Abstract
Given the significant and often negative impacts of sport mega-events on host nations, including high costs and lingering environmental challenges, many event organizers, such as the Fédération Internationale de Football Association (FIFA), began implementing corporate social responsibility (CSR) initiatives to generate positive effects while lessening negative perceptions. Despite the growing body of literature examining the practice of sport CSR, research on how global governing sport agencies implement and adapt these programs to reflect the culture of the host is lacking. This study begins to address this gap by exploring how FIFA tailored its CSR initiatives for the 2010 World Cup in South Africa and 2014 event in Brazil. Engaging in CSR is already a daunting task. For FIFA, this challenge was compounded because of the host nations’ complex social, political, and economic concerns, along with skepticism surrounding FIFA’s efforts because of its history of corruption, which recently culminated in an organizational scandal that prompted arrests of high-ranking officials and temporary banishment of its former president. To better investigate CSR using a critical lens, we draw from interdisciplinary research and employ a multi-case study approach to analyze FIFA’s CSR initiatives, arguing that these efforts largely failed to reflect cultural considerations, providing little benefit to Brazilians and South Africans. In doing so, we build upon Zaharna’s in-awareness approach to public relations by merging it with critical CSR research, demonstrating the need for sponsoring organizations to follow an in-awareness approach when practicing international CSR while also adopting participatory approaches that engage members of the affected community to increase and sustain the positive benefits of these initiatives.
As in various areas of public relations practice, corporate social responsibility (CSR) has become increasingly popular in sport (Sheth and Babiak, 2010), implemented by athletes, local teams, and national leagues (Carey et al., 2011; Heinze et al., 2014; Manoli, 2015). During sport mega-events, such as the Olympics, event organizers incorporate these initiatives to be altruistic, develop a good image, and alleviate negative perceptions of the event (Babiak and Wolfe, 2006). For instance, the Fédération Internationale de Football Association (FIFA) implemented several CSR programs during its World Cup tournaments in Brazil and South Africa, ranging from educational and health initiatives to philanthropic projects. In principle, hosting these premier sporting events is an honor for the host nation because of potential advantages, such as increased tourism, heightened recognition, job creation, positive media coverage, and national pride (Chappelet and Junod, 2006). These events also help nations build soft power by serving as agents of public diplomacy while enabling developing countries like Brazil and South Africa to ‘augment their status as emerging powers’ (Grix and Lee, 2013: 521). Realistically, however, these events often ‘have to be sold to host communities’ (L’Etang, 2006b: 390) because of their disadvantages, including civic disruption; citizen displacement; exorbitant costs to the host country, which may divert much-needed funds from more pressing projects; risk of event failure; and the underutilized ‘white elephant’ facilities, which are constructed with a hefty price tag and require significant sums of money to maintain (Cornelissen et al., 2011; Swart and Bob, 2012; Zimbalist, 2015).
As sport gains global prominence, questions arise about the social responsibilities of mega-events (Godfrey, 2009); indeed, they invite particular CSR challenges for sport organizations, including the need to assess their tangible and intangible impacts on society (Swart and Bob, 2012). The rising costs of hosting the World Cup, for example, suggests that countries must weigh their involvement carefully; as Zimbalist (2015) cautions, the cost of hosting the FIFA World Cup soccer’s quadrennial showcase event has risen from several hundred million in 1994, when the United States hosted the event, to $5-$6 billion in 2010 in South Africa and $15-$20 billion in Brazil in 2014 (p. 2)
and the cost may be increased to the astonishing figure of US$220bn for Qatar World Cup in 2022. Indeed, hosting mega-events requires significant resources and investments, particularly by areas that are directly impacted, nurturing a growing sentiment that these events are only justified if their ‘positive power’ is ‘harnessed effectively for all’ (Minnaert, 2012: 370). Acknowledging the strain placed on host countries, many event organizers, including FIFA, recognize their need to ‘leave legacies for regeneration for the host of their premier events’ (Carey et al., 2011: 2), resulting in increased attention to implementing CSR programs.
This study analyzes FIFA’s CSR initiatives during the 2010 World Cup in South Africa and 2014 tournament in Brazil to examine the extent to which these programs were tailored to the cultural context of the host nation. Surpassed in size and grandeur only by the Olympics (Nobre, 2017), the World Cup offers an intriguing object of study because football is the world’s most popular spectator and participation sport, embracing an ethnically, religiously, and nationally diverse fan base (Cashmore and Cleland, 2014). Whether a sports fan or not, Haynes and Boyle (2017) contend that globalization and ‘vortextual’ media coverage mean that the World Cup ‘has a socially and culturally powerful presence in our lives whether we want it to or not’ (p. 86).
