Available via license: CC BY-SA 4.0
Content may be subject to copyright.
http://ea.bg.ac.rs 1109
AGRICULTURAL SUSTAINABILITY AND
SOCIAL RESPONSIBILITY
Marijana Dukić Mijatović1, Ozren Uzelac2, Aleksandra Stoiljković3
*Corresponding author E-mail: ozren.uzelac@ef.uns.ac.rs
A R T I C L E I N F O
Review Article
Received: 17 November 2021
Accepted: 08 December 2021
doi:10.5937/ekoPolj2104109D
UDC [502.131.1:631 ]:005.35
A B S T R A C T
Exchange of the drought and precipitations due to climate
changes is preventing higher agrarian output. Although
modern technology and methods of farm production may
be the answer to this question, these raise public concerns
about employment and environment quality. Because of
demographic and technological lagging, some countries
face other problems of achieving agronomic sustainability.
In this paper, the importance of sustainable agriculture
development, legal bases and some aspects of agricultural
social responsibility are explored. Comparative and logical
deduction methods of reviewing the selected international
and national documents and literature were employed.
Authors conclude there are adequate legal frameworks
for agricultural social responsibility and the discussion
if agriculture’s moral priorities affect its economic
performance will never end.
© 2021 EA. All rights reserved.
Keywords:
agriculture, sustainability,
social responsibility, climate
changes
JEL: K000, Q010, M140
Introduction
Traditional methods of achieving a higher agricultural yield are being replaced by
introducing innovations like “precision farming”, automation and digitization. As
the application of more efcient pesticides, specic methods of farming and other
advanced measures spread so is the importance of public concerns about the impact of
agricultural modernization on social and environmental issues.
However, the use of new technologies may mitigate environmental risks and concerns,
but not social issues as we will see in this paper. For example, the farm machinery can
1 Marijana Dukić Mijatović, Associate Professor, Faculty of Technical Sciences, University
of Novi Sad, Trg Dositeja Obradovića 6, 21000 Novi Sad, Phone: +381 21 450 810, E-mail:
marijana.mijatovic@uns.ac.rs, ORCID ID (https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9535-2962)
2 Ozren Uzelac, Assistant Professor, Faculty of Economics in Subotica, University of Novi
Sad, Segedinski put 9-11, 24000 Subotica, Phone: +381 24 628 059, E-mail: ozren.uzelac@
ef.uns.ac.rs, ORCID ID (https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6991-1644)
3 Aleksandra Stoiljković, Teaching Assistant, Faculty of Economics in Subotica, University
of Novi Sad, Segedinski put 9-11, 24000 Subotica, Phone: +381 24 628 062, E-mail:
aleksandra.stoiljkovic@ef.uns.ac.rs, ORCID ID (https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4324-4537)
1110 http://ea.bg.ac.rs
Economics of Agriculture, Year 68, No. 4, 2021, (pp. 1109-1119), Belgrade
be given targeted pesticide application and irrigation orders, while providers of data
analytics can collect environmental data and comprehensive plant pathogen information
that can be called up at any time to improve the crop management (Bayer, 2016, 77).
On the other hand, social issues may not be as quantiable as environmental impact.
With stable World population growth, there has been a need to accelerate nourishment
production to ensure sustainable development. United Nations (UN) estimate that the cur-
rent world community is expected to reach 9.7 billion in 2050 (United Nations, 2015a),
whereas the UN’s Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) suggested that the food pro-
duction would have to double by 2050 to meet projected demand (Food and Agriculture
Organization of the United Nations, 2009, 13). However, the capacity of present resources
and technologies that should meet the demands of a growing population for food and oth-
er agricultural products remains uncertain (Popović, Kovljenić, 2017, 1500; Stevanović,
Đurđević, 2018, 82). Exchange of the drought and precipitations due to climate changes
is preventing higher agricultural output. However, together with the population rising and
greater consumption, the world may need even more ideas and innovative methods that
will create major farming revolution. The common answer lies in sustainable develop-
ment partly by the agricultural social responsibility (Hereinafter: ASR).
