10
NAŠE GOSPODARSTVO / OUR ECONOMY 68 (3) 2022 Zlatanović, D., Mulej, M., Ženko, Z.
Corporate Social Responsibility Considered With Two 
Systems Theories: A Case from Serbia
Dejana Zlatanović
a
, Matjaž Mulej
b
, Zdenka Ženko
c
a
University of Kragujevac, Faculty of Economics, Kragujevac, Serbia
b
IRDO Institute for the Development of Social Responsibility, Maribor, Slovenia
c
University of Maribor, Faculty of Economics and Business, Maribor, Slovenia
dejanaz@kg.ac.rs, matjaz.mulej@um.si, zdenka.zenko@um.si
                        
ARTICLE INFO
 
Original Scientific Article
Article History:
Received June 2022
Revised August 2022
Accepted August 2022
 
JEL Classification:
M14
M20
O35
 
Keywords:
Corporate Social Responsibility
ISO 26000
Holistic Approach to CSR
Dialectical Systems Theory
System Dynamics
 
UDK: 005.35:005.1(497.11)
DOI: 10.2478/ngoe-2022-0014
 
Cite this article as: Zlatanović, D., Mulej, 
M., & Ženko, Z. (2022). Corporate Social 
Responsibility Considered With Two 
Systems Theories: A Case from Serbia. 
Naše Gospodarstvo/Our Economy, 68(3), 
10-17. DOI: 10.2478/ngoe-2022-0014. 
 
©2022 The Authors. Published by 
Sciendo on behalf of University of 
Maribor, Faculty of Economics and 
Business, Slovenia. This is an open access 
article under the CC BY-NC-ND license 
(http://creativecommons.org/licenses/
by-nc-nd/4.0/).
 
Abstract
Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) becomes one of the prerequisites for 
success of contemporary organizations aimed at humankind’s survival by 
sustainable development. As SR behavior can generate significant benefits, 
more and more organizations are developing SR strategic plans and 
implementing SR initiatives. In ISO 26000, CSR has three basic concepts: 
Responsibility for one's influences over society, interdependence and holistic 
approach. Therefore, authors focus on systemic approach to CSR. The purpose 
is to demonstrate how combined use of appropriate systems theories can help 
dealing with CSR. Accordingly, Dialectical Systems Theory (DST) and System 
Dynamics (SD), as relevant systems theories, i.e. methodologies stemming 
from different systemic paradigms, were selected. DST helped to identify 
some relevant aspects and components of CSR which were empirically tested 
in businesses in the Republic of Serbia. Hence, the following factors, i.e. 
groups of SR activities are selected as relevant for improving organizational 
performance: General CSR activities; CSR activities towards consumers; CSR 
activities towards environmental protection and beneficiaries’ health, and 
Socially responsible after sales activities. In addition, empirical research 
results indicating the influence of the above factors on performance were the 
basis for using the tools of SD, such as stock and flow diagrams and causal 
loop diagrams. SD tools contribute to simulating the system's future behavior, 
i.e. future performance level after improving these CSR activities. Authors 
introduce a new, systemic approach to conceptualizing and researching CSR 
by providing appropriate methodological support for exploring relevant 
interdependencies of CSR aspects.
Introduction
The current circumstances, e.g., crisis due to pandemic, increasing 
unemployment and temporary employment, growing pollution, and increasing 
over-exploitation of natural and human resources, imply that organizations 
must take responsibility for their functioning and admit the necessity for a new 
approach to stakeholders, too (Bhattacharya & Sen, 2004; Nikolić & Zlatanović, 
2018). Thus, Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) becomes a prerequisite for 
the success of contemporary organizations aimed at sustainable development 

