Community Sport Events and CSR Sponsorship

The Relationship Between CSR, Sponsorship, and CSEs

CSR has been described as “a commitment to improve community well-being through discretionary business practices and contributions or corporate resources” (Kotler & Lee, 2004, p. 3). Manifesting as a voluntary contribution that betters society through financial support and development, the implementation of CSR initiatives is often driven by the needs of the donor as opposed to the needs of the community (Levermore, 2010; Russo & Perrini, 2010). Notwithstanding, there is increased reference to companies succumbing to pressure from community groups and the media and adopting CSR initiatives to counteract adverse public responses to company products or actions (Kelly et al., 2012; Pettigrew et al., 2012; Zyglidopoulos, Georiadis, Caroll, & Siegel, 2011). Such pressure emphasizes the growing use of CSR as a defensive mechanism utilized to respond to social issues and counteract scandals (Godfrey et al., 2009; Lindgreen & Swaen, 2010; Walker & Parent, 2010). Companies that choose to ignore CSR or fail to get the balance between their social responsibility and strategic business approach quite right run the risk of being held accountable for the consequences of their actions by community groups and lobbyists (Bhattacharya, 2009; Porter & Kramer, 2006).

Community involvement was identified by Close-Scheinbaum and Lacey (2015) as one of the most important components of CSR. Consequently, sponsorship of community activities is one of the more popular methods companies utilize to implement CSR initiatives (Irwin, Sutton, & McCarthy, 2008). CSR-based sport relationships are popular as sport parallels and enhances many CSR attributes, including unifying the community and reflecting societal values (Babiak & Wolfe, 2009; Pegoraro, O’Reilly, & Levallet, 2009). With specific reference to sport events, Watt (2010) suggested that opportunities “for the integration of CSR and sponsorship strategy and implementation” align with companies seeking to engage with communities (p. 223). CSEs provide significant socially responsible contributions at a community level (Misener & Mason, 2009). Those companies that pursue CSR sponsorship via CSEs can benefit from “media distribution and communication power, youth appeal, positive health impacts/association, social interaction and sustainability awareness” (Sheth & Babiak, 2010, p. 433).

This article adopts the stance that CSR sponsorship of CSEs is a defensive mechanism that allows the sponsoring companies to share in the credit for event-associated positive outcomes (Smith & Westerbeek, 2007; Walker & Parent, 2010) and offset criticisms they may be facing. The basis for one such type of criticism is increasingly attributed to the pressures of a public health agenda (Donaldson & Finch, 2013; Koplan & Brownell, 2010; Ludwig & Nestle, 2008; Maher et al., 2006).

Public Health Agenda Influence on CSR Sponsorship of CSEs

Community sport has been identified by O’Sullivan (2004) as a key means to achieving public health goals. An increasing number of companies are turning “towards issues-based sponsorship focusing, for example, on grass roots sport that links to public policy and media agendas such as obesity for reputational benefits” (L’Etang, 2006, p. 390). Consequently, there is an increasing number of ethical considerations now associated with the sponsorship of sport events (Filo, Funk, & O’Brien, 2010). Many of these ethical considerations stem from social stances on health issues (A. Davis & Jones, 1996; Koplan & Brownell, 2010; Ludwig & Nestle, 2008; Maher et al., 2006), such as increases in obesity, poor nutrition, heart disease, smoking, and diabetes (Cade et al., 2016; Lurie, 2010; Porter & Kramer, 2006). Although gambling, alcohol, and tobacco companies have faced criticism of their sport event sponsorships for many years, other sponsors, such as fast-food chains and soft drink companies, are now facing criticism from sport event stakeholders, media, and sections of the general public (Carter et al., 2013; Kelly et al., 2012; Pettigrew et al., 2012; Sam, Batty, & Dean, 2005). Bauman and Craig (2005) questioned the ethical development of commercial partnerships between sport and private sector companies that might draw further media and political attention to the obesity and nutrition debate. Walliser (2003) suggested that sport events encounter a more limited range of acceptable sponsors than events associated with the arts or social causes. This limitation is due, in part, to the fact that arts- and social cause–type events generally target adult audiences (New Zealand Ministry for Culture & Heritage, 2010). Maher et al. (2006) suggested that a large percentage of sport event participants are families and children, therefore efforts need to be made to reduce the promotion of products which could threaten their health. Kelly et al. (2013) noted that “children’s exposure to the marketing of unhealthy food and beverages, including sport sponsorship, has been identified as a potential contributor to the obesity-promoting environment” (p. 72).

