REDETE ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AND ENTEREPRENEURSHIP IN TRANSITION ECONOMIES

TAKE THE OPPORTUNITY TO EARN SOCIALLY

RESPONSIBLE PROFIT
Elvira ATI-KAJTAZOVI151

Abstract

Although the Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) is rather actualized lately, the focus of
the scientific and business circles on the CSR has not lead to any universal definitions, uni-
versal theoretical framework, or even universal terminology. On the contrary. Analysis of the
thematic area of CSR identifies diversities in approaches to research, theoretical frameworks,
and terminology. Even somewhat ironic is the fact that the universal starting point for most
definitions and explanations of the CSR (with most members of the academic circles, mangers,
and others dealing with the subject) is the explanation that there is no universal definition or
universal understanding of the CSR. Besides the identified diversity in theoretical under-
standing of the CSR, one could add that the situation in those terms is any better in the business
circles. While fully acknowledging the assumption that it is almost impossible to simplify the
complexity of social responsibility, this paper presents a contemporary concept as a modest and
yet bold attempt to simplify the CSR. The compromise of the CSR is schematically illustrated as
the following message addressed to the corporate entities: Take the opportunity to earn a
socially responsible profit. That opportunity is intentionally represented in the shape of the Sun
(as the source of life) for the following reasons:
1. As an attempt for wakening of the humanity to restore the control over greed.
2. To raise the understanding of the necessity to take responsibility for social, ecological,
and economic problems.
3. To lead to the final understanding that without the future of humanity there can be no fu-
ture of the profit.
The schematic illustration of the CSR represents a continuous process that consists of 4
stages, excluding the CSR approach that defines what corporate entities must not do, but
instead, it rather introduces a provocative approach inciting what socially responsible actions
are the corporate entities expected to do. This approach is important because it avoids the
what must not be done mind-set and introduces the provocative socially desirable action.
In such context the CSR is presented not only as a concept that serves for pursuing of business
opportunities, but rather as a means for accomplishment of changes, competitiveness,
proactiveness and recognizability, all of which stress the causal link with both economic and
social development, thus contributing to the sustainable development.
Keywords: Corporate Social Responsibility, Compromise, Complexity.

151
University of Bihac, Faculty of Economics, Pape Ivana Pavla II, No2, 77 000 Bihac, BiH, elviracatickajtazovic
@gmail.com

401

 REDETE ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AND ENTEREPRENEURSHIP IN TRANSITION ECONOMIES

1. Complexity of the notion

of Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR)

Analysis of the thematic area of CSR identifies a number of diverse definitions by many acade-
mic authors and business professionals, but also many business organizations that deal with the
subject. Their diverse definitions are accompanied by diversity in their very notion of actions that
can be considered socially responsible. According to Dow Votawu: The term (social responsi-
bility) is a brilliant one; it means something, but not always the same thing, to everybody(Votaw,
1972, p. 25).To draw attention to the expressed diversity in understanding of the social responsi-
bility, Sethi S. Prakash wrote: The phrase corporate social responsibility has been used in so
many different contexts that it has lost all meaning (Sethi, 1975, p. 58).
Although the named authors published their works in the now-far-gone seventies, the issue of
complexity and divers interpretation of the CSR is still on the agenda. Furthermore, there is a
recognizable trend of increasing interest in the subject (Corporate Social Responsibility has be-
come a pervasive topic in the business literature, Brammer, at al, 2012, p. 3), expansion in the
field of research, crossing of boundaries, and presence of the subject in various scientific disci-
plines.
This onset of increasing interest, and focus of both scientific and business circles on the soci-
al responsibility, has not lead to establishment of universal definitions, universal theoretical fra-
mework, or even universal terminology. The Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) field prese-
nts not only a landscape of theories but also a proliferation of approaches, which are controversial,
complex and unclear (Garriga and Mele, 2004, p. 51).
The source of complexity in theoretical foundations of the CSR one can find in the fact that
CSR has its roots in various branches of science (besides its economic roots, the CSR finds traces
of its origin in psychology, sociology, political science, and even in religious magazines where
one can find many articles that argue for the need of responsible actions towards nature). Archie
B. Carroll described the said situation as: an eclectic field with loose boundaries, multiple mem-
berships, and differing training/perspectives; broadly rather than focused, multidisciplinary; wide
breadth; brings in a wider range of literature; and interdisciplinary (Carroll, 1994, p. 14).
Speaking of the science of economy alone, one can say that the said complexity of the CSR
(either as a cause or as a consequence) results from two extremely opposite understandings of the
CSR. In the first, scientists and professionals consider that the CSR does not reach beyond the
profit that it can make for its owners (Friedman, 1970: there is one and only one social
responsibility of business to use its resources and engage in activities designed to increase its
profits so long as it stays within the rule of the game, which is to say, engages in open and free
competition without deception or fraud), whereas the second group is of opinion that the com-
panies owes responsibility to a wide range of stakeholders groups.
Along with the identified discrepancies in the theoretical notion of the CSR, the situation is not
any better in business circles. The discrepancies in the notion of the CSR are also evident among
the companies from the USA, Australia, Great Britain (philanthropy, profitability), as opposed to
the notion found among the companies from continental Europe (employment affairs, environ-
ment, and human rights). Companies from the developed countries of southeastern Asia, perceive
the CSR in a similar way as their peers in Europe, with emphasis on the fair treatment of employ-
yees, whereas in underdeveloped and less developed countries the demand towards the companies
is more focused on economic responsibility and solving of the issue of economic development
(Kotler and Lee, 2009).
Even with the said complex circumstances in theoretical and pragmatic sense, the CSR
represents the future of the business world, i.e.: Corporate Social Responsibility represents the
new millennium challenge and a truly paradigmatic shift for business corporations. There is
increasing evidence that the CSR movement has picked up enough momentum to continue
unabated into the next century (Jamali and Mirshak, 2007, p. 260).