11
NAŠE GOSPODARSTVO / OUR ECONOMY 68 (3) 2022 Zlatanović, D., Mulej, M., Ženko, Z.
(Zlatanović, 2015). CSR and sustainable development 
are interactive concepts with three crucial attributes: 
Responsibility, interdependence, and holistic approach 
(ISO 26000 by ISO, 2010); hence, they can be adequately 
examined in the conceptual framework of systems thinking 
as the science of holistic behavior. Thus, the paper deals 
with a systemic approach to CSR generally and CSR of 
businesses from the Republic of Serbia. The empirical 
research exposes the businesses from Serbia's automotive 
industry, by examining the relevant stakeholders' stances 
and opinions on CSR, i.e., their soft attributes.
Authors demonstrate the applicability of the systems 
approach via CSR and the relevance of appropriate systems 
methodologies' combined use in dealing with CSR. The key 
research question in the paper is as follows: Can selected 
methodologies and their methods enable requisite (i.e., 
necessary and sufficient; see Mulej et al., 2013) holism for 
examining CSR of research participants?
 Therefore, we selected Dialectical Systems Theory (DST) 
and System Dynamics (SD), as requisitely holistic tools and 
used them combined in dealing with CSR. DST enabled us 
to define the relevant CSR viewpoints that were empirically 
tested, while SD provided the appropriate methodological 
support in predicting the future effects of the selected CSR 
aspects on performance. 
The paper is structured as follows. Literature review on 
key features of CSR and hypotheses were considered first. 
Then, we briefly present two selected systems theories as 
methodologies of systemic, i.e. requisitely holistic, behavior, 
and clarify how they can be combined in dealing with CSR. 
The third section is dedicated to research methodology, 
i.e., sample and measures, as well as research results 
and discussion on them. Finally, the main conclusions, 
limitations, and guidelines for future research are presented.
Literature Review and Hypotheses 
Development
Main features and benefits of CSR 
Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) is an essential aspect 
of business, as the activities of companies and their impact 
on society are increasingly under critical review of humans 
as citizens and as coworkers (Chen et al., 2019; Torres et al., 
2012). Managers face constant demands to pay adequate 
attention to SR policies and initiatives, particularly in 
actual pandemic circumstances. These requests for socially 
responsible decisions come from various stakeholders, i.e., 
owners, employees, customers, consumers, citizens, investors, 
local communities, competitors, governments, and/or non-
governmental organizations (Štrukelj et al., 2021). The 
observed non-ethical, i.e., socially irresponsible corporate 
practice, may result in reduced reputation, increased costs, 
and reduced shares’ value. By contrast, SR behavior can 
generate significant benefits through the development of 
positive attitudes towards the organization and competitive 
advantages (Maon et al., 2008). Consequently, more and 
more organizations are developing SR strategic plans and 
implementing SR initiatives, for organizational and business 
reasons (see cases in e.g., Mulej, Hrast & Dyck, 2014).
A key idea embedded in CSR is that companies cannot be 
isolated from their environment, i.e., from the fundamental 
social problems (Golob et al., 2014); this implies behavior 
that includes various social obligations towards relevant 
stakeholders. But, CSR issues related to internal and external 
stakeholders are often different and conflicting, which 
increases the complexity of identifying relevant social 
issues and priorities. As it is an ambiguous concept, there is 
still no single understanding of what CSR encompasses and 
how it should be implemented in practice (Ivanović-Đukić, 
2011).
Accordingly , there are numerous and different understandings 
and definitions of CSR, including EU documents, standards, 
and guidelines that govern this area. As a part of its strategy, 
EU Commission defined CSR as "responsibility of businesses 
for their impact on society" (EU 2011, 7). Accordingly, CSR 
includes both internal and external aspects. The internal 
aspect covers e.g., human resources management, health, 
and safety at work, etc., while the external one includes 
the local community, business partners, suppliers, and 
consumers, etc. (Štrukelj et al., 2021). 
Benefits of CSR behavior, i.e., the positive impact of CSR on 
organizational performance, are numerous; various types of 
research confirmed this (e.g., Chefi et al., 2021, Chen et al., 
2019; Criffo et al., 2016; Flammer, 2015). Apart from positive 
impact on financial performance (De Bakker et al., 2005; 
Criffo et al., 2016; Flammer, 2015; Orlitzky et al., 2003), 
nonfinancial benefits are mostly related to improved brand 
image, reputation, and enhanced consumers’ relationships 
(Mitra, 2021). Also, Chen et al. (2019) indicate that CSR 
strengthens competitive advantage, improves reputation, 
reduces employee turnover, makes consumers and investors 
friendly, etc. Since the positive effects of CSR activities 
on consumers’ behavior have been broadly demonstrated 
(e.g., Bhattacharya & Sen, 2004; Torres et al., 2012; Yang & 
Basile, 2019), businesses must identify what consumers find 
essential CSR activities (Bhattacharya & Sen, 2004).
On this basis, we developed the following hypotheses:

