Talk:Corporate social responsibility

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Business and economics Portal
This article is within the scope of the Business and Economics WikiProject.
B rated as b-Class on the assessment scale
High rated as high-importance on the assessment scale
Socrates
Philosophy Portal
This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Philosophy, which collaborates on articles related to philosophy. To participate, you can edit this article or visit the project page for more details.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale.
Mid This article has been rated as mid-importance on the importance scale.
News This article has been mentioned by a media organisation:
15 January 2007 Defining the debate – Corporate responsibility on a sticky Wiki Mallen Baker – Ethical Corporation

Contents


[edit] What's with the Neutrality question?

I can't work out who added the neutrality dispute box. Which side is it meant to be biased in favour of? If there's no discussion of this by the person who put the box there I'm inclined to remove the box as I think the article puts across different views rather well. Thom2002 17:21, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

I am rather surprised by the neutrality dispute box and would hope to see it removed in not too much time. I have re-read the article twice and being relatively familiar with the topic my impression is that the auhor provides a very balanced view. I cannot see any evidence of his personal opinion and find it impossible to determine his "tendency". It is truly unfortunate when such an article shows up with the neutralilty dispute box - this is a means which should be used in a careful manor and it should require robust explanation. The one below is clearly not robust (the point about sustainability concepts can be discussed but is nowhere close to serve as indicating the text is not neutral and has too much of a POV). —Preceding unsigned comment added by MattScudder (talk • contribs)

I'd ask User:DanielPenfield for his opinion on the matter, since it was that user in this edit that added the POV check tag. Honestly, I'd have to re-read the article to find the POV. I just remove linkspam from time to time here. I'll see what I can find, though I'm not that familiar with the topic. --Rkitko 05:37, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
Hmm. Well, quickly, I noticed weasel words (i.e. "an expression used to describe what some see as a company’s obligation") and the introduction really doesn't represent a large enough portion of the views. For example, not all companies associate CSR with sustainability concepts. So that certainly represents a POV in the opening paragraph of the article. Just a quick scan, though. I'd have to dig deeper to find other POV issues. --Rkitko 05:49, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

I think that the article is quite good, but could do with a bit of careful editing. I have made a start.Stephen Parnell 10:36, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

I have reverted to the version that I was working on. My motivation in contributing to this article as a newcomer to Wikipedia is to try and get a balanced and accurate entry. I am shocked by the politically motivated edits that have been made in the last few days. Awful beyond belief. Could I ask whover oversess these things to apply some control - otherwise the same people who want to use Wiki as a platform for the making of political statements will no doubt just carry on! Stephen Parnell 09:04, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Well, "balanced" in terms of Wikipedia:Neutral point of view means including views which favor as well as views which oppose the ideal of CSR. If you delete all criticisms and opposing points of view, you will put Wikipedia in the position of endorsing CSR. Was that your intention? --Uncle Ed 19:03, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your question Uncle Ed. My intention is to seek to create a truly balanced article and this will certainly include the "for" and the "against" points of view. It's work in progress at the moment. The article is very confused at present and I will do my best to get it right. For anybody's interest my own position privately is rather anti CSR so I am certainly not a CSR freak or a corporation apologist! But as I said I want the article on this important subject to be balanced in every way. Stephen Parnell 09:58, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

It does seem that subjects related at their core to either capitalism or socialism on Wikipedia generally attract a sort of brutal version of NPOV -- two sharply drawn, polemic POVs rather than a blend of mainstream basis opinion and critique, which would befit an encyclopedic article. I wish editors would strive more to explain and to critique these subjects more objectively rather than find clever, university-debate-society sentences, however brilliant, that are so covered with spines and barbs and seem to leave the objective reader with more scrapes and bruises rather than insight. This article, along with those related to Chavez or Castro or what have you, suffer from this. Perhaps those with a more journalistic style can come in and edit some of this article, and the Marxist PhD candidates, the neo-con policy wonks, the anti-globalists and the employees of CSR NGO's can maybe take a breather? Just a thought. No ill will toward anyone. NYDCSP 03:27, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
Oh, and more citations and sourcing and less weasel words.NYDCSP 03:28, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] What is CSR?

