Routledge Handbook of Sport and Corporate Social Responsibility

Juan Luis Paramio Salcines, Kathy Babiak, Geoff Walters, Juan Luis Paramio Salcines, Kathy Babiak, Geoff Walters

• Verlag: Routledge
• Jahr: 2013
• ISBN:
  9781135011727
• Auflage: 1
• Thema: Negocios y empresa
• Thema: Ética empresarial

As the role of sport in society becomes ever more prominent and as sports organisations become increasingly influential members of the global community, so it has become more important than ever for sport to consider its wider social responsibilities.

The Routledge Handbook of Sport and Corporate Social Responsibility is the first book to offer a comprehensive survey of theories and concepts of CSR as applied to sport, and the social, ethical and environmental aspects of sport business and management. It offers an overview of perspectives and approaches to CSR in sport, examines the unique features of the sport industry in relation to CSR, explores the tools, models, common pitfalls and examples of best practice on which managers can draw, and discusses how CSR and corporate citizenship can be integrated into the sport management curriculum.

The book covers every key issue and functional area, including implementation, strategic benefits, communication and corporate image, stakeholder engagement, and the measurement and evaluation of CSR policies and practices, and includes detailed international case studies, from the NBA and the Olympic Games to Japanese soccer. The Routledge Handbook of Sport and Corporate Social Responsibility is important reading for any student, researcher, manager or policy maker with an interest in sport business, management, ethics or development.

PART I

THEORETICAL PERSPECTIVES ON CSR IN SPORT

1

PERSPECTIVES ON SOCIAL RESPONSIBILITY IN SPORT

Kathy Babiak and Richard Wolfe

Overview

Corporate social responsibility (CSR) has become an area of increasing importance for many corporations. Organizations in the sport industry, also, are increasingly engaging in socially responsible activities. Along with its increased diffusion, CSR has received growing attention in the academic literature (Babiak and Wolfe, 2009). Our objective in this chapter is to provide a broad overview of CSR in sport. To do so, we: (1) provide an overview of the CSR and CSR in sport constructs; (2) present conceptual rationale for the adoption of CSR initiatives; and (3) describe the essential types of CSR in sport initiatives, which we refer to as CSR in sport pillars. Our focus in the chapter is on professional sport in North America. While we focus on keeping the “territory” covered somewhat manageable, as we will address in the chapter’s final section, the manner in which we frame CSR in sport is also generalizable geographically, and to other types of sports organizations (e.g., major events; sports federations; intercollegiate sport).

An overview of the CSR and CSR in Sport constructs CSR

As the copious literature in the area suggests, social responsibility is an ethical ideology or theory that an entity, be it an organization or individual, has an obligation to act in a manner that contributes to and benefits society at large. This responsibility can be passive, by avoiding engaging in socially harmful acts, or active, by performing activities that directly advance social goals. These ideas have experienced substantial growth over the past two decades, as evidenced by the adoption of practices that aim to benefit society by an increasing number of entities (businesses, nonprofit organizations, and individuals) as well as by the academic exploration of this phenomenon. The academic social responsibility literature has focused on examining activities that promote positive social change; how such initiatives improve the well-being of communities on local and global levels; and what efforts are being made to address gaps in the areas of health, education, race relations, the environment, and economic development. CSR represents a set of actions that: are intended to further some social good, extend beyond the explicit pecuniary interests of the firm, and are not required by law (McWilliams and Siegel, 2000). It “refers to company activities – voluntary by definition – demonstrating the inclusion of social and environmental concerns in business operations and in interactions with stakeholders” (Van Marrewijk, 2003: 97). Similarly, Ullmann (1985: 543) defines CSR as “the extent to which an organization meets the needs, expectations, and demands of certain external constituencies beyond those directly linked to the company’s products/markets.”

Over the past 60 years, the justifications and positioning of the social responsibility of businesses has been wide ranging. In 1962, Friedman compellingly argued that a corporation’s responsibility is to its shareholders – to maintain financial viability (through the development and sale of products and/or services) (Friedman, 1962). Others held opposing perspectives, including the view that organizations are not responsible solely to shareholders but also to other stakeholders that can affect or be affected by an organization (Donaldson and Preston, 1995; Freeman, 1984). This thinking then extended to the use of CSR as strategic response/good business practice (Hess and Warren, 2008; Porter and Kramer, 2006) or as “insurance” for future misdeeds (Gardberg and Fombrun, 2006; Godfrey, 2005). More recent work has positioned the use of doing good as a means to market and/or to help brand a business and the cause it supports (Gupta and Pirsch, 2006; Irwin et al., 2003; McGlone and Martin, 2006; Roy and Graeff, 2003).