402

 REDETE ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AND ENTEREPRENEURSHIP IN TRANSITION ECONOMIES

2. Development concepts and definition of CSR

Most of the authors (Carroll 1999, Fifka 2009, Gond and Moon 2011) who deal with the
subject of the CSR agree that the first formulation of relations companysociety, was given by
American economist Howard Bowen, which is why even Archie B. Carroll refers to him as the
father of the CSR (Carrol, 1999, p. 270). Bowen also offered a preliminary definition of the CSR:
It refers the obligations of businessmen to pursue policies, to make decisions or to follow lines of
action which are desirable in terms of the objectives and values of society (Bowen, 1953, p.6).
According to Keith Davis the CSR is reflected in businessmens decisions and actions taken for
reasons at least partially beyond the firms direct economic or technical interest (Davis, 1960, p.
70). According to William C. Frederick: Social responsibility in the final analysis implies a
public posture toward societys economic and human resources and a willingness to see that those
resources are used for broad social ends and not simply for the narrowly circumscribed interests
of private persons and firms. (Frederick, 1960, p. 60).
The sixties and the seventies of the last century are marked by reinforcement of the movements
for protection of environment, consumers and employees. That served as a foundation for
development of the concept of the CSR by Harold L. Johnson who stance is that instead of
focusing on achieving the owners, i.e. shareholders goals alone, a responsible enterprise takes
into account the interests of employees, suppliers, dealers, local communities and the nation as a
whole (Johnson, 1971). Therefore, Johnson actually introduces responsibility towards stakehol-
ders and that represents his significant contribution to the development of the concept of CSR,
because the identification of the key stakeholders did not only contribute to the theory of
stakeholders but also to the theory of the CSR. In late seventies, Carroll publishes his three-
dimensional model and, for the first time, defines the four ranked responsibilities of companies:
economic, legal, ethical and philanthropic (Carroll 1979) which resulted in later creation of the
Carroll pyramid of the CSR (Carroll 1991).
According to Wayne Visser: Despite the plethora of CSR definitions over the last 50 years,
Carrolls four-part conceptualisation has been the most durable and widely cited in the literature
(Crane and Matten, 2004). Some of the reasons for this could be that:
1. The model is simple, easy to understand and has an intuitively appealing logic;
2. Over the 25 years since Carroll first proposed the model, it has been frequently reproduced
in top management and CSR journals, mostly by Carroll himself (Carroll, 1979, 1983,
1991, 1994, 1998, 2000, 2004);
3. Carroll has sought to assimilate various competing themes into his model, e.g. corporate
citizenship (Carroll, 1998) and stakeholders (Carroll, 2004);
4. The model has been empirically tested and largely supported by the findings (Aupperle,
Carroll, & Hatfield, 1985; Pinkston & Carroll, 1994); and
5. The model incorporates and gives top priority to the economic dimension as an aspect of
CSR, which may endear business scholars and practitioners. In fact, Carroll (1991) goes
so far as to point out how little his definition of CSR differs from Friedmans (1970) view
of the responsibilities of the firm (Visser, 2006, p. 33).