12
NAŠE GOSPODARSTVO / OUR ECONOMY 68 (3) 2022 Zlatanović, D., Mulej, M., Ženko, Z.
H1: General CSR activities positively affect organizational 
performance.
H2: CSR activities towards consumers positively affect 
organizational performance. 
H3: CSR activities towards environmental protection 
and beneficiaries’ health positively affect organizational 
performance. 
H4: Socially responsible after-sales activities positively 
affect organizational performance.
In addition, the vital determination of the CSR is the necessity 
to consider relationships and interconnect all areas of SR: 
ISO 26000 exposes the need of a holistic approach to life 
practice (ISO 2010, 20). Therefore, we selected two systems 
theories to detect how they can support SR behavior. 
DST and SD support CSR
The systemic behavior is the alternative to the currently 
prevailing one-sidedness that puts all humankind in 
danger of self-destruction due to the crucial oversights. 
CSR includes systemic behavior by its essential concepts of 
responsibility, interdependence and holistic approach; they 
are very close to DST (Mulej et al., 2017). The ‘dialectical 
system’ provides the basis for Mulej’s DST that has the 
following three components: two dialectical systems of 
guidelines (a) for persons and bodies working on definition 
of objectives, (b) for persons and bodies working on the 
implementation of objectives, and (c) methodology USOMID 
modeling the creative interdisciplinary co-working. DST 
includes three relations between the above components: 
the law on hierarchy of the working process steps and 
interdependence, the law of entropy, and the law of 
requisite holism. DST differs from other versions of systems 
theories by concentration more on human attributes and 
work process as a methodology (see Mulej et al., 2013).
On the contrary, System Dynamics (SD), as a relevant 
functionalist-structuralist systemic approach, is based on 
information feedback and control theory. To understand 
the implications of feedback, it is necessary to know the 
structure and the dynamic of complex systems
1
. Complex 
systems’ behavior depends on interaction among the parts 
of system, and not by the complexity of its features. It is 
the fundamental postulate of SD: system behavior depends 
on its structure. The essential elements of SD model are 
levels and rates, i.e. stocks and flows. The stocks are “the 
present values of those variables that have resulted from 
the accumulated difference between inflows and outflows” 
1
 In SD, system is not defined as a mental picture of the object under 
consideration, like in DST, but as this object/entity.
(Forrester 1972, 68). The stocks characterize the system's 
state and provide the basis for actions.
In contrast to stocks, “flows or rates define the present 
flows between the levels in the system” (Forrester 1972, 
69). The SD model is mathematically expressed by the 
system of equations (stock and flow equations) that control 
variable interactions of the considered problem situation, 
changing over time. Since the modeled system moves in 
time, it is necessary to convert the equations periodically. 
Different types of software, such as: DYNAMO, POWERSIM, 
VENSIM, etc. were developed to support SD modeling and 
simulation. Simulation reveals the dominant feedback loops 
and predicts the effects of any time-delay that can occur in 
the system (Zlatanović, 2012).
SD tries to study social systems “objectively”, outside the 
system and to deal with the complexity of social reality by 
using models based on feedback processes. In this way, SD 
tends to simplify reality since its diagrams cannot present 
the cultural, ethical and political factors that disable the 
decision-makers to react in the rational ways prescribed 
by SD (Jackson 2003, 80). Accordingly, to deal with CSR, 
SD needs support from some soft systems methodology, 
such as DST, to add Responsibility and requisite holism to 
interdependence. 
Therefore, we indicate the need for the combined use of 
systems methodologies. The essence of multi-methodology, 
i.e., combining the systems methodologies, is to employ more 
than one methodology or parts of methodologies within a 
single intervention (Zlatanović, 2017). Here, we chose to 
use parts of methodologies from different paradigms to 
examine CSR. Hence, limitations of SD, related to its process 
of problem defining and its lack of social-political theory 
underlying the intervention, were the basis for combined 
use of SD with DST. In dealing with CSR, DST can contribute 
to improving the first stage of SD methodology – defining 
or structuring the problem to be addressed, i.e., defining the 
context in which SD can be used. 
We started from the fact that the really, i.e., fully, holistic 
approach reaches beyond human capacity. The application 
of the DST’s law of requisite holism to CSR, enables humans 
to distinguish critical viewpoints of CSR. Dialectical system 
is, by definition, “the system (network) of all relevant and 
only relevant viewpoints/systems (i.e. mental pictures of the 
object under consideration from the selected viewpoints’ 
network)”. Which viewpoints and related attributes are found 
essential rather than left aside, is authors’/managers’ choice 
based on their knowledge-cum-values (Zlatanović & Mulej, 
2015); thus, interdisciplinary creative cooperation is crucial 
to enable the requisite holism rather than one-sidedness. 