Using Ronald McDonald House as an example of "CSR" is a peculiarly American approach. CSR in Europe is more about how a company earns its money in the first place, meaning how much they pay their workers; responsibility over supply chain, such as not exploiting the environment, etc...rather than what they do with their money AFTER they've earned it. That's philanthropy.

I disagree -- a lot of American companies have "got it" and are far beyond the philanthropy syndrome. Many European companies, on the other hand, see philanthropy and CSR as one in the same. What the companies do with their money is as important as how they make it. Dcarpenter 10:49, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

I added 1 para to the intro about CSR, but really feel that the first para should come out -- CSR goes far beyond simple stakeholder dialogue and this needs to be reflected more forcefully.Dcarpenter 10:49, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

The "Attention Diversion" paragraph is one-sided commentary masquarading as objective description - it makes assumptions about why companies do certain things that they would certainly dispute.

[edit] Critique from The Corporation

Joel Balkan critiques CSR quite extensively from a leftist viewpoint. This would be a useful addition to round out the criticism from rightist viewpoints.

OO See below under Friedman article A Geek Tragedy 21:44, 5 April 2006 (UTC)


I'm trying to reseach CSR from a corporate HR perspective and I would like to open discussion on the use of the term 'corporate philanthropy'. Philanthropy by definition is donation with no expectation of return - while sustained CSR policies have financial benefits to organisations through employee retention, goodwill, PR and media coverage. CSR function seem to function well as an integral part sustainability of an organisations economic goals, not as an optional add on. I found the article to be informative and balanced.. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.43.109.167 (talk) 09:44, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] The rise of CSR

It seems to me that CSR is a recent trend. When would you say CSR emerged?

I know for a fact that Pacific Life (formerly Pacific Mutual) had an Office of Corporate Responsibility back in the mid seventies, and that there was significant involvement (along with others) in charitable giving (especially the United Way). I would guess the trend emerged sometime in the early-to-mid seventies, partyly in reaction to some of the corporate scandals of the period (Lockheed, Robert Vesco, IT&T). These were certainly not the first corporate scandals ...but sensibilities about corporate responsibility were heightened by the general malaise of Watergate, campaign finance issues, coupled with the greater awareness of poverty and civil rights that emerged from the sixties. icut4u 21:28, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Back in 1895, George Cadbury (Chocolate) bought 120 acres and started building houses for his workers, which gave rise to the Bourneville Village. Education was provided, medicine was available. Whilst I suspect that he was motivated by having a stable, healthy, educated workforce, I suspect that there was also an element of social responsibility in his thinking. At least, that is what Cadbury Trebor Basset would have you believe in 2005!--Andrew Gardner 13:40, 11 May 2005 (UTC)
In our study "Significance of the CSR Debate for Sustainability and the Requirements for Companies" we have tracked the back the roots of CSR to the 1930ies. The scientific debate on social responsibility began in earnest in the USA in 1950 and the first major work on the subject, Bowen's Social “Responsibilities of the Businessman”, appeared in 1953. Starting with the observation that the economy influences the life of citizens in many areas, Bowen's investigation into the obligations of companies concluded that a company's social responsibilities have to reflect the expectations and values of society. (Loew et al 2003)Download at www.4sustainability.org.

It seems to me that perhaps more could be made of different phases of the development of CSR, starting with ideas of corporate acceptability and good public relations and then moving into CSR as a response to criticism and regulation. I think then it would be useful to look at the relationship between CSR and accountability, and verifiability issues such as those associated with triple bottom line, environmental impact assessment, and social impact assessment. One of the principle problems with CSR is the difficulty of measuring (and therefore regulating) many of its component concepts. Some headway has been made in financial and environmental verification against widespread and agreed standards, but issues of social responsibility still remain incredibly varied. This is most particularly the case where an affected minority stakeholder is not part of the financial or regulated (governmental) loops of the corporate operation.--campdog 05:46, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] what about Edward Freeman?

shouldent't Freeman be mentioned? If im not wrong, I think he was the person who brought CSR on the international scene in the 80s? the below mentioned statement is from a lecture about CSR, where Freeman was mentioned