In this paper, the authors explore importance of sustainable agriculture development,
legal bases and some aspects of agricultural social responsibility.
Sustainable agricultural development
Norwegian Prime Minister Mrs Gro Harlem Brundtland developed at the end of the
80s generally accepted denition of the sustainable development. It takes into account
progress that satises current needs and ensures the future generations capability to
meet their essentials (Brundtland, 1987, 27). One of the proclaimed goals in the UN
Resolution 70/1. Transforming our world: the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development
was to eradicate famine, create a food security system that would enhance the diet
and promote viable agriculture (United Nations, 2015b, Goal 2). The priorities in the
said UN Resolution on sustainable agriculture show its multifunctional dimension as
one of the important tools in sustainable development management. It is reected in
social, economic and environmental roles. As claimed by Bitsch, most authors use
various approaches to the models’ concepts of sustainability and social responsibility
on equal footing (Bitsch, 2011, 1). Also, some authors claim that sustainability serves
as a prospective explanation of the need for CSR (Porter, Kramer, 2006). The moral
acceptability of conduct or a decision depends on the way of observing the outcome.
Put differently, is Monsanto (agricultural company faced with controversy in the
USA over genetically modied wheat and herbicide products – added by the authors)
behaving ethically or practicing “sustainable agriculture” by producing genetically
modied seeds or is eradicating poverty in developing nations their corporate social
responsibility (Hereinafter: CSR) strategy? (Smith, 2011, 71).
http://ea.bg.ac.rs 1111
Economics of Agriculture, Year 68, No. 4, 2021, (pp. 1109-1119), Belgrade
It is customary to claim that social sustainability impacts society through societal,
social, labor and general human rights (Bitsch, 2011). Hohnen and Hediger point out
that building social capital is as important as economic and natural resources (or raw
materials) for CSR. They claim where social capital refers to the rm’s relationship
with society, how it is perceived and regarded (Hohnen, 2007, 77; Hediger, 2008, 10).
In line with the Brundtland denition, transposition of the principle of sustainability
into a legislative form is part of the countries’ constitutions. Those constitutions are
phrased differently but reect the essential meaning of sustainability. For example, the
Constitution of the Federal Republic of Germany provides the state protects the basics
of life and the animals as the responsibility for the generations to come (Basic Law for
the Federal Republic of Germany). Serbian Constitution stipulates the Republic of Serbia
shall ensure a uniform and sustainable regional development in accordance with the law. It
shall regulate and provide systems for the protection and enhancement of the environment,
ora and fauna, whereas municipalities are competent for the improvement and use of
agricultural land (Constitution of the Republic of Serbia). Rules of a sustainable conduct
from the Constitution are transposed in detail by law. For example, there are general and
particular principles of scal policy in the Serbian Budget System Act, whereas only a
few of them are dedicated to sustainability. The standard of fairness requires the scal
policy management must take into account its impact on the welfare of all generations.
However, the management of the national assets and liabilities and resources must not
burden upcoming generations (Budget System Act).
On the European Union level, the European Commission has also stressed the
importance of corporate social responsibility for sustainable development in A Renewed
EU Strategy 2011-14 for CSR (European Commission, 2011). European Commission
claimed that “Through CSR, enterprises can signicantly contribute to the European
Union’s treaty objectives of sustainable development and a highly competitive social
market economy (European Commission, 2011, 3).”
The European Commission survey from December 2017, showed 55% of the
respondents were most likely to say one of the primary farmers’ responsibilities in
society was providing healthy food of high quality. Additional 25% say it is about
protecting the environment and tackling climate change (European Commission, 2018,
6). How important is to promote adequate policies and work on enforcement of their
goals conrms half of all respondents in 24 EU member countries. They agree the
Common Agricultural Policy is fullling its role in preserving the environment and
tackling climate change (European Commission, 2018, 12).
