Sport as a Vehicle for Deploying Corporate Social Responsibility

JCC 25 Spring 2007 1

Sport as a Vehicle for DeployingCorporate Social Responsibility

Aaron C.T. Smith and Hans M. WesterbeekLa Trobe University, Australia

Stakeholder theory suggests that corporate social responsibility (CSR) should requireorganisations to consider the interests of all stakeholders including investors, sup-pliers, consumers, employees, the community and the environment in dischargingtheir profit-directed activities. Implicit in this perspective is the assumption that bothsport and corporate influence on social trends must be considered from multipleangles. Such a viewpoint encourages an examination of the overlaps between thesocial responsibilities of the sport and corporate worlds. This paper explores the rolethat sport can play as a vehicle for deploying CSR. It exposes the social responsibili-ties implicit in sport as well as those found in the corporate world. An opportunitylies at the intersection of these mutual responsibilities in the combination of thefinancial leverage available to corporations and the distributive/symbolic powerinherent in sport. We argue that sport offers a bridge across social and economicgaps, an opportunity to improve the quality of life, and a stimulus to encourage largeand profitable businesses to share a little of their prosperity.

l Sport

l Stakeholdertheory

l Health

l Physical activity

l Culture

Aaron Smith, PhD, is Associate Professor with the School of Sport, Tourismand Hospitality Management at La Trobe University, Melbourne, Australia. He

has published books on change management, policy, the future of business,leadership, facility management and sport management. Aaron consults to the

government, the private sector and sport organisations in Australia, Asia,Europe and the Middle East.

u School of Sport, Tourism andHospitality Management, Faculty ofLaw and Management, La TrobeUniversity, Bundoora, 3086,Melbourne, Australia

! [email protected]

< <web address?>

Associate Professor Hans Westerbeek is Head of the School of Sport, Tourismand Hospitality Management at La Trobe University in Melbourne, Australia.He is the (co)author of numerous articles and a number of books in the field

of sport business including such titles as Strategic Sport Marketing; SportBusiness in the Global Marketplace; The Sport Business Future; Business

Leadership and the Lessons from Sport; Sport Policy in Australia; SportManagement: Principles and Applications; and Managing Sport Facilities and

Major Events. His books have been translated in Dutch, Greek, Chinese andKorean.

u School of Sport, Tourism andHospitality Management, Faculty ofLaw and Management, La TrobeUniversity, Bundoora, 3086,Melbourne, Australia

! <email address?>

< <web address?>

he clichés are thick when it comes to sport’s influence in the world.Nelson Mandela’s averment that sport can change the world holds much ideo-logical sway, supported by reports from the United Nations Inter-agency TaskForce on Sport for Development and Peace, which articulated a strategy for sport’scontribution to peace, political stability and health. Indeed, United Nations Sec-

retary-General Kofi Annan once commented that he was interested in the power of foot-ball to teach lifelong lessons about playing against others as rivals, not enemies. Thesentiment has been echoed by FIFA (international football federation) President JosephS. Blatter, who claimed that the game had been developed and taken to the world andnow it is time to use football to make the world better. However, the process for achiev-ing a social return from sport is unclear and lacks a coherent force for unification beyondthe intentions of a handful of powerful non-government organisations such as soccer’sFIFA. The corporate trend toward social responsibility represents a significant opportu-nity for capitalising on a marriage of the ubiquitous appeal of sport and the economicmight of the corporate sector. The deployment of corporate social responsibility throughsport offers substantial potential for community return. The mobilisation of sport as avehicle for contributing to corporate efforts toward social responsibility can be seen asa distinct opportunity for both the organisations in charge of sport and those that seekto use sport in their efforts to make contributions to communities (Smith and Wester-beek 2004). Although sport may be utilised toward social goals by numerous parties,this paper is concerned with the role of corporations in using sport as a means to fulfiltheir social responsibilities. Our contention is that sport, more than any other potentialvehicle, contains qualities that make it a powerful force in effecting positive social con-tributions. Furthermore, we outline the social responsibilities inherent to sport itself,and that corporations need to connect with these inherent responsibilities in order tosuccessfully deploy sport in their CSR efforts.

From a stakeholder perspective, corporate social responsibility (CSR) requires organ-isations to consider the interests of investors, suppliers, consumers, employees, thecommunity and the environment in discharging their profit-directed activities. Mars-den and Andriof (1998) described CSR as the satisfaction of the expectations of all soci-etal stakeholders to maximise the company’s positive impact on its social and physicalenvironment, while providing a competitive return to its financial stakeholders. Sportoffers such a stakeholder inclusive bridge across social and economic gaps (Davies 2002;Smith and Westerbeek 2004).