Sports events are dependent on sponsorship as a significant revenue stream (Jones, 2007). Cade et al. (2016) acknowledged that “debates surrounding sponsorship will continue, especially surrounding companies that sell, or have sold, products that are deemed hazardous to the health of consumers and society in general” (p. 11). For sport event managers, there is increasing concern surrounding potential restrictions on the types of sponsors and sponsors’ products with which CSEs align (Kolah, 2006; Pettigrew et al., 2012; World Health Organization, 2008). The combination of CSR sponsorship and a public health agenda in the context of CSEs highlights a growing area in sport management practice that is under-researched. It is, therefore, considered necessary to examine and better understand the factors influencing CSR sponsorship of CSEs.

A Case Study Approach

A case study approach was adopted to gain an in-depth understanding of the meanings individuals or companies ascribed to social issues (Creswell, 2009; Merriam, 2009). In this instance, the social issue focused on CSR sponsorship and public health agenda–associated criticism of CSE sponsors. Case studies were considered to contextualize the issue, in addition to offering persuasive evidence to support the research claims (Polkinghorne, 2007). CSEs incorporate detailed planning procedures and produce significant outcomes in terms of community development. These procedures and outcomes justified the use of a qualitative case study (Braun & Clarke, 2006; Creswell, 2009; Eisenhardt & Graebner, 2007; Yin, 2004). The applicability of case study results is supported by Flyvbjerg (2006) who argued that “the generalizability of case studies can be increased by the strategic selection of cases” especially “when the objective is to achieve the greatest possible amount of information on a given problem or phenomenon” (p. 229).

Case Study Selection

Four New Zealand–based CSEs were selected as case studies for the purpose of this research. These events were the Christchurch Star City to Surf, the McDonald’s Youth Duathlon, the Adidas Auckland Marathon, and the Ports of Auckland Round the Bays. Summary information on each event, including the event format, number of participants, target market, and use of funds raised is located in Table 1.

OPEN IN VIEWER

Table 1.

Case Event Information.

Event	Type	Approximate number of entrants	Target market
Christchurch City to Surf	12 kmFun run/walk	14,000	Elite athletesPrimary school studentsHigh school studentsFamiliesCorporate teamsPeople with disabilities
McDonald’s Youth Duathlon	2 km run8 km cycle1 km run	1,000+	Primary school studentsHigh school students
Auckland Marathon	Full marathonHalf marathonOne-fourth marathon5 kmFun run/walkKids marathon	14,000	Elite athletesFitness enthusiastsPrimary school studentsHigh school studentsFamiliesPeople with disabilities
Auckland Round the Bays	8.4 kmFun run/walk	40,000	Elite athletesPrimary school studentsHigh school studentsFamiliesCorporate teamsPeople with disabilities

The case CSEs were selected because they illustrated evolving views associated with contentious CSE sponsors, in addition to highlighting the impacts of a public health agenda on CSR sponsorship management. Additional case selection criteria included existing sponsor alignments having already been scrutinized by CSE stakeholders, events lacking regulation or yet to be guided by legislation, and event sponsors including fast-food, confectionary, or soft drink companies. Two events were selected from the North Island (Auckland) and two from the South Island (Christchurch) to reflect geographical balance. Selected events were recurrent with a minimum 10-year history, which allowed for assessment of any potential changes based on established sponsor relations. These criteria were designed to ensure that the chosen case studies would provide a cross-section of CSEs, fill an identified gap in current sport event literature, and provide a basis for wider application of the research findings.

Data Collection

Data were collected through in-depth semi-structured interviews with staff that represented a selection of each event’s stakeholder companies and organizations (see Table 2). Initially key informants were approached and additional stakeholder interviewees were identified via a snowball sampling technique. For confidentiality reasons, as stipulated in the ethics approval process, stakeholder representatives were identified solely based on their company’s role with the CSE. Such roles included the event owner, sponsor, facilitator, corporate team entrant, volunteer group, and recipient charity. Interviewees’ names and specific positions within their corresponding companies were redacted to ensure anonymity. The identification of those companies associated with each CSE was already known in the public domain.