Carroll’s (1979, 1991) framing of CSR is inclusive and instructive. Carroll conceptualized CSR as being composed of four elements: economic (the basic responsibility to make a profit and, thus, be viable), legal (the duty to obey the law), ethical (responsibility to act in a manner consistent with societal expectations), and discretionary (activities that go beyond societal expectations). Godfrey (2009) suggests that Carroll’s framing is useful for two reasons. First, Carroll characterizes and deconstructs a business’ non-economic responsibilities to differentiate between those that are enforced (legal responsibilities), contextual (ethical norms), and voluntary (discretionary). Second, Godfrey argued that the hierarchical nature of Carroll’s framework provides a prescriptive model of the circumstances where tradeoffs (among competing demands) may be appropriate (e.g., firms struggling to make profits should not focus on discretionary CSR activities).

CSR in the sport context

Until the early 1990s, CSR did not play a significant role in sport (Kott, 2005; Robinson, 2005). Currently, however, professional sports organizations are entering into various socially responsible initiatives at a rapid pace. In our 2009 publication in Journal of Sport Management, we described a broad array of activities professional sports organizations (e.g., leagues, teams, and even individual athletes who are brands/businesses in and of themselves) engage in (Babiak and Wolfe, 2009). Prior to addressing the CSR in sport pillars, we address a seminal matter: given the well-established literature on CSR, one might wonder whether there is a need to address CSR in sport. In what follows, therefore, we highlight what we believe to be the unique aspects of sport as it relates to CSR.

Is sport unique with respect to CSR?

The four features that make sport unique with respect to CSR, and thus merit making CSR worthy of investigation in the professional sport context are: passion, economics, transparency, and stakeholder management (Babiak and Wolfe, 2009). Below, we review how CSR may affect or be affected by these factors.

Passion

The formative attribute which differentiates sport from other industries is the emotion, the devotion, and passion that the product (the athlete, team, game) generates among fans/consumers (Cashman, 2004). Given the strong emotions generated by sport, we suggest that teams or athletes promoting, for example, healthful living, will yield a larger, more attentive audience than would businesses or employees from other industries. Further, it has been suggested that the passion and identification that sports teams generate can be beneficial to communities as a whole by encouraging and strengthening community integration (Wakefield and Wann, 2006; Wilkerson and Dodder, 1987).

Economics

Given the unique economic elements of the sport industry, such as their monopoly power, the special protections they receive from governments via antitrust laws, and the public support they receive for constructing arenas and stadia, there are often different expectations and perceptions of the role and responsibility of professional sports teams and leagues to provide social benefit and give back to the community (Swindell and Rosentraub, 1998).

Transparency

Almost everything achieved by the leadership of a sport team (e.g., player signings, player salaries, who plays, who sits, trades, changes in strategies), as well as team outcomes (i.e., wins/losses), and contributions to good causes, is open knowledge (Armey, 2004). In addition, off the court/field behavior of a team’s employees (e.g., players, coaches), invariably, becomes open knowledge (Armey, 2004). Organizations in other industries typically do not face the same type of scrutiny of their business practices or of their employees’ behaviors.

Stakeholder management

Success in the sport industry necessitates the ability to work with a complex set of stakeholders (e.g., various levels of government, sponsors, fans, local communities, minor leagues, media, players). We suggest that each of the features addressed just above, passion, economics, and transparency, contribute to the complexity of stakeholder relationships. Strong relations with stakeholders can benefit from CSR activities (Wallace, 2004).

Recognizing these four unique elements of professional sport and how each is related to CSR provides the rationale for addressing CSR in sport as a phenomenon different from CSR in other domains – though there certainly are areas of overlap. Moreover, from a more applied perspective, addressing these differentiating factors allows practitioners to more strategically position CSR initiatives and increase the potential impact CSR in sport can have.

The rationale for the adoption of CSR initiatives

Recent academic writing has considered the strategic integration of CSR with corporate objectives; by linking the company’s core strategy and its CSR efforts, the potential of contributing to both societal beneficiaries and to business performance is increased (Bruch and Walter, 2005; Porter and Kramer, 2006). In addition, such a strategic approach to CSR is considered to be more sustainable (Porter and Kramer, 2006). Responding to pressures external to the organization is, of course, important for businesses success (Hess et al., 2002; Hess and Warren, 2008; Marquis et al., 2007). Pressures related to CSR could emanate from various stakeholders: e.g., customers (Vogel, 2005), activist groups (Den Hond and De Bakker, 2007), legislators (Dawkins and Lewis, 2003), or local communities (Boehm, 2005). Internal drivers such as the values, ethics, and moral priorities of top management, owners, employees, and athletes, and other internal variables (e.g., knowledge, skills, expertise) are also important determinants of CSR adoption and implementation (Babiak and Wolfe, 2009; Beliveau et al., 1994).