This paper seeks to explore the role that sport can play as a vehicle for deploying CSR.It attempts to achieve this goal by, first, considering the social responsibilities held bythe managers of sport in discharging their obligations to players, spectators, governingbodies and other stakeholders; and, second, advancing the advantages of the use of sportas a social tool for corporations. In exploring sport’s value and appeal as a vehicle forCSR, it is hoped that its utility to the corporate sector might become more transparent.Equally, the financial clout of the corporate sector offers considerable gravity to theefforts of socially driven sport. The winner in this marriage, it may be hoped, is society.

The paper is structured into three further sections. The next section briefly reviewsthe development of CSR, culminating in the exposition of stakeholder theory as a con-ceptual platform. The subsequent section presents the social responsibilities inherentto sport. These social responsibilities are largely discharged by the organisers of sport:the sporting clubs, the governing bodies and the government departments in charge ofsport and recreation. The final section addresses the intersection of corporate and sportsocial responsibility. Here it is discussed how corporations enter into partnerships withsport organisations or individual athletes in order to strengthen the sport (organisation)or athlete’s ability to deliver on social responsibilities. Corporations make this positivecontribution to communities by supporting the sport (organisations) with financial or

aaron c.t. smith and hans m. westerbeek

2 JCC 25 Spring 2007

T

other resources. As will be explained in the next section, these types of relationships canbe differentiated from traditional conceptions of sport sponsorship. In that regard it isimportant to understand that there are also a number of corporations that could be clas-sified as ‘sport’ corporations such as the major apparel and footwear manufacturers andmarketers such as Nike and Adidas. However, in the context of this paper we do not con-sider these companies to be sport organisations as they do not organise (participationand spectator) sport but rather they provide products to supplement sport with the inten-tion of furthering their private business objectives. These different entities and theirrelation to CSR are pictured in Figure 1. It is shown that the corporation has a numberof indirect means of deploying CSR programs, but can also take full control and directlydischarge their social responsibilities by internalising these activities in their own struc-ture. For example, many corporations have ‘corporate citizenship’ or ‘communityengagement’ departments that partner with organisations in sport, the arts, engage incause marketing or co-organise indigenous welfare programs but also manage a rangeof CSR programs and activities that they set up independently. The figure also showsthat sport or ‘other means’ can be used when the unique social responsibilities of theseorganisations offer a better means to achieve social objectives then the corporation act-ing independently.


sport as a vehicle for deploying corporate social responsibility

Corporation

Advancing towardsachieving profit or

non-profit objectivesthat do not involve

sport participation orspectator services

Sportorganisation

Advancing towardsprofit or non-profit

objectives that involvesport participation or

spectator services+

Unique set of socialresponsibilities

Socialresponsibilities

t Economic

t Legal

t Ethical

t Discretionary(Carroll 1979)

Other meanst The artst Good causest Indigenous culturet Etc.

+Unique set of social

responsibilities

Figure 1 different means of deploying corporate social responsibility

The development of corporate social responsibility

The idea that the wealthy in a society should help those less fortunate via philanthropyor charity is, of course, not new. From a sport viewpoint, this generosity has tended tobe confused with sponsorships, where sport enterprises are faced with the obligation ofreturning the investment made in them through exposure, positive associations, hos-pitality and product sales. With a decreasing number of exceptions, the corporate spon-sorship of sport is premised on decisions as ruthless as any found in business (Copelandet al. 1996). CSR is newer, however, and in its true form is not based on the promise ofpositive exposure or the drive for an investment’s return. CSR is concerned with meet-ing an obligation to put something back into society by meeting the needs of stake-holders and constituents. From this point forward, sport sponsorship is therefore notto be confused nor equated with CSR through sport. Sponsorship is a business invest-ment through the application of a marketing-mix tool whereas CSR is (ideally) a genuineattempt to return benefits of successful business back to the community from which itis derived.

Research investigating the relationship between social and financial performancewithin firms has indicated that those with high scores in CSR perform as well or betterthan those with low scores. Szwajkowski and Figlewicz (1999), for example, concludedthat there is no net financial cost for companies to engage in CSR activities, and theremay be financial benefits. Companies that are ‘stakeholder-balanced’, which excel inmanaging the relationships with investors, customers, employees, suppliers and com-munities, outperform their ‘shareholder-focused’ counterparts (Blackburn et al. 1994).Also, publicity about unethical corporate behaviour has a significant downward effecton stock prices for at least six months, and the shareholder return of ‘stakeholder super-stars’ has been shown to be superior to that of companies with a sole focus on financialshareholders (Weiser and Zadek 2000). Moreover, improved staff attitude leads tohigher customer satisfaction, in turn leading to higher revenues (Rucci et al. 1998).Without claiming to be exhaustive, there seems to be sufficient empirical evidence toinfer that socially responsible and engaged companies will also heighten their potentialfor business success: a motivation for companies to explore high-profile potentialavenues of CSR such as sport (Elkington 1997).