The same challenges bother Serbian agricultural production as well, where the
modernization of the agricultural machinery remains a particular issue that need to be
addressed. The average area of the agricultural land cultivated by a two-axle tractor
was 8.5 hectares according to the Strategy of Agriculture and Rural Development of
the Republic of Serbia for the period 2014-2024 (Hereinafter: The Strategy) (Strategy
of Agriculture and Rural Development of the Republic of Serbia for the period 2014-
1112 http://ea.bg.ac.rs
Economics of Agriculture, Year 68, No. 4, 2021, (pp. 1109-1119), Belgrade
2024, 2.2.4). Authors of this document claim that the Serbian farmers use agricultural
machines with narrower operating span, incurring higher fuel consumption and harvest
losses, which additionally increase production costs (Strategy of Agriculture and Rural
Development of the Republic of Serbia for the period 2014-2024, 2.2.4). Likewise, aged
machinery and scarce investment hinder the increase of the productivity and protability
of the Serbian agricultural sector. Also, intensive manufacturing and longer food supply
chains may be associated with higher greenhouse gas emissions from production
machinery. This explains why Serbian agriculture urgently needs modernization of the
machines and equipment. Size of agricultural holdings augmentation, health security
standards, and animal welfare and climate changes are some of the reasons.
As seen from the above, achievement of the sustainable development remains a
complex issue for many reasons. Despite EU agriculture having made real progress
on the climate and nature front since 1990, food production continues to put a strain
on our environment (European Commission, 2019, 19). Still, a way to improve the
environmental sustainability of the global food system as claimed by the UN Food
and Agriculture Organization is the loss and waste reduction (FAO, 2019). However,
based on a few studies, this organization has concluded that efforts based on business
considerations alone are unlikely to resolve said production issues (FAO, 2019). That
necessitates a change of the economic and legal landscape under which decisions
about food loss and waste are made. To this end, the European Commission adopted
a Delegated Act on 3 May 2019, laying down a common food waste measurement
methodology. Such methodology serves for quantifying those indicators at each stage
of the supply chain (Commission Delegated Decision (EU) 2019).
Regarding what principles sustainable agriculture should follow, Ganzi has claimed it must
produce high yield and nutrition quality crops keeping resources use at the lowest level;
minimize any adverse effects on the environment and make every effort towards positive
sustainability contributions; utilize the renewable assets more often than non-renewable
resources; and should give the local communities ability to keep and progress in their well-
being (Ganzi, 2006, 4). Notwithstanding Ganzi’s alimentary, environmental and social
principles, Tarnapol Whitacre highlights an economic aspect of agricultural sustainabil-
ity reected in the protability and viability of the farming business. As they claim, once
achieved, it represents a process that changes farming systems permanently in accordance
with the socially determined consistency goals. More concisely than the above Ganzi’s
principles, they dene agricultural sustainability by four generally agreed upon goals: sat-
isfy various needs, improve ecological aspects, achieve economic stability of agriculture
and take forward the farm and society life quality (Tarnapol Whitacare, 2010, 1).
Agricultural social responsibility
Corporate social responsibility is understood to be the way companies combine social,
environmental and economic concerns into their values, culture, decision making,
strategy and operations. By applying such values and practices they contribute to the
well-being of an individual and society (Hohnen, 2007, 5; International Organization
http://ea.bg.ac.rs 1113
Economics of Agriculture, Year 68, No. 4, 2021, (pp. 1109-1119), Belgrade
for Standardization, 2010). Hohnen advocates for a pragmatic “license-to-operate”
approach. This approach offers a concrete way to identify social issues vital to the
company’s stakeholders and fosters dialogue with local government, community and
non-governmental organizations. In the view of Caroll, CSR involves the conduct
of a business so that it is economically protable, law-abiding, ethical and socially
supportive (Caroll, 1999, 286). Caroll explains the expression „socially supportive” as
a voluntary or philanthropic part of the social responsibility. However, we believe such
concepts are hardly acceptable in the context of agricultural production.
