Content uploaded by Richard Wolfe
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Richard Wolfe on Jul 29, 2020
Content may be subject to copyright.
717
Journal of Sport Management, 2009, 23, 717-742
© 2009 Human Kinetics, Inc.
ReseaRch and Reviews
Determinants of Corporate Social
Responsibility in Professional Sport:
Internal and External Factors
Kathy Babiak
University of Michigan
Richard Wolfe
Brock University
Corporate social responsibility (CSR) has become an area of increasing importance
for many companies. Professional sport teams, also, are increasingly engaging in
socially responsible activities (Irwin, Lachowetz, Cornwell, & Clark, 2003; Kern,
2000; Robinson, 2005). The research described in this article identies, and deter-
mines the relative importance of, the drivers—both internal and external—of socially
responsible activities by professional sport teams. Using a qualitative approach, inter-
views were conducted with sport executives, and organizational documents were ana-
lyzed. The data showed that external drivers of CSR, in particular key constituents,
the interconnectedness of the eld, and pressures from the league were more impor-
tant determinants of CSR initiatives than the internal resources available to deliver
CSR efforts (i.e., attention, media access, celebrity players, coaches, facilities). Based
on these preliminary ndings, we propose a framework of CSR adoption in profes-
sional sport that predicts the types of CSR initiatives a sport organization is likely to
adopt depending on its internal and/or external orientation and present a research
agenda based on the framework.
Corporate social responsibility (CSR) has received considerable attention in
the academic literature as the role that CSR plays in business has grown. The
focus of academic research has been on identifying the link between nancial and
social performance (Margolis & Walsh, 2003). While the evidence of this relation-
ship remains unclear, it does point to a positive association. Rather than continu-
ing to focus on the nancial-social performance relationship, Margolis and Walsh
(2003) argued that researchers should shift their lenses and focus on the context,
processes, and outcomes of CSR. This article follows this call by exploring con-
textual forces, internal and external to the rm, that lead organizations to become
more socially responsible. Using an inductive research approach, we found Oli-
ver’s (1991) framework concerning organizational responses to institutional pres-
Babiak is with the School of Kinesiology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI 48109. Wolfe is with
the Dept. of Sport Management, Brock University, St. Catharines, Ontario L2S 3A1, Canada.
718 Babiak and Wolfe
sures and Barney’s (1991) resource-based perspective helpful in explaining the
factors that motivate professional sport organizations’ CSR efforts.
The purpose of this article is to explore and prioritize the forces that result in
professional sport organizations engaging in CSR activities. By doing so, we hope
to contribute to our understanding of the diffusion of this phenomenon such that
it will be well grounded for future research. In addition, we explore the relation-
ship among the determinants of CSR in sport and how they are related to the type
of CSR initiatives that are adopted. The article is organized as follows, we: (1)
present a brief overview of relevant aspects of the CSR literature; (2) highlight
some socially responsible initiatives undertaken by professional sport organiza-
tions; (3) address what is unique about the sport industry, as it relates to CSR; (4)
present preliminary research concerning the substantial diffusion of CSR in pro-
fessional sport; (5) propose a determinants of CSR adoption in professional sport
framework; and (6) present a research agenda that builds on the proposed frame-
work. Next, we provide an overview of relevant elements of the CSR literature.
CSR: Definitions, Motives, and Determinants
Organizational scholars have been theorizing about, and investigating, CSR for
over three decades (Carroll, 1979; Margolis & Walsh, 2003; McWilliams &
Siegel, 2000). The essential components of the phenomenon, as described in the
literature, have remained quite constant over time. Ullmann (1985) described
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” (p. 543). In a similar manner, other CSR denitions
address “societal relationships” (Wood, 1991, p. 693) and the “expectations that
society has of organizations” (Carroll, 1979, p. 500). CSR thus, “tends to focus on
the effects of organizations on external constituencies (e.g., consumers, local
communities, charitable organizations)” (Sethi & Steidlemeier, 1995, p. 20).
Others describe CSR as a set of actions aimed to further some social good,
beyond the explicit pecuniary interests of the rm, that are not required by law
(McWilliams & Siegel, 2000) and as “practices that improve the workplace and
benet society in ways that go above and beyond what companies are legally
required to do” (Vogel, 2005, p. 2). We nd Carroll’s (1979, 1999) framing of
CSR quite clear, inclusive, and helpful. Carroll argued that CSR is composed of
four elements: economic (the basic responsibility to make a prot 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).
It should be noted that numerous ‘socially responsible’ organizational activi-
ties have emerged that intend to benet both the organization and society. Cause-
related marketing and cause branding are two examples of these types of efforts.
“Categorized as sponsorships, cause-related marketing involves prot-motivated
giving and enables rms to contribute to nonprot organizations while also
increasing their bottom line by tying those contributions to sales” (Landreth Grau
& Garretson Folse, 2007). Cause-related marketing has been explored broadly in
the business literature (Cornwell & Maignan, 1998; Dean, 2003) and specically
Determinants of CSR 719
in sport (Irwin, Lachowetz, Cornwell, & Clark, 2003; Lachowetz & Gladden,
2002; Lachowetz & Irwin, 2002; Roy & Graeff, 2003).
In the past decade, efforts have been made to link CSR and more traditional
corporate objectives (Porter & Kramer, 2006). A related area of inquiry in the lit-
erature has been to explore whether CSR initiatives have been adopted as a strate-
gic response to external pressures (Hess, Rogovsky, & Dunfee, 2002; Hess &
Warren, 2004; Marquis, Glynn, & Davis, 2007). Belliveau, Cottrill, and O’Neill
(1994) proposed a model that predicts an organization’s social responsiveness
based on external factors such as institutional variables (e.g., CSR behavior in the
industry), economic variables (e.g., level of concentration, market share), and
managerial variables (e.g., innovation).
Such approaches broaden the focus of CSR from being solely altruistic to it
having dual—organizational and social—benets and capture a view that links
CSR and corporate nancial performance (Aguilera, Rupp, Williams, &
Ganapathi, 2007; Barnett, 2007; Waddock & Post, 1995). That is, it is suggested
that a rm can further its strategic interests while expending resources with noth-
ing apparent or obvious in return. Although the rm may not receive tangible,
explicit, or discrete exchange value, CSR activities can generate intangible strate-
gic assets such as reputational capital (Fombrun, Gardberg, & Barnett, 2000;
Lewis, 2003) and employee commitment (Turban & Greening, 1996; Vogel, 2005)
as well as acquiescence among key regulatory institutions or legislative bodies
(Campbell, 2007; Jenson, 2002; Vogel, 2005), the development of the rm’s busi-
ness and institutional environments (Porter & Kramer, 2002), and/or help mitigate
negative media scrutiny (Alsop, 2002).
The literature on CSR has increasingly indicated how external forces such as
customers (Lewis, 2003; Vogel, 2005; Yan, 2003), activist groups (Den Hond &
De Bakker, 2007), legislation (Dawkins & Lewis, 2003), and members of local
communities (Boehm, 2005) inuence the type and focus of CSR activity in
which an organization engages. Far fewer studies, however, have explored the
internal resources and competencies an organization brings to bear on their CSR-
related activities (Bruch & Walter (2005) and Porter & Kramer (2006) are notable
exceptions). Some researchers such as Joyner and Payne (2002) have explored
internal forces such as values and ethics as drivers of CSR behavior and high-
lighted the positive link between these areas and nancial performance. However,
no previous research has assessed the extent to which organizational resources
explain the diffusion of CSR.
CSR in the Sport Context
While as recently as 15 years ago, CSR did not play a signicant role in sport
(Kott, 2005; Robinson, 2005), professional sport organizations are now entering
into socially responsible initiatives at a rapid pace. Despite this increase, there has
been no empirical work examining the factors that motivate professional sport
organizations to become involved in socially responsible activities. This paper
addresses this gap in the literature.