A stakeholder approach

According to Schiebel and Pochtrager (2003), the stakeholder concept implies that man-agement’s task is to pursue an ‘optimum’ balance between the range of needs demandedby interest groups and constituents. They specified six key stakeholder groups: cus-tomers, employees, business partners, communities, investors and the environment.This is consistent with those posed by Clarkson (1995), Marsden and Andriof (1998)and Kok et al. (2001). The stakeholder model therefore reflects an assumption that CSR

needs to represent the (potentially) competing demands of various groups that bolsteran organisation: its stakeholders (Clarkson 1995; Davenport 2000; Gregg 2001; Logs-don et al. 1990). This model commends a system of consultation, communication andevaluation whereby all stakeholders (not just shareholders) are considered to be valuedparticipants and contributors to the company’s existence and prosperity. Quazi (2003)maintained that stakeholder theory is based on a social contract between business andsociety. Stakeholder theory draws on research that has established a connection betweencorporate social and financial performance (Margolis and Walsh 2001). A stakeholderapproach to CSR research demands that the fullest scope of an organisation’s activities



be uncovered and evaluated. Thus, if sport is deployed as a CSR vehicle, its impact onall organisational stakeholders must be examined. A stakeholder approach also suggeststhat consideration of sport as a vehicle for CSR requires some attention to be given tothe social responsibilities of sport itself.

Social responsibility in sport

In considering the dimensions associated with social responsibility in sport, it shouldbe acknowledged that we seek those characteristics that are distinguished in sport. Inother words, if we are to use sport as a means to deal with social issues, it is up to sportorganisations to clearly identify and communicate what they perceive their socialresponsibilities to be. This does not mean that the generic elements of social responsi-bility for organisations should be overlooked. For example, Welford’s (2005) instrumentprovides an admirable inventory of social responsibilities. These include internal (e.g.policies on non-discrimination in the workplace), external (e.g. policy on labour stan-dards of suppliers), accountability (e.g. commitment to reporting on social activities)and citizenship (e.g. educational programmes for the promotion of CSR initiatives) ele-ments guided by sources such as the UN Declaration of Human Rights, the UNESCO Pro-ject on Technical and Vocational Education, the UN Global Compact, the InternationalLabour Standards Convention, the International Programme on the Elimination ofChild Labour, and best practices in the corporate world. There are, of course, a range ofsocial issues that are exacerbated by elite and/or professional sports people and organ-isations and hence are of direct relevance to the conduct of sport. These issues involve,but are not limited to, performance-enhancing drug taking, crowd violence, racial vili-fication, gender inequality, sex and alcohol offences, anti-competition legislation regard-ing the structure of sporting competitions and general role modelling. Accompanyingthese issues are vast bodies of literature in sport marketing, sport sociology, sport anthro-pology, sport economics and sport ethics which independently consider these issues.However, it is not the purpose of this paper to formulate guidelines for sport organisa-tions or sporting teams to more effectively deal with their social responsibilities. Rather,its purpose is to highlight the opportunity that sport presents as a means toward improv-ing some social problems.

The following ten points build on the style of generic elements articulated by Welford,but focus on the unique features of sport’s social responsibility.

1. Rules of fair play: equality, access, diversity. The fundamental assumption aboutsport is that it offers an equal opportunity for all to be involved, and to perform ona ‘level playing field’. Rules for fair play therefore range from those outlawing per-formance enhancing substances to those ensuring equal access to sport for all mem-bers of society

2. Safety of participants and spectators. Socially responsible sport must ensure thephysical safety of its participants and spectators. This includes the protection ofyoung participants from potential physical, sexual and verbal abuse

3. Independence of playing outcomes. Sports require policies to ensure that the out-comes of the field of play are not compromised by non-playing interests, such asthose associated with gambling

4. Transparency of governance. Sport is notoriously political, and sport organisationshave a history of providing employment for former players. The mechanisms ofsuch employment need to be overt and the governance processes in the organisa-tion should be transparent



5. Pathways for playing. Sports have a responsibility to provide pathways for develop-ment and activity including junior and senior sport programmes as well as modi-fied versions

6. Community relations policies. All sports are embedded in a community environ-ment. The relationships sport bodies cultivate with local government and commu-nity groups are pivotal to understanding local social needs