As something sensitive to regulate by imperative legislation, guidelines of the various
international organizations are vital for adopting good governance and production
practice in agriculture. Some of these, recommended by the BNP Paribas, are FAO
Voluntary Guidelines on the responsible governance of tenure of land, sheries
and forests in the context of national food security 2012; OECD FAO Guidance for
Responsible Agricultural Supply Chains 2016 (to help enterprises observe existing
standards for responsible business conduct along agricultural supply chains); World
Bank Environmental, Health, and Safety General Guidelines 2007 (for Agribusiness
and Food production sectors); The CEO Water Mandate’s Corporate Water Disclosure
Guidelines Toward a Common Approach to Reporting Water Issues, September 2014
and other guidelines and certications (BNP Paribas).
In the absence of imperative statutory provisions that would direct sustainability initia-
tives in a desirable course, morality and conscientiousness in agricultural production are
of utmost importance. And corporate social responsibility represents only one component
of sustainable development. A typical example is producers and retailers who increasing-
ly engage in CSR initiatives to show their commitment to sustainability issues like animal
welfare and environment (De Olde, Valentinov, 2019, 415). However, large and small
individual farms can contribute both positively and negatively to sustainability in various
degrees. Tempting question if it is worth pursuing sustainability objectives or maintaining
the imperative balance between various aspects of sustainability (e.g. economic viability,
ecosystem functioning, social responsibility, and food characteristics) is basically a social
choice (Tarnapol Whitacre, 2010, 271). Continuity of work processes in farming together
with the everyday family life, made Bitsch express concern on the social aspects of farm-
ers’ production and responsibility (Bitsch, 2011, 2). Whatever the approach to steering the
ASR, Tarnapol Whitacre claims maintaining farm protability is a critical link to ensur-
ing farm dollars circulate in the local economy (Tarnapol Whitacre, 2010, 73).
Higher food production at low prices for consumers with a fair income for farmers was
an ethical conception of justice and fairness for many decades (De Olde, Valentinov,
2019, 422–423). Today, agricultural social responsibility dictates an essentially different
approach from this principle. However, mechanization, use of milking machines,
digital farming, etc. reduce the necessity of using too much manual work. For example,
in the area of animal production, in longer period, numbers of animals remained rather
constant or increased, while the number of full-time farm workers hardly increased
resulting in more animals per labor unit (De Olde, Valentinov, 2019, 422–423).
1114 http://ea.bg.ac.rs
Economics of Agriculture, Year 68, No. 4, 2021, (pp. 1109-1119), Belgrade
With farming systems’ industrialization there have been growing concerns over
negative socio-economic impacts on the local communities. As found in the literature,
the majority of empirical studies (57%) conrmed the negative effects of industrialized
agriculture on the community well-being when it comes to quantity and quality of the
farm jobs, the extent to which farms purchase inputs and sell outputs locally, the local
poverty rate and the level of income inequality (Tarnapol Whitacre, 2010, 73).
What can be claimed for some agricultural regions as regards to jobs density, does not
apply for the agriculture in general. Agriculture still provides the highest proportion of
jobs. It plays an important role in less developed countries, where farming jobs make a
considerable share of the total workforce compared to less than 5% in France, Italy and
Spain (Rivoal, 2012, 198).
In the area of metrics, labor issues are more difcult to measure than environmental
impacts. Labor concerns include wages and benets, health and safety, stable
employment, compliance with laws and international conventions and employee
participation in improving workplace conditions (Bitsch, 2011, 3; Hohnen, 2007, 24).
Contrary to these views, a survey conducted in Ukraine in spring 2016 has shown the
most of the agricultural managers does not consider staff development and improving
working conditions as an important part of CSR (Levkivska, Levkovych, 2017, 106).
Production of more and more food is as important as achieving and maintaining its
sufciency and safety. Therefore, there is a general agreement that to pursue agricultural
sustainability and responsibility in farming systems, farmers need to apply complex
cropping rotations, integrated crop and livestock production and use environmentally
friendly means to control vermin and crop disease-prone nature (monitoring their
recognizing their interconnectedness and interactions with the environment) (Tarnapol
Whitacre, 2010, 2; FAO, 2019). To this end, in Serbia farms with fragmented holdings
and applied organization of production, have high production costs and inefcient use
of resources (Popović, Kovljenić, 2017, 1501).