OPEN IN VIEWER

Table 2.

CSE Stakeholder Interviewee Matrix.

CSE stakeholder company/organization	Role within CSE	Case study
		Christchurch City to Surf	McDonald’s Youth Duathlon	Auckland Marathon	Auckland Roundthe Bays
Christchurch Star	Event owner	✓
Fairfax Media	Event owner				✓
Coca Cola (NZ)	Major sponsor	✓	✓	✓	✓
Sport Canterbury	Facilitator	✓	✓
Sport Auckland	Facilitator			✓	✓
The Long Run	Event managers			✓
CDHB	Corporate team	✓
Christchurch South Rotary a	Volunteer group	✓
Foodstuffs SI (Ltd) b	Sponsor	✓
Heart Foundation (NZ)	Recipient charity	✓		✓	✓
Auckland City Council	Facilitator			✓	✓
Christchurch City Council	Facilitator	✓	✓
Garden City Rotary	Event owner		✓
McDonald’s (Christchurch)	Major sponsor		✓

Note. ^aCanterbury District Health Board.

b

Foodstuffs South Island (Ltd).

To strengthen interview findings, document collection and analysis took place as a method of triangulation (Davidson & Tolich, 1999). Relevant written materials, including promotional materials, newspaper articles, company policy documents, and stakeholder websites, were used to gather background information. Merriam (2009) noted that documents, such as written records and visual data, are a valuable resource for confirming insights gained through interviews. This process is an unobtrusive way to examine an environment and to triangulate emerging findings (Creswell, 2009; Gratton & Jones, 2004; Merriam, 2009).

A total of 24 interviews with stakeholder interviewees (across the four case events) took place over an 18-month period. The sample size for this study was justified based on data saturation and the research being limited by time and available funding (Miles & Huberman, 1994; Perry, 1998); the use of four case studies allowing cross-case analysis in an in-depth, yet manageable manner (Gerring, 2007; Miles & Huberman, 1994; Perry, 1998; Simons, 2009); the stakeholders interviewed holding key roles within each event and, therefore, able to provide an in-depth and comprehensive viewpoints of the research, without overextending information (Mills, Durepos, & Wiebe, 2010).

Data Analysis

Digital audio recordings of interviews were transcribed and then imported into NVivo9 along with relevant text from the printed and electronic materials. A three-stage data analysis process was adopted, which incorporated manual open, axial, and selective coding methods as advocated by Auerbach and Silverstein (2003), Bazeley (2007), Gillham (2008), and C. Pope, Ziebland, and Mays (2000). For example, the axial coding process identified specific tree nodes within the NVivo9 software, which were used to identify thematic findings. Following this, interview transcripts and other materials were read and re-read and words, phrases, or segments of texts were manually highlighted and coded to new and/or recurring categories. Interviewee statements were categorized according to emergent themes which included sponsorship as a CSR initiative, the influence of a public health agenda, and impacts of CSR criticism. This interpretive analysis took place to “deepen the reader’s understanding of the meaning conveyed in the text” (Polkinghorne, 2007, p. 483). A cyclical process of analysis was also adopted through the use of constant comparison (Lyons & Coyle, 2007). Themes were then reviewed against consolidated literature and the selected theoretical framework to extract research findings. These research findings are presented in the following section.

The Use of CSR Sponsorship in a CSE Setting

Aside from those interviewees who held an event management role, the majority of interviewees representing the CSE stakeholder organizations made reference to the concept of CSR sponsorship. These interviewees noted that their organizations wanted or needed to reinvest in their local community. This section outlines CSE stakeholder interviewees’ perspectives on CSR, the reasons their organizations engage with the selected CSEs, and their viewpoints on CSR sponsorship.