Professional sport leagues (e.g., National Hockey League (NHL), National
Basketball Association (NBA)), corporations (e.g., Maple Leaf Sports and Enter-
720 Babiak and Wolfe
tainment, Palace Sport and Entertainment), teams (e.g., Toronto Maple Leafs,
Toronto Rock, Detroit Pistons, and Detroit Shock), and athletes (e.g., Curtis
Joseph, Chauncey Billups) are inuential agents in our society when considered
from both economic and cultural perspectives (Kern, 2000). Due to the impor-
tance of developing and maintaining good relations with the communities in
which they operate, the above mentioned entities often turn to community out-
reach activities to build good-will among salient stakeholders (e.g., local busi-
nesses, public policy makers, members of the community). These activities take a
multitude of forms, including programs where coaches and/or athletes contribute
time to particular causes and/or nancial donations to causes, often via the forma-
tion of charitable foundations (Irwin et al., 2003).
Virtually all organizations within the sport industry, broadly dened, have
adopted CSR programs. From Nike and Reebok to the NBA and NASCAR, exam-
ples abound of activities undertaken to bring messages and resources to under-
privileged and other members of society who may not otherwise be the targets of
socially responsible initiatives.
The types and focus of community outreach initiatives vary considerably.
Leagues have programs such as the NHL’s “Hockey Fights Cancer” wherein funds
are raised to support cancer research and “NHL Diversity” programs that provide
support for youth hockey organizations committed to offering economically dis-
advantaged boys and girls opportunities to play hockey. The NBA’s “Read to
Achieve” program is a community outreach initiative implemented by individual
teams to encourage youth to read, and its “Basketball Without Borders” initiative
involves a summer camp for young people designed to promote friendship, good-
will, and education through sport. Major League Baseball (MLB) and the Boys
and Girls Clubs of America have had a long term association. Leagues such as the
National Football League (NFL), MLB, and the NHL have also begun to address
environmental concerns. Thus programs to offset carbon emissions, as well as
recycling efforts during games and major events have been implemented (Babiak
& Wolfe, 2006; Major League Baseball Team Greening, 2008; National Hockey
League Green, 2008). Charitable giving has been at the core of how the PGA Tour
operates; in 2005 the PGA surpassed the $1 billion mark in charitable donations
and announced an ambitious goal of matching that total again within 10 years
(Professional Golf Association Tour, 2006).
An indication of the dramatic growth of CSR in professional sport is pre-
sented in Figure 1. Nearly all professional sport teams have established charitable
foundations over the past decade and a half. Since CSR activities are also often
provided without a team having a foundation, Figure 1 should be considered con-
servative both from a time of adoption perspective and a percent adoption
perspective.
Given the well established literature on CSR, is there a need to investigate
CSR in sport? In the next section, we highlight what we believe to be the unique
aspects of sport that merit exploration of CSR within this industry.
Is Sport Unique With Respect to CSR?
Having described the dramatic increase in CSR initiatives in professional sport,
we now address elements of the sport industry that we believe to be unique. With-
721
Figure 1 — Growth of professional sport team foundations.
722 Babiak and Wolfe
out unique features, one may argue that there is no need for research to examine
the determinants of CSR in professional sport, as they would not differ from those
in other industries. We suggest that the following four factors are quite different in
the realm of professional sport and are of particular relevance to CSR design,
implementation, and impact in sport: passion, economics, transparency, and
stakeholder management. Below, we discuss how CSR may affect or be affected
by these factors.
Passion. One differentiating attribute of the sport industry may have to do with
the passion and interest the product (the team, the game) generates among fans/
consumers (Cashman, 2004). Consider two “traditional” products for which con-
sumers are said to have considerable passion—Harley Davidson and “Old Coke.”
Can we imagine the type of passion one sees at a World Cup soccer game, or a
Yankees-Red Sox playoff game, exhibited by devotees of Harley Davidson or
Coke? We suggest not. More to the point, it is difcult to imagine such passion for
any “traditional” product (e.g., laundry detergent, toothpaste, shampoo). Given
the passion and interest that sport generates, we suggest that athletes promoting,
for example, healthful living, may generate a larger, more attentive audience than
would employees in other elds. In a parallel fashion, corporations not involved
in sport may want to partner with sport organizations in CSR efforts to “bask in
the reected glory” (cf. Cialdini, Borden, Thorne, Walker, Freeman, & Sloan,
1976) of sport teams. More generally, it has been suggested that the passion and
identication that sport teams generate can be benecial to communities as a
whole by encouraging and strengthening community integration (Lever, 1983;
Wakeeld & Wann, 2006; Wilkerson & Dodder, 1987).
Economics. There are some unique economic elements of the sport industry
that result in different expectations of sport than of other industries. Many per-
ceive sport leagues as being cartels, having close to monopoly power, with special
protections from the government via antitrust laws (Noll, 2003). Sport leagues
and teams often, also receive public funds for stadia and related infrastructure
(Swindell & Rosentraub, 1998). Such perceived and actual unique protections and
support from public coffers, may lead some stakeholders to have higher (or differ-
ent) perceptions of the role and responsibility of professional sport teams and
leagues to provide social benet and give back to the community (Swindell &
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 strat-
egies), as well as team outcomes (i.e., wins/losses), and contributions to good
causes is open knowledge (Armey, 2004). In addition, off the court/eld behavior
of a team’s employees (i.e., players) also, 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. For
instance, if an employee of a manufacturing rm engages in immoral or illegal
behavior, few will ever hear of it. On the other hand, if there is a parallel situation
Determinants of CSR 723
with an athlete or coach, it often leads to a media frenzy (e.g., Tank Johnson vio-
lating probation (Kider, 2007), Michael Vick’s involvement in dog ghting
(Schmidt & Battista, 2007), Pacman Jones’s off-eld issues (Saraceno, 2007)).
Sport organizations, thus, may engage in CSR activities as insurance against
negative reactions to such occurrences before the fact (Godfrey, 2005), or as an
effort to improve their image after the fact. The latter was the case with the NFL
when it worked with the American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Ani-
mals on public service announcements and programs to help educate players and
the public on treating animals properly after it was brought to light that one of the
NFL’s star players (Michael Vick) had engaged in dog ghting (Battista, 2007a).
Stakeholder Management. Success in the sport industry necessitates the abil-
ity to work within a complex set of stakeholder relationships; a team cannot oper-
ate without the cooperation of many organizations. We suggest that each of
passion, economics, and transparency addressed just above contribute to a com-
plex set of stakeholder relationships. Relations with stakeholders such as the me-
dia, players, various levels of government, sponsors, fans, and local communities,
can benet from CSR activities (Wallace, 2004).
Given the above unique elements of the professional sport industry, we
believe that examining the determinants of socially responsible activities by pro-
fessional sport teams is a worthy endeavor.
More specically from a research perspective, professional sport is a rich
context in which to study CSR because all organizations in the industry are
involved in such efforts. Some organizations believe that doing good is the right
thing to do (Mintzberg, 1984), and are involved in these initiatives for noble rea-
sons, such as those expressed by the President of the Detroit Lions: “The (Detroit)
Lions are not just a football team but a part of the community as well. We have a
unique opportunity and responsibility to help make a difference by being a good
corporate citizen” (Ford, Jr., 2003, para. 3). Some organizations, on the other
hand, believe that doing good is good business (Mintzberg, 1984), and are moti-
vated by pragmatic matters. Among the pragmatic reasons for CSR are, as alluded
to above, projecting a positive image, generating goodwill among various stake-
holders (e.g., employees, extant and potential customers, the local community
(Porter & Kramer, 2002)), countering negative media scrutiny, and/or receiving
tax breaks and subsidies from government bodies.