How important is the creation of jobs and economic growth in rural areas of the less
developed regions shown in the EU Special Eurobarometer survey from December
2017. In 28 EU Member States, about 25% of the farmers believe the environment
protection and addressing climate changes are more important than agricultural growth
and creation of jobs. There are 27% in Hungary, 28% in Romania, 30% in Croatia and
34% farmers in Bulgaria of the opposite belief (European Commission, 2018). This
could mean farmers in the latter countries will be less likely environmentally mindful.
They will also be careless about creating conditions for stronger economic development
and addressing labor concerns. For example, although large agricultural companies are
major investors and employers in rural areas of Ukraine, they are sometimes blamed
for exploiting resources and are careless about the environmental consequences
(Levkivska, Levkovych, 2017, 98). As outlined in the Serbian theory, most advanced
countries should recognize preferential treatment to undeveloped countries as a support
in their efforts to access foreign markets of agricultural products (Rabrenović, Popov,
http://ea.bg.ac.rs 1115
Economics of Agriculture, Year 68, No. 4, 2021, (pp. 1109-1119), Belgrade
Stamenović, 2020, 75). If such a step is undertaken, preferential treatment could be one
of the fundamental aspects for boosting the ASR.
One may ask himself is there really an agricultural environmental responsibility? There
are at least two reasons for such a question. Firstly, sometimes reckless companies and
people intend to conceal the harmful consequences of their ill-managed practice and
mitigate its relevance for the specic event. Consequently, if they succeed to show the
soundness of their practice in the specic event, they can exonerate themselves from
civil liability for environmental damage. Secondly, carbon, land and water footprints
are dependent on the food product, production method and the stage where loss or
waste occurs. The land and water footprints of food are concentrated at the primary
production stage. Despite signicant amounts of water may be used during processing,
greenhouse gases’ emissions may occur and accumulate along the entire supply chain
(FAO, 2019, 92). This “dilemma” shows how sustainability and responsibility of the
agricultural business can be defended somewhat immorally.
Beside economic and social aspects, socially responsible agriculture is distinguished by
the efciency of the environmentally friendly production methods and minimization of
their business’s negative consequences. Otherwise, it risks being blamed by NGOs or
mass media if they do not behave in an adequate way, which can negatively affect their
reputation and nancial performance (Hediger, 2008, 9; Hohnen, 2007, 2).
The moral complexity of corporate social responsibility in agriculture is the same as in
other parts of the economy. How to converge economic, social and environmental goals
and keep the image of a responsible business towards the public is a moral question. The
answer can show the boundary between socially acceptable and irresponsible organi-
zation. Moral complexity means that quite many societal expectations directed toward
agriculture are marked by a high degree of moral legitimacy. However, they are far from
converging on any consensus (De Olde, Valentinov, 2019, 420). As CSR is strongly im-
bued with a moral imperative, it is the nature of moral obligations to be absolute man-
dates, while most corporate choices involve balancing competing values, interests, and
costs (Porter, Kramer, 2006). As something beyond what is required by the law, ethical
responsibility represents the behaviors and ethical norms that society expects business
to follow (Caroll, 1999, 283). Moral motivation, manager’s personal ethics and values
(Levkivska, Levkovych, 2017, 100; De Olde, Valentinov, 2019, 425) are embraced by
the concern for the welfare of all generations and belief that it is the “right thing to do”
and concern for the welfare of present and future generations (Hohnen, 2007, 13). These
are some of the CSR’s internal drivers decisively inuencing the balance between com-
pany’s business goals and social and environmental conduct. One may argue CSR could
be burdensome for improving business’s nancial performance if often or to a signicant
extent pays attention to social and environmental issues. However, some authors claim
both models can produce the same results if managed as a system. That implies the inclu-
sion of wealth production and distribution, ethical systems and sustainable management
practices (Smith, 2011, 30; Hohnen, 2007, 11; Hediger, 2008, 4).