The Carrolls three-dimensional model and later his CSR pyramid, went through numerous
modifications, trials and criticism, and served as a basis for newer models of the CSR. In 1985,
Steven Warticki Philip Cochran presented their own Three-dimensional model of principles, poli-
cies and processes (in the literature also known as 3P model of CSR), which was created as a form
of criticism to the Carroll model, and it integrates the principles of corporate responsibility, the
policies of social issue management and the processes of actions into an evolutionary dynamical
system. (Wartick and Cochran, 1985, pp.758-769).In 1991, based on Carolls pyramid and the 3P
model of the CSR by Warticki Cochran, Donna J. Wood develops an original model that identifies
three institutional levels of corporate responsibility: legal, organizational and individual, and three

403

 REDETE ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AND ENTEREPRENEURSHIP IN TRANSITION ECONOMIES

principles of corporate behaviors and outcomes: legitimacy, public responsibility and managerial
discretion (Wood, 1991).
In 2003, Mark S. Schwartz and Carroll, by using Venns diagram, present their CSR model
which includes three domains: economic, legal and ethical, and at the same time: none of the
three CSR domains is prima facie more important or significant relative to the others (Schwartz
and Carroll, 2003, p. 508). Unlike the earlier version of the CSR pyramid, where the companies
responsibility are ranked by priority, this new model presented three mutually intersecting
domains that have no priorities in their mutual interaction. The three basic domains of the CSR
(Purely Economic, Purely Legal, Purely Ethical) mutually intersect (thus the use of the Venns
diagram) and with such intersection they form another four domains: Economic/Ethical, Econo-
mic/Legal, Legal/Ethical and Economic/Legal/Ethical.
In the literature one can find other models of the CSR, e.g. 3C-SR model, developed by John
Meehan, Karon Meehan and Adam Richards, who also used the Venns diagram. As the basic
components of the CSR in that CSR model, the authors underlined the following: commitments,
consistency and connections. The model based on many excellent ideas, and its main contribution
is reflected in the following: To develop a model that bridges the gap between CSR definitions
and strategy and offers guidance to managers on how to connect socially committed organizations
with the growing numbers of ethically aware consumers to simultaneously achieve economic and
social objectives The 3C-SR model offers a novel approach to CR in so far as it addresses stra-
tegy, operations and markets in a single framework (Meehan, J., Meehan, K. and Richards, 2006,
p. 386).
On the other side, many different organizations created their own CSR definitions. The World
Business Council for Sustainable Development (WBCSD) defines CSR as the commitment of
business to contribute to sustainable economic development, working with employees, their fa-
milies and the local communities (WBCSD, 2001). The United Nations Industrial Development
Organization (UNIDO) defines: Corporate Social Responsibility is a management concept
whereby companies integrate social and environmental concerns in their business operations and
interactions with their stakeholders (UNIDO, 2013). Finally, the European Union defines CSR as
the concept that an enterprise is accountable for its impact on all relevant stakeholders. It is the
continuing commitment by business to be have fairly and responsibly and contribute to economic
development while improving the quality of life of the work force and their families as well as of
the local community and society at large (Green Paper, 2001).

3. Compromise of the contemporary CSR theory

Following the presentations of various definitions, interpretations, and CSR models, it is clear
that the universal understanding of the CSR is yet to be sought. Also, there is no universal
selection of the CSR theories. Even within the certain groups of theories, there is no common
acceptance of interrelation of specific terminology.
However, an excellent compromise of the CSR theory was presented by Majda Tafra-
Vlahovi: If we were to simplify the contemporary CSR theory to its simplest form, then the
stakeholders theory would stretch into the continuum, having Michael Porter theory on one side
(do good to earn profit) and Charles Handys theory on the other side (make profit to do good),
whereas all the other theories can find their place anywhere between the two ends. Furthermore,
one could argue to what degree do all the other theories fall into within or outside the area of
compromise that could be defined as Earn profit within the boundaries of good (Tafra-Vlahovic,
p. 176).
Combination of the idea presented by Tafra-Vlahovi with the ideas of Adrian Hodges and
David Grayson, aiming to have the CSR also viewed as a business opportunity (Hodges and
Grayson, 2004), leads to avoidance of the CSR approach that instructs the companies on what