"Competent stakeholder management turns potential conflicts into negotiations and seeks win-win solutions - thereby avoiding lock in to conflict-situations Successful organisations in the current environment takes multiple stakeholder groups into account." some info on him: http://www.darden.virginia.edu/corporate-ethics/c-freeman.htm


[edit] the business case

Having neither experience with wikipedia, nor the time to gain some, I can just suggest that some information on the so-called 'Business Case' should be included, i.e. CSR creates a win-win situation for both, the society and the enterprise. Somebody interested? I could surely contribute some information on the discussion site. oliviasummer

I think that the business case for CSR can in some instances be hard to demonstrate. It speaks volumes that complex regulation is needed in areas such as polution, financial services or accounting. In addition, moral hazard exists, where shareholder value is destroyed for the benefit of social causes.--Andrew Gardner 30 June 2005 15:41 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for the quick reply. There is definetly some truth in what you are saying. But on the other hand, how do you explain that an increasing number of corporations adopt CSR programmes, if there is no business case in it. I don't believe in pure corporate philanthropy. Recently, Volkswagen, for example, published a study demonstrating the relationship between productivity and HIV/AIDS programmes it runs in Brazil. Regards, Olivia Summer 30 June 2005 17:54 (UTC)

And I cannot disagree that there are instances where a company's activities benefit itself and society. You could illustrate with a major drugs company which spends countless billions of dollars on R&D in order that it can make a profit out of curing - or at least helping to cope with - some horrendous disease. Is this good management or CSR? (both probably). The issue that I see is that an article about CSR which highlights the benefits of CSR must also point out that blind philanthropy may be an abuse of the authority vested in managers. Nevertheless it is equally valuable that we can point to topical examples of successful CSR. --Andrew Gardner 1 July 2005 20:44 (UTC)

There are quite obviously many examples of situations where positive social actions on the part of companies result in increased profits or stronger market position. Treating workers better, and increasing their 'voice' in the workplace, as one example, would undoubtedly be both 'good' from the perspective of society and - when dealing with many knowledge-based enterprises in this information age - good for business. The problem is that this business case is far from universal - and that is what people are usually looking for, the universal example of the business case. Unfortunately, in a contingent view of the world, there will always be some examples of the anti-business case - the case where, because of specific circumstances, doing the wrong thing and doing more of it would make you more money. Dumping toxic substances in the river, if noboby is checking; busting a legal trade union when supported by corrupt government officials; using children to do low-skilled and very low paid work. These - in spite of some who would like to shrink government then drown it in the bathtub - would appear to depend on government to provide regulation and ensure that the old business case - following the law of the land - is still in place. In the face of opportunities resulting from anti-social practices and no enforcement of agreed standards, CSR breaks down. Confronted with profit differentials between 'good' and 'bad' options economic man follows his or her wallet. Charles Bodwell

[edit] bilan social

As far as I know the French law requires disclosure only on employee-related issues. Belgium, by the way, has the same requirements.


[edit] Regulation

The article notes that critics of corporations purport that increased regulation is the "best way to ensure that companies remain socially responsible." Not all proponents of CSR agree with that. Others suggest that consumer-based initiatives, union initiatives, etc. are the best option. I know of one academic paper that supports this opinion and I will try to dig it up and post it here for review before I change the article. Any thoughts? Rkitko 23:46, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

I think that something more could be made in the overall article about the rise of non-government organisations and their relationship with issues of corporate social responsibility. A great deal of the development of CSR is not just about the development of new means of being profitable but as a means of getting the NGOs off their backs (often by financing them, reabsorbing them etc).--campdog 05:50, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] linkspam

I removed more linkspam today. I removed them under the following guidelines: Wikipedia is not an internet directory Items were being added that were CSR news sites, while potentially pertinent to the issue regarding CSR, the wikipedia article focuses on the pros, cons, business case for and against CSR as a business and economic model. Links to non-profit organizations, academic institutions, or news sites that deal with CSR should be removed immediately, in my opinion. Sites that describe at least one side of the CSR issue should be included (and labeled as such). That's why the links remaining are pro/con or analyses of certain CSR aspects. The sustainability report portal is questionable, but I left it in for the review of other wikipedia users. Rkitko 06:37, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