7. Health and activity foundation. Participation sport should acknowledge andenhance opportunities for health and physical activity through policies directedtowards recognition of the importance of physical activity to the health of society atlarge

8. Principles of environmental protection and sustainability. Sport is demanding onthe physical environment. Socially responsible sport acknowledges this burden anddevelops policies to avoid environmental damage

9. Developmental focus of participants. A key ingredient of the social impact of sportis the developmental opportunities it affords. Policies to formalise this commitmentto physical, social and personal development are relevant to social responsibility

10. Qualified and/or accredited coaching. Sports are obligated to provide qualifiedcoaches and leaders in order to ensure that the previous elements are implemented

There are two main advantages associated with the above list. First, it provides a check-list for corporations wanting to engage sport in their CSR strategies, against which suit-able sporting organisations might be compared. Corporate relationships with sportorganisations that do not have documented policies outlining these social obligationsshould be avoided. Secondly, the awareness that sport has unique social responsibilitiesadds to its power as a social influencer. As a result, corporate managers considering rela-tionships with sporting programmes can select sports that better match their own socialengagement strategy. For example, companies seeking an involvement with a youngeraudience should look carefully at the modified sport programmes (more suitable forunder-age participants) offered by their sport partners.

At the intersection: corporate and sport social responsibility

Nothing distinguishes sports organisations from corporations when it comes to CSR.Both are members of the community subject to the expectations of society and both canpotentially generate social benefits. However, the nature of sport lends itself to beinguniquely positioned to influence society in general and communities in particular. Inother words, sport organisations are already implicitly woven into society, an integrativecharacteristic limited in commercial business organisations. As a result, the use of sportas a tool of corporate social responsibility is contingent on the previously discussed socialresponsibilities intrinsic to sport itself.

Corporations in the business of sport have not escaped the watchful eye of commu-nity opinion. As noted earlier in this paper, these organisations have close links to thesport industry in that they manufacture and market sporting goods, but they are cor-porations rather than sport organisations. Nike, one of the most vilified companies inthe world, has suffered at the hands of an ‘anti sweatshop’ campaign that has forcedthem to change their outsourcing practices and develop rigorous CSR policies. The com-pany has since adopted a strategic approach to social responsibility with dedicated per-sonnel, supply chain codes of conduct and a policy of public transparency. Their example



illustrates just how pivotal reputation is in a cluttered consumer marketplace. Otherretail giants including Reebok and Adidas have experienced similar pressure, and havesigned on to social responsibility programmes such as the Fair Labor Association Char-ter Agreement along with Nike. In the future, sport governance organisations, such asthe IOC<in full> and FIFA, will also face a unique set of challenges, as the public, cham-pioned by a ruthless media, demands more transparency and accountability.

Observing the proliferation of attention directed toward CSR programmes such as thatof Nike, King (2001) noted a limited interest in the set of relations interconnecting busi-ness, philanthropy, sport and global–local relations. Seeking in particular to explore theethical valencies through which women’s sport is produced and consumed, King (2001)turned to a case study on a non-sport corporation that has practised CSR through theencouragement of physical activity and sport activities (see Fig. 1). King’s case demon-strated that corporate philanthropy, community relations and, in this case, women’shealth was intrinsically interwoven.

Davies (2002) made the case for a more high-profile role for sport in tackling globaland community challenges of health, peace, development and ethics. He argued thatnew expectations are emerging for corporate citizenship, from the activities of promi-nent organisations and institutions such as the forthcoming 2008 Beijing OlympicsOrganising Committee to the need for athletes to behave as role models. The power ofsport as a communications medium confers on it greater responsibilities for demon-strating corporate citizenship. Sport, Davies believes, should be a force for good in atroubled world. This further supports the notion that sport organisations should firstconduct an assessment of their social obligations. This will put sport organisations in astronger position to communicate and negotiate with corporations about the how, whenand where of their involvement in CSR programmes of these corporations.

The UN Inter-agency Task Force on Sport for Development and Peace was formed toreview activities involving sport within the UN, to promote more systematic and coher-ent use of sport in development and peace activities, to generate greater support for suchactivities among governments and sport-related organisations as well as to encouragethe UN system to incorporate sport into its activities. Perhaps most importantly for thedeployment of CSR, the UN Task Force sought to promote the application of sport as atool of development policy. One of the Task Force recommendations proposed a focuson communications-based activities using sport. These activities should include well-targeted advocacy and social mobilisation as well as private-sector partnerships, partic-ularly at national and local levels.