13
NAŠE GOSPODARSTVO / OUR ECONOMY 68 (3) 2022 Zlatanović, D., Mulej, M., Ženko, Z.
Thus, respecting the ISO 26.000 and the seven core 
subjects and principles of CSR, relevant viewpoints of CSR 
are selected and empirically tested. Taking into account 
dominant perspectives of CSR in Serbian enterprises, and 
starting from the DST attributes, we empirically tested 
activities, which are not adequately cared for. 
Namely, the following groups of socially responsible 
activities are selected as relevant for improving 
performance of socially responsible enterprises: General 
activities regarding CSR; CSR activities towards consumers; 
CSR activities towards environmental protection and 
beneficiaries’ health and Socially responsible after-sales 
activities. These viewpoints are grouped into four different 
groups of factors and examined for their impact on 
organizational performance.
Methodology
Primary data were collected by survey conducted in enterprises 
in the Republic of Serbia. The data reported in this manuscript 
were collected as part of a more significant data collection 
effort. Because of the breadth of the variables in the data 
set, other findings were reported in previous publications 
(Zlatanović, 2015). Therefore, a questionnaire that included 
the previously selected relevant aspects of CSR was created 
based on ISO 26000 guidelines, as well as the studies about 
CSR (e.g., Homburg 2013, Maignan & Ferrell 2004, Peloza & 
Sang 2011, Sharma et al., 2010, Vlachos et al., 2009, Xueming & 
Bhattacarya, 2006). The sample structure is presented in Table 1.
Table 1
Sample structure
Variable Frequency % of T otal
Gender
Male 43 51.8
Female 36 43.4
No response 4 4.8
Age distribution (Years)
26 - 35 29 34.9
36 - 45 37 44.6
46 - 55 7 8.4
> 55 4 4.8
Level of Education
Higher education (university 
degree)
51
Higher school education 9 61.4
Secondary education 16 10.8
Primary education 1 19.3
No response 6 7.2
Variable Frequency % of T otal
Position – Type of work
Purchase 20 24.1
Other 15 18.1
Marketing and sale 8 9.6
Top manager 6 7.2
Middle manager 6 7.2
Logistics, distribution 5 6.0
Technical jobs 4 4.8
Supervisor, controller 4 4.8
Production 3 3.6
Accounting and finance 3 3.6
Maintenance 3 3.6
New product development 2 2.4
No response 4 4.8
Source: Authors
Research Results and Discussion
Firstly, exploratory factor analysis was done. As Kaiser-
Meyer-Olkin Measure of Sampling Adequacy - КМO=0.851 
(KMO>0.6) and Bartlett’s Test of Sphericity is statistically 
significant (p=0.000), we conclude that factor analysis is 
justified. The following factors were distinguished: General 
CSR activities (Factor 1 – KMO=0.851); CSR activities towards 
consumers (Factor 2 - KMO=0.862); CSR activities towards 
environmental protection and beneficiaries’ health (Factor 
3 - KMO=0.923); Socially responsible after sales activities 
(Factor 4 - KMO=0.862) and Organizational performance 
(Factor 5 - KMO=0.816).
The examples of the items within the first factor are: 
Organizational strategic documents include CSR; Your 
organization respects antitrust laws; Your organization provides 
relevant CSR information (e.g. at websites), etc. Items involved 
in the second factor include: All product information is 
available to consumers; Your organization does not discriminate 
certain types of consumers (e.g. people with disabilities); 
Promotions/advertising misleads no consumers, etc. The third 
factor covers the following: Products safety is confirmed by 
relevant standards; Your organization encourages recycling; 
Your organization uses production technology that reduces 
the emissions of pollutants (e.g. CO
2
 emissions), etc. Items in 
the fourth factor include: Consumers’ complaints service is 
integral part of the organization; Your organization provides 
its consumers the right to return malfunctioning products with 
compensation; Your organization enables product service on 
regular basis; Your organization strives to improve collaboration 
with consumers’ rights organizations, etc. In the fifth factor, 
some performances are investigated, such as: Business's 