404

 REDETE ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AND ENTEREPRENEURSHIP IN TRANSITION ECONOMIES

must not do, and introduces a provocative approach that defines what are the desirable actions that
the companies can take.
In this paper the CSR is also presented not only as a concept that finds business opportunities,
but also a means for achievement of changes, competitiveness, proactivity, and recognizability,
stressing the causal link with economic and social development, thus contributing to sustainable
development.
Inability to simplify the complexity of the CSR, imposed a methodology for creation of a
compromise, that included the following steps:
1. Analysis of the CSR definitions
2. Analysis of the CSR models
3. Analysis of the CSR business practices
4. Analysis of the CSR complexity
5. Analysis of the existing CSR compromises
6. Establishment of the CSR as a business opportunity
7. Establishment of the CSR as a means for achievement of changes, competitiveness,
proactivity, and recognizability.

Such methodology resulted in the following CSR compromise: Take the opportunity to earn a
socially responsible profit. The compromise of the contemporary CSR is illustrated in the sche-
me below.

405

 REDETE ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AND ENTEREPRENEURSHIP IN TRANSITION ECONOMIES

Figure 1. Compromise of modern theory of corporate social responsibility

Compromiseofcorporatesocial
Make responsibility Earns
good profit

MichaelE.Porter

CharlesHandy
Earnsprofit Makegood

Motives

Promotion
Understanding

Taketheopportunityto
earnsociallyresponsible

Activities
Results

profit


Improving
Integrating

Implementing

Changes,competitiveness,proactivity,
sociallydesirableactivity,recognition,
responsiblememberofsociety,satisfied
stakeholders.

Economicandsocial Causallinkand Sustainabledevelopment
development contribution

406

 REDETE ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AND ENTEREPRENEURSHIP IN TRANSITION ECONOMIES

In the scheme above the CSR compromise is presented as the following message to companies:
Take the opportunity to earn a socially responsible profit, which is intentionally presented in the
form of Sun (source of life) for the following reasons:
1. As an attempt for wakening of the humanity to restore the control over greed.
2. The human curse that is deeply inside of us all is reflected in the paradox of the times we
live in. On one side of the world there are people who starve to death, and on the other
there are people who die from obesity. Human greed and the suicidal power that it incites,
Nobelprize winner Gnter Grass described as: After the collapse of socialism, capitalism
remained without a rival. This unusual situation unleashed its greedy and above all its
suicidal power (Welt am Sonntag, 2002).Weber also warns about the suicidal power of
greed and he introduces the term of self-destruction of humanity Weber warned that only
responsibility can secure moral of the human actions and behaviours in the times of
capitalism (ljivo Grbo, 2011, p.171).
3. To raise the understanding of the necessity to take responsibility for social, ecological, and
economic problems.
4. Every day we hear terms such as: greenhouse effect, global warming, ozone holes, acid
rains, waste waters, pesticides, herbicides, waste, burning, etc. All of those terms have a
common cause: human. According to Porter and Kramer: The capitalist system is under
siege. In recent years business increasingly has been viewed as a major cause of social,
environmental, and economic problems. Companies are widely perceived to be prospering
at the expense of the broader community (Porter and Kramer, 2001, p. 62).
5. To lead to the final understanding that without the future of humanity there can be no
future of the profit.

The message is clear: human desire for development must be limited by the will for survival of
the humanity.
Compromise of the CSR in the scheme above is presented as a continuous process that
includes the following phases:
I The first phase represents the phase of disclosure of the motive. A reply to the following
question: Why earn a socially responsible profit? will disclose actual motives of the company
for CSR implementation. It is certainly necessary to adapt the motives for the CSR
implementation to each individual company. Motives can be found in certain benefits, i.e.: there
is now a consensus, based on both practical experience and formal studies, that developing an
effective CSR policy can deliver significant benefits which include:
- Improve financial performance
- Reduce exposure to non-financial risk
- Help in identifying new products and new markets
- Enhance brand image and reputation
- Increase sales and customer loyalty
- Improve recruitment and retention performance
- Create of new business networks
- Increase staff motivation, contribution and skills
- Improve trust in the company and its managers
- Improve government relations
- Reduce regulatory intervention
- Reduce costs through lower staff turnover
- Reduce costs through environmental best practice (OWW Consulting, 2010).

