Sport as a Vehicle for Deploying

Corporate Social Responsibility

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

Stakeholder theory suggests that corporate social responsibility (CSR) should require
organisations to consider the interests of all stakeholders including investors, sup-
pliers, consumers, employees, the community and the environment in discharging
their profit-directed activities. Implicit in this perspective is the assumption that both
sport and corporate influence on social trends must be considered from multiple
angles. Such a viewpoint encourages an examination of the overlaps between the
social responsibilities of the sport and corporate worlds. This paper explores the role
that 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 opportunity ● Sport
lies at the intersection of these mutual responsibilities in the combination of the ● Stakeholder
financial leverage available to corporations and the distributive/symbolic power theory
inherent in sport. We argue that sport offers a bridge across social and economic ● Health
gaps, an opportunity to improve the quality of life, and a stimulus to encourage large ● Physical activity
and profitable businesses to share a little of their prosperity. ● Culture

Aaron Smith, PhD, is Associate Professor with the School of Sport, Tourism
and Hospitality Management at La Trobe University, Melbourne, Australia. He u School of Sport, Tourism and
Hospitality Management, Faculty of
has published books on change management, policy, the future of business,
leadership, facility management and sport management. Aaron consults to the Law and Management, La Trobe
government, the private sector and sport organisations in Australia, Asia, University, Bundoora, 3086,
Europe and the Middle East. Melbourne, Australia
! aaron.smith@latrobe.edu.au
< <web address?>

Associate Professor Hans Westerbeek is Head of the School of Sport, Tourism

and Hospitality Management at La Trobe University in Melbourne, Australia. u School of Sport, Tourism and
Hospitality Management, Faculty of
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; Sport Law and Management, La Trobe
Business in the Global Marketplace; The Sport Business Future; Business University, Bundoora, 3086,
Leadership and the Lessons from Sport; Sport Policy in Australia; Sport Melbourne, Australia
Management: Principles and Applications; and Managing Sport Facilities and
Major Events. His books have been translated in Dutch, Greek, Chinese and
! <email address?>
Korean. < <web address?>

JCC 25 Spring 2007 1

aaron c.t. smith and hans m. westerbeek

T
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 Task
Force on Sport for Development and Peace, which articulated a strategy for sport’s
contribution 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. The
sentiment has been echoed by FIFA (international football federation) President Joseph
S. Blatter, who claimed that the game had been developed and taken to the world and
now 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 beyond
the intentions of a handful of powerful non-government organisations such as soccer’s
FIFA. The corporate trend toward social responsibility represents a significant opportu-
nity for capitalising on a marriage of the ubiquitous appeal of sport and the economic
might of the corporate sector. The deployment of corporate social responsibility through
sport offers substantial potential for community return. The mobilisation of sport as a
vehicle for contributing to corporate efforts toward social responsibility can be seen as
a distinct opportunity for both the organisations in charge of sport and those that seek
to 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 fulfil
their social responsibilities. Our contention is that sport, more than any other potential
vehicle, 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 to
successfully 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, the
community 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 physical
environment, while providing a competitive return to its financial stakeholders. Sport
offers 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 by
the managers of sport in discharging their obligations to players, spectators, governing
bodies and other stakeholders; and, second, advancing the advantages of the use of sport
as a social tool for corporations. In exploring sport’s value and appeal as a vehicle for
CSR, 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 the
efforts 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 reviews
the development of CSR, culminating in the exposition of stakeholder theory as a con-
ceptual platform. The subsequent section presents the social responsibilities inherent
to sport. These social responsibilities are largely discharged by the organisers of sport:
the sporting clubs, the governing bodies and the government departments in charge of
sport and recreation. The final section addresses the intersection of corporate and sport
social responsibility. Here it is discussed how corporations enter into partnerships with
sport organisations or individual athletes in order to strengthen the sport (organisation)
or athlete’s ability to deliver on social responsibilities. Corporations make this positive
contribution to communities by supporting the sport (organisations) with financial or