Porter and Kramer (2002) propose a bridge between the “right thing to do”
and “good business” rationales for CSR suggesting that:
corporations can use their charitable efforts to improve their competitive con-
text—the quality of the business environment in the . . . locations where they
operate. Using philanthropy to enhance context brings social and economic
goals into alignment and improves the company’s long term business pros-
pects (p. 6).
In what follows, we describe a preliminary, inductive study, in which we inves-
tigate the determinants of the substantial diffusion of CSR in professional sport.
724 Babiak and Wolfe
Method
Research Context
This study examined CSR in professional sport. In particular, we focused on four
professional teams in one midwestern American city. Teams included one each
from the NFL, MLB, NHL, and NBA. Each of these teams has extensive CSR
initiatives (as per their organizational documents and our interviews).
Study Participants
In our effort to understand the considerable diffusion of CSR in professional
sport, we conducted in-depth, exploratory, interviews with mid to high ranking
individuals working for major league sport teams (e.g., Vice Presidents, Commu-
nity Relations; a Chief Operating Ofcer; Executive Directors; Managers of
Public Relations. See Table 1 for a list of interviewees). The selection of inter-
viewees was based on their degree of familiarity and involvement with their orga-
nization’s CSR initiatives.
Table 1 Overview of Informants
Position/Department Type of Organization
COO NBA Team
VP—Community Relations NBA Team
VP—Community Relations NBA Team
Director—Community Relations NHL Team
VP—Community Relations NHL Team
VP—Community Relations MLB Team
Manager—Community Affairs MLB Team
VP—Community Relations NFL Team
Data Collection
The study incorporated two data gathering approaches: document analysis and
unstructured interviews.
Organizational documents from the four teams were reviewed. These
included: press releases; newsletters; web page descriptions; CSR mission/vision
statements; and annual reports. Documents were used to provide background
information, to substantiate and illustrate ndings, and to supplement information
Determinants of CSR 725
obtained from the interviews. In total, over 420 documents were collected and
reviewed. Of these, 45 (i.e., program descriptions, annual reports, newsletters, and
missions and goals of the organizations’ social responsibility efforts) were
included in the analysis because of their direct relevance. As will be described
below, these documents were coded and analyzed in the same manner as were the
interview transcripts.
The second data collection approach included unstructured interviews that
were conducted with eight sport executives. Each interview ranged from between
1–1.5 hr. All interviews were conducted by both authors. Respondents answered
questions pertaining to the rationale behind their organization’s involvement in
CSR. Each interview was open-ended, based on the seminal question of our
research: “Why is your organization involved in CSR?” We then further ques-
tioned the interviewees concerning the types of social responsibility expectations
their organization faced, which stakeholders placed these expectations on them,
and who made decisions regarding the nature and focus of their CSR-related
efforts. Participants were encouraged to discuss the benets, challenges, and bar-
riers that they perceived regarding their organization’s CSR efforts. Probes
requesting clarication and/or examples, based on the interviewees’ responses,
followed. The interviews allowed for an in-depth understanding of the partici-
pants’ perspectives concerning their organization’s involvement in CSR. The
interviews were audiotaped, transcribed verbatim, and reviewed by the authors, a
research assistant, and in most cases the participants themselves for accuracy and
clarity.
Data Analysis
All relevant organizational document passages and interview transcripts were
manually coded. Initial coding was conducted by a research assistant who worked
on the research team, with codes derived from the CSR literature. Recurring cat-
egories identifying the determinants to CSR were identied. The codes and cate-
gories were then reviewed, conrmed, and if necessary revised by the authors. All
textual data were then analyzed once again with the revised codes. Any questions
or issues regarding coding were discussed, debated, and agreed upon by all mem-
bers of the team during research meetings. During the analysis process, the cate-
gories that emerged represented two perspectives that were found to be particu-
larly relevant. The rst was that a number of external pressures were determinants
of these organizations’ involvement in CSR. Reviewing the literature again, we
felt that a framework proposed by Oliver (1991) was relevant to this aspect of our
data. Second, the importance of unique sport-related resources to the teams’ CSR
efforts was identied as a key driver of these programs. Consistent with this per-
spective, we adopted the resource-based view (Barney, 1991) to identify these
internal organizational drivers. A nal code book including codes for each of Oli-
ver’s external pressures and each of Barney’s internal resource criteria was cre-
ated. The interview transcripts and documents were then reanalyzed with the
updated codes by the research team and then a nal review by the team for consis-
tency and accuracy was conducted.
726 Babiak and Wolfe
Results
Our basic question—“Why is your organization involved in CSR?”—along with
follow-up probes, facilitated the development of an understanding of the adoption
of CSR initiatives in professional sport. The responses to the questions and probes
tended to t into one of two categories of determinants: one related to external
pressures and one related to internal resources. We discuss these two sets of deter-
minants in turn.
Table 2 presents our results organized by major determinant type–external
pressure and internal resource, and their subcategories, or themes. It also provides
data on the frequency of mention of each subcategory. Below, as we discuss each
theme, we present representative quotations from both the interviews and docu-
ment sources.
Table 2 Determinants of the Adoption of CSR in Professional
Sport: Themes and Frequencies
Theme Examples Frequency * Percentage **
External Pressures
Context Board of Directors 171 100%
Peer Contact
Inside league
League Ofce
Outside league,
same community
Outside league,
different com-
munity
Sponsorship
Team sponsor
Community out-
reach sponsor
Media
Competition
Content Mission Statement 156 100%
Goodwill
Counter negative
media
Structure
Bottom line
Free publilcity
Constituents Athletes 135 100%
Wives
727
Theme Examples Frequency * Percentage **
External Pressures
Alumni
Booster clubs
Team management
employees
Local community
Municipal govern-
ments
League
Owners
Corporate Sponsor
Control League-mandated 60 100%
Best practices
Inside League
Outside league,
same community
Outside league,
different com-
munity
Cause Be a good corpo-
rate citizen 47 87.5%
Expectations of
professional sport -
since they get tax
breaks
since they get help
with stadiums
Internal Resources
a. Rare Passion 28 37.5%
Admiration
b. Valuable Athletes 22 25%
Coaches
Team partners
c. Inimitable Other industries
cannot duplicate
same resources
18 25%
* Frequency of times category/theme appears in data = # of total quotations/document passages
** % of interviewees represented in category/theme = % of interview respondents who mentioned a
particular theme
728 Babiak and Wolfe
The Determinants of CSR in Professional Sport: External
Pressures
Given the nature of the responses to our question regarding factors driving CSR in
professional sport, we nd Oliver’s (1991) framework identifying strategic
responses to institutional pressures very informative. Oliver argued that a rm’s
responses to environmental forces depend on the nature of the pressures that she
characterized as: Cause, Constituents, Control, Context, and Content. Each of
these forces and their relevance in professional sport are described in more detail
below.
Context.
The interconnectedness of the organizational eld has an impact on
best practices adoption and diffusion (Oliver, 1991). The stronger the relation-
ships and dependencies a rm has with those in its eld, the more likely best
practices and shared understandings will be transferred among rms (Hess &
Warren, 2004). This factor had the highest frequency of mentions (171) in the
data of all the external pressures leading a team to address social responsibility
(see Table 2). Interviewees suggested that interconnectedness among organiza-
tions in the professional sport organizational eld (e.g., teams, municipal and
state governments, the media, advertisers, sponsors) is very strong, thus con-
tributing to the increasing emphasis on community outreach efforts. For in-
stance, a professional sport team relies heavily on partnerships with corporate
sponsors, media, and local and state governments, and in particular, the league
governing body. One respondent suggested that the growth and dissemination
of information from the league were an important force in the motivation to
engage in CSR, as well as in similarity of efforts: “The NHL has meetings every
year that get all the community relations people together and we share ideas.”