14
NAŠE GOSPODARSTVO / OUR ECONOMY 68 (3) 2022 Zlatanović, D., Mulej, M., Ženko, Z.
image is improving; The sale is increasing; Consumers loyalty is 
enabled; Better competitive position is achieved, etc. 
To investigate the impact of the above-mentioned SR 
activities on organizational performance, correlation and 
regression analyses were used. Actually, the dependent 
variable organizational performance is measured by using 
respondents’ subjective perceptions. First of all, we analyzed 
the relationship between all selected factors. So, a statistically 
significant degree of correlation appears among all variables 
in the model. The values of Pearson coefficient were used 
to determine the degree of linear dependence between the 
model variables. The results of correlation analysis indicate 
that there is a statistically significant correlation between 
all factors. Also, correlation is positive, and it is in range 
of moderate intensity to strong (by the values of Pearson 
coefficient being in range within 0,544 to 0,842).
To test the hypotheses, we used multiple linear regression 
(See Table 2).
Table 2
Results of Multiple regression analysis (Dependent variable: 
Organizational performance)
Factors ß t sig VIF
F1 -0.038 -0.299 0.766 2.608
F2 0.471 3.189 0.002*** 3.440
F3 -0.073 -0.474 0.637 3.721
F4 0.382 2.067 0.042** 5.392
Note: sig<0.01 (***); sig<0.05 (**); R
2
=0.505 
Source: Authors
Multicollinearity was tested with VIF values. VIF greater 
than 5 or VIF greater than 10 are suggested for detecting 
multicollinearity; but there is no universal agreement on 
what values of VIF should be used to detect multicollinearity. 
As shown in the Table 2, all obtained values were lower than 
10 and most of them are lower than 5. According to Hair et 
al. (1995), these results imply that multicollinearity presents 
no serious problem in this case. As the Table 2 shows, 
only two factors have statistically significant influence on 
performance, as dependent variable – CSR activities towards 
consumers and Socially responsible after sales activities. 
Thus, hypotheses H2 and H4 are confirmed, while H1 and 
H3 are not. 
The results of correlation can be the basis for creating a 
causal loops diagram shown in Figure 1; the following 
feedback links that determine the potential future behavior 
of the system are presented.
Figure 1
Causal Loop Diagram – CSR feedback structure
CSR activities
towards consumers
(Factor F
2
)
Socially responsible
after sales activities
(Factor F
4
)
CSR activities towards
environmental protection
and beneciaries’ health
(Factor F
3
)
Organizational
performance
(Factor F
2
)
General CSR activities
(Factor F
1
)
+
R
+
+
+
+
Source: Authors
In Figure 1, all factors are connected with a positive feedback; 
i.e. CSR activities towards consumers, CSR activities towards 
environmental protection and beneficiaries’ health, socially 
responsible after sales activities, general CSR activities and 
organizational performance. Thus, the whole feedback loop 
is positive, i.e. reinforcing (R). But this SD tool cannot enable 
prediction of the future level of performance. Hence, we need 
other SD tools, e.g. stock and flow diagram, and stock and flow 
equations in order to predict future values of performance 
(Figure 2).
Figure 2
Stock and flow diagram
Stock of OP
1
Stock of OP
2
Flow of
CSR
F
F
-
-
+
+
Notes:
F2 - CSR activities toward consumers
F4 - Socially responsible after sales activities
Stock of OP
1
 - Organizational Performance at time t
1
Stock of OP
2
 - Organizational Performance at time t
2
Source: Authors
In Figure 2, the levels, i.e. stocks of organizational performance 
cover a certain interval of time, i.e. time t
1
 and time t
2
. Namely, 
relying on the presented results of the regression analysis, 
the future level of performance, i.e. the level of performance 
at time t
2
 is presented as a result of improving certain factors, 

15
NAŠE GOSPODARSTVO / OUR ECONOMY 68 (3) 2022 Zlatanović, D., Mulej, M., Ženko, Z.
i.e. groups of SR activities. Accordingly, we can distinguish 
the following positive links: (1) between improving CSR 
activities towards consumers and flow of CRS, (2) between 
improving socially responsible after sales activities and flow 
of CSR. Also, a higher level of performance at the time t
1 
enables a lower need for improving of selected groups of SR 
activities, i.e. factors, indicating two negative links presented 
at the Figure 1. So, the future level of performance can be 
presented as the function of improving two groups of socially 
responsible activities, i.e. two factors – CSR activities towards 
consumers and socially responsible after sales activities. In 
conceptual framework of SD, the future level of performance 
can be predicted by wusing the stock and flow equations 
(equations 1 and 2).
Stocko fF lowofC SR dt Stocko f
t
t
OP OP
21
1
2
()