The range of possibilities for the deployment of CSR through sport have been con-flated by Cronin (2001), Davies (2002), Weiser and Zadek (2000) and Sagawa and Segal(2001) to include sponsorships, financial contributions, philanthropy, gifts in kind,cause-related marketing, employee volunteering and partnership. However, while sev-eral of these options fall within Carroll’s version of discretionary activity, all but thenotion of partnerships fall outside the contemporary view of social responsibility as itmight apply to sport. In other words, neither the sponsorship of a sporting programmenor the donation of funds constitutes genuine social responsibility.

On the other hand, assuming that there are philosophical overlaps in the social inten-tions of a sport and its corporate partner, are there unique advantages to be found in themarriage? The stakeholder view would suggest that there are, given the ubiquity of bothsporting and corporate stakeholders. From a practical perspective, the corporate partneroffers resources hitherto unavailable to socially invested sports, even those with sub-stantial elite support bases. Conversely, sport fosters extreme levels of passion and vic-arious identification, the likes of which corporations cannot aspire to. The distributiveimpact of sport also provides the vehicle for social messages and engagement. Of course,much of sport involves community engagement. However, the key to our argument is



that, without the financial backing of corporate partners, the value of sport as a vehiclefor social responsibility is limited and the scope to improve this flow of resources tosport is substantial. What are the features of corporate social responsibility that employssport as its principal vehicle?

Unique features of sport corporate social responsibility

1. Mass media distribution and communication power

First, sport corporate social responsibility (SCSR) is pervasive and holds significant dis-tributive power (Shilbury and Deane 2002<2001 in refs>; Westerbeek and Smith 2003;Wright 1999). This is reinforced by Wenner (1998), who predicted that the 21st centurywould bring more sport into the international media. Sport programmes offer greatscope for participation and inclusion, thereby enhancing social investments. This mayinvolve programmes that offer a cluster of different sports, perhaps modified specifi-cally for junior participation. Alternatively, or in addition, the global reach of sport mightbe invoked through the involvement of elite athletes or teams. The contribution of thislatter group in particular is largely contingent on the financial contributions providedby the corporate partner. However, the involvement of elite athletes involves a high levelof risk as their performances are uncertain and they may become involved in contro-versial issues such as violence, drug taking or public misbehaviour.

2. Youth appeal

Second, SCSR appeals to youth. Sport has an inherent appeal to young people, from botha participative and spectator viewpoint. In this sense, social responsibility can be exer-cised with both ‘push’ and ‘pull’ support; participation-based programmes can encour-age involvement, while high-profile sports-people can provide role models foremulation. The latter has proven troublesome at times; as Gioia (2003) has warned,there is a marked different between the discharge of power for personal gain versus dis-charging it for social benefit. Stewart et al. (2004) suggested that socially responsiblesport programmes encourage the involvement of parents, peers, coaches and teachers,focus on providing positive information rather than control over participants, involve aminimum of rules and complex structures, promote social interaction amongst partic-ipants, reinforce participant autonomy and should be undertaken in a pleasant envi-ronment. In addition, children tend to report that youth sport is advantageous in that itimproves self-esteem, advances good citizenship, fosters the value of mastery and co-operation, and encourages a physically active lifestyle (White et al. 1998). Many of thesefeatures are core components of successful modified junior sport programmes.

3. Positive health impacts

Third, SCSR emphasises one of the key solutions to the common social problem of dete-riorating health standards. By its very nature, sport offers an ideal platform to encour-age activity and health awareness. Ideal programmes can leverage this relationship,cognisant of the need to neutralise any potential physical risks. The advantages of phys-ical activity require little justification, and have been well established in numerousnational and cultural circumstances to promote psychological well-being, reduce stress,anxiety and depression, improve physical development, diminish risky behaviours,strengthen communities and decrease government health expenditure (AIHW 2000;



National Public Health Partnership 2002<not in refs>; Headley 2004; Sport and Recre-ation New Zealand 2002; WHO 2003).

4. Social interaction

Fourth, SCSR sport offers a platform for encouraging social interaction in a functionalway. Although perhaps overstated and with notable exceptions, sporting rivalry can bea force for stability, democracy and peace. Case (2005) argued, for example, that placesfor children to play in Afghanistan mean more than just slides and swings; they are infact a force and symbol for peace. This view has been propagated by the UN as well asseveral of the largest international sporting bodies in the world, including the IOC andFIFA. In addition, the economic and social benefits that accompany the hosting of hall-mark sport events can cast a spotlight on the political activities of governments, such aswith the Beijing Olympics. Sport programmes designed for social return may also stim-ulate social cohesion and fair play (Morris et al. 2004).