1116 http://ea.bg.ac.rs
Economics of Agriculture, Year 68, No. 4, 2021, (pp. 1109-1119), Belgrade
In economic theory, there is a general agreement about corporate social responsibility
correlation with protability, but disagreement over its effect. One group of authors
concluded that corporate social performance and research & development (Hereinafter:
R&D) aspects are highly correlated. Furthermore, when R&D intensity is included in the
equation, corporate social performance is shown to have a neutral effect on protability
(McWilliams, Siegel, 2000). The other group found that the corporate virtue in the form
of social and, to a lesser extent, environmental responsibility is rewarding in more ways
than one (Orlitzky, Schmidt, Rynes, 2003, 427).
Conclusions
The generally accepted principle of sustainable development of human society has been a
matter much discussed in theory and recognized by international institutions and various
initiatives. They all agree a sustainable development is a starting point for a better,
peaceful and justly developed world. This concerns both present and future generations.
International and national levels of legal regulation provide adequate bases for
agricultural social responsibility.
However, there are many obstacles to the achievement of sustainable development.
These refer to the social and environment issues affected by the economic expectations
in terms of productivity and protability of the agribusiness. Specic methods of
agricultural production and food distribution are additional aspects in that eld.
Morality is another dimension of the CSR relevant for differentiation of the
agribusiness’s acceptability by the society from irresponsible conduct forms. Although
CSR may prove to be burdensome for improving business’s nancial performance,
there is disagreement over its effect on protability. Notwithstanding the importance of
the sustainability and social responsibility of the agribusiness, discussion if the moral
priorities affect agriculture’s economic performance and core activity will never end.
Conict of interests
The authors declare no conict of interest.
References
1. Basic Law for the Federal Republic of Germany in the revised version published
in the Federal Law Gazette Part III, classication number 100-1, as last
amended by Article 1 of the Act of 15 November 2019 (Federal Law Gazette I
p. 1546) [in German: Grundgesetz für die Bundesrepublik Deutschland in der im
Bundesgesetzblatt Teil III, Gliederungsnummer 100-1, veröffentlichten bereinigten
Fassung, das zuletzt durch Artikel 1 des Gesetzes vom 15. November 2019 (BGBl.
I S. 1546) geändert worden ist].
http://ea.bg.ac.rs 1117
Economics of Agriculture, Year 68, No. 4, 2021, (pp. 1109-1119), Belgrade
2. Bayer CropScience (30 November 2016). The networked farm. Bayer Research,
76–81.
3. BNP Paribas. (n/a). Corporate Social Responsibility: Agriculture Sector Policy.
Retrieved from: https://group.bnpparibas/uploads/le/position_paper_soft_
commodities_format_corporate_nal.pdf (15.1.2021).
4. Bitsch, V. (2011). Sustainability Agriculture, Social Responsibility and Dairy
Farming. Michigan Dairy Review 16(1), 1–4. Retrieved from: https://www.canr.
msu.edu/uploads/234/76566/Sustainability_Agriculture.pdf (15.1.2021).
5. Brundtland, G. H. (1987). Report of the World Commission on Environment
and Development: Our Common Future. World Commission on Environment
and Development, United Nations, New York. Retrieved from: http://www.un-
documents.net/our-common-future.pdf (15.1.2021).
6. Budget System Act, Ofcial Gazzette of the Republic of Serbia, 54/2019,
73/2010, 101/2010, 101/2011, 93/2012, 62/2013, 63/2013 - correction, 108/2013,
142/2014, 68/2015 - other law, 103/2015, 99/2016, 113/2017, 95/2018, 31/2019,
72/2019 [in Serbian: Zakon o budžetskom sistemu, Službeni glasnik Republike
Srbije, 54/2019, 73/2010, 101/2010, 101/2011, 93/2012, 62/2013, 63/2013
- ispravka, 108/2013, 142/2014, 68/2015 - drugi zakon, 103/2015, 99/2016,
113/2017, 95/2018, 31/2019, 72/2019].
