifies the capitalism. For example, it invites researchers to explore and investigate what justifications corporations give to wage-earners to justify their CSR activites. Second it invites researchers to examine how and to what extent CSR constraints the accumulation process. For example, it would be useful to identify CSR practices that constraint accumulation. Our approach, thus, suggests that CSR, as both a justification and a constraint on accumulation process, offers a stronger avenue to critical researchers to effectively shape and contribute to the evolution of capitalism. Our research also suggests that the analysis of management books written for manager is a yielding method to reveal, elaborate and study the spirit of capitalism. It can further be developed by enlarging sample of management books. Furthermore by bringing books for managers into the debate on CSR our approach opens the way of reciprocal learning. It might also be fruitful to explore how academic works are used in those books and how this managerial discourse articulates with the academic one. Another dimension is to document

the performativity of those books i.e. how they are used to develop business cases and implementation schemes in corporations.

REFERENCES Aguilera, R.V., D.E. Rupp, C.A. Williams and J. Ganapathi 2007, Putting the s back in Corporate Social Responsibility: A Multilevel Theory of Social Change in Organizations, Academy of Management Review, 32(3) 836-863. Banerjee, S.B. 2007 The Good, the Bad and the Ugly. Edgar Elgar Publishing Bell, Daniel. 1976. The Cultural Contradictions Of Capitalism. BasicBooks. Berger, I.E., P.H. Cunningham and M.E. Drumwright 2007, Mainstreaming Corporate Social Responsibility: Developing Markets for Virtue California Management Review, 49(4): 132156. Boltanski, Luc. 2002. The New Spirit of Capitalism. Paper to be presented to the Conference of Europeanists, March, 14-16, Chiacgo Boltanski, L. and E. Chiapello 2005. The New Spirit of Capitalism. Trans. G. Elliott. London: Verso. Debord, Guy 1977. The Society of Spectacle. Black & Red. Jameson, Frederic. 1991. Postmodernism, or the Cultural Logic of Late Capitalism. Verso Margolis, Joshua D., and James P. Walsh. 2003 "Misery Loves Companies: Rethinking Social Initiatives by Business." Administrative Science Quarterly 48: 268-305. Orlitzky, Marc, Frank L. Schmidt Sara L. Rynes 2003. Corporate Social and Financial Performance: A Meta-Analysis Organization Studies, Vol. 24, No. 3, 403-441 Siggelkow, N. 2007 Persuasion with case studies, Academy of Management Journal, 50, 20-24. Sombart, Werner 2001, The bourgeois, in W. Sombart. Economic Life in the Modern Age. New Brunswick, NJ, and London: Transaction Publishers. P. 65-94. Spicer, A., M. Alvesson and D. Krreman, 2007. The Unfinished Business of Critical Management Studies. Paper for presentation at: Critical Management Studies Conference, University of Manchester, July 2007. Max Weber [1930] 1992, The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism. London, Routledge.

ANNEX 1 LIST OF THE REVIEWED BOOKS Allouche, Jos (Ed.) 2006a Corporate social responsibility: volume 1 Palgrave Macmillan. 2006b Corporate social responsibility: volume 2 Palgrave Macmillan. Commenne, Vincent (coord.) 2006 Responsabilit sociale et environnementale: l'engagement des acteurs conomoiques Eds. Chalres Leopold Mayer Cozette, Martial, Yves de Bretagne & Elisabteh Bourguinat. 2001 L'entreprise au-del du profit. Propositions pour une entreprise responsable. Eds. Chalres Leopold Mayer de Woot, Philippe 2005 Should Prometheus be bound?: an essay on corporate social responsibility: Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan International Chamber of Commerce 2006 Guide to global corporate social responsibility: volume iv London: PPF Publications. Griffin, Andrew 2008 New strategies for reputation management: gaining control of issues, crises & corporate social responsibility: Publisher: Kogan Page Limited Hancock, John 2004 Investing in Corporate Social Responsibility: A Guide to Best Practice, Business Planning & the UK's Leading Companies: London & Sterling, VA: Kogan Page Hawkins, David E 2006 Corporate Social Responsibility: Balancing Tomorrow's Sustainability and Today's Profitability. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. Hennigfeld, Judith, Manfred Pohl, and Nick Tolhurst 2006 The ICCA Handbook on Corporate Social Responsibility: John Wiley & Sons, Ltd Hopkins, Michael 2007 Corporate social responsibility and international development: is business the solution? Earthscan UK. Jonker, Jan, and Marco de Witte

2006

Challenge of organizing and implementing corporate social responsibility Palgrave Macmillan

Kotler, Philip, and Lee Nancy 2005 Corporate social responsibility: doing the most good for your company and your cause. Hoboken, New Jersey: John Wiley & Sons, Inc. Peeters, Anne 2007 RSE. Responsabilit sociale des entreprises, Lige. Edipro