407

 REDETE ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AND ENTEREPRENEURSHIP IN TRANSITION ECONOMIES

II The second phase results in a list of activities that the CSR contains. After identification of
the motive, it is necessary to conduct a thorough analysis of the necessary activities focused on
earning of a socially responsible profit. That will lead to answers to the question of How to
earn a socially responsible profit? This phase includes the implementation of principles of social
responsibility: accountability; transparency, ethical behaviour, respect for stakeholder interests,
respect for the rule of law, respect for international norms of behaviour, respect for human rights
(ISO 26000).
III The third phase is the phase of implementation of the CSR activities, i.e. building of
foundations for earning of socially responsible profit.
IV The fourth phase is the phase of feeling good for using the opportunities that the CSR
provides.

The said process leads to avoidance of the CSR approach that instructs the companies on what
must not do, and introduces a provocative approach that defines what are the desirable actions that
the companies can take are. That approach is important because it avoids what-must-not-be-done
practice and introduces a proactive socially responsible action.
The CSR should be based on selection of those activities that will achieve maximum effect for
the company and its stakeholders, in the area of professional management of selected activities
and especially the continuous informing of the public of activities taken and their results. In such
manner every company builds its own positive image, develops its competitive capacities, and
making the CSR its regular business practice in all business aspects. Thus, the CSR represents not
only a business opportunity, but rather as a means for accomplishment of changes, competiti-
veness, proactiveness and recognizability, all of which stress the causal link with both economic
and social development, thus contributing to the sustainable development.

4. Conclusion

Corporate Social Responsibility is the tendency of companies to nurture and promote their
multiple roles in society, not only economical but also environmental, social, philanthropic and
others, which is in accordance with the set principles of sustainable development. On the other
hand, financial, environmental and economic crisis emerged in the everyday life of a modern man.
It becomes clear that something has to change and that the key actors must respond to
accountability. This evident unsustainability of human greed gives an answer to the question:
Why corporate social responsibility? Paradoxically, it appears that it is easier to answer the
question: Why CSR? -compared to the question: What is CSR?
Namely, defining of the term corporate social responsibility is faced with a whole range of
issues around the understanding of what is CSR and which activities are included in CSR.
Complexities around the term of corporate social responsibility are also noticeable in the selection
of theories of CSR. Furthermore, it happens frequently that some theories use the same terms but
with different meanings.
The complexity of the CSR imposed a need for finding of the CSR compromise. Methodology
for creation of a compromise included the following steps:
1. Analysis of the CSR definitions
2. Analysis of the CSR models
3. Analysis of the CSR business practices
4. Analysis of the CSR complexity
5. Analysis of the existing CSR compromises
6. Establishment of the CSR as a business opportunity

408

 REDETE ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AND ENTEREPRENEURSHIP IN TRANSITION ECONOMIES

7. Establishment of the CSR as a means for achievement of changes, competitiveness,

proactivity, and recognizability.

Aware that it is impossible to simplify the complexity of corporate social responsibility,

contemporary theory of CSR in this paper has set a compromise that reads "Take the opportunity
to earn socially responsible profit." Schematic view this compromise set consists of four phases.
Simplified they read: motives, activities, implementation and results.
In this case, corporate social responsibility is seen as a business opportunity, or a concept that
seeks out business opportunities. And not only as an opportunity, corporate social responsibility
should be seen as a tool for change, competitiveness, economic and social development.
The compromise of modern theory of CSR carries a clear message- the human desire for
progress must be limited by the will for survival of the future mankind.