7. Carroll, A. B. (1999). Corporate social responsibility: Evolution of a denitional
construct. Business & society, 38(3), 268-295. (https://doi.org/10.1177/00076503
9903800303).
8. Commission Delegated Decision (EU) 2019/1597 of 3 May 2019 supplementing
Directive 2008/98/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council as regards
a common methodology and minimum quality requirements for the uniform
measurement of levels of food waste, Ofcial Journal of the European Union, L
248, 27.9.2019, 77–85.
9. Constitution of the Republic of Serbia, Ofcial Gazzette, No. 98, 10 November
2006 [in Serbian: Ustav Republike Srbije, Službeni glasnik RS, 98 od 10.
novembra 2006].
10. De Olde, E. M., & Valentinov, V. (2019). The moral complexity of agriculture:
A challenge for corporate social responsibility. Journal of Agricultural and
Environmental Ethics, 32(3), 413-430. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10806-019-09782-
3 (15.1.2021).
11. European Commission (2019). Reection paper: Towards a sustainable Europe
by 2030, COM (2019)22 of 30 January 2019, European Commission, Brussels.
Retrieved from: https://ec.europa.eu/transparency/regdoc/rep/1/2019/EN/COM-
2019-22-F1-EN-MAIN-PART-1.PDF, (15.1.2021).
12. European Commission (2018). Europeans, Agriculture and the CAP, Special
Eurobarometer 473, 22.2.2018. Retrieved from: https://data.europa.eu/euodp/en/
data/dataset/S2161_88_4_473_ENG. (15.1.2021).
1118 http://ea.bg.ac.rs
Economics of Agriculture, Year 68, No. 4, 2021, (pp. 1109-1119), Belgrade
13. European Commission (2011). 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, COM(2011) 681 nal, Brussels,
25.10.2011. Retrieved from: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/
PDF/?uri=CELEX:52011DC0681 (15.1.2021).
14. FAO (2019). The state of food and agriculture – Moving forward on food loss and
waste reduction, Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Rome.
Retrieved from: http://www.fao.org/3/ca6030en/ca6030en.pdf, (15.1.2021).
15. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (1–5 June 2009). Report
of the Governing Body of the International Treaty on Plant Genetic Resources for
Food and Agriculture, Third Session of the Governing Body of the International
Treaty on Plant Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture, Tunis. Retrieved
from: http://www.fao.org/3/a-be112e.pdf (15.1.2021).
16. Ganzi, J. (2006). Sustainable Agriculture, Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) &
The Private Sector of the Financial Services Industry, Public Private Partnerships
for Sustainable Development in the Americas, Organization of American States,
22nd November, 2006, 1–12. Retrieved from: http://www.oas.org/dsd/Environ-
mentLaw/trade/Documents/paper%2011-22%20nal%20paper.pdf, (15.1.2021).
17. Hediger, W. (2008). Agriculture’s Multifunctionality, Sustainability, and Social
Responsibility, Paper prepared for presentation at the 82nd annual conference
of the Agricultural Economics Society (AES) at the Royal Agricultural College,
31st March – 2nd April 2008, 1–14. Retrieved from: https://core.ac.uk/download/
pdf/7010962.pdf (15.1.2021).
18. Hohnen, P. (2007). Corporate Social Responsibility: An Implementation Guide
for Business, International Institute for Sustainable Development, Winnipeg.
Retrieved from: https://www.iisd.org/pdf/2007/csr_guide.pdf (15.1.2021).
19. International Organization for Standardization (2010). ISO 26000:2010(en) –
Guidance on social responsibility. Geneva: ISO/TMB Working Group on Social
Responsibility. Retrieved from: https://www.iso.org/obp/ui/#iso:std:iso:26000:ed-
1:v1:en, (15.1.2021).