2 JCC 25 Spring 2007

 sport as a vehicle for deploying corporate social responsibility

other resources. As will be explained in the next section, these types of relationships can
be differentiated from traditional conceptions of sport sponsorship. In that regard it is
important 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 and
marketers 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 (participation
and spectator) sport but rather they provide products to supplement sport with the inten-
tion of furthering their private business objectives. These different entities and their
relation to CSR are pictured in Figure 1. It is shown that the corporation has a number
of indirect means of deploying CSR programs, but can also take full control and directly
discharge their social responsibilities by internalising these activities in their own struc-
ture. For example, many corporations have ‘corporate citizenship’ or ‘community
engagement’ departments that partner with organisations in sport, the arts, engage in
cause marketing or co-organise indigenous welfare programs but also manage a range
of CSR programs and activities that they set up independently. The figure also shows
that sport or ‘other means’ can be used when the unique social responsibilities of these
organisations offer a better means to achieve social objectives then the corporation act-
ing independently.

Corporation Sport Social

Advancing towards
achieving profit or
non-profit objectives
that do not involve
sport participation or
spectator services
organisation responsibilities
Advancing towards
profit or non-profit
objectives that involve t Economic
sport participation or t Legal
spectator services
t Ethical
+
Unique set of social t Discretionary
responsibilities (Carroll 1979)

Other means
t The arts
t Good causes
t Indigenous culture
t Etc.
+
Unique set of social
responsibilities

Figure 1 different means of deploying corporate social responsibility

JCC 25 Spring 2007 3

aaron c.t. smith and hans m. westerbeek

The development of corporate social responsibility

The idea that the wealthy in a society should help those less fortunate via philanthropy
or charity is, of course, not new. From a sport viewpoint, this generosity has tended to
be confused with sponsorships, where sport enterprises are faced with the obligation of
returning 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 (Copeland
et al. 1996). CSR is newer, however, and in its true form is not based on the promise of
positive 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 not
to 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 genuine
attempt to return benefits of successful business back to the community from which it
is derived.
Research investigating the relationship between social and financial performance
within firms has indicated that those with high scores in CSR perform as well or better
than those with low scores. Szwajkowski and Figlewicz (1999), for example, concluded
that there is no net financial cost for companies to engage in CSR activities, and there
may be financial benefits. Companies that are ‘stakeholder-balanced’, which excel in
managing 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 effect
on 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 financial
shareholders (Weiser and Zadek 2000). Moreover, improved staff attitude leads to
higher customer satisfaction, in turn leading to higher revenues (Rucci et al. 1998).
Without claiming to be exhaustive, there seems to be sufficient empirical evidence to
infer that socially responsible and engaged companies will also heighten their potential
for business success: a motivation for companies to explore high-profile potential
avenues 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 demanded
by 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 bolster
an organisation: its stakeholders (Clarkson 1995; Davenport 2000; Gregg 2001; Logs-
don et al. 1990). This model commends a system of consultation, communication and
evaluation whereby all stakeholders (not just shareholders) are considered to be valued
participants and contributors to the company’s existence and prosperity. Quazi (2003)
maintained that stakeholder theory is based on a social contract between business and
society. Stakeholder theory draws on research that has established a connection between
corporate social and financial performance (Margolis and Walsh 2001). A stakeholder
approach to CSR research demands that the fullest scope of an organisation’s activities

4 JCC 25 Spring 2007

 sport as a vehicle for deploying corporate social responsibility

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

Social responsibility in sport

In considering the dimensions associated with social responsibility in sport, it should
be acknowledged that we seek those characteristics that are distinguished in sport. In
other words, if we are to use sport as a means to deal with social issues, it is up to sport
organisations to clearly identify and communicate what they perceive their social
responsibilities to be. This does not mean that the generic elements of social responsi-
bility for organisations should be overlooked. For example, Welford’s (2005) instrument
provides 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 International
Labour Standards Convention, the International Programme on the Elimination of
Child Labour, and best practices in the corporate world. There are, of course, a range of
social 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. Accompanying
these 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 about
sport is that it offers an equal opportunity for all to be involved, and to perform on
a ‘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 the
physical safety of its participants and spectators. This includes the protection of
young 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 as
those associated with gambling
4. Transparency of governance. Sport is notoriously political, and sport organisations
have a history of providing employment for former players. The mechanisms of
such employment need to be overt and the governance processes in the organisa-
tion should be transparent

