21October2019

Not many people I know dislike Facebook’s Memories feature. Partly because, let’s face it, we’re suckers for nostalgia—we love seeing where we were and what we were doing with people we care about. But also because it’s a brutally honest archive of how our own attitudes and public persona have evolved over time. Facebook has logged every step of my career: back in 2008, when I first made my account, I was an eager directing school grad, full of activist defiance, bouncing around in vans and crossing regional borders, torn between wanting to do everything right then and there and build something concrete in my field. It wasn’t easy. “A disheveled director with a radio show”—that’s how someone described me back then.

How do we know, when we walk into a room, that people recognize us? And more importantly—is it for what we want to be known, or just what our career has thrown at us? We’re talking, of course, about personal branding. Like any brand, this one has its visible form—name, job title, first impression—but also the subtler layers of meaning and emotion that flash in people’s minds when they hear about you.

The advice for building a personal brand is well-known but not always easy to follow. “Be authentic, consistent, and tell your story,” writes Goldie Chan for Forbes. People spot insincerity fast, so it’s best to start honest from the jump. Of course, that doesn’t mean much if your name isn’t built on solid ground. Expertise in your field, sharp focus on where you want to be recognized, and ruthless selectivity about the opportunities you take—those are non-negotiable.

When it comes to corporate social responsibility (CSR), being known in this space isn’t just about picking the right cause—it’s about approach. Are we investing company money and resources because that’s just what you do, or are we going further because we want CSR to be part of our personal brand? In an internal survey from three years ago—conducted for a major corporate program supporting creatives and activists, designed by my team—nearly 60% of participants ranked mentorship as the most valuable part. (Multiple answers were allowed, so presenting their work to a wider community mattered to over half, while almost 40% said meeting like-minded peers was crucial.) Dead last, at under 10%, was the financial support—which, in this case, wasn’t small (around €5,000 per idea).

Realizing that knowledge is the key—and that sharing it actively shapes how you’re seen—was a game-changer for me and my team. It gave us the confidence to push companies to give more than just money: to invest their employees’ expertise and inspire creativity in the communities they engage with. People in these programs became genuine ambassadors for the brands that supported them. Together with corporate partners, we tested this strategy once, then again, then dozens of times—first in one country, then many. Each time, we dissected the results and learned as fast as we could. And we didn’t stop.

For every ten opportunities my team and I could take, we’ve been choosing just two or three for years now. “Innovation,” “knowledge and mentorship,” “CSR,” “social impact campaigns,” “relentless,” “regional”—these are the phrases we now hear from collaborators describing us. A far cry from activist radio shows and gritty films—and yet, to me at least, it feels like a natural progression. When I open Memories in 2029, what impressions will dominate then? No idea. Will these current ones just be wistful relics, replaced by something entirely new? That’s the only thing I’m sure of.

Belma, Mladen, Emir, Marina, Darko, Hajdi, Edina, Jelena, Dajana, Elvira, Vanja, Edin, Nadža, and Violeta. This diverse group came together at the end of last year with one goal: to build something new and meaningful from scratch. We didn’t fire anyone—let that be clear—and though we met in the Sarajevo Canton, we decided to act across the entire territory of Bosnia and Herzegovina. Thankfully, we didn’t have to explain to anyone why our group had such a mix of names and backgrounds. Because our companies are members of the American Chamber of Commerce in BiH (AmCham), where we founded the Committee for Corporate Social Impact.

“Fifteen of them got together, invented a job for themselves—a committee, no less!—and secured cushy positions while people struggle to put bread on the table,” a well-intentioned reader might think, hardened by experience. Understandable. But here’s the thing: our companies pay for AmCham memberships, and in this new body, we participate for free—investing our time, reputations, and expertise. The stakes are high from the start. So what’s the payoff?

In 2017, 11.5 million BAM was donated for social causes in BiH, according to Catalyst Balkans. Of that, 4 million came from companies. Is that a lot or a little? Roughly the same amount was spent last year on salaries for 97 federal representatives and eight advisors. It’s also about what the smaller entity, the state, and international institutions combined paid for Ratko Mladić’s defense in The Hague. (“The most complex case so far, so it costs more,” they say. Oh, really?) Whether it’s a lot or a little depends on what it’s for.

Companies mostly supported healthcare, education, and marginalized groups—usually through one-off actions that photograph well, sound even better in the media, and look most impressive printed on thick, glossy paper in annual corporate social responsibility (CSR) reports. Don’t let the word “responsibility” fool you here—it’s as much about society as it is about self-image and public perception.