A key point made by interviewees was that changes in business strategies and perceived responsibilities have evolved considerably in recent years and resulted in the need for a wider range of companies and organizations to acknowledge CSR. For example, an event facilitator for the Christchurch City to Surf and McDonald’s Youth Duathlon noted the growing importance of CSR sponsorship, stating that “ten years ago, money was money and away you rode. There wasn’t social responsibility and that’s what it comes down to [now] in many respects.” Reasoning behind the choice to sponsor CSEs proved consistent across all stakeholder interviewees. CSR sponsorship of CSEs was reconfirmed as a way for companies to give back to the community and was particularly acknowledged by sponsors as core to their implementation of sponsorship as a CSR initiative. For example, an interviewee from a major sponsor of three events (the Christchurch City to Surf, Auckland Marathon, and Auckland Round the Bays) noted that it was important that his company was “involved in the community and like any big business we have a chunk of money specifically for that . . . CSR is definitely a part of it.” An interviewee from the company that owned the Auckland Round the Bays CSE expressed a similar point of view, noting that one of her company’s primary missions was to become as engaged as possible within the communities in which they operated. An interviewee from a major sponsor for the Auckland Marathon and Auckland Round the Bay events stressed the importance of his company’s community involvement, noting that his company needed to be able to display a holistic approach to its business.

Many stakeholder interviewees mentioned the strategic use of CSR sponsorship to offset negative perceptions of any harmful effects associated with company products. For example, an event facilitator for the Auckland Round the Bays and Auckland Marathon acknowledged the need for companies to consider how their manufacturing activities impact upon the local community. The interviewee also explained how such companies could mitigate any associated negative effects by partnering with companies that provide benefits to the community. An interviewee representing a major sponsor for the same two events noted that a policy document produced by his company (Compliance and Social Responsibility Committee Charter) outlined specific strategies to counterbalance social issues and strengthen the company’s reputation. An interviewee from the major sponsor of the McDonald’s Youth Duathlon acknowledged that a lot of people felt that his company was

quite contrived or cynical [based on the unhealthy nature of the food it produced]. We want to be part of the solution. We are somewhat part of the problem, but we want to be part of the solution. It’s something we are very conscious of.

Event stakeholder companies that chose to initiate sponsorship as a counteractive measure primarily did so as a response to public health concerns and the perceived or known harmful effects of their products.

Although the use of CSR initiatives has previously been acknowledged as presenting an opportunity for companies to give back to the local community (Kotler & Lee, 2004; Russo & Perrini, 2010; Walliser, 2003), this study refined the use of CSR sponsorship to within CSE settings. The findings respond to a noted lack of research on the implications of restricting food and beverage sponsorship of community events (Pettigrew et al., 2012) and lack of in-depth analysis on the unique features of sport and CSR (Levermore & Moore, 2015). Many CSE stakeholder interviewees identified an upturn in the use of CSR sponsorship.

Porter and Kramer (2006) suggested that CSR is adopted to secure a reputation for social consciousness. This notion is indeed evident in a CSE setting and aligns with Freeman’s (2010) stakeholder theory in confirming that companies that engage in CSR feel they have a responsibility to the communities in which they operate. In this sense, many CSE stakeholders who utilize CSEs to reinvest in their local community consider sport events as a vehicle for addressing wider community concerns (Misener & Schulenkorf, 2016)

The identified upturn in use of CSR sponsorship also signifies that CSE sponsors are becoming increasingly aware of the impacts their actions and products have on community stakeholders. In so doing they parallel the basic premise of stakeholder theory in that companies must take into account the legitimate interests of groups, which can affect them (Freeman, Wicks, & Parmar, 2004).

Public Health Agenda Impacts on CSR Sponsorships and CSEs

A majority of interviewees were of the opinion that a public health agenda was influencing CSE sponsorship strategies and also forcing companies to question their continued alignment with CSEs, which also associated with unhealthy food and beverage sponsors. For example, an Ethics of Association policy document belonging to the organization that entered a corporate team in the Christchurch City to Surf made specific mention that “sponsorship will not be accepted from external parties whose values, practices, products and or branding are in conflict with the stated vision, aims, objectives or policies” (Canterbury District Health Board, 2010, p. 1). Similarly, an interviewee from a charity stakeholder organization for the Christchurch City to Surf, Auckland Round the Bays, and Auckland Marathon identified an “ethical responsibility to create a health promoting environment” (New Zealand Heart Foundation, 2011, p. 1) in her company’s Food Advertising Statement.