JCC 25 Spring 2007 5

aaron c.t. smith and hans m. westerbeek

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 and
enhance opportunities for health and physical activity through policies directed
towards recognition of the importance of physical activity to the health of society at
large
8. Principles of environmental protection and sustainability. Sport is demanding on
the physical environment. Socially responsible sport acknowledges this burden and
develops policies to avoid environmental damage
9. Developmental focus of participants. A key ingredient of the social impact of sport
is the developmental opportunities it affords. Policies to formalise this commitment
to physical, social and personal development are relevant to social responsibility
10. Qualified and/or accredited coaching. Sports are obligated to provide qualified
coaches 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 sport
organisations that do not have documented policies outlining these social obligations
should be avoided. Secondly, the awareness that sport has unique social responsibilities
adds 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 social
engagement strategy. For example, companies seeking an involvement with a younger
audience should look carefully at the modified sport programmes (more suitable for
under-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 can
potentially generate social benefits. However, the nature of sport lends itself to being
uniquely positioned to influence society in general and communities in particular. In
other words, sport organisations are already implicitly woven into society, an integrative
characteristic limited in commercial business organisations. As a result, the use of sport
as a tool of corporate social responsibility is contingent on the previously discussed social
responsibilities 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 the
sport 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 in
the world, has suffered at the hands of an ‘anti sweatshop’ campaign that has forced
them 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

6 JCC 25 Spring 2007

 sport as a vehicle for deploying corporate social responsibility

illustrates just how pivotal reputation is in a cluttered consumer marketplace. Other

retail giants including Reebok and Adidas have experienced similar pressure, and have
signed on to social responsibility programmes such as the Fair Labor Association Char-
ter Agreement along with Nike. In the future, sport governance organisations, such as
the 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 that
of 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 the
ethical 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 the
encouragement of physical activity and sport activities (see Fig. 1). King’s case demon-
strated that corporate philanthropy, community relations and, in this case, women’s
health was intrinsically interwoven.
Davies (2002) made the case for a more high-profile role for sport in tackling global
and community challenges of health, peace, development and ethics. He argued that
new expectations are emerging for corporate citizenship, from the activities of promi-
nent organisations and institutions such as the forthcoming 2008 Beijing Olympics
Organising Committee to the need for athletes to behave as role models. The power of
sport as a communications medium confers on it greater responsibilities for demon-
strating corporate citizenship. Sport, Davies believes, should be a force for good in a
troubled world. This further supports the notion that sport organisations should first
conduct an assessment of their social obligations. This will put sport organisations in a
stronger position to communicate and negotiate with corporations about the how, when
and where of their involvement in CSR programmes of these corporations.
The UN Inter-agency Task Force on Sport for Development and Peace was formed to
review 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 such
activities among governments and sport-related organisations as well as to encourage
the UN system to incorporate sport into its activities. Perhaps most importantly for the
deployment of CSR, the UN Task Force sought to promote the application of sport as a
tool of development policy. One of the Task Force recommendations proposed a focus
on 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 the
notion of partnerships fall outside the contemporary view of social responsibility as it
might apply to sport. In other words, neither the sponsorship of a sporting programme
nor 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 the
marriage? The stakeholder view would suggest that there are, given the ubiquity of both
sporting and corporate stakeholders. From a practical perspective, the corporate partner
offers 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 distributive
impact 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

JCC 25 Spring 2007 7

aaron c.t. smith and hans m. westerbeek

that, without the financial backing of corporate partners, the value of sport as a vehicle
for social responsibility is limited and the scope to improve this flow of resources to
sport is substantial. What are the features of corporate social responsibility that employs
sport 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 century
would bring more sport into the international media. Sport programmes offer great
scope for participation and inclusion, thereby enhancing social investments. This may
involve programmes that offer a cluster of different sports, perhaps modified specifi-
cally for junior participation. Alternatively, or in addition, the global reach of sport might
be invoked through the involvement of elite athletes or teams. The contribution of this
latter group in particular is largely contingent on the financial contributions provided
by the corporate partner. However, the involvement of elite athletes involves a high level
of 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 both
a 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 for
emulation. 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 responsible
sport programmes encourage the involvement of parents, peers, coaches and teachers,
focus on providing positive information rather than control over participants, involve a
minimum 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 it
improves 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 these
features 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 numerous
national 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;