5. Sustainability awareness

Fifth, SCSR has been linked with an environmental and sustainability awareness (Smithand Westerbeek 2004), particularly in the aftermath of winter (Salt Lake City) and sum-mer (Sydney) Olympic Games that promoted a keen environmental responsibility. Pro-grammes of SCSR have the opportunity to commit resources to, and stimulate a highprofile for, a zero net environmental impact.

6. Cultural understanding and integration

Sixth, SCSR offers the opportunity for cultural diaspora. Sport can spread understand-ing and tolerance through the introduction of new cultural values in fun and interactiveways (Lenskyj 2002). The obvious example can be found in the opening and closing cer-emonies of major sport events such as the Olympic Games, but may also be found inlocal circumstances through community sport.

7. Immediate gratification benefits

Seventh, and finally, SCSR can offer its participants and organisers fun and satisfaction(Dater and Frei 2004; Strean and Holt 2001), the social advantages of which are unclear,but hardly unattractive.

There are numerous initiatives that involve partnerships between sporting organisa-tions and companies which appeal to one or more of the points highlighted above. Forexample, many programmes are designed to get participants more active. Mostly, how-ever, these programmes are sponsored in the conventional way by companies keen totake advantage of a national audience of children and their parents. Nevertheless, a hand-ful of programmes such as the cluster in Australia supported by Nestlé including its‘Health and Activity Resource’, ‘A Winning Diet’, ‘Be Healthy Be Active’, ‘Fit Kids ForSick Kids’, ‘The Nestlé Good Life Program’, ‘Get the AIS into your Classroom’ and a ‘Per-sonal Development Health and Physical Education Program’ designed for teachers ofupper primary and secondary school children, exemplify the CSR approach we have advo-cated. Other examples include Sainsbury’s Active Kids programme for 20,000 schoolchildren in the UK, DaimlerChrysler’s Laureus Sports for Good Foundation, and BP’sFootball for Peace programme in Central America. However, it is not the purview of this



paper to provide an inventory of programmes. Instead, we have focused on the under-pinning concept behind the intersection of sport and corporate social responsibility.

It does need to be acknowledged that, because of sport’s ubiquity, symbology and dis-tributive power, the wrong messages can also be propagated if SCSR is handled poorly.For example, Milton-Smith (2002) cautioned that there has been a failure of major globalinstitutions in dealing with the social and ethical consequences of globalisation, andpointedly highlighted what he perceived as a backlash against the Olympics movement.He wrote: ‘Disillusionment with the Olympic Games mirrors the disenchantment withthe perceived values of globalisation, including winning at any price, commercialexploitation by MNCs, intense national rivalry, cronyism, cheating and corruption andthe competitive advantage of advanced nations’ (Milton-Smith 2002: 131). Sport chan-nels and creates meaning for its consumers; its contents and ideological positioningremains a central concern of its consumers, a point adroitly made by James (1963) morethan 40 years ago. Of all the issues in sport business that have arisen from the broad-ening and deepening of the movement of information and capital, perhaps it is this ide-ological view of sport that is the most divisive.

One view voiced by Gems (1999) is that American sport is spreading a kind of ‘ide-ological imperialism’. Accordingly, the chief issue facing SCSR comes in avoiding theideological homogeneity propagated by Americanised sport business. Belk (1996)shares this view. He predicted that sport business would take a McDonald’s approach,emphasising standardised products punctuated only by the ‘hyper-reality’ of over-zeal-ous marketing.

In contrast, others such as van Bottenburg have highlighted the defensive power ofculture. For example, van Bottenburg (2003) analysed the performance of NFL Europe,concluding that it is culturally insignificant despite the receptiveness of Europeans toAmerican popular culture in general. Sport, he speculated, could perhaps be morerobust than other forms of culture. Bairner (2003) would likely agree, his own com-mentary taking the perspective that, despite the immensity of the global sport economy,it has failed to distribute a singular cultural influence across the world. Evans’ and Kel-ley’s (2002) research might point, at least in part, to an explanation. In their surveyacross 24 nations, they determined that, despite the assumption that globalisation isweakening national identification, national pride is alive and well. This was particularlythe case for sport and needs to be handled sensitively when a variable in SCSR.