I don't understand Rkitko's assertion that a link to the World Business Council for Sustainable Development is "linkspam". It is a respectable and world-leading organisation and the site has excellent content for anyone wishing to learn more. I will reinstate the link. The other link was another leader in teaching on the subject and again it is unjustified to call this "linkspam". In deference to Rkitko, I will not reinstate the link to Claude Fussler's excellent website but would recommend that others examine it to see if they form the same view as Rkitko. I strongly disagree with his view that "Links to non-profit organizations, academic institutions, or news sites that deal with CSR should be removed immediately." With the questioning of the aricle as being biased already, some neutral party links would be of benefit to readers.--Victor 05:55, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Greetings. Topics such as these (CRS, cooperatives, etc.) tend to gather a lot of external links. Please read the link above about Wikipedia not being an internet directory. Simply because a link is a respected organization and has plenty of resources is no reason to include it here on this page. Take a look at WP:EL. Under the "links normally to be avoided" section, you will find:
Sites that are only indirectly related to the article's subject: it should be a simple exercise to show how the link is directly and symmetrically related to the article's subject. This means that there is both a relation from the website to the subject of the article, and a relation from the subject of the article to the website.
Sites such as the WBCSD are not symmetrically related to this article. An article on the WBCSD itself would require an external link to the organization. See the difference? Now, if the WBCSD has an article or official stance on CSR, linking directly to that article may be appropriate here. But do remember that articles do not exist for their external links, meaning that external links are not required and we would do our best to focus our attention elsewhere by adding actual, cited content to the article. Hope this clears that up. Cheers, --Rkitko 06:12, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Friedman article

I moved a link here to an article by Milton Friedman critising CSR which was in Don't be evil where it didn't fit. Please don't think I agree with him. A Geek Tragedy 21:41, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Looks great. Thanks for adding that. The external links needed a bit of a pro and con balance. Rkitko 07:55, 6 April 2006 (UTC)


In that respect, I have added the following external link (by the dean emeritus of the George Mason University School of Law):

[edit] Akaka's vandalism

I put back the first paragraph, which Akaka removed on 19:34, 5 April 2006. -- Nusquam 12:45, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Comments about this article in Ethical Corporation Magazine

The following article comments about the edit history of this article:

Mallen Baker: Defining the debate – Corporate responsibility on a sticky Wiki Ethical Corporation Magazine, 15 January 2007

Quote:

A year or so ago I looked at the entry for “corporate social responsibility” on the community-run Wikipedia. It gave a reasonably descriptive overview, plus some helpful links to organisations at the centre of corporate responsibility activity.
Last month I went back and found it had become a battleground of ideologies.

Regards, High on a tree 12:24, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] CSR Neutrality Question

I strongly feel that an external link to The Hitachi Foundation's "State of Corporate Citizenship," [1], is an excellent case study of a company that is doing CSR. Everytime it gets put up however, someone takes it down, citing that it is biased. While it is a non profit organization, there is already a link to another company's case study on CSR. Why would it not be considered neutral to link to this? Isn't it just an example of CSR in action, or at least a source for someone looking for companies practicing CSR?
I want to be completely honest and forthright and let you all know that I am connected with The Hitachi Foundation, but I am wondering what everyone's opinon is on this issue. There are opinion pieces on both sides of the issue, so I'm not sure what the harm is of having an external link to one organization that is actually doing CSR. Your thoughts. I want to make sure everything is on the up-and-up! Thanks!
Julieatrci 15:39, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