Using Zaharna’s (2001) in-awareness approach to public relations that explains how each country has unique socioeconomic, cultural, and communication profiles that must be considered to ensure CSR initiatives meet cultural expectations, increasing their effectiveness, and drawing from a critical CSR perspective (Cornelissen, 2013; Levermore, 2011b; Levermore and Moore, 2015), we explain how FIFA made a number of missteps. As the organizer of the world’s largest single sport competition and ‘guardian of the game’, FIFA (2015c) asserts it has a responsibility to increase the event’s positive effects and ‘strengthened its commitment to building a better future’ through CSR, implementing a series of initiatives for each tournament (para. 3).
CSR is already a daunting task, lacking a clear definition (Carroll et al., 2012) and raising questions about the sponsoring organization’s true motives (Sheth and Babiak, 2010). This task is confounded globally, with cultures holding differing values and expectations. In fact, although South Africa was considered to be an ‘ideal location’ (Levermore, 2010: 239), the 2010 World Cup was the first mega-event in Africa (Swart and Bob, 2012), and the first time it was held in a lower income country (Levermore, 2011b), inviting questions about whether or not developing countries can host such events (Cornelissen et al., 2011). Likewise, the decision to award the tournament to Brazil was met with considerable skepticism, expressed through protests (that had the support of 75% of the population), charges of corruption, and tales of displacement and disruption (Watts, 2014; Zirin, 2013). In developing nations, ‘resources are scarcer, the fiscal balance is more fragile, hosting costs are far greater, and the income distribution is lopsided’ (Zimbalist, 2015: 4). By building upon Zaharna’s cultural framework through attention to critical questions raised by mega-event sport CSR, this study contributes knowledge about CSR practices outside of the United States, United Kingdom, and western European nations, in the sport context and beyond (Sriramesh, 2010).
Using a multi-case study approach to construct a more robust understanding of FIFA’s CSR programming and compare activities in different host nations (Creswell, 2013), we examine the intersection of culture, sport CSR, and public relations to build on in-awareness research (Zaharna, 2001) by assessing the extent to which FIFA tailored its CSR initiatives for the 2010 and 2014 World Cup tournaments. Echoing critical CSR’s concern (Levermore, 2011b; Levermore and Moore, 2015) that organizations create initiatives that involve the community, have lasting impact, and provide clear reporting, we demonstrate how the application of the in-awareness approach is necessary in identifying relevant cultural characteristics and implementing appropriate strategies when engaging in international CSR. In doing so, we address a need to understand how organizations can make their CSR efforts ‘smart and genuine’ (Heinze et al., 2014: 673) and gauge the effectiveness of philanthropic programming (Clark, 2000; Giulianotti, 2015). We build on limited critical studies on CSR focusing on questions such as ‘How does CSR benefit society’ (Breitbarth et al., 2015). Specifically, we highlight the need for CSR to be more participatory, involving the affected communities to increase the positive impacts and sustainability while also emphasizing how the reputation of the sponsoring organization can question the legitimacy of these initiatives.
We begin with an overview of relevant literature, including CSR and its relationship to public relations and sport, followed by the in-awareness approach. After describing our case study approach, we show how practitioners can build on the in-awareness model to ensure CSR surpasses aspirational talk or superficial image building to help improve society, carrying implications for theory and practice.
Theorizing CSR and Sport through the in-awareness model
Practitioners and scholars struggle with what CSR should look like, particularly as societal expectations surrounding the construct evolve (Carroll, 1991, 2016). Although no universal definition exists (Horrigan, 2010), the concept reflects how organizations demonstrate their commitment to society (Paramio-Salcines et al., 2013). Thus, CSR entails ‘voluntary actions’ employed by a firm ‘as it pursues its mission and fulfills its perceived obligations to stakeholders’ (Coombs and Holladay, 2012: 8) and ‘has been typically understood’ as the actions firms adopt ‘to ensure that society, or stakeholders, rather than business owners, are considered and protected in their strategies and operations’ (Carroll, 2016: 2).
By focusing on societal interests, Carroll’s (2016) conceptualization of CSR invites an examination of the linkage between CSR and public relations. From a public relations perspective, these initiatives can strengthen organization–public relationships (Hall, 2006). Bowen (2008) claims that ‘helping an organization to be accountable for its behavior should be seen as one of the primary contributions of effective public relations’ (p. 272). Moreover, while public relations includes other strategic components such as reputation management and image building, establishing and maintaining relationships with publics should remain at its core (L’Etang, 2013a). Indeed, Clark (2000) offers an extensive overview of the overlap between public relations and CSR and opportunities for growth, pointing out that both practices seek to enhance relationships among key stakeholder groups by using effective communication. While communication should be of obvious importance in managing these relationships, ‘CSR research largely overlooks this fundamental aspect’ (p. 371). Others (Freitag, 2008; Heath and Ryan, 1989) echo this sentiment, claiming practitioners are well-equipped to lead efforts because of their abilities to identify, analyze, and generate means to address these issues.