This isn’t new. The history of philanthropy, even in BiH, has always been tied to genuine goodwill—and a boost in reputation. Isa-beg Ishaković and Gazi Husrev-beg are remembered not just as statesmen and military leaders but as vakifs, whose endowments nurtured generations of BiH’s elite. The Franciscans of Bosna Srebrena weren’t just archivists and educators—they were relentless missionaries and diplomats. Kosta Hadžiristić had business ties across Europe, traded stocks, and built a strong national program, yet all of Sarajevo knows him for donating his wealth to higher education. There’s always been a delicate balance between “core business” (as modern corporate jargon puts it) and “giving back to society.” The most effective approaches simultaneously advance the investor’s primary mission and fill gaps in society, creating a new generation that, in turn, repeats the cycle when its time comes.

As founding members of this Committee, we—Raiffeisen Bank, Addiko Bank, UniCredit Banja Luka, Sparkasse, Telemach, the brewers of Ožujsko and Jelen pivo, EY consultants, Ademović Law, and us at Propulsion—decided to invest in a new generation differently. Big names, sure, but it’s not just about the name.

Call it a vakuf, endowment, or corporate social impact—what matters is the essence. We need a new model of giving, one that goes beyond “repaying a debt to the community” in photo-op form. Those 4 million BAM? The most forward-thinking companies realized it’s not enough to solve systemic problems, but it can be invested wisely in exceptional young people—with brilliant results. They’re the ones who will build bridges here, both literal and metaphorical, ensuring that names don’t matter—but understanding this complex world and making the right decisions at the right time does.

We’re not asking what your name is. We’re asking: Will you join us today?

Three and a half support walls on Corridor 10, swallowed by the earth. Two weeks’ worth of savings from slashed pensions. The last presidential elections. Each of these things cost around €10.8 million. A lot or a little? What would you do with that money?

That’s how much all Serbian companies combined invested last year in corporate social responsibility (CSR). While philanthropy isn’t new here, international companies post-2000 brought fresh business practices, including CSR. The gist? A company operates in a community, extracts value (profit, knowledge, resources, talent), and “gives back”—usually by funding a humanitarian project, sending a kid to a competition, or covering someone’s medical bills. A single issue gets solved, PR packages it neatly, the public nods, and everyone wins.

But the idea of “owing” society isn’t new. 200 years ago, during the Industrial Revolution, pioneers like John H. Patterson (founder of NCR) realized worker welfare boosted productivity. They introduced safety standards, healthcare, paid leave, and profit-sharing. And they didn’t stop at factory gates—they built legacies. Where would the University of Belgrade’s rector sit today if Miša Anastasijević, the Danube shipping magnate, hadn’t donated the very building that now houses the Rectorate?

Beyond Charity: The New CSR

Today in Serbia—despite VAT on every donation—some companies are flipping the script. Their investments are strategic, long-term, and transformative.

Take young people: if you’re under 30 here, you’ve likely graduated, live with parents, plan to emigrate, and can’t find work. Enter Coca-Cola’s “Support for Youth” program. Alongside initiatives for students, interns, and future managers, it helps thousands annually bridge the education-business gap. Though Coca-Cola contributes just 1% of Serbia’s GDP, it bets on youth shaping their professional identities—and thus, the country’s future.

Or education: Five years ago, kids learned dial-up internet in IT class. Ask a sixth-grader today? Scratch, Python, and robotics—thanks to Microsoft, the Petlja Foundation, and Digital Serbia. Since last year, IT is mandatory in 5th grade, with a revamped 6th-grade curriculum. Microsoft trained 1,200 IT teachers nationwide in algorithmic literacy, fueling Serbia’s booming tech export sector for the next decade.

And sustainability: Where would 3.5 million cans from 120+ festivals end up? Belgrade’s Ball factory (through its Recan Foundation) recycled them, educating 2 million people on recycling’s importance.

The Point? Strategy Over Guilt

These companies—and a handful of others—get it: PR-driven charity is weak. €10.8 million won’t patch our infrastructure, healthcare, or education, let alone fix them (that’s the state’s job). The goal isn’t “paying a debt” anymore—it’s investing in a better Serbia.

So they spend those millions in ways that multiply returns: a generation that won’t let the country collapse. Figuratively or literally.