Concluding comments

We have argued that a stakeholder perspective is advantageous in considering the poten-tial marriage of corporate and sport its social responsibility. In particular, it reinforcesthe reach and diversity of impact that each hold in society. Although corporate socialresponsibility has been thoroughly articulated, the social responsibilities implicit tosport remain underdeveloped. This paper has attempted to make these responsibilitiesmore transparent as a first step toward considering the overlap with corporate socialresponsibilities. Sport possesses the power to captivate and unite individuals withincommunities and create environments for contributing to social capital. Equally, the cor-porate world can mobilise much-needed resources to be deployed through sport to meetits social responsibilities. When the two come together in the form of sport corporatesocial responsibility, it can be pervasive, youth-friendly, health-oriented, socially inter-active, environmentally aware, culturally liberating and fun. Corporate managers andsport managers alike can enhance the economic prospects of their organisations andmaximise the social benefits that they deliver to society by better harnessing the powerof sport to deliver on social and community objectives.



References

AIHW (Australian Institute of Health and Welfare) (2000) Physical Activity Patterns of Australian Adults(Catalogue No. CVD 10; Canberra, Australia: AIHW).

Bairner, A. (2003) ‘Globalization and Sport: The Nation Strikes Back’, Phi Kappa Phi Forum 83.4: 34-37.Belk, R. (1996) ‘Hyperreality and Globalization: Culture in the Age of Ronald McDonald’, Journal of

International Consumer Marketing 8.3–4: 23-37.Blackburn, V., M. Doran and C. Shrader (1994) ‘Investigating the Dimensions of Social Responsibility

and the Consequences for Corporate Financial Performance’, Journal of Managerial Issues 6:195-212.Carroll, A.B. (1979) ‘A Three-dimensional Conceptual Model of Corporate Performance’, Academy of

Management Review 4.4: 497-505.Case, A. (2005) ‘Playgrounds for Peace’, Parks and Recreation 40.4: 42-46.Clarkson, M.B.E. (1995) ‘A Stakeholder Framework for Analyzing and Evaluating Corporate Social Per-

formance’, Academy of Management Review 20.1: 92-117.Copeland, R., W. Frisby and R. McCarville (1996) ‘Understanding the Sport Sponsorship Process from

a Corporate Perspective’, Journal of Sport Management 10.1: 32-48.Cronin, C. (2001). ‘Corporate Social Responsibility in Australia: A Select Review of the Literature’ (Back-

ground Paper No. 3, Research and Social Policy Team; The Smith Family): 1-28.Dater, A., and T. Frei (2004) ‘Without Hockey, There’s Sadness: Ripple Effect Part of Lockout’, Denver

Post, 13 October 2004: D01.Davenport, K. (2000) ‘Corporate Citizenship: A Stakeholder Approach for Defining Corporate Social

Performance and Identifying Measures for Assessing it’, Business and Society 39.2: 210-19.Davies, R. (2002) ‘Sport, Citizenship and Development: Challenges and Opportunities for Sports Spon-

sors’, World Sports Forum, Lausanne, 23 September 2002.Elkington, J. (1997) Cannibals with Forks: The Triple Bottom Line of Twenty-First Century business (Oxford,

UK: Capstone Publishing).Evans, M., and J. Kelley (2002) ‘National Pride in the Developed World: Survey Data from 24 Nations’,

International Journal of Public Opinion Research 14.3: 303-38.Gems, G. (1999) ‘Sports, War, and Ideological Imperialism’, Peace Review 11.4: 573-78.Gioia, D.A. (2003) ‘Business Organization as Instrument of Societal Responsibility’, Organization 10.3:

435-38.Gregg, S. (2001) ‘Stakeholder Theory: What it Means for Corporate Governance’, Policy 17.2: 33-38.Headley, S. (2004) ‘Background Notes on Obesity and Sport in Young Australians’, Youth Studies Aus-

tralia 23.1: 42-46.Henderson, D. (2005) ‘The Role of Business in the World of Today’, Journal of Corporate Citizenship 17

(Spring 2005): 30-32.<not cited in text - remove?>James, C. (1963) Beyond a Boundary (<town?>, NC: Duke University Press).Juholin, E. (2004) ‘For Business or the Good of All? A Finnish Approach to Corporate Social Responsi-

bility’, Corporate Governance 4.3: 20-31.<not cited in text - remove?>King, S. (2001) ‘Marketing Generosity: Avon’s Women’s Health Programs and New Trends in Global

Community Relations’, International Journal of Sport Marketing and Sponsorship 3.3: 27-35.Kok, P., T. van der Wiele, R. McKenna and A. Brown, (2001) ‘A Corporate Social Responsibility Audit

within a Quality Management Framework’, Journal of Business Ethics 31.4: 285-97.Lenskyj, H. (2002) The Best Olympics Ever: Social Impacts of Sydney 2000 (Albany, NY: State University of

New York Press).Logsdon, J.M., M. Reiner and L. Burke (1990) ‘Corporate Philanthropy: Strategic Responses to the Firm’s