Early CSR literature claimed a company’s primary objective was to generate profits (Friedman, 1970). Later, public relations practitioners and scholars recognized the need to serve more stakeholders than just stockholders (Kent and Taylor, 2016), moving away from the self-serving ‘business model’ of CSR and adopting an altruistic approach (Freitag, 2008), acting out of moral obligation (L’Etang, 2006a). Carroll (2016) contends ‘philanthropy has been one of the most important elements of CSR definitions and this continues today’ (p. 4). A public relations approach to CSR exceeds strategically positioning an organization to also focus on constructing mutually beneficial relationships (Strömbäck and Kiousis, 2011); in their ideal forms, CSR and public relations should serve society rather than the organization (Kruckeberg and Starck, 1988).
Because CSR can tangibly benefit organizations through demonstrating legitimacy (Sethi, 1977), strengthening an organization’s reputation (Waters and Ott, 2014), and generating financial benefits (Coombs and Holladay, 2012), practitioners must be cautious to ensure they do not reduce CSR to ‘a tool’ for garnering favorable publicity (L’Etang, 1994: 111). Some, such as Carroll (2016), suggest these self-serving and altruistic approaches to CSR are ‘not in complete opposition to one another’ (p. 6), with Carroll’s (2016) pyramid of CSR emphasizing that to be socially responsible, an organization must simultaneously fulfill economic, legal, ethical, and philanthropic responsibilities. Firm and society alike may benefit from programming, yet the motivation behind CSR matters from an ethical perspective, with L’Etang, (1994, 2013b) using a Kantian approach to argue practitioners must employ CSR out of duty to society. Self-serving approaches could lead to a ‘to an exploitative relationship between donor and recipient’ (L’Etang, 1994: 121), and practitioners have an obligation to ensure CSR fulfills the promises made.
Sport CSR
Research often privileges corporate CSR, 1 but sport organizations are no different than other agencies in their quests to pursue good reputations and positive stakeholder relationships (Sheth and Babiak, 2010). Viewed as ‘influential members of the global community’ (Walker and Kent, 2009: 746), sport organizations face increasing pressures to drive revenue but also have an ethical obligation to act in the interests of society (L’Etang, 2013a). Because of its magnitude, sport is ‘complexly interconnected to broader social, cultural, spatial, political, economic, and technological forces and formations’ (Andrews and Carrington, 2013: 19).
Likewise, due to a player’s specific role on a sports team, sport CSR ‘occurs’ at an individual level as athletes are often expected to leverage their visibility and resources to promote social change, simultaneously garnering ‘positive associations for their organization’, including their teams and corporate sponsors (Babiak et al., 2013: 221). Pressure often comes from fans, coaches, league and team owners, sponsors, communities, peers, or society at large (Babiak et al., 2013) as individuals claim athletes have a moral obligation to serve as role models (Lynch et al., 2014). Athletes may also autonomously decide to become involved in societal matters, although an athlete’s decision to exercise social responsibility by speaking out in favor of his or her personal moral positions could jeopardize sponsorship deals and public perception. In 2017, athletes including basketball player Stephen Curry spoke out against sponsor Under Armor after the company’s CEO Kevin Plank praised US President Donald Trump; following a discussion between Curry and Plank, the company issued a statement attempting to clarify the executive’s comments (Williams, 2017). Similarly, the ‘take a knee’ debate in American football has both individual and team repercussions. In fact, Cunningham and Regan (2012) suggested that some athletes may not contribute to conversations on polarizing topics to avoid endangering endorsements, which may depend on the firm’s culture and fan responses (Schmidt et al., 2018), depicting one aspect of the complex union of sport and social responsibility.