CSE stakeholder values and views on sponsorship alignments were noted as often being fluid in nature, in that they changed over time. For instance, the event owner of the Christchurch City to Surf acknowledged that stakeholder “values and goals [including those of their own company] change year to year so it [was] hard to keep up.” The event owner provided a specific example when noting that in previous years, a pizza restaurant chain had been a major sponsor of their event. “Now, [the event] wouldn’t want to be associated with them.” Similarly, an interviewee from the company that owned the McDonald’s Youth Duathlon stated that “if McDonald’s was to come on board as a new sponsor [with their event] now, the media would jump on it.”

Stakeholder interviewees from all four case CSEs acknowledged an increase in public health agenda concerns regarding obesity and cardiovascular disease and that there was a consequential need for CSE owners, recipient charities, and sponsoring companies to consider how these public health agenda concerns influenced their management, marketing, and sponsorship decisions. For example, a major sponsor for the Auckland Marathon, Christchurch City to Surf, and Auckland Round the Bays noted that it was

quite a different environment in terms of the obesity rate in New Zealand. Health is a big part of it . . . There are some companies that, by putting money into an event, believe they are getting people off the couch and making them healthy because they’re making the event [sustainable].

As an alternate example, a recipient charity representative stated that her organization “absolutely do not want to be endorsing [fast-food restaurants] in any way or brands like that” through their joint involvement with a CSE. Event owner, corporate team entrant, and facilitator interviewees across all four case studies acknowledged that their companies were now more careful in assessing the sponsors via CSE association. The interviewees also noted that CSE fast-food and beverage sponsorships are becoming increasingly contentious. CSE sponsor representatives conceded that despite their company’s intentions to focus on positive contributions to the community through CSR sponsorship of CSEs, these efforts were in fact drawing further criticism.

Collins and Vamplew (2002), Donaldson and Finch (2013), Koplan and Brownell (2010), Ludwig and Nestle (2008), and Maher et al. (2006), all acknowledged that criticism of sport sponsorships was increasingly being attributed to the momentum of public health agendas. The results of this research reveal that a public health agenda is driving the criticism of CSE sponsors, their products, and attempts by sponsors to utilize CSEs to implement CSR sponsorship agreements. The increasing influence a public health agenda is having on CSR sponsorship of CSEs is an increasingly significant issue facing those managing CSE stakeholder relationships. From a stakeholder theory perspective, CSE managers are now faced with the three necessities Freeman (2007) identified as relevant considerations for stakeholder managers. First, the impact societal issues can have on stakeholder alignments is reflected in a public health agenda influence on CSR sponsorships and associated event stakeholders. Second, the importance managers place on identifying stakeholders with their business endeavors is reflected in the identification of sources generating CSR-based sponsor criticism of CSEs. Third, the need for stakeholders to seriously consider community values is reflected in the need for all CSE stakeholders to reconsider the benefits of the CSE concerned, and how all CSE stakeholders can attempt to reach an agreement that reflects their values and those of the event and the community in which it takes place.

CSE Sponsorship: The Ongoing Issue of a Public Health Agenda

There are a number of implications associated with the criticism of CSR-based CSE sponsorship, according to interviewees. First, the criticism of unhealthy CSE sponsors was considered as having a negative “by association” effect on other CSE stakeholders. For example, a corporate team entrant for the Christchurch City to Surf noted that their company needed to consider the health objectives and values her company was communicating.

The alignment of a product with an event is a powerful way of giving a subliminal message about connection. So if you have a healthy lifestyle and McDonald’s teamed together . . . it can create behaviours which do not support health . . . or contradict key public health messages.

Similarly, the interviewee from the company that owned the Auckland Round the Bays CSE believed that “an association with image and values” resulted in the need to be cautious when it came to sponsor alignment. A facilitator for the Auckland Round the Bays and Auckland Marathon commented that their company needed to make sure that there was not any negative publicity generated because of CSE relationships put into place by their company. This view was also echoed by an interviewee from a recipient charity, who noted that “by partnering with someone like McDonald’s, we’d be sort of going backwards on what we’re saying.”