 (1)
where:
Stock of OP
2
 – Stock of organizational performance at time t
2
 
(after improving)
Flow of CSR – performance improvement resulting from 
improving CSR activities
Stock of OP
1
 – Stock of organizational performance at time t
1 
(before improving) 
Flowof CSRFF 
24
(2)
where:
F
2
 – CSR activities towards consumers
F
4
 – Socially responsible after sales activities
Conclusions and Future Research
The paper’s contribution reflects exploring the CSR as one 
of the very important modern businesses’ characteristics, 
through the tools of two systemic methodologies, i.e. 
DST and SD, conceptually. By exploring subsystems 
of CSR, and by identification of their mutual relations 
with the selected requisitely holistic instruments, the 
CSR is appropriately structured. In other words, DST 
helps its users to provide a context within which they 
can use SD as a supportive methodology. Actually, 
taking into account the complexity and dynamic of 
CSR, we used DST to select relevant areas of CSR for 
empirical research. By respecting the law of requisite 
holism underlying DST, we created a dialectical system 
consisting of subsystems representing the following: 
General CSR activities, CSR activities towards consumers; 
CSR activities towards environmental protection and 
beneficiaries’ health, Socially responsible after sales 
activities and Organizational performance. This was the 
basis for empirical research. Its results demonstrated 
which activities regarding CSR statistically significantly 
impact performance. But they cannot enable anticipating 
the future level of performance. Thus, we needded the 
tools of SD, such as causal loop diagram, stock and flow 
diagram, as well as stock and flow equations. Therefore, 
we concluded the following: if the examined SR groups 
of activities, i.e. factors (statistically significant for 
performance) are improved, the performance of a SR 
enterprise will be improved. SD tools contribute to 
simulate the future level of performance after improving 
these CSR activities. It is important to emphasize that 
feedback loops presented on SD diagrams are not 
intuitive, but based on empirical research results (results 
of correlation and regression analysis).
Taking into acocunt all the above, we can conclude 
that DST and SD offer relevant methodological support 
for exploring CSR. Actually, the paper contributes to 
introducing a new, systemic approach to conceptualizing 
and reasearching CSR. One should also note that the 
presented new approach - combining DST and SD - 
reflects the efforts to combine selected tools of the 
selected methodologies, only. Accordingly, in anticipating 
the effects of possible changes and improvements on 
performance, i.e. in simulating the future behavior of the 
system, some types of the software developed within SD, 
such as VENSIM or POWERSIM, can be applied. This is an 
important guide to future research.
Based on the above, some theoretical and practical 
implications can be identified. In a theoretical sense, the 
article contributes to the body of knowledge related to 
researching corporate social Responsibility holistically. 
In the methodological sense, the originality of the paper 
is reflected in the combined use of certain very holistic 
tools of selected systems methodologies and appropriate 
statistical methods. Additionally, research results indicate 
that in order to improve CSR generally and particularly in the 
researched businesses in the Republic of Serbia, important 
role should be given to the improvement of certain CSR 
activities – CSR activities towards consumers and socially 
responsible after sales activities. It further implies that 
improving relations with consumers can contribute to 
better reputation as one of the key organizational non-
financial performances, resulting in improved relations 
with external stakeholders (for example, with the local 
community). Accordingly, it can be concluded that this 
study can be a starting point for an effective choice of 
CSR activities adapted to consumer expectations, but it 
also can provide guidelines for improving relations with 
consumers, since every business strives to build such 
relationships with consumers that would guarantee their 