The problem is not that it's not neutral, the problem is that it doesn't fit Wikipedia's external links guidelines. I've removed those links several times for several reasons: 1) These links are added to a number of pages with no other contributions by the user. This leads me to believe that the user wants simply to get more links out there, something called "linkspam" here on Wikipedia. 2) It's continually re-added, like you noted. And 3) It's not necessarily directly connected to the subject of the article. Wikipedia is not an internet directory. Links get added here to this article all the time that lead to associations or companies doing CSR. WP:EL states this as one kind of external link that should be removed from articles: "Sites that are only indirectly related to the article's subject: it should be a simple exercise to show how the link is directly and symmetrically related to the article's subject." The Hitachi Foundation's link is not symmetrically related to the page. Also review WP:SPAM - generally, if you're associated with an organization, it's a bad idea to link to that organization. It represents a conflict of interest. But I'm glad you show interest in Wikipedia. Instead of simply adding external links here and there, why not take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia in other ways? Cheers, --Rkitko 17:21, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Comment to: Your edits to Corporate social responsibility

Please do not add inappropriate external links to Wikipedia. Wikipedia is not a mere directory of links nor should it be used for advertising or promotion. Inappropriate links include (but are not limited to) links to personal web sites, links to web sites with which you are affiliated, and links that exist to attract visitors to a web site or promote a product. See the external links guideline and spam policies for further explanations of links that are considered appropriate. If you feel the link should be added to the article, then please discuss it on the article's talk page rather than re-adding it. See the welcome page to learn more about Wikipedia. Thank you. -- Rkitko 17:31, 2 February 2007 (UTC)


I'm terribly sorry if the link added was interprated as some sort of promotion for any commercial product, or inappropriate in any way. I will discuss it in the talk pages as you suggested. I just felt I had to give a short explanation: the three part documentary called the Corporation, is perhaps the most comprehensive documentary (and Docu. series ) ever made (on Corporations and their role in society, hence / therefore directly related to their social responsibility in society (cause and effects)). it is currently in the public domain (freely downloadable) and it is not a commercial product as such, even though one is able to buy it ( just as any book referenced as source in any given wiki article. on joining the url/page for the documentary, there is a short flash introduction with voice where the creators authors of the documentary explains that their work is freely downloadable but that they encourage you to support the work, much like amnesty or any other creator of any given freely available work would and does in any other area or line of work. The Corporation analyses thouroughly the modern Corporation and interviews "both sides", with representatives such as Milton Friedman and Noam Chomsky and many others. I suggest you take the time to at least watch 15 minutes of the documentary, much like you would browse through any book or link given as a source. Sorry to add this but it seems to me and I feel, that much of wikipedia have become overzealous in its attempt to become more narrow and somehow "mainstream" , by refusing anything and everything that isn't as "official" and centrist in much the same way as the Encyclopedia Britannica. This is in my opinion a terrible loss. If I wanted Britannica's conservative comercial POV's I'd buy it. This is not Britannica, and if Wiki is supposed to have any credibility in the future or indeed be of any significant value for future generations it also has to carry dissent from the official, the government version and the "winners" side of the story. Now how one achieves this in a satisfactory way I am not wise enough to suggest, but somehow believeing that a totally centrist "objective" view of the world tells "the truth" is both far from honest or accurate.
Wikipedia itself shows in a very appropriate way that "even" Britannica cannot avoid being biased. (For a better(?) "explanation" of this point see: http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=1492)
Well that (this) became a bit long-winded and english is not my mother tongue but perhaps some point gets across even so. Bear with me if you can. There's a lot more ( and a lot more precise things) to be said on the subject, and its an important debate for either side of the political spectrum to be aware of and to try to come to terms with. I feel that in a democratic world and spirit "both"(all three) 'sides' should be granted some space, since it's a fairy tale that some kind of objective centrist truth exists "in the middle". Jürgen Habermas springs to mind now for some reason. Anyhow. that's enough said. For now. Cheers, and dont let yourselves be offended. It's not worth it. Cheers. John Smith (nom de guerre) 13:19, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
Greetings, sorry for the very late reply. This had completely slipped my mind. I noticed you re-added the link. I thought I'd discuss it here before I removed it again. I make no comment on the video's merits or neutrality--that's not the issue here. It's whether the link is appropriate or not. Take a look at WP:EL. Under the "links normally to be avoided" section, you will find:
Sites that are only indirectly related to the article's subject: it should be a simple exercise to show how the link is directly and symmetrically related to the article's subject. This means that there is both a relation from the website to the subject of the article, and a relation from the subject of the article to the website.
This article is about CSR, not about the movie and so therefore the site is only indirectly related to the topic of the article. The content of the movie, however, might be directly related. I think the "See also" link to the video is sufficient. No need to be redundant, especially when Wikipedia prefers internal links to articles over external links. Cheers, --Rkitko 01:24, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Further Reading

I'm dreadfully sorry if I messed things up with my edit and should have posted a request on this page first but I thought a little further reading wouldn't do anyone harm. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 146.227.11.233 (talk) 20:54, 12 March 2007 (UTC).