It is recommended that a company recognizes “influences from groups that may be at odds with its purpose . . . and attempt to balance the interests of these groups” (Freeman, Harrison, Wicks, Parmar, & de Colle, 2010, p. 48). Such recognition incorporates a stakeholder mapping process, as a proactive measure, whereby groups that can affect the achievements and purpose of the company are identified (Freeman, Harrison, & Wicks, 2007). In the context of a CSE, a combined stakeholder mapping and influence recognition process could be beneficial in circumstances where certain CSR sponsors are facing criticism (Batty, 2016).

Another identified implication associated with the criticism of CSR sponsorship of CSEs is that companies adopting CSR sponsorship are doing so in an attempt to be seen as doing the right thing. There are two predominant discussion strands linked to this finding.

First, Cade et al. (2016) acknowledged that when it comes to CSR, “appearing to have good intentions does not necessarily mean that [a company] is doing [the right thing]” (p. 12). The authors acknowledge the difference between sponsoring companies engaging in CSR sponsorship to reap the benefits associated with being perceived as doing the right thing and those companies engaging in CSR sponsorship because it is the right thing to do. However, for the purpose of this research, focus was placed on the perceived actions of CSE sponsors as opposed to their actual intentions.

Second, when CSR sponsorship is engaged in from an ethical standpoint, moral behavior (perceived or otherwise) can “build trust, attract customers and earn the public’s good will” (Lantos, 2001, p. 606). Although companies can use CSR initiatives to counteract negative business impacts (Godfrey et al., 2009; Lindgreen & Swaen, 2010), the use of CSR sponsorship as a counteractive measure does not always work as intended. For example, a major sponsor for the McDonald’s Youth Duathlon noted that they “want to get involved in the community. We owe it. Should we be blasted for trying to be involved?” The failure of the CSR sponsorship as an effective countermeasure stemmed from the notion that the company’s CSR sponsorship was considered by many as an additional way for it to distribute and market its unhealthy fast-food products to the community. This was perceived to outweigh any financial support provided to the CSE. The response highlights the dilemma many so-called unhealthy food and beverage CSR sponsors are facing in that although there is an identified need to address negative criticism of their products, they are criticized when attempting to give back to the community.

The criticism faced by companies implementing CSR sponsorship was also found to be having a significant impact on the financial viability of the CSEs with which those companies aligned. An interviewee representing one of the major sponsor companies for three of the case events believed ongoing concerns regarding the public health agenda would eventually reduce the number of companies willing to sponsor or fund CSEs. The interviewee noted “there are probably going to be a few events that go by the wayside over the next few years.” Similarly, an event manager for the Auckland Marathon noted that without their sponsors “the event doesn’t go ahead.” A comment by an interviewee from a voluntary stakeholder organization involved in the Christchurch City to Surf summarized the CSR sponsorship criticism situation by saying that “there [was] always going to be someone who doesn’t like [the sponsor] . . . but you can’t afford to turn it down.” In addressing CSR sponsorship criticism, a facilitator for the Auckland Marathon and Auckland Round the Bays noted that unless councils could “fork out more money in support of CSEs, which they can’t because of budget restrictions, they would have to come to grips that there would be alcohol, Coca Cola and confectionary [sponsorship].” This latter comment highlights the reliance of CSEs on sponsorship as opposed to public funding. CSE managers are now faced with a dilemma of accepting funding from companies that adopt CSR sponsorship as a way in which to counteract criticism of their products or declining such funding and putting the staging of their event at risk.

With reference to stakeholder theory, Freeman (2004) argued that concern for profit is an underlying factor in the elements and approaches associated with effective stakeholder management. From a CSE perspective, this concern for profit relates to the ongoing financial viability of the event and is dependent, to a large extent, on the support of, and relationship between, CSE stakeholders (Batty, 2016; Freeman, 2010; Stern, 2008).

In summary, this study revealed three major findings. CSE sponsor representatives considered CSR sponsorships as ideal defense mechanisms against criticism of the products they produce. A public health agenda is having a detrimental impact on some CSR-based CSE sponsorships. The relationship between CSEs, CSR, and a public health agenda is considered an ongoing developing issue yet to be resolved by a definitive solution.