Although sport organizations are ideally situated to engage in CSR (Babiak and Wolfe, 2006; Walters, 2009), practicing in this context is also arguably more daunting as sport CSR is ‘not as advanced as more mainstream research and understanding of CSR’ (Paramio-Salcines et al., 2013: 7). Sport organizations widely differ in their approaches to enacting these programs (Heinze et al., 2014; Manoli, 2015). Nevertheless, Smith and Westerbeek (2007) suggest sport is well-positioned to lead these efforts, highlighting several benefits, including the ability to attract a large and diverse audience through mass media distribution, widespread appeal, positive health effects, the promotion of social interaction, sustainability awareness, cultural understanding and integration, and immediate gratification benefits. Indeed, ‘The sheer magnitude of sport’s presence within, and influence upon, contemporary societies means it is complexly interconnected to broader social, cultural, spatial, political, economic, and technological forces and formations’ (Andrews and Carrington, 2013: 19). Thus, Godfrey (2009) adds these organizations have obligations in ‘creating and sustaining a higher quality of life’ (p. 712).
To do so, however, sport CSR should incorporate public relations’ emphasis on researching stakeholder groups and building relationships to helps organizations ‘plan with the community and help the community develop social resources and institutions’ (Larsson, 2006: 129) that are reflective of host cultures. Zirin (2016) argues that sporting mega events make this charge particularly difficult because organizations like FIFA make every culturally unique country subject to the same sets of expectations and standards regarding infrastructure, security, corporate branding, and the like.
Despite the potential benefits for the unity of sport and CSR, the merger must be critically examined. Frequently, sport CSR is perceived as a ‘win-win-win’ for sport, business, and society (Levermore, 2013). As with corporations, the decision to engage in CSR may entail traces of beneficence ‘but it is usually strategic, a calculated choice to bolster or improve reputation’ (L’Etang, 2013b: 46), particularly when used for development (Levermore, 2010), as organizations reap positive publicity without leaving tangible benefits for society (Giulianotti, 2015). Sport has the ability to reach marginalized populations and foster relationships (Babiak and Wolfe, 2006; Walters, 2009), but the pervasiveness of cheating, corruption, discrimination, drug use, pollution, workforce exploitation, and other unethical or illegal practices sully its reputation (Godfrey, 2009; Levermore, 2011b). These stains often lead organizations to embrace CSR in an attempt to distract critics from negative publicity (Levermore and Moore, 2015; Waddington et al., 2013) a practice that plagues FIFA and the sport of football.
In fact, football regularly receives criticism for its associations with crowd violence, homophobia, racism, matchfixing, and illegal payments to facilitate player trades (Cashmore and Cleland, 2014); these problems also manifest at the highest level of the sport: FIFA. For years, whispers of corruption surrounded this global governing body, often criticized for its lack of transparency (Chaufen, 2015). In 2015, these claims resulted in the arrest of seven leading FIFA officials and five corporate executives on charges of bribery, fraud, and money laundering. FIFA’s Ethics Committee later banned then-president Joseph ‘Sepp’ Blatter from the organization for 8 years (Boudreaux et al., 2016). On top of offering bribes to fix elections, executives reportedly engaged in illegal activities to secure World Cup tournament locations and broadcasting rights to the tune of US$150 million (Sugden and Tomlinson, 2017). Furthermore, reports imply that even FIFA’s CSR initiatives were part of the bribery process (Levermore, 2010).
In addition, mega-events offer abundant opportunities for sport organizations to both aid and exploit communities. Defined as ‘large-scale cultural events, which have a dramatic character, mass popular appeal and international significance’ (Roche, 2000: 1), these ‘seductive’ productions are often perceived by post-colonial countries like Brazil and South Africa as ‘catalysts for social development’ (Schausteck de Almeida et al., 2015: 267), presenting opportunities to ‘enhance their image and perceived power’ (p. 269) and serve as ‘an engine of economic development’ (Zimbalist, 2015: 118). All too often, however, these events fill the coffers of the organizer and corporate sponsors while draining the host’s resources, replacing the promised legacy with disappointment (Cornelissen et al., 2011; Swart and Bob, 2012; Waddington et al., 2013) and making a long-term financial return ‘at best dubious’ (Zimbalist, 2015: 118). Thus, these events ‘shape economic, political, and personal destinies of masses of people with zero accountability for their trail of displacement, disruption, and destruction’ (Zirin, 2013: 72).
Given sport is influenced by Northern, competitive, heterosexual, and masculinist traits, it also fosters ‘asymmetrical power relations’ (Levermore, 2013: 56), privileging the host organization, political elites, and big business (Nobre, 2017), exemplified by the eviction of poor communities in areas near stadiums and tourist attractions during both the Brazilian and South African tournaments. Zimbalist (2015) contended that ‘while hosting a sport mega-event is hardly a seminal force behind a country’s inequality, there is little question that it contributes to and reinforces existing patterns of inequality’ (p. 4). Such actions challenge claims that professional sport is a ‘neutral’ vehicle to ‘do good’ because CSR can still influence public policy and political decisions, undermining regulation (Waddington et al., 2013) and benefiting those in power (Levermore, 2010).