8 JCC 25 Spring 2007

 sport as a vehicle for deploying corporate social responsibility

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 functional
way. Although perhaps overstated and with notable exceptions, sporting rivalry can be
a force for stability, democracy and peace. Case (2005) argued, for example, that places
for children to play in Afghanistan mean more than just slides and swings; they are in
fact a force and symbol for peace. This view has been propagated by the UN as well as
several of the largest international sporting bodies in the world, including the IOC and
FIFA. 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 as
with 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 (Smith
and 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 high
profile 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 interactive
ways (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 in
local 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. For
example, many programmes are designed to get participants more active. Mostly, how-
ever, these programmes are sponsored in the conventional way by companies keen to
take 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 For
Sick 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 of
upper primary and secondary school children, exemplify the CSR approach we have advo-
cated. Other examples include Sainsbury’s Active Kids programme for 20,000 school
children in the UK, DaimlerChrysler’s Laureus Sports for Good Foundation, and BP’s
Football for Peace programme in Central America. However, it is not the purview of this

JCC 25 Spring 2007 9

aaron c.t. smith and hans m. westerbeek

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 global
institutions in dealing with the social and ethical consequences of globalisation, and
pointedly highlighted what he perceived as a backlash against the Olympics movement.
He wrote: ‘Disillusionment with the Olympic Games mirrors the disenchantment with
the perceived values of globalisation, including winning at any price, commercial
exploitation by MNCs, intense national rivalry, cronyism, cheating and corruption and
the competitive advantage of advanced nations’ (Milton-Smith 2002: 131). Sport chan-
nels and creates meaning for its consumers; its contents and ideological positioning
remains a central concern of its consumers, a point adroitly made by James (1963) more
than 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 the
ideological 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 of
culture. For example, van Bottenburg (2003) analysed the performance of NFL Europe,
concluding that it is culturally insignificant despite the receptiveness of Europeans to
American popular culture in general. Sport, he speculated, could perhaps be more
robust 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 survey
across 24 nations, they determined that, despite the assumption that globalisation is
weakening national identification, national pride is alive and well. This was particularly
the 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 reinforces
the reach and diversity of impact that each hold in society. Although corporate social
responsibility has been thoroughly articulated, the social responsibilities implicit to
sport remain underdeveloped. This paper has attempted to make these responsibilities
more transparent as a first step toward considering the overlap with corporate social
responsibilities. Sport possesses the power to captivate and unite individuals within
communities and create environments for contributing to social capital. Equally, the cor-
porate world can mobilise much-needed resources to be deployed through sport to meet
its social responsibilities. When the two come together in the form of sport corporate
social responsibility, it can be pervasive, youth-friendly, health-oriented, socially inter-
active, environmentally aware, culturally liberating and fun. Corporate managers and
sport managers alike can enhance the economic prospects of their organisations and
maximise the social benefits that they deliver to society by better harnessing the power
of sport to deliver on social and community objectives.

10 JCC 25 Spring 2007

 sport as a vehicle for deploying corporate social responsibility

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.

JCC 25 Spring 2007 11

aaron c.t. smith and hans m. westerbeek

Rucci, A., S.P. Kim and R.T. Quinn (1998) ‘The Employee–Customer–Profit Chain at Sears’, Harvard
Business Review, January/February 1998: 84-97.
Sagawa, S., and E. Segal (2001) Common Interest Common Good: Creating Value through Business and Social
Sector Partnerships (Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press).
Schiebel, W., and S. Pochtrager (2003) ‘Corporate Ethics as a Factor for Success: The Measurement
Instrument 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 Organisational
Overview (<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 Issues
112: 137-54.
United Nations (2003) Sport for Development and Peace: Towards Achieving the Millennium Development
Goals. 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’, The
American Behavioral Scientist 46.11: 1,550-62.
Weiser, J., and S. Zadek (2000) Conversations with Disbelievers: Persuading Companies to Address Social
Challenges (New York: The Ford Foundation).
Welford, R. (2005) ‘Corporate Social Responsibility in Europe, North America and Asia: 2004 Survey
Results’, 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.

12 JCC 25 Spring 2007