16
NAŠE GOSPODARSTVO / OUR ECONOMY 68 (3) 2022 Zlatanović, D., Mulej, M., Ženko, Z.
satisfaction and loyalty. The implementation of CSR 
activities expected by the target group of consumers can 
contribute to this. On the other hand, the research results 
provide implications for public policy makers, who should 
pay more attention to CSR, as well as to the development 
of strategies and culture that promote CSR.
References
Bhattacharya, C. B., & Sen, S. (2004). Doing Better at Doing Good: When, Why, and How Consumers Respond to Corporate Social 
Initiatives. California Management Review, 47(1), 9–24. DOI: https://doi.org/10.2307/41166284
Chen, J., Liu, J. & Qin, J. (2019). Corporate social responsibility and capacity selection. Transformations in Business & Economics, 18, 
3C(48C), 530–545.
Crifo, P., Diaye, M., & Pekovis, S. (2016). CSR related management practices and firm performance: An empirical analysis of the 
quantity–quality trade-of on French data. International Journal of Production Economics, 171(3), 405–441. DOI: https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.ijpe.2014.12.019
De Bakker, F.G.A., Groenewegen, P., & Den Hond, F. (2005), A bibliometric analysis of 30 years of research and theory on 
corporate social Responsibility and corporate social performance. Business and Society, 44(3), 283-317. DOI: https://doi.
org/10.1177/0007650305278086 
European Commission (2011). A renewed EU strategy 2011-14 for Corporate Social Responsibility. Retrieved from http://ec.europa.eu/
enterprise/policies/sustainable-business/corporate-social-responsibility/index_en.htm
Forrester, J. (1972). Industrial Dynamics. Cambridge, Massachusetts: The M.I.T. Press, Massachusetts Institute of T echnology.
Golob, U. Johansen, T. S., Nielsen, A. E., & Podnar, K. (2014). Corporate Social Responsibility as a Messy Problem: Linking Systems 
and Sense-making Perspectives. Systemic Practice and Action Research, 27(4), 363-376. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/
s11213-013-9287-7
Hair, J.F., Anderson, R.E., Tatham, R.L. & Black, W.C. (1995). Multivariate Data Analysis (3
rd
 ed). New York: Macmillan.
Homburg, C., Stierl, M., & Bornemann, T. (2013). Corporate Social Responsibility in Business to Business Markets: How Organizational 
Customers Account for Supplier Corporate Social Responsibility Engagement. Journal of Marketing, 77, 54-72. DOI: https://doi.
org/10.1509/jm.12.0089
ISO (2010). ISO 26000:2010 ISO. Retrieved from www.iso.org/iso/social_responsibility.
Ivanović-Đukić, M. (2011). Promovisanje društveno odgovornog poslovanja preduzeća u Srbiji. Sociologija, 53(1), 21-42. 
Jackson, M. C. (2003). Systems Thinking: Creative Holism for Managers. New York: John Wiley and Sons.
Maignan, I., & Ferrell, O.C. (2004). Corporate Social Responsibility and Marketing: An Integrative Framework. Journal of the Academy 
of Marketing Science, 32(1), 3-19. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/0092070303258971
Maon, F., Lindgreen, A., & Swaen, V. (2008). Thinking of the Organization as a System: The Role of Managerial Perceptions in 
Developing a Corporate Social Responsibility Strategic Agenda. Systems Research and Behavioral Science, 25, 413-426. DOI: 
https://doi.org/10.1002/sres.900
Mulej, M., Hrast, A., & Dyck, R. (2014). Social Responsibility – a new socio-economic order. Systems Research and Behavioral Science, 
32(2), 147-264.
Mulej, M. (Ed.). (2013). Dialectical Systems Thinking and the Law of Requisite Holism concerning Innovation. Litchfield Park, AZ, USA: 
Emergent Publications. 
Mulej, M., Ženko, Z., & Žakelj, V. (2017). Social Responsibility as a Next Step in development of Systemic Behavior toward Systems 
Solutions of Systemic Problems of Today. Journal of Systems Science and Systems Engineering, 26(3), 287-302. DOI: https://doi.
org/10.1007/s11518-017-5333-9
Nikolić, J., & Zlatanović, D. (2018). Corporate governance and corporate social responsibility synergies: A systemic approach. Naše 
gospodarstvo/Our economy, 64(3), 36-46. DOI: https://doi.org/10.2478/ngoe-2018-0016
Orlitzky, M., Schmidt, F.L., & Rynes, S.L. (2003). Corporate social and financial performance: A meta-analysis. Organization Studies, 
24(3), 403-441. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/0170840603024003910
Peloza, J., & Sang, J. (2011). How Can Corporate Social Responsibility Activities Create Value for Stakeholders? A Systematic Review. 
Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 39(1), 117-135. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11747-010-0213-6
Sharma, A., Iyer, G.R., Mehrotra, R., & Krishnan, R. (2010). Sustainability and business-to-business marketing: A framework and 
implications. Industrial Marketing Management, 39(2), 330-341. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.indmarman.2008.11.005 