Critical CSR theorists thus examine how CSR exacerbates unequal power relations through its decision-making process, lack of substance, short-lived impact, and ambiguous reporting (Idemudia, 2011; Levermore, 2013; Levermore and Moore, 2015). Coalter (2010) suggested that some sport-for-development initiatives ‘may have an impact’ on some participants (p. 309), including access to ‘sporting opportunities and some non-sporting resources (e.g., education) that they would not otherwise have had’ (p. 310), but lamented these programs are also plagued by ‘failures’ such as ‘over-inflated and imprecise claims, lack of systematic monitoring and evaluation, lack of robust evidence of poorly defined (but always ambitious) outcomes’ (p. 308). The prevalence of ‘greenwashing’ approaches is particularly apparent in developing and emerging countries. Although social benefits, including CSR, are highlighted in the bid process, such initiatives rarely empower the disenfranchise, but instead perpetuate or strengthen the existing power structure. Indeed, as Cornelissen (2013) warns, when countries of the ‘Global South’ host mega events, care must be taken that short-term symbolic gains in unity and international reputation are not lost to lingering economic, social, and political problems. Both Brazil and South Africa face challenges in all three areas, including political corruption at the highest levels, unstable economic performances, and a variety of societal concerns, ranging from poor quality education to inadequate infrastructure to racial tensions.
Global CSR and in-awareness approach to CSR
To be most effective, CSR efforts should make an effort to be genuine (Heinze et al., 2014), which includes matching the organization’s mission and society’s needs (Vogel, 2005). When outlining the benefits of sport CSR, Smith and Westerbeek (2007) include cultural understanding and integration as ‘Sport can spread understanding and tolerance through the introduction of new cultural values’ (p. 51). Strategies and communication should be adapted for the audience, requiring practitioners to consider the culture and recognize ‘they do need to be sensitive to the transcultural value implications of their actions’ (Carroll, 2004: 115; Sriramesh and Verčič, 2003; Zaharna, 2001). Coombs and Holladay (2012) argue commitment to CSR should be global and initiatives should be integrated everywhere the organization operates and not limited to highly visible areas. Furthermore, as each region, country, and community hold different perspectives of CSR, cultural tradition should drive CSR, drawing strongly on ‘deep-rooted indigenous cultural traditions of philanthropy, business ethics, and community embeddedness’ (Visser, 2011: 269). Because standards and expectations vary by location, efforts must be ‘tailored to fit the needs of local stakeholder expectations’ or they ‘will be a failure’ (Coombs and Holladay, 2012: 26), perceived as inauthentic (Heinze et al., 2014). As Idemudia (2011) notes, ‘the mainstream CSR agenda is not attuned with the priorities and realities in the South, and therefore not particularly relevant to local contexts and actors’ (p. 2).
Since the practice of public relations occurs within different cultures and practitioners must work in international and intercultural contexts (L’Etang, 2010), initiatives should reflect a host nation’s cultural and societal norms and consider the nation’s level of economic development and media environment (Sriramesh and Verčič, 2003). To address the impacts of culture on public relations, Zaharna (2001) advocates for an ‘in-awareness’ approach to international public relations, which considers the culture’s influence on the communication aspect of public relations. This approach ‘looks at public relations as defined by national parameters and refined by cultural nuances’, serving as a guide for increasing cultural awareness (p. 144). Practitioners of global organizations must understand the culture of each society and tailor the CSR initiative to fit the host country (Carroll, 2004; Visser, 2011). Current sport CSR literature largely ignores regional and cultural differences in practice despite the influences of culture on organizational behavior (Breitbarth et al., 2015).
To examine how cultural differences between the host country and practitioner influence public relations, Zaharna (2001) advocates a three-tiered framework. The country profile examines the nation’s structural components (political, economic, media, infrastructure, legal, and social) to explain what communication would be feasible, such mass media channel access. The second tier, the cultural profile, examines cultural orientations to determine what projects would be appropriate. Last, the communication profile ‘refines cultural generalities’ to delineate optimum culturally based public relations activities (Zaharna, 2001: 134), including the use of rhetoric and visual communication. While broad, these profiles offer touchstones that are helpful in assessing how well a CSR initiative is appropriately tailored for the nation in which it is implemented.
