ABSTRACT
NBA, this view can be problematic because it could negate any positive image effects garnered from the Read to Achieve, while at the same time preventing the NBA from improving the program to better serve its intended mission. Segueing to the larger industry context, it is easy to see that sports organizations serve a mixture of private and public interests. Private interests are maintained through sponsoring companies and organizations that associate themselves with various sport entities. Public interests represent the moral, ethical, and social concerns connected through a continuous and evolving process that is intimately tied to the sports organization’s self-interest, as any sport organization’s lifeblood is (for the most part) associated with the emotional bond with their fan base. As a result, the interests that many sports organizations serve derive from legitimate social and ethical claims on the organization by others. While a number of phenomena have been investigated within sport, the concept of corporate social responsibility (CSR) has risen to the forefront of the public-private interest debate. However, CSR scholarship is still in its infancy and measurement of the concept has remained stagnant due to the focus increasingly being placed on the reciprocal (i.e., strategic) benefits for the firm. This focus, unfortunately for society, stands in stark contrast to whether the goals of CSR actually yield socially beneficial returns, and not just create strategic value for the firm. This is a slippery slope that could be damaging for businesses if they fail to transparently acknowledge all the intents and purposes of CSR. For example, Walker et al. (2010) noted that the search for a strategic organizational advantage from CSR ultimately alienated consumers and negated any positive effects that might have resulted from CSR programming. Much of the research on CSR in sport has examined the manner in which consumers and organizational stakeholders perceive and react to so called “responsible” initiatives. On the surface, these studies show that the perception of CSR is indeed reality – as consumers tend to react to CSR often times with very low awareness levels of the actual social initiatives performed (Walker and Heere, 2011) (see Kwak and Cornwell, Chapter 21). Taking a step back from these findings, it is easy to see why the simple perception of CSR is more beneficial for businesses, over and above any potential benefit for society. In the modern sport industry, CSR has become an ever-present concept assuming a key role in most organizational planning. This reason behind this CSR push is twofold: (1) organizations have become increasingly aware of the strategic “payback” that CSR can provide; and (2) there has been a steady rise in consumer demand for CSR programs and socially and environmentally responsible products. The first point makes sense since these businesses are bottomline driven and showing profits that exceed expenses is what keeps them operational. The second point also makes sense since most organizations listen to the wants and needs of their consumers, who (by and large) agree that the companies they support should act ethically, produce less waste, and give back some of their profits to those who are less fortunate. In a perfect world, most sport businesses would heed these calls and use their status to impart positive social change. However, this has traditionally not been the case, and the marketing of CSR seems to supersede the reporting of how, or even if, the programs are working for the intended beneficiary. What the empirical data show is that the perception of CSR can benefit sport businesses in a number of ways. Tracing the chronology of scholarship in this area, Walker and Kent (2009) first found that CSR programming by two NFL teams resulted in purchase intentions and an elevated perceived reputation of the teams. Sartore-Baldwin and Walker (2011) demonstrated that the image of NASCAR was directly influenced by their perceived response to a lack of diversity in and around stock-car racing. Walker et al. (2010) examined the effects of perceived social responsibility performed by the International Olympic Committee (IOC) during the 2008 Beijing Olympic Games. The results confirmed that CSR was subject to the perceptions (i.e., attributions) of the IOC, which had a direct influence on several areas of consumption intentions. In addition, Kent and Walker (2010) demonstrated that perceived philanthropy performed by
the PGA tour significantly influenced both the reputation of and patronage intentions directed towards the PGA Tour. More recently, however, Walker and Heere (2011) showed that the relationship between what consumers know about CSR, coupled with their feelings about CSR, resulted in a significant, but very marginal effect, on actual consumer spending. This latter finding illustrates that although the sport consumer acknowledges that CSR might influence how they feel about the organization, this does not automatically translate to actual behavior. This gap between attitude and behavior signals a primary weakness in CSR-related survey research and perhaps a positive bias from respondents to agree with statements regarding CSR. Yet, the marginal variance explained on behavior by Walker and Heere (2011) might nonetheless indicate that CSR, despite the positive perceived connotations of consumers, still is an afterthought for the consumer when purchasing based on CSR attributes. While the aforementioned results show that CSR can be financially and perceptually beneficial for sport businesses (albeit to a marginal extent), they nevertheless help to beg the question – is CSR also beneficial for society? This chapter discusses the growing phenomenon of CSR being viewed as nothing more than a business strategy to increase profits, shape public perception, and grow a larger consumer (i.e., fan) base. We argue that the ubiquity of CSR reporting is all that has been required to render the practice meaningful in the prevailing discourse articulated in and around the market. And, that corporations believe the guise of CSR is enough to demonstrate legitimacy and business transparency beyond any tangible/actual impact on society or the beneficiaries of the practice. We propose that implementing evaluation methods to assess the effectiveness of CSR would ultimately yield more influential programmatic outcomes. These outcomes, coupled with awareness of social activities, could send a much stronger message to the consumer about the power of CSR, thereby increasing the effect of these efforts on actual consumer behavior.