[edit] Defination of Corporate social responsibility

16:09, 21 July 2007 (UTC)62.128.161.245–62.128.161.245 16:09, 21 July 2007 (UTC)Any Modern definition of CSR should reflect global challenges (be them social or Environmental) on the one hand and internal challenges (socioeconomic relationship between institutional stakeholders and their stakes) on the other. The role of governments and politics needs also to be considered. Corporations are increasingly becoming transnational. Thus CSR needs to be looked at in terms responsibility to individuals and groups to their respectively assigned roles within institutions at the micro level; the responsibility of the institutions as a whole to its stakeholders -staff, customers, shareholders, community, country (ies) of operation etc. at the medium level and humankind at the macro level. An institution cannot be said to be socially responsible if it condones irresponsible behavior of its staff for example or fails to respond to the just and legitimate sensitivities of neighbors and society at large. CSR should therefore embrace the realms of both profit and non profit making organisations.16:48 July 2008 (Divine Ewane <dewane88@yahoo.com>)

[edit] Criticism in the introduction?

It seems that there is a substantial amount of criticism in the introduction. Specifically:

"Detractors of CSR point out that organizations pay taxes to government for exactly this purpose. They consider CSR and measures of CSR activity as an indication of failures of governments sitting on lucrative tax revenues."

While these are valid pionts, would they not be better placed in the criticism section of the article? Urecon 15:23, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree, I've taken these out and reproduced the point under criticism Thom2002 23:52, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Definitions of CSR

I've added a section on "Definitions of CSR". I think that we all agree that there is no universally accepted definition of CSR, but we cannot get away from not providing any definitions at all - because if we do, then the Wikipedia description of CSR ("Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) is a concept which encourages organizations to consider the interests of society by taking responsibility for the impact of the organization's activities on customers, employees, shareholders, communities and the environment in all aspects of its operations") will sooner or later become the de-facto definition - and Wikipedia should not be the source of definitions...

Of course, we could now fight for a very long time about which definitions to include, but there are actually not that many out there - at least not that many that have either been created by "well-known" individuals or organizations or that are cited often. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tarndt (talk • contribs) 10:33, 19 September 2007 (UTC) Ġ

[edit] Essay Style?

I've been away from this page for a while. The second half now seems to take the form of a fairly long, rambling essay, with difficult language and no proper references. I suggest a fair bit of pruning - any objections? Thom2002 (talk) 18:46, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

It wouldn't seem so. Carl.bunderson (talk) 06:46, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] "Approaches to CSR"

I'm a bit skeptical whether Shell's community project is truly more accepted in community "development circles". From my brief experience in Africa (not South Africa, but Ghana's not totally different..) I'm rather doubtful that these groups will be too impressed by Shell's CSR efforts. Oil companies such as Shell are fairly unpopular and I think that most people view CSR in terms of the company itself and not just some aspect of its operation that happens to be positive. The overall view of Shell is not really that of the typical CSR company and given the impact of Big Oil in Africa, they're probably not being looked upon in as favourable a light as this section implies. Someone with more information should probably address this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by A3camero (talk • contribs) 06:41, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] CSR Iran

Omidvaralireza (talk · contribs) recently added a link to www.csriran.com, and then added a whole section (4242 bytes) apparently lifted directly from info.worldbank.org/etools/mdfdb/docs/WP_TESEV6.pdf. Those two URL's are the first two Google results on "CSR Iran", by the way. Then Sfmammamia (talk · contribs) removed the 4242 bytes, but left the www.csriran.com link. Is it worthy? The Persian language version seems deeper than the English language version, but I don't read Persian. Colfer2 (talk) 08:33, 8 March 2008 (UTC)