Despite helping practitioners understand culturally driven expectations for specific public relations practices (Zaharna, 2001), research applying the ‘in-awareness’ approach is scant but suggests international companies’ CSR efforts largely fail to align with the host nation’s culture (White et al., 2011). This study applied the model to two cultures, but over the next decade, mega-events are scheduled for Japan, Russia, Qatar, and South Korea, presenting an array of issues and cultural characteristics for practitioners to consider. This study expands on international CSR research by examining FIFA’s initiatives for mega-events in two different regions of the world. In 2010, South Africa hosted the World Cup, investing US$4bn in stadiums alone, and ‘initially heralded as an opportunity to raise standards of living for the country’s roughly 25 million impoverished citizens’ (Werth, 2010, para. 3). Brazil followed in 2014, offering the nation ‘a great opportunity to speed its development and create a lasting legacy for its citizens’ (Associated Press, 2011, para. 1). To apply Zaharna’s (2001) approach within these contexts, we begin by outlining where South Africa and Brazil fall in the ‘in-awareness’ framework and then describe our methods and findings.
Country profile
South Africa
After becoming independent from Great Britain, South Africa became a republic in 1961 that was subjected to racial segregation until apartheid ended in 1994 (CIA2017b). South Africa has a unique economic situation as both a developed and developing nation (Freitag and Stokes, 2009), serving as a leader in sub-Saharan Africa (CIA, 2017b), but experiencing slower economic growth in recent years. Nearly half of its citizens live beneath the poverty level, have limited or no access to credit, and there is a high prevalence of HIV/AIDS, problems some attribute to its legacy of colonialism and apartheid (Berger, 2009; CIA, 2017b).
Brazil
Brazil gained independence in 1822 following more than three centuries of Portuguese rule (CIA, 2017a). Despite a spurt of economic growth, Brazil experienced inflation and rising unemployment, producing its worst recession in 2015 and 2016 (CIA, 2017a). Although the rich–poor gap has lessened in recent years, the nation still faces wide wealth disparity, with overcrowded cities and the highest number of ghettos in Latin America (BBC, 2017; Gannon and Pillai, 2013). Other challenges, particularly in rural Brazil, include a lack of access to clean water and sanitization (CIA, 2017a). Discontent with the economy and government corruption, which later resulted in the impeachment of President Dilma Rousseff, generated protests around the time of the World Cup.
Cultural profiles
South Africa
Zaharna (2001) also specifically points to cultural factors identified by Hall (1976) to examine what CSR projects would be appropriate. As a high-context culture, South Africans generally value relationships and delivery of messages more than words (Story and Reis, 2014) and prefer fostering long-term relationships rather than quick transactions (Katz, 2006). Thus, ‘the African cultural and normative premium of cultivating amicable relationships is a quintessential precursor to doing business in South Africa’ (Kwanash-Aidoo and Saleh, 2017: 79). However, such interactions must be reciprocal, and decision making should reflect consensus of all involved parties (Mangaliso and Damane, 2001). Generally attributed to South Africa’s history of colonialism and apartheid, a value found throughout the nation is Ubuntu. The term encapsulates ‘a spirit of caring and community, harmony and hospitality, respect and responsiveness’ (Mangaliso and Damane, 2001: 24) and is reflective of the African continent’s inclination toward ‘charity and solidarity’ (Mazrui, 1990: 3). The culture is also polychronic, engaging in many activities and less concerned about schedules, emphasizing being over doing (Gannon and Pillai, 2013). The spirit of Ubuntu is also seen here as time is ‘not a finite commodity’, and individuals value taking time to build relationships before engaging in in any form of partnerships (Mangaliso and Damane, 2001: 25). Finally, South African culture tends to be past-tense by focusing on traditions rather than the future (Goode, 2011).
Brazil
Brazilians emphasize collaboration, trust, and long-term relationships (Freitag and Stokes, 2009; Sims and Gegez, 2004). A term used in Brazil to describe this focus on high-quality relationships is panelinha, which represents ‘a group that, while friendly to outside members, does not provide the same chances or opportunities as to those in their panelinha’, producing high levels of loyalty between in-groups (Story and Reis, 2014, 207–208).
Barros and Prates (1996) believe that group members prioritize the values of other members over the needs of the company or system to which they belong, while Gannon and Pillai (2013) add that individuals often place needs of these members over their own. Thus, organizations wishing to establish partnerships with Brazilians should recognize the need to build more context into a relationship (Kelm and Victor, 2017). Morrison and Conway (2006) elaborate that organizations must be willing ‘to commit long-term resources of time and money’ to these relationships because without these commitments, ‘there is no point in attempting to do business there at all’ (p. 44). Unlike South Africans, Brazilians adopt a future-tense orientation, looking to the future for inspiration (Goode, 2011).