Furthermore, trends, as highlighted earlier (Figure 1), suggest that professional
sport teams in the various leagues are entering into CSR at a relatively similar
rate, over essentially the same time frame. Our data indicated that, consistent
with Oliver, awareness of best practices (of other professional sport teams and
of companies outside of professional sport) was an important force behind the
growth of professional sport teams’ CSR. A respondent suggested that teams
within, as well as those outside, a league are important forces leading a team to
engage in CSR: “I am in contact with my colleagues at the other teams on a
regular basis regarding what we do in our community efforts. . . . We’re com-
petitors, but we don’t really see ourselves that way.” This respondent suggested
that there is a connection among teams in the adoption and diffusion of CSR.
Finally several respondents indicated that corporate sponsors are not only fre-
quently involved in CSR efforts themselves, but are increasingly incorporating
community outreach efforts as part of their sponsorship packages with profes-
sional sport teams, for example:
Pepsi is a big sponsor of our team and as part of that relationship, they ask us
to channel some of their corporate dollars for marketing and set aside a cer-
tain amount for charity and community outreach. Some of those sponsorship
dollars therefore, will go into our educational academy.
Determinants of CSR 729
Content.
A rm’s responsiveness to constituent demands depends on whether
those demands are consistent with organizational goals. This pressure described by
Oliver is consistent with the above discussion concerning achieving both organiza-
tional and social benets. The content theme emerged 156 times, suggesting that
executives in professional sport organizations think about whether their CSR ef-
forts have the potential to impact other organizational outcomes. Some interview-
ees suggested that being ‘good citizens’ helped, for instance in attracting and
securing sponsors: “If we do our job (community outreach) well, that helps other
areas of the company, especially from a sponsorship standpoint.” And other respon-
dents made the link between selling tickets and being socially responsible: “We
have to tie in [team] aspirations with what we do in the community; therefore, a
[community] program must have a ticket function; . . . a balance - getting people to
the park and helping people in our community.” Other interviewees discussed the
public relations function that CSR can serve, enhancing the image and brand of a
team in a community: “We help promote (the team) in our own ways … through our
charities and our community outreach.” More specically a team executive stated
that “We utilize marketing, public relations, event planning and combine it with our
philanthropic aims. The end result is we want to help as many people as possible—
and even if just a little bit—to rise above their circumstances.” And nally, we feel
it is relevant to highlight the tensions respondents indicated regarding proling a
team’s good deeds in the community, but that this function is increasingly serving
as a means to send a message to key stakeholders that the team is committed to the
community. One interviewee spoke specically about this challenge. “We are in a
very competitive business and this has inuenced the evolution of our community
outreach efforts. Being good community citizens may be a critical edge for us.”
Constituents.
Consistent with resource dependence theory, a rm’s reliance on a
constituent is expected to be a predictor of the rm’s responsiveness to that constitu-
ent’s demands (Oliver, 1991). More directly related to CSR, Barnett (2007) linked
the ability of a rm to improve stakeholder relationships through CSR, and, in turn,
have a positive effect on nancial performance. In the professional sport world, a
number of key constituents (e.g., employees, players, sponsors, the local commu-
nity, spectators/fans) could be important drivers of community outreach efforts. In
our investigation, we found these forces at play. This factor had the third highest
frequency of appearances in the data (135) and was mentioned by all respondents,
suggesting that an organization’s constituents are an important factor in determining
the adoption and focus of sport organizations’ CSR activities. Interviewees indi-
cated that often it is team players who initiate socially responsible projects: “We
have players who want to give back to the community . . . it is often them coming up
to us and saying, ‘How can I give back?” Many CSR programs were initiated by
other organizations in community; these organizations not only initiated the CSR
activity, but the area of focus as well: “At rst, we worked with the City Council
Foundation; their concerns . . . focused on education, health, social services, and
youth”. One team responded to a need in the community for breast health awareness,
indicating their involvement in a Breast Health Awareness program was important
given that [its city] had the highest mortality rate in the country for breast cancer. In
this case, it was a specic underserved population that motivated a CSR initiative.
730 Babiak and Wolfe
Control. Institutional pressures resulting from legal requirements and regula-
tion are one type of control mentioned by Oliver (1991). In this study, control
came from external regulatory bodies of each of the professional sport teams, i.e.,
the leagues. Many of our respondents indicated that programs were imposed by
league headquarters. Sport teams do not face legal requirements to engage in com-
munity outreach efforts, but such initiatives may be an effective way to stave off
regulation in other areas. There have been governmental pressures on professional
sport, most often related to the use of banned performance enhancing substances
and to antitrust legislation exemptions. When the threat of regulation exists, rms
are more responsive to social needs.
A second type of control discussed by Oliver (1991) is the diffusion of a
practice throughout a rm’s institutional eld; as more rms adopt social pro-
grams, their validity becomes established and their use unquestioned. As pre-
sented in Figure 1 and suggested in the discussion of context above, CSR has
diffused dramatically across sport’s institutional eld over recent years. We
believe, therefore that the adoption of CSR efforts in professional sport has been
motivated by both of Oliver’s “control” forces. Many of our respondents indi-
cated that programs were imposed by league headquarters. For instance: “Read
to Achieve is, as you know, an NBA program that’s implemented through com-
munity relations departments” and “In terms of the Read to Achieve, that’s an
NBA event. So, that’s not even a choice.” However, while each team is required
to implement a league mandated community initiative, there is considerable
variation in the extent of resources committed to these programs. Some teams
indicated that they are heavily invested in the league-mandated programs, while
others stated that the league initiatives are not the primary focus of their CSR
efforts.
Interview and document passages that were coded in the control theme
received 60 mentions, second to least, however all respondents mentioned it. Per-
haps our respondents did not mention control as an external CSR force frequently
due to their perceptions of league-imposed programs as being less of the team’s
program.
Cause. This nal external attribute is related to the “rationale, set of expecta-
tions, or intended objectives that underlie external pressures” (Oliver, 1991, p.
161). This response to societal expectations has direct ties to Carroll’s (1979,
1999) CSR framework. He suggested that ethical CSR is consistent with societal
expectations. Community advocates of corporate social initiatives argue that due
to their abundance of resources, corporations should help solve social problems.
Sport teams have unique human resources that can be very inuential as well as
considerable nancial and physical (facility) resources. In addition, because of
support from the community (e.g., tax breaks and subsidies from government to
build/refurbish stadia, build access roads), some argue that sport organizations,
perhaps more so than other corporations, have an obligation to give back to soci-
ety (Dunfee, 2004; Hess, et al., 2002).
The following quotations are representative of interviewee comments regard-
ing the “expectations . . . that underlie external pressures” (Oliver, 1991, p. 161).
“There are probably a half a dozen reasons why this organization does it . . . but
Determinants of CSR 731
part of it is . . . we are supposed to”; and “Society believes we should be involved
. . . since sport leagues are [perceived to be] monopolies and the owners billion-
aires, and the athletes can have an impact on kids” (emphasis added). The unique
position professional sport holds in our society results in expectations of these
organizations that may be different than those placed on companies in other indus-
tries. For instance, the great wealth of the owners and athletes may lead people to
expect more benevolence from them and the teams that employ them. However, in
terms of frequency of mentions, this factor had the least of the ve external fac-
tors—47. Perhaps this is because “cause” is the set of expectations that underlie
external pressures (Oliver, 1991, p. 161), while certainly relevant to CSR of pro-
fessional sport teams, it is subsumed by the other external pressures.
Having considered external pressures for professional sport’s involvement in
CSR, we next examine the resources professional sport teams have that may lead
to their being well positioned to be involved in CSR and, thus, to CSR’s consider-
able diffusion in professional sport.