17
NAŠE GOSPODARSTVO / OUR ECONOMY 68 (3) 2022 Zlatanović, D., Mulej, M., Ženko, Z.
Štrukelj, T., Zlatanović, D., Nikolić, J., & Sternad-Zabukovšek, S. (2021). Viable System Model’s Support to Social Responsibility. 
Kybernetes, 50(3), 812-835. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1108/K-12-2019-0860 
Torres, A., Bijmolt, T. H., Tribó, J.A., & Verhoef, P. (2012). Generating global brand equity through corporate social Responsibility to 
key stakeholders. International Journal оf Research in Marketing, 29 (1), 13-24. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijresmar.2011.10.002
Vlachos, P.A, Tsamakos A., Vrechopoulos, A.P., & Avramidis, P.K. (2009). Corporate social Responsibility: attributions, loyalty, 
and the mediating role of trust. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 37(2), 170-180. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/
s11747-008-0117-x
Xueming, L., & Bhattacarya, C.B. (2006). Corporate Social Responsibility, Customer Satisfaction and Market Value. Journal of 
Marketing, 70(4), 1-18. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1509/jmkg.70.4.001
Yang, J., & Basile, K. (2019). The impact of corporate social Responsibility on brand equity. Mark eting Intelligence & Planning, 37(1), 
2–17. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1108/MIP-02-2018-0051
Zlatanović, D., & Mulej, M. (2015). Soft-systems approaches to knowledge-cum-values management as innovation drivers, Baltic 
Journal of Management, 10(4), 497-518. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1108/BJM-01-2015-0015
Zlatanović, D. (2012). System dynamics models in management problems solving. Economic Horizons, 14(1), 25-38.
Zlatanović, D. (2015). A Holistic Approach to Corporate Social Responsibility as a Prerequisite for Sustainable Development: 
Empirical Evidence, Economic Annals, 60(207): 69-94. DOI: https://doi.org/10.2298/EKA1507069Z
Zlatanović, D. (2017). A Multi-Methodological Approach to Complex Problem Solving: The Case of Serbian Enterprise. Systems, 5(2), 
1-16. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/systems5020040
Družbena odgovornost podjetij, obravnavana z dvema sistemskima 
teorijama: primer iz Srbije
Izvleček
Družbena odgovornost podjetij (DOP) postaja eden od predpogojev za uspeh sodobnih organizacij, katerih cilj je preživetje 
človeštva s trajnostnim razvojem. Ker lahko ravnanje družbene odgovornosti ustvari pomembne koristi, vse več organizacij 
razvija strateške načrte za družbeno odgovornost in izvaja pobude za družbeno odgovornost. V standardu ISO 26000 ima 
družbena odgovornost podjetij tri osnovne koncepte: odgovornost za svoje vplive na družbo, soodvisnost in celostni pristop. 
Zato se avtorji osredotočajo na sistemski pristop k družbeni odgovornosti podjetij. Namen je prikazati, kako lahko kombinirana 
uporaba ustreznih sistemskih teorij pomaga pri obravnavi družbene odgovornosti podjetij. V skladu s tem sta bili kot ustrezni 
sistemski teoriji, tj. metodologiji, ki izhajata iz različnih sistemskih paradigem, izbrani dialektična sistemska teorija (DST) in 
sistemska dinamika (SD). DST je pomagala opredeliti nekatere pomembne vidike in sestavine družbene odgovornosti podjetij, 
ki so bili empirično preverjeni v podjetjih v Republiki Srbiji. Zato so bili naslednji dejavniki oziroma skupine dejavnosti SR 
izbrani kot pomembni za izboljšanje uspešnosti organizacije: splošne dejavnosti družbene odgovornosti podjetij; dejavnosti 
družbene odgovornosti podjetij v zvezi s potrošniki; dejavnosti družbene odgovornosti podjetij v zvezi z varstvom okolja 
in zdravjem upravičencev ter družbeno odgovorne poprodajne dejavnosti. Poleg tega so bili rezultati empiričnih raziskav, 
ki kažejo na vpliv navedenih dejavnikov na uspešnost, podlaga za uporabo orodij SD, kot so diagrami zalog in tokov ter 
diagrami vzročnih zank. Orodja SD prispevajo k simulaciji prihodnjega obnašanja sistema, tj. prihodnje ravni uspešnosti po 
izboljšanju teh dejavnosti družbene odgovornosti. Avtorji uvajajo nov, sistemski pristop h konceptualizaciji in raziskovanju 
družbene odgovornosti podjetij z zagotavljanjem ustrezne metodološke podpore za raziskovanje ustreznih soodvisnosti 
vidikov družbene odgovornosti podjetij. 
Ključne besede: družbena odgovornost podjetij, ISO 26000, celovit pristop k družbeni odgovornosti podjetij, teorija dialektičnih 
sistemov, sistemska dinamika