Communication profiles
South Africa
Communication is ‘entrenched in and influenced by cultural context’ (Kwanash-Aidoo and Saleh, 2017: 78), and the concept of Ubuntu bleeds into practice as public relations practitioners are charged with both sharing information and promoting goodwill (Rensburg, 2003). Because of the nation’s history of conflict and inequality, practitioners are expected to emphasize social responsibility (Holtzhausen et al., 2003) and sustainable development (Holtzhausen, 2005), reflecting the expectation that CSR be attributed to the Sotho principle of tiriasano, meaning ‘working together’ (Milhouse, 2001). Expectations for organizations to engage in ‘sustainable development strategies’ prompted some practitioners to consider the ‘cultural attributes of their publics’ by consulting with grassroots communities and replacing a reliance on mediated communication with interpersonal strategies (Holtzhausen, 2005: 411). Authenticity is key in South African communication efforts (Kwanash-Aidoo and Saleh, 2017), largely because ‘there is an inherent distrust in the broad traditional South African community toward organizations fed by a colonial past and the multinationals’ (Rensburg, 2003: 160). Consequentially, the rise of CSR sparked calls for transparency and reporting as many organizations attempt ‘to get mileage by backing politically correct issues (i.e. paying lip service only)’ (Holtzhausen, 2005: 411) and use these programs for ‘image building purposes’ (p. 413).
Brazil
While the Brazilian government is perceived as responsible for crime and health issues, private organizations are seen as contributing to employment and social transformation, and Brazil’s fluctuating economic performance since the 1960s bred higher expectations from these entities (Molleda et al., 2003). Because of the nation’s ‘roots in the exploitative nature of the Portuguese colonization’ (Yamahaki and Ursini, 2010: 101), growing societal concerns that the Brazilian government is financially incapable of addressing, and the nation’s future-tense orientation and environmental focus, publics fostered expectations for the private sector to spur political and social change, resulting in partnerships with non-profits and community groups (Molleda and Ferguson, 2004; Molleda et al., 2003). Brazilian organizations traditionally focused on community investment and philanthropy (Yamahaki and Ursini, 2010). More recently, CSR efforts outstripped philanthropy (Flores, 2014), and scholars recommended that practitioners should work with local partners, such as non-profits, and engage in social activities to gain public support (Freitag and Stokes, 2009). Yet, despite calls for public relations efforts to exceed publicity-driven strategy (Molleda et al., 2003), activities in Brazil are regularly geared toward receiving favorable coverage (Garcia, 2015) and commonly reflect social marketing practices (Costa et al., 2017).
Methods
Zaharna’s (2001) in-awareness framework shows that Brazil and South Africa share some commonalities. Both nations exhibit polychronic and high-context characteristics, producing a heightened focus on relationships and growing emphasis on private organizations to engage in CSR, which organizations often employ as a publicity tactic despite societal calls for instrumental efforts. However, they are also unique countries with diverse cultures and needs; for instance, South Africa faces the world’s largest HIV/AIDS epidemic and Brazil faces the detrimental impacts of deforestation, fostering an environmental focus. Therefore, FIFA’s efforts should be adapted for each World Cup to accommodate these variations, leading to the following research questions:
RQ1. To what extent did the CSR initiatives implemented by FIFA during the 2010 FIFA World Cup in South Africa and the 2014 FIFA World Cup in Brazil reflect the cultural and communication profiles of the host country?
RQ2. Reflecting critical CSR’s concern that organizations create initiatives that involve the community, have lasting impact, and provide clear reporting, what (if any) changes are necessary to increase the benefits of these programs for the host country and make implementation more effective?
We employed a multi-case study approach, which permits analysis of a specific organization or event, incorporating multiple sources, including organization and media accounts (Creswell, 2013), to fully understand the case (Stacks, 2005). A multiple case study accounts for different perspectives and permits a comparison of actions across different events, specifically allowing us to contrast and compare FIFA’s activities in South Africa and Brazil, producing a more comprehensive representation of these programs (Creswell, 2013). We selected these cases as they were the most recent FIFA World Cups at the time of analysis. Research should examine how organizations talk (Morris, 2013), with organizations communicating about CSR to demonstrate their commitment (Heath and Palenchar, 2009) and improve their image (Waters and Ott, 2014). News releases and other organizational documents were selected for this purpose because CSR does not always attract media attention (Manoli, 2015). Since organizational communication is often filtered or biased (McWilliams et al., 2006), media reports offering positive and negative representations of CSR were also included (Zhang and Swanson, 2006). Using reports from both FIFA and the media yielded the most balanced perspective.