The Determinants of CSR in Professional Sport: Internal
Resources
As indicated earlier, the themes from the data tended to t into one of two catego-
ries of determinants: one related to external pressures and one to internal resources.
We discuss the latter here. We nd that the resource-based view of the rm
(Barney, 1991; Barney, Wright, & Ketchen, 2001) is helpful in appreciating the
dramatic diffusion of CSR among professional sport teams. In adopting this theo-
retical perspective, one considers whether relevant resources of professional sport
teams are valuable, rare, and inimitable and thus, professional sport has denite
advantages in implementing CSR programs and in their impact within the com-
munity. Of most relevance here is whether, and the extent to which, our respon-
dents framed the rationale for adopting CSR as being related to internal resources.
Below, we outline the three elements of the resource-based view (Barney, 1991),
each of which is consistent with interviewee responses regarding factors motivat-
ing a professional sport organization’s CSR efforts.
Valuable. Resources that contribute to a competitive advantage are valuable in
the sense of enabling an organization to uniquely exploit opportunities. Given the
feelings of identity, admiration and, not infrequently, passion, that many individu-
als have for athletes and teams, the latter have opportunities to inuence (a) indi-
viduals concerning positive behavior changes and (b) other corporations
concerning alliances and/or nancial contributions to social causes. In a consis-
tent manner, Kott (2005) argues that:
If Americans pay attention to nothing else, they pay attention to their favorite
teams and players . . . This celebrity inuence is invaluable to team founda-
tions . . . which capitalize on their cachet to raise public awareness of pressing
social and health issues and to rally support for programs that address them.
When a . . . player goes out and talks to kids about the importance of reading,
they hear that message. (p. 22)
732 Babiak and Wolfe
Professional sport teams and leagues have other valuable resources at their
disposal that can enhance CSR efforts. Valuable resources that a professional
sport organization possesses, in addition to the identication, admiration, and pas-
sion it engenders, include: tickets; signage; facilities (stadia, arenas); events;
access to media, suite holders, vendors, sponsors; and the professional staff of the
team (e.g., lawyers, trainers, accountants, owners; Johnson, 2007). One respon-
dent highlighted the impact athletes can have: “Athletes have a way of touching
kids in a way that you professors don’t. Kids in the city are looking up to Rip
Hamilton and they aren’t looking up to you guys [professors].”
The unique value sport teams’ resources in the area of CSR was explained by
an interviewee in the following manner:
We try to build long term relationships with the causes we support. . . . An
example is the Police Athletic League which is dependent upon us to help run
their football league. . . . Without the [NFL team’s] involvement nancially
and in providing (a stadium) for their championships, that would take a big
chunk of money that they do not have, and we feel that would be a disservice
to the kids. No other organization can give them what we can.
Rare. The valuable resources of professional sport teams described just above
are exceedingly rare, as suggested by one interviewee. “A lot of what we do re-
volves around our unique resources: our stadium, our players, and our front ofce
staff. Things that no other organization has.” Media access of sport teams, and
interest in sport teams by the public and in turn, the media, are also rare. As stated
by a respondent: “We generate a lot of the media focus on our community efforts
ourselves, with our own TV show, and occasionally we will get that nice article or
that nice feature in the paper.”
Inimitable. Identity, admiration, and passion are imperfectly imitable. Organi-
zations not in the sport industry cannot duplicate or develop substitutes for these
resources. Other organizations do not have employees with which the public iden-
ties as they do with professional athletes and coaches. Even team owners have
personas that are identied as being a unique resource for professional sport
teams. The power of their name to make a difference was raised by several of our
respondents. For instance, one respondent highlighted the power of the owners
and their reputation to help in the area of CSR. “Who owns us? The Fords! It
doesn’t take a rocket scientist to gure that one out, so it has worked well because
they are very philanthropic and they open a lot of doors for us.”
In sum, as argued above, the resource-based view of the rm is helpful in
explaining the diffusion of CSR among professional sport teams, as the teams
have relevant valuable, rare, and inimitable resources. Referring specically to
our data, we see that professional sport teams have resources (“our stadium, our
players, our front ofce staff”) that are very valuable (“things . . . that can really
have an effect”; “athletes have a way of touching kids . . . kids in the city are look-
ing up to [them]”) and are very rare and inimitable (“things that nobody else has
in the world”).
Results presented in Table 2 show that internal resources were not mentioned
as often as external pressures as determinants of CSR adoption in our data. Deter-
Determinants of CSR 733
mining why this may be the case goes beyond the parameters of this paper. How-
ever, we suggest that this could be due to professional sport executives being quite
sensitive to their external environment given the unique nature of their industry.
Recall our discussion of passion, transparency, public policy/economic arrange-
ments, and complex stakeholder relationships addressed earlier. Each of these
unique aspects of the industry is related to environmental factors. In addition, it
may be that sport executives have yet to appreciate the unique nature of their
resources—and how these can contribute to sport teams having unique advantages
in providing CSR activities.
Determinants of the Adoption of Corporate Social
Responsibility in Professional Sport: A Proposed
Framework
Our preliminary ndings concerning the determinants of CSR adoption in profes-
sional sport, and their support in the strategic management literature (i.e., Barney,
1991; Oliver, 1991) clearly indicate external and internal determinants of CSR.
Recent work in the management literature on CSR argues for a more closely
aligned t between a company’s core strategy and its CSR efforts (Bruch &
Walter, 2005; Porter & Kramer, 2006). These authors contended that it is appro-
priate for CSR activities to contribute to an organization’s bottom line and, fur-
ther, that efforts that contribute to societal beneciaries and enhance business
performance will be more sustainable and add more value for both society and the
corporation. Thus, “doing good” can, indeed, be good for business. Consistent
with our ndings, Bruch and Walter (2005) suggested that strategic-CSR efforts
fall along two dimensions: an external, market, orientation and an internal, com-
petence, orientation. The market orientation is focused on developing stronger ties
with key stakeholders to meet their demands. “Trying to live up to the expecta-
tions of important stakeholders, . . . to achieve competitive advantages such as
improved marketing and selling capabilities, higher attractiveness as an employer
or better relationships with governmental and nongovernmental organizations”
(Bruch & Walter, 2005, p. 50). The second dimension—competence—focuses on
aligning CSR with an organization’s resources and core competencies that, the
authors argued, enhances the efciency of CSR activities.
Also consistent with our ndings, Porter and Kramer (2006) suggested that
there are two dimensions—one internal and one external—that should be consid-
ered in creating effective, enduring, CSR. “Strategic CSR involves both inside-out
and outside-in dimensions working in tandem. It is here that the opportunities for
shared value truly lie” (Porter & Kramer, 2006, p. 10). Porter and Kramer (2006)
argued that when a business applies its resources, expertise, and management
talent to societal problems in which it has a stake, it can have a great impact on
social good.
Our results, and proposed framework, thus, indicate that the determinants of
CSR in professional sport are consistent with Bruch and Walter (2005) and Porter
and Kramer (2006). Based on the convergence of our ndings and the above
recent work in the management literature concerning the internal and external
determinants of CSR, we propose a framework of CSR in professional sport. Our
734 Babiak and Wolfe
proposed framework incorporates both an external, stakeholder, perspective and
an internal, resource, perspective. Our investigation specied particular external
forces that lead sport organizations to engage in CSR (i.e., context, content, con-
stituents, control, and cause (Oliver, 1991)) as well as the attributes of internal
resources (Barney, 1991) that contribute to sport organizations’ CSR advantages
(i.e., value, rareness, inimitability). In addition, our framework suggests that the
nature of professional sport organizations’ CSR efforts depends upon an organiza-
tion’s focus on external, social issues and/or on its internal resources. We address
this next.