Given the increasing focus on strategic CSR (i.e., broadening the concept to dual – organizational and social – benefits), it is worthwhile to consider the approaches and areas in which a business might engage in CSR. While an explicit link between CSR and financial performance has yet to be established, many of the intangible benefits a business may attain are dependent on the type of CSR practiced (i.e., social responsibility in labor relations may lead to greater employee commitment, or social responsibility in corporate governance may lead to more effective relations with regulatory institutions or legislative bodies; see literature on these intangible benefits of CSR: Campbell, 2007; Jensen, 2002; Turban and Greening, 1996; Vogel, 2005).

Stemming from the above conceptual arguments, four prevailing justifications for CSR have been identified (Porter, 2008; Porter and Kramer, 2006):

• Moral obligation: a business should achieve commercial success in ways that honor ethical values and respect people, communities, and the natural environment. This justification supports the idea that companies need to be good citizens and “do the right thing.”

• Sustainability: businesses should avoid short-term behavior that is socially detrimental or environmentally wasteful; this justification emphasizes environmental and community stewardship. As per the World Business Council for Sustainable Development this justification implies: “meeting the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs”;

• License to Operate: every company needs tacit or explicit permission from governments, communities, and numerous other stakeholders to do business;

• Reputation: CSR initiatives are justified on the grounds that they will improve a company’s image, and thus, strengthen its brand, enliven morale, and potentially raise the value of its stock.

As argued by Porter and Kramer (2006), however, the above justifications focus on the tension between business and society rather than the interdependence and do not provide direction, guidance, or priority for a company’s actions. Because CSR priorities are often reactive, unfocused, and driven by public relations (PR) and image concerns, the impact to the organization and to society is often not measured or maximized. Porter (2008) suggests that the competitiveness of a company depends on the surrounding environment and the community in which it operates. Given their concerns, Porter and Kramer (2006: 5) suggest that to “advance CSR, we must root it in a broad understanding of the interrelationship between a corporation and society while at the same time anchoring it in the strategies and activities of specific companies.” Organizational decisions concerning CSR, then, need to be made related to the synergistic use of organizational resources and core competencies to address key stakeholders’ interests to achieve both organizational and social benefits (McAllister and Ferrell, 2002).

While as described above, the rationale for addressing CSR in sport is strong, given its unique traits, the essential framing of the construct, as per the extant literature, holds; i.e., in considering CSR in sport, Carroll’s model, which includes economic, legal, ethical, and discretionary components, appears to fit. Another way to frame CSR in sport is to consider the focal organization – i.e., whether it is an organization directly in the sport industry as sport may be used as a means to be socially responsible by non-sport organizations. We term this use of sport as a vehicle for non-sport companies as Social Responsibility Via Sport. Some authors such as Smith and Westerbeek (2007) and Lee and Cornwell (2011) identify the unique aspects of sport that might benefit a company engaging in Social Responsibility Via Sport (mass appeal of sport, youth orientation, media attention (see Smith and Westerbeek (2007) for a more thorough description)). Sports organizations themselves also engage in socially responsible activities and we refer to CSR of a sport organization as Social Responsibility of Sport. We describe these distinctions next.

Organizations involved in Social Responsibility Via Sport partner with sport teams or other sport organizations to leverage the unique elements of sport addressed above (e.g., passion, stakeholder relationships) to enhance their own brand identity (Lee and Cornwell, 2011; Smith and Westerbeek, 2007). Examples of Social Responsibility Via Sport include Barclays Bank’s Spaces for Sport program which brings specialist coaching and training projects to disadvantaged communities; KPMG’s support and sponsorship of “Reviving Baseball in the Inner Cities” – a MLB initiative to encourage underserved youth to participate in baseball – and get physically active in inner cities; Vodafone’s longstanding relationship with the Homeless World Cup, an annual football tournament held in different cities around the world and which brings together homeless people from around the world; and Coca-Cola’s support of the Special Olympics to help support athletic participation and competition for special needs children.

Social Responsibility of Sport refers to socially responsible activities and initiatives engaged in by professional sport businesses and organizations. This category encompasses for-profit sports organizations such as Nike or Adidas who are increasingly drawing attention and awareness to environmental sustainability issues in the manufacture of their products and have also adopted extensive regulations concerning labor relations. Also in this category are non-profit sport oriented organizations such as the Women’s Sports Foundation or the Homeless World Cup which exist to ameliorate social issues such as homelessness, obesity, equity, and access for underrepresented populations using sport as a tool and vehicle. Many social responsibility of sport initiatives are enacted by sports teams and leagues (e.g., the NBA, NHL, NFL, MLB); examples include the NH...