Data collection
The 2010 and 2014 tournaments were selected because they are the most recent World Cups. CSR initiatives were identified using the Sustainability page of FIFA’s website. Documents were collected by searching the news section for the name of the CSR program (e.g. ‘20 Centers for 2010’), ‘FIFA’, and the host country (e.g. ‘South Africa’). After removing duplicates, 45 news releases, five fact sheets, and one report were analyzed for the 2010 World Cup; 26 news releases, four fact sheets, and four reports were analyzed for 2014. To gather media reports, after removing duplicates and irrelevant results, a search on LexisNexis yielded 71 news articles for the 2010 FIFA World Cup but only 16 for the 2014 tournament.
Analysis
Both inductive and deductive analyses were used to explore the data (Patton, 2002), because a balance of these approaches helps guide exploration while helping to develop new theory (Hyde, 2000). Analysis followed the textual analysis process described by Creswell (2013). First, the data were read completely to gain an understanding of the content, with notes capturing initial impressions and early analysis. Next, we began to organize the data – first sorting the cultural and communication profiles described by Zaharna (2001), reflecting a deductive approach. The data were then read through again to form preliminary codes based on emerging themes without applying preconceived categories (Hsieh and Shannon, 2005), reflecting an inductive approach. Using thematic analysis permits the researcher to focus on ‘implicit and explicit ideas within the data’ (Guest et al., 2012: 10). All data were read multiple times to identify as many codes as possible (Figures 1 and 2, Tables 1 and 2). Codes were placed within larger themes based on their relationships, with each theme compared and contrasted with others to identify distinctions and eliminate overlap. The final themes were recorded, and exemplars were identified within the data. These themes were then analyzed in accordance with existing research to connect the findings to the larger meaning of the data (Creswell, 2013) and derive implications for global CSR practice and in-awareness theory (Lincoln and Guba, 2000).
Final themes and initial codes for South Africa.
Final themes and initial codes for Brazil.
Final themes and initial codes for South Africa case.
The code inductively emerged from the data rather than reflecting the cultural and communication profiles.
Final themes and initial codes for Brazil case.
NGOs: non-governmental organizations.
The code inductively emerged from the data rather than reflecting the cultural and communication profiles.
Findings
For the 2010 and 2014 World Cup tournaments, FIFA promoted eight CSR initiatives (Table 3). FIFA implemented two programs in South Africa and one in Brazil. Two Brazil programs were part of a global initiative, and three efforts were implemented for both events.
FIFA’s CSR programs for the 2010 and 2014 World Cups.
FIFA: Fédération Internationale de Football Association; CSR: corporate social responsibility; SAFA: South African Football Association.
South Africa
FIFA (2007b) began implementing specific initiatives for the World Cup during the 2010 tournament as part of shifting to ‘a proactive and committed socially responsible attitude’ (para. 1). Analysis of FIFA’s CSR programs in South Africa yielded five themes: collaboration, participation, empowerment, social change, and diversity.
Collaboration
Several programs reflected Hall’s high-context and polychromic dimensions by focusing on relational elements, including establishing partnerships with local organizations. For each center in 20 Centers for 2010, for example, FIFA partnered with ‘best practice organizations’ to use football to address community problems such as HIV (FIFA, 2013a: 4), although it reportedly ‘had difficulty in procuring the services of local community development partners to administer the completed centres’ (Cornelissen, 2011: 525). As part of the ‘Win in Africa with Africa’, program, FIFA worked with the African Union of Broadcasting, four African universities, and several local football clubs to ‘develop football’ by offering media training, sport executive training, and promoting sports medicine (FIFA, 2009g: 1; Odeyemi, 2012). The Football for Hope Festival also included collaborations with unnamed organizations, while the Legacy Trust funded ‘a number of key grassroots activities’ implemented by the South African Football Association (SAFA), including the Dreamfields Project, Grassroots Soccer, and Innercity Ambassadors FC (FIFA, n.d.).
Importantly, the longevity of these relationships varied. Both the Football for Hope Festival and the Ticket Fund were contained to the World Cup. Based on data, Win in Africa with Africa appears to have ended following the final match, despite FIFA’s claims that the program would help Africa ‘continue its own development’ of the sport (Kortjaas, 2007: 12). However, fans familiar with the program did perceive FIFA to be more socially responsible (Walker et al., 2013). FIFA emphasized its 20 Centers were ‘long-term projects’ and committed financial resources through 2013 (FIFA, 2007a). Swart and Bob (2012) argued Legacy Fund indicated ‘a desire to sustain positive’ legacies (p. 9); however, some South Africans remained doubtful that the designated monies would actually leave a legacy as SAFA, which helps distribute the funds, let them down in the past (Ntloko, 2010). An investigation into SAFA later launched after allegations of fund misappropriation validated concerns (