Depending on the emphasis an organization places on external factors (soci-
etal issues; stakeholder concerns), or on its resources, we argue that particular
types of CSR initiatives will be adopted (see Figure 2). When external pressures
are the essential determinants of a sport organization adopting CSR, it is classied
as practicing stakeholder-centric CSR. Such initiatives are certainly ethically
appropriate as the organization meets societal needs. However, such initiatives
usually cannot be sustained in the long run as they are not based on the organiza-
tion’s core competencies (Bruch & Walter, 2005).
A number of the CSR programs of the sport organizations included in our
study fell within the stakeholder-centric CSR cell, including Read-To-Achieve.
The NBA’s Read to Achieve campaign is a year-round national program
designed to help young people develop a life-long love for reading and on-line
literacy, as well as encourage adults to read and talk regularly with children.
Reaching an estimated 50 million children a year, Read to Achieve is the most
extensive educational outreach initiative in the history of professional sports. The
effort includes the annual donation of more than 200,000 books and the creation
Figure 2 — Determinants of the adoption of corporate social responsibility in professional
sport: A proposed framework.
Determinants of CSR 735
of Reading and Learning Centers in schools and community-based organizations
throughout the country. (NBA, 2008)
Although this program is well established and implemented by each NBA
team, the resources and core competencies of the teams are not aligned with the
educational nature of the program. While the celebrity association of players and
teams may be a resource used to encourage reading, the core competencies of the
teams are not related to reading or education. Thus Read To Achieve is classied
as stakeholder-centric.
An organization with a high internal resource orientation and a low external
orientation is classied as practicing corporate-centric CSR. Teams adopting such
an orientation emphasize synergies between their core business activities and
CSR. This approach, however, largely neglects societal needs. Since this type of
CSR does not address a company’s key stakeholders, it lacks a strategic orienta-
tion and its impact on a team’s competitive position tends to be limited (Bruch &
Walter, 2005).
An example of a corporate-centric initiative includes the Punt, Pass, and Kick
program, that gives boys and girls the opportunity to show their skills in NFL
stadiums and supports the development of young athletes. The Punt, Pass, and
Kick program is part of a larger league-mandated effort focusing on youth. “NFL
Youth Football has an essential presence in all 32 NFL markets and beyond. NFL
Youth Football programs help participants enjoy the NFL experience every time
they step on a eld” (National Football League Youth Football, 2008). The corpo-
rate benet of this CSR program, thus, is to develop future generations of football
fans by generating interest in the game of football.
A sport team with high external and internal orientations in its CSR efforts is
classied as practicing strategic-CSR. These teams align their CSR efforts with
their core competencies using the organization’s unique abilities to benet soci-
ety, thus enabling the team to fully realize the potential of CSR both for its bene-
ciaries and for the team (Bruch & Walter, 2005). We suggest that strategic-CSR is
the optimal CSR approach, one that best leverages the resources that are available
within the organization while addressing societal needs.
We believe that the “Fit Kids, Healthy Future” program of the NBA team in
our study represents a strategic-CSR initiative. This program uses resources such
as coaches, athletes, the team’s mascot, corporate sponsors, nonprot partners,
tickets and in-stadia signage to address community needs in the area of youth t-
ness and health that falls in line with both the competencies and resources the team
has and focuses on a particularly pressing social problem in the local community.1
Proposed Research Agenda
We hope that the research ndings and preliminary framework presented in this
paper will facilitate further investigations into this area so that a more complete
picture of the sport industry’s CSR efforts will be developed. To that end, we
identify some areas for further research below.
The directions we propose are consistent with the suggestion of Margolis and
Walsh (2003) and Walsh (2003), that the CSR research agenda move away from
the much studied relationship between CSR and nancial outcomes to addressing
(a) the external pressures to engage in CSR that organizations face and (b) how the
736 Babiak and Wolfe
internal resources of organizations are used in CSR initiatives. Before getting to
questions generated by our model, however, we address a more general research
issue.
Given that there has been very little empirical research done on CSR in pro-
fessional sport, we believe that it is important to establish a baseline of such
efforts. As a starting point, such research would include gathering data on what
CSR programs have been initiated by each team in each of the four major leagues.
CSR initiatives could be classied by the type of social issue (e.g., environment,
health, education, risk-prone behavior) and demographic group (e.g., minority,
elderly, youth, inner city) that is addressed. Gathering such data on an annual
basis, and relating them to relevant macro (e.g., economic), organizational (e.g.,
team success “on the eld”), and individual (e.g., player misconduct; change in
ownership) variables will shed some light on what the drivers of CSR adoption
and maintenance are. Such an initiative is consistent with Godfrey and Hatch’s
(2007) suggestion that CSR research use single industry data sets and incorporate
longitudinal research.
Returning to the framework presented above—a number of propositions
emerge from it; as examples:
1. Given that corporate-centric CSR initiatives emphasize corporate
competencies but tend to neglect societal needs, the impact of this type of
CSR on society will be limited.
2. Given that stakeholder-centric CSR initiatives focus on societal needs, but not
on the organization’s core competencies, such initiatives will not serve external
constituents as well as initiatives of organizations that have capabilities more
directly related to the societal issue being addressed. Furthermore, given that
these efforts are not based on organizational capabilities, they will not be
sustained over a long period of time.
3. Given that strategic-CSR initiatives leverage a company’s core competencies
and take societal needs into account, these CSR initiatives have optimum
benets for their beneciaries and for the company.
Investigating such propositions will, by no means, be without challenge. In
considering such research, one must rst consider the unit of analysis. The appro-
priate unit would be the CSR initiative, as opposed to the sport organization—as
one organization can have CSR initiatives in more than one cell. For example,
while an NBA team’s Read To Achieve program may be in the stakeholder-centric
cell, a team’s basketball development initiative may be in the corporate-centric
cell. Another important consideration is deciding which cell is most appropriate
for a particular CSR initiative. Such determination would be dependent upon
answering the following questions: is an initiative consistent with a team’s com-
petencies and/or external, societal, needs? Answers to such questions will, neces-
sarily, be subjective. We suggest that an initial approach to get at this would be to
determine where the organizations initiating CSR programs perceive their pro-
grams to best t into the framework. A preliminary approach, thus, will be to
interview team executives, community relations employees, and team foundation
directors to determine their perspectives concerning where their programs t in
the framework. A related focus for exploration would be to assess the multiple
Determinants of CSR 737
CSR-related efforts of a team by plotting them on the proposed model to get an
overall sense of the emphasis of the team’s initiatives.
Another direction for future research would be further investigation of the
frequency results of this study. As implied above, it may be that “cause” was the
least frequently mentioned of the ve external determinants because it represents
the expectations that underlie the other external pressures and, therefore, may be
subsumed by those other pressures. It was also suggested that internal resources
were not mentioned as often as external pressures due to professional sport execu-
tives being very sensitive to their external environment given the unique, stake-
holder-dependent, nature of their industry and due to sport executives not yet
appreciating the unique nature of their resources—resources that can contribute to
unique advantages in providing CSR activities. Given the inductive nature of this
study, interviewees were not explicitly asked about any of the external or internal
determinants that emerged in the study. To get a more accurate sense of the rela-
tive importance of these determinants, closed-ended questions that specify deter-
minants would need to be asked.
A further, future, direction in which to embark would be to address intended
CSR outcomes; i.e., to what extent do programs have the intended inuence? As
examples, how much has the reading of students attending Read To Achieve ses-
sions improved?; to what extent does the NFL’s Volunteer Playbook increase vol-
unteerism? Other outcome variables could be organizational in nature including,
as examples, the extent CSR programs inuence corporate reputation and fan
loyalty.