20. Levkivska, L., & Levkovych, I. (2017). Social responsibility in Ukrainian
agriculture: the regional issue. Eastern Journal of European Studies, 8(1), 97–114.
Retrieved from: http://ejes.uaic.ro/articles/EJES2017_0801_LEV.pdf, (15.1.2021).
21. McWilliams, A., & Siegel, D. (2000). Corporate social responsibility and
nancial performance: correlation or misspecication?. Strategic management
journal, 21(5), 603-609. Retrieved from: https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1097-
0266(200005)21:5<603::AID-SMJ101>3.0.CO;2-3, (15.1.2021).
22. Orlitzky, M., Schmidt, F., & Rynes, S. (2003). Corporate Social and Financial
Performance: A Meta-analysis. Organization Studies, 24(3), 403–441. Retrieved
from: https://doi.org/10.1177/0170840603024003910, (15.1.2021).
http://ea.bg.ac.rs 1119
Economics of Agriculture, Year 68, No. 4, 2021, (pp. 1109-1119), Belgrade
23. Popović, R., & Kovljenić, M. (2017). Efciency of wheat production in Republic
of Serbia. Economics of Agriculture, 64(4), 1499–1511.
24. Porter M. E., & Kramer M. R. (December 2006). Strategy and Society: The
Link between Competitive Advantage and Corporate Social Responsibility.
Harvard Business Review, 1–13. Retrieved from: https://hbr.org/2006/12/strategy-
and-society-the-link-between-competitive-advantage-and-corporate-social-
responsibility, (15.1.2021).
25. Rabrenović, M., Popov, D., & Stamenović, M. (2020). Stepen ostvarene
liberalizacije ekonomije Srbije u procesu pristupanja Svetskoj trgovinskoj
organizaciji. Megatrend revija, 17(3), 65–78. [in English: Rabrenović, M., Popov,
D., & Stamenović, M. (2020). Degree of liberalization in Serbian economy as a
part of the accession process to the World Trade Organization. Megatrend Review
17(3), 65-78.].
26. Rivoal, C. (2012). Chapter 9. Social responsibility in agriculture, 197–210, in:
Francisco Mombiela (publication editor): Mediterra 2012. The Mediterranean
Diet for Sustainable Regional Development, / International Centre for Advanced
Mediterranean Agronomic Studies (CIHEAM), Presses de Sciences Po, Paris.
27. Smith, R. E. (2011). Dening corporate social responsibility: A systems approach
for socially responsible capitalism. Master of Philosophy Theses, University of
Pennsylvania, Philadelphia. Retrieved from: https://repository.upenn.edu/cgi/
viewcontent.cgi?article=1009&context=od_theses_mp, (15.1.2021).
28. Stevanović, M., & Đurđević, D. (2018). Dostupnost i pristup slatkoj vodi sa
aspekta nacionalne bezbednosti. Megatrend revija, 15(2), 73–94. [in English:
Stevanović, M., & Đurđević, D. (2018). Water safety from the national security
aspect. Megatrend Review 15(2), 73-94.].
29. Strategy of Agriculture and Rural Development of the Republic of Serbia for the
period 2014-2024, Ofcial Journal of the Republic of Serbia, No. 85/2014 [in
Serbian: Strategija poljoprivrede i ruralnog razvoja Republike Srbije za period
2014-2024. godine, Službeni glasnik Republike Srbije, 85/2014].
30. Tarnapol Whitacre, P. (Editor) (2010). Toward Sustainable Agricultural Systems in
the 21st Century, Washington D.C.
31. United Nations (2015a). World population projected to reach 9.7 billion by 2050.
Retrieved from: http://www.un.org/en/development/desa/news/population/2015-
report.html, (15.1.2021).
32. United Nations (2015b). Transforming our world: the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable
Development, United Nations General Assembly Resolution A/RES/70/1.
New York. Retrieved from: www.un.org/ga/search/view_doc.asp?symbol=A/
RES/70/1&Lang=E, (15.1.2021).