References

1. Bowen, H.R. (1953). Social Responsibilities of the Businessman. Harper, New York, NY.
2. Brammer, S., Jackson, G., Matten, D. (2012). Corporate Social Responsibility and
institutional theory: new perspectives on private governance. Socio-Economic Review 10. pp.
3-28
3. Carroll, A. B. (1979). A three-dimensional conceptual model of corporate performance.
Academy of Management Review, 4(4), pp.497-505
4. Carroll, A., B. (1991). The Pyramid of Corporate Social Responsibility: Toward the Moral
Management of Organizational Stakeholders. Business Horizons (July/August). pp. 39-48
5. Carroll, A.B. (1999). Corporate Social Responsibility Evolution of a Definitional Construct.
BUSINESS & SOCIETY, Vol. 38 No. 3. pp. 268-295
6. Carroll, A., B. (1994). Social Issues in Management Research, Business and Society, 33 (1).
pp. 5-29
7. Communication from The Commission to The European Parliament, The Council, The
European Economic and Social Committee and The Committee of The Regions, A renewed
EU strategy 2011-14 for Corporate Social Responsibility, Commission Of the European
Communities, Brussels, 25.10.2011, COM(2011) 681 final. http://eur-
lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri =COM:2011:0681:FIN:EN:PDF (accessed
04.05.2012.)
8. Davis, K. (1960). Can business afford to ignore social responsibilities?, California
Management Review. Vol. 2 Issue 3. pp. 70-76
9. Frederick,W. C. (1960). The growing concern over business responsibility. California
Management Review, 2, pp. 54-61
10. Friedman, M. (1970). The Social Responsibility of Business is to Increase it's Profits. The
New York Times Magazine 33. pp. 122-126
11. Grass, G. (2002). Bush A Threat To World Peace -Nobel Author Grass, The interview was
published in Welt-am-Sonntag,< http://www.welt-am-
sonntag.de/data/2002/12/29/28511.html>, Translation from German into English is available
at http://www.rense.com/general33/adb.htm
12. GREEN PAPER, (2001) Promoting a European framework for Corporate Social
Responsibility, Commission Of the European Communities, Brussels, 18.7.2001, COM(2001)
366 final. http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/site/en/ com/2001/com2001_0366en01.pdf
(accessed 10.05.2012.)
13. Hodges, A., Grayson, D. (2004). Corporate Social Opportunity-7steps to make corporate
social responsibility work for your business. Greenleaf Publishing Limited, UK
14. ISO 26000:2010, Guidance on social responsibility. International Organization for
Standardization. www.iso.org

409

 REDETE ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AND ENTEREPRENEURSHIP IN TRANSITION ECONOMIES

15. Jamali, D. and Mirshak, R. (2007). Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR): Theory and
Practice in a Developing Country Context. Journal of Business Ethics. 72. pp. 243-262
16. Johnson, H. L. (1971). Business in contemporary society: Framework and issues. Belmont
Wadsworth. California
17. Kotler, Ph. and Lee, N. (2009). Drutveno odgovorno poslovanje. Suvremena teorija i
najbolja praksa. Zagreb
18. Meehan, J., Meehan, K. and Richards, A. (2006). Corporate social responsibility: the 3C-SR
model. International Journal of Social Economics, Vol. 33, No. 5/6. pp. 386-398
19. OWW Consulting, (2010). The benefits of CSR and CSR Reporting. Available on
http://www.oww-consulting.com/csr-services/reportingbenefits.html (08.12. 2011.).
20. Porter, M., Kramer, M. (2011). Creating shared value. Harvard Business Review. 89(12). pp.
62-77
21. Schwartz, M. S. and Carroll, A.B. (2003). Corporate social responsibility: a three-domain
approach. Business Ethics Quarterly. Vol. 13, Issue 4. pp. 503-530
22. Sethi, S.P. (1975). Dimensions of Corporate Social Performance: An Analytical Framework.
California Management Review. 17 (3). pp. 58-64
23. ljivo Grbo, A. (2001). Etika odgovornosti Hansa Jonasa. Fakultet politikih nauka
GODINJAK 2010/2011, pp. 168-178
24. United Nations Industrial Development Organization, What is CSR?www.unido.org
25. Tafra-Vlahovi, M. (2009). Conceptual Frame of Corporate Social Responsibility.
MEDIANALI - znanstveni asopis za medije, novinarstvo, masovno komuniciranje, odnose s
javnostima i kulturu drutva, Vol.3 No.5, pp. 163-184
26. Visser, W. (2006). Revisiting Carrolls CSR Pyramid: An African perspective. In E.R.
Pedersen & M. Huniche (eds.), Corporate Citizenship in Developing Countries, Copenhagen:
Copenhagen Business School Press.
27. Votaw, D. (1972). Genius Became Rare: A Comment on the Doctrine of Social
Responsibility Pt 1. California Management Review. 15(2). pp. 25-31
28. Wartick, S. L. and Cochran, P. L. (1985). The evolution of the corporate social performance
Model. Academy of Management Review. 10. pp. 758-769
29. World Business Council for Sustainable Development (WBCSD). Meeting Changing
Expectations WBCSDs first report on corporate social responsibility.
http://www.wbcsd.org/pages/edocument/edocumentdetails.aspx?id=82&nosearchcontextkey=
true (accessed 25.12.2013)
30. Wood, D. J. (1991). Corporate Social Performance Revisited. Academy of Managemen
Review. 16. pp. 691718

410