Conclusion
In this article, we have presented the results of a preliminary investigation into the
determinants of professional sport teams’ CSR efforts. We found that the primary
drivers of CSR in these organizations were external pressures (context, content,
constituents, control, and cause) on the organization as well as internal resources
that are rare, valuable, and inimitable. We proposed a framework that concurrently
considers external pressures and internal resources to explain the adoption and
focus of professional sport organizations’ CSR initiatives. We hope that our dis-
cussion of CSR in professional sport, and more specically the framework we
propose, will provide a basis for, and motivate, investigation of the types of ques-
tions we present above.
Given that research of CSR in sport is in its infancy, we thought it important
to bound the territory we addressed in this paper. We thus limited our work in
two ways. First, our article addresses CSR in professional sport. We believe,
however, that the essence of our ndings (i.e., the internal and external determi-
nants of CSR) are relevant to other areas of sport—e.g., mega sport events (e.g.,
Olympic Games, FIFA’s World Cup, Super Bowl), intercollegiate athletics, and
other professional sport entities such as the PGA, and NASCAR, each of which
engage in some form of CSR. The extent to which our proposed framework is
generalizable to these other areas remains an empirical question to be addressed
in future work.
738 Babiak and Wolfe
This work has also been bounded by addressing only one aspect—the
“saintly” aspect of CSR in professional sport. Others have addressed CSR “saints
and sinners” within a corporate context (Wokutch & Spencer 1987) as well as
within the context of sport (Gladden & Wolfe, 2001). Unfortunately there are
ample examples of “sinning” behavior in professional sport (very recently we
have had examples of sinning behaviors by professional players (e.g., Michael
Vick (Schmidt & Battista, 2007)), coaches (e.g., Bill Belichick (Battista, 2007b))
and referees (e.g., Tim Donaghy (McCarthy, 2007)). Future work should consider
such negative elements of CSR — and how they may inuence “saintly” behavior,
that may be instituted to counter it.
Of particular relevance to this study and to others examining the motives
and drivers of CSR is a particular challenge in doing such research. It is dif-
cult to study the antecedents of CSR as external stakeholders view CSR more
favorably if it is divorced from any discussion of the bottom line. Managers,
thus, may not reveal more instrumental motivations of their CSR activities.
This makes it difcult to determine the “in use” motivations for CSR (Rodri-
guez, Siegel, Hillman, & Eden, 2006, p. 740). We recognize this challenge. We
make no effort, however, to deconstruct the input of our interviewees here —
as that is considerably beyond the scope of this study. We do, however, recog-
nize that what we report are the “espoused” determinants of CSR adoption in
the organizations we studied. Future research, such as that that we describe
above (i.e., to relate CSR initiatives to relevant macro (e.g., economic), organi-
zational (e.g., team success), and individual (e.g., player misconduct; change
in ownership) variables), has the potential to uncover what “in use” CSR moti-
vations are.
Given the emphasis on social responsibility in other industries as well as its
dramatic growth over the past two decades within sport, we are condent that this
will remain an important issue facing professional sport organizations for years to
come. Our preliminary investigation into this area has shown that varied forces
external to the organization, such as constituents, the initiatives of other organiza-
tions, and more broadly, the perceived expectations of society, play important
roles in the adoption of CSR by professional sport teams. From an internal per-
spective, resources also play an important role in determining the adoption of
CSR. The framework we propose incorporates these two perspectives, can serve
as the basis of future examination of social initiatives in professional sport, and
may prove of pragmatic value by highlighting an area not currently at the fore-
front of thought on the part of managers in professional sport — the extent to
which their organizations incorporate resources that can contribute in a unique
manner to addressing societal issues.
Note
1. We cannot envision there being a CSR program without either external or internal
forces; we therefore, do not discuss the “AdHoc CSR” cell in Figure 2.
Determinants of CSR 739
References
Aguilera, R.V., Rupp, D.E., Williams, C.A., & Ganapathi, J. (2007). Putting the S back in
corporate social responsibility: A multilevel theory of social change in organizations.
Academy of Management Review, 32, 836–863.
Alsop, R. (2002, January 16). Perils of corporate philanthropy. Wall Street Journal, 1–2.
Armey, C. (2004). Inside and outside: Corporate America vs. the sports industry. In M.
Falls (Ed.), Inside the Minds: The Business of Sports (pp. 65-80). Boston: Aspatore,
Inc: Babiak, K., & Wolfe, R. (2006). More than just a game? Corporate social respon-
sibility and Super Bowl XL. Sport Marketing Quarterly, 15, 214-224.
Barnett, M.L. (2007). Stakeholder inuence capacity and the variability of nancial returns
to corporate social responsibility. Academy of Management Review, 32, 794–816.
Barney, J. (1991). Firm resources and sustained competitive advantage. Journal of Man-
agement, 17, 99–120.
Barney, J., Wright, M., & Ketchen, D.J. (2001). The resource-based view of the rm: Ten
years after 1991. Journal of Management, 27, 625–641.
Battista, J. (2007a, July 21). N.F.L. faces protests and pressure over Vick. The New York
Times, p. D4.
Battista, J. (2007b, September 12). Belichick apologizes, but does not explain. The New
York Times, p. D1.
Beliveau, B., Cottrill, M., & O Neill, H. M. (1994). Predicting corporate social respon-
siveness: A model drawn from three perspectives. Journal of Business Ethics, 13,
731–738.
Boehm, A. (2005). The participation of businesses in community decision making. Busi-
ness & Society, 44(2), 144–177.
Bruch, H., & Walter, F. (2005). The keys to rethinking corporate philanthropy. MIT Sloan
Management Review, 47(1), 49–55.
Campbell, J.L. (2007). Why would corporations behave in socially responsible ways?
An institutional theory of corporate social responsibility. Academy of Management
Review, 32(3), 946–967.
Carroll, A. (1979). A three dimensional conceptual model of corporate social performance.
Academy of Management Review, 4, 497–505.
Carroll, A. (1999). Corporate social responsibility: Evolution of a denitional construct.
Business & Society, 38(3), 268–295.
Cashman, B. (2004). Winning on and off the eld. In M. Falls (Ed.), Inside the Minds: The
Business of Sports. Boston, MA: Aspatore, Inc.
Cialdini, R.B., Borden, R.J., Thorne, A., Walker, M., Freeman, S., & Sloan, L. (1976).
Basking in reected glory: Three (football) eld studies. Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology, 34, 366–375.
Cornwell, T.B., & Maignan, I. (1998). An international review of sponsorship research.
Journal of Advertising, 27(1), 1–21.
Dawkins, J., & Lewis, S. (2003). CSR in stakeholder expectations: And their implication
for company strategy. Journal of Business Ethics, 44(2/3), 185–193.
Dean, D.H. (2003). Consumer perception of corporate donations: Effects of company repu-
tation for social responsibility and type of donation. Journal of Advertising, 32(1),
91–102.
Den Hond, F., & De Bakker, F.G.A. (2007). Ideologically motivated activism: How activist
groups inuence corporate social change activities. Academy of Management Review,
32(3), 901–924.
740 Babiak and Wolfe
Dunfee, T.W. (2004). Do rms with unique crisis competencies have special obligations
to devote resources toward resolution of the AIDS crisis? Paper presented at Interdis-
ciplinary Committee on Organizational Studies conference (University of Michigan):
Voluntary codes of conduct for multinational corporations: Promises and challenges.
Fombrun, C., Gardberg, N., & Barnett, M. (2000). Opportunity platforms and safety nets:
Corporate citizenship and reputational risk. Business and Society Review, 105, 85–106.
Ford, W.C., Jr. (2003). Vice Chairman, Detroit Lions. Retrieved October 5, 2003, from
http://www.detroitlions.com/section_display.cfm?section_id=5&top=1&level=2
Gladden, J., & Wolfe, R. (2001). Sponsorship of intercollegiate athletics: The importance
of image matching. International Journal of Sports Marketing & Sponsorship, 3,
41–65.