Stakeholders’, Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly 19: 93-109.Margolis, J.D., and J.P. Walsh (2001) People and Profits? The Search for a Link between a Company’s Social

and Financial Performance (Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum & Associates).Marsden, C., and J. Andriof (1998) ‘Towards an Understanding of Corporate Citizenship and How to

Influence It’, Citizenship Studies 22: 329-52.Milton-Smith, J. (2002) ‘Business Ethics in Australia and New Zealand’, Journal of Business Ethics 35.2:

131-42.Morris, L., J. Sallybanks, K. Willis and T. Makkai (2004) ‘Sport, Physical Activity and Antisocial Behav-

iour in Youth’, Youth Studies Australia 23.1: 47-52.National Public Health Partnership 2002<details>Post, J.E. (2000) ‘Moving from Geographic to Virtual Communities: Global Corporate Citizenship in a

dot.com World’, Business and Society Review 105.1: 28. <not cited in text - remove?>Putnam, R. (2001) Bowling Alone: The Collapse and Revival of American Community (New York: Simon &

Schuster). <not cited in text - remove?>Quazi, A.M. (2003) ‘Identifying the Determinants of Corporate Managers’ Perceived Social Obligations’,

Management Decision 41.9: 822-31.



Rucci, A., S.P. Kim and R.T. Quinn (1998) ‘The Employee–Customer–Profit Chain at Sears’, HarvardBusiness Review, January/February 1998: 84-97.

Sagawa, S., and E. Segal (2001) Common Interest Common Good: Creating Value through Business and SocialSector Partnerships (Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press).

Schiebel, W., and S. Pochtrager (2003) ‘Corporate Ethics as a Factor for Success: The MeasurementInstrument of the University of Agricultural Sciences, Vienna’, Supply Chain Management 8.2: 116-21.

Shilbury, D., and J. Deane (2001<2002 in text>) Sport Management in Australia: An OrganisationalOverview (<place?>Deakin University, Victoria: Strategic Sport Management).

Sirgy, M.J. (2002) ‘Measuring Corporate Performance by Building on the Stakeholders Model of Busi-ness Ethics’, Journal of Business Ethics 35.3: 143-62. <not cited in text - remove?>

Smith, A., and H.M. Westerbeek (2004) The Sport Business Future (London: Palgrave Macmillan).Sport and Recreation New Zealand (2002) Push Play Facts II (Wellington: Sport and Recreation New

Zealand).Stevenson, T. (2002) ‘Communities of Tomorrow’, Futures 34: 735-44. <not cited in text - remove?>Stewart, B., M. Nicholson, A. Smith and H. Westerbeek (2004) Australian Sport: Better by Design. The

Evolution of Australian Sport Policy (London: Routledge).Strean, W., and N. Holt (2001) ‘Coaches’, Athletes’ and Parents’ Perceptions of Fun in Youth Sports:

Assumptions about Learning and Implications for Practice’, Avante 63: 1-14.Szwajkowski, E., and R.E. Figlewicz (1999) ‘Evaluating Corporate Performance: A Comparison of the

Fortune Reputation Survey and the Socrates Social Rating Database’, Journal of Managerial Issues112: 137-54.

United Nations (2003) Sport for Development and Peace: Towards Achieving the Millennium DevelopmentGoals. Report from the United Nations Inter-agency Task Force on Sport for Development and Peace(Geneva: United Nations). <not cited in text - remove?>

Van Bottenburg, M. (2003) ‘Thrown for a Loss? (American) Football and the European Sport Space’, TheAmerican Behavioral Scientist 46.11: 1,550-62.

Weiser, J., and S. Zadek (2000) Conversations with Disbelievers: Persuading Companies to Address SocialChallenges (New York: The Ford Foundation).

Welford, R. (2005) ‘Corporate Social Responsibility in Europe, North America and Asia: 2004 SurveyResults’, Journal of Corporate Citizenship 17 (Spring 2005): 33-52.

Wenner, L. (ed.) (1998) MediaSport (New York: Routledge).Westerbeek, H., and A. Smith (2003) Sport Business in the Global Marketplace (London: Palgrave MacMil-

lan).White, S., J. Duda and M. Keller (1998) ‘The Relationship between Goal Orientation and Perceived Pur-

poses of Sport among Youth Sport Participants’, Journal of Sport Behavior 21.4: 474-84.WHO (World Health Organisation) (2003) Health and Development through Physical Activity and Sport

(Geneva: WHO).Wright, G. (1999) ‘Sport and Globalisation’, New Political Economy 4.2: 267-81.

q



Documents

Sport as a Vehicle for Deploying Corporate Social Responsibility