Godfrey, P.C. (2005). The relationship between corporate philanthropy and shareholder
wealth: A risk management perspective. Academy of Management Review, 30(4),
777–792.
Hess, D., & Warren, D. (2004). Corporate social initiatives as strategic responses to institu-
tional pressures. Working paper, University of Michigan Business School.
Hess, D., Rogovsky, N., & Dunfee, T.W. (2002). The next wave of corporate community
investment: Corporate social initiatives. California Management Review, 44, 110–125.
Irwin, R.L., Lachowetz, T., Cornwell, T.B., & Clark, J.S. (2003). Cause-related sport spon-
sorship: An assessment of spectator beliefs, attitudes, and behavioral intentions. Sport
Marketing Quarterly, 12(3), 131–139.
Joyner, B.E., & Payne, D. (2002). Evolution and implementation: A study of values, busi-
ness ethics and corporate social responsibility. Journal of Business Ethics, 41, 297–
311.
Kern, W.S. (2000). Introduction. In W.S. Kern (Ed.), The Economics of Sports. W. E.
Upjohn Institute for Employment Research.
Kider, T. (2007, June 26) The Bears Release Tank Johnson After His Latest Legal Trouble.
The New York Times, p. D6.
Kott, A. (2005). The philanthropic power of sport. Foundation News & Commentary, (Jan./
Feb.), 20–25.
Lachowetz, T., & Gladden, J. (2002). A framework for understanding cause-related sport
marketing programs. International Journal of Sports Marketing and Sponsorship,
4(4), 205–225.
Lachowetz, T., & Irwin, R. (2002). FedEx and the St. Jude Classic: An application of a
cause-related marketing program (CRMP). Sport Marketing Quarterly, 11(2), 114–
116.
Landreth Grau, S., & Garretson Folse, J.A. (2007). Cause-related marketing (CRM). Jour-
nal of Advertising, 36(4), 19–33.
Lever, J. (1983). Soccer Madness. Chicago University: Chicago Press.
Lewis, S. (2003). Reputation and corporate responsibility. Journal of Communication
Management, 7(4), 356–364.
Margolis, J.D., & Walsh, J.P. (2003). Misery loves companies: Rethinking social initiatives
by business. Administrative Science Quarterly, 48(2), 268–305.
Marquis, C., Glynn, M.A., & Davis, G.F. (2007). Community isomorphism and corporate
social action. Academy of Management Review, 32(3), 925–945.
McAllister, D.T., & Ferrell, L. (2002). The role of strategic philanthropy in marketing
strategy. European Journal of Marketing, 36(5/6), 689–743.
McCarthy, M. (2007, August 17). Stern: ‘Sacred trust’ at stake; NBA chief cites isolated
case of referee betting on games. New York Times, p. 8C.
McWilliams, A., & Siegel, D. (2000). Corporate social responsibility and nancial per-
formance: Correlation or misspecication? Strategic Management Journal, 21(5),
603–609.
Determinants of CSR 741
Mintzberg, H. (1984). Who should control the corporation? California Management
Review, 27(1), 90–115.
Major League Baseball Team Greening. (2008). MLB goes green in collaboration with
the National Resources Defense Council. Retrieved June 29, 2008, from http://
mlb.mlb.com/news/press_releases/press_release.jsp?ymd=20080311&content_
id=2418580&vkey=pr_mlb&fext=.jsp
Pistons Promote Read to Achieve. (2008). Retrieved June 29, 2008, from http://www.nba.
com/pistons/community/Pistons_Promote_Read_to_Achieve.html
National Football League Youth Football. (2008). Retrieved August 20, 2008, from http://
www.nyouthfootball.com/site12.aspx
National Hockey League Green. (2008). NHL aims to put global warming on ice. Retrieved
June 29, 2008, from http://www.nhl.com/community/nhlgreen/index.html
Noll, R.G. (2003). The organization of sports leagues. Oxford Review of Economic Policy,
19(4), 530–551.
Oliver, C. (1991). Strategic responses to institutional processes. Academy of Management
Review, 16(1), 145–179.
Professional Golf Association Tour. (2006). Retrieved June 16, 2006, from www.pgatour.
com/charity
Porter, M.E., & Kramer, M.R. (2006). Strategy and society: The link between competitive
advantage and corporate social responsibility. Harvard Business Review, 84(12), 78–92.
Porter, M.E., & Kramer, M.R. (2002). The competitive advantage of corporate philan-
thropy. Harvard Business Review, 80(12), 56–72.</jrn>
Robinson, R. (2005). Sports philanthropy: An analysis of the charitable foundations of
major league teams. Unpublished master’s thesis, University of San Francisco, San
Francisco, CA.
Rodriguez, P., Siegel, D.S., Hillman, A., & Eden, L. (2006). Three lenses on the multina-
tional enterprise: Politics, corruption, and corporate social responsibility. Journal of
International Business Studies, 37(6), 733–746.
Roy, D.P., & Graeff, T.R. (2003). Consumer attitudes toward cause-related marketing activ-
ities in professional sports. Sport Marketing Quarterly, 12(3), 163–172.
Saiia, D.H., Carroll, A.B., & Buchholtz, A.K. (2003). Philanthropy as strategy: When cor-
porate charity “Begins at Home”. Business & Society, 42(2), 169–201.
Saraceno, J. (2007, February 23). ‘Pacman’ poster child for needed crackdown. USA
Today, p. 7C.
Schmidt, M.S., & Battista, J. (2007, 22). Vick in a deal to plead guilty to dog ghting. The
New York Times, p. A1.
Sethi, S.P., & Steidlmeier, P. (1995). The evolution of business’ role in society. Business
and Society Review, 94, 9–13.
Swindell, D., & Rosentraub, M.S. (1998). Who benets from the presence of professional
sports teams? The implications for public funding of stadiums and arenas. Public
Administration Review, 58(1), 11–20.
Turban, D., & Greening, D. (1997). Corporate social performance and organizational attrac-
tiveness to prospective employees. Academy of Management Journal, 40, 658–672.
Ullmann, A. (1985). Data in search of a theory: A critical examination of the relationship
among social performance, social disclosure, and economic performance. Academy of
Management Review, 10, 540–577.
Vogel, D. (2005). The Market for Virtue. Washington, D.C.: Brookings Institution Press.
Waddock, S.A., & Post, J.E. (1995). Catalytic alliances for social problem solving. Human
Relations, 48(8), 951–973.
Wakeeld, K.L., & Wann, D.L. (2006). An examination of dysfunctional sport fans:
Method of classication and relationships with problem behaviors. Journal of Leisure
Research, 38(2), 168–186.
742 Babiak and Wolfe
Wallace, C. (2004). An insider’s look at – and love for – pro basketball. In M. Falls (Ed.),
Inside the Minds: The Business of Sports. Boston, MA: Aspatore, Inc.
Walsh, J. (2003, September 12). Misery loves companies: Whither social initiatives by
business? Presentation made to the Interdisciplinary Committee on Organizational
Studies, University of Michigan. Retrieved October 8, 2003, from http://www.
si.umich.edu/ICOS
Wilkerson, M., & Dodder, R.A. (1987). Collective conscience and sport in modem society:
An empirical test of a model. Journal of Leisure Research, 19, 35–40.
Wokutch, R.E., & Spencer, B.A. (1987). Corporate saints or sinners: The effects of phil-
anthropic activities and illegal activities on organizational performance. California
Management Review, 29(2), 62–77.
Wood, D.J. (1991). Corporate social performance revisited. Academy of Management
Review, 16, 691–671.
Yan, J. (2003). Corporate responsibility and the brands of tomorrow. Journal of Brand
Management, 10(4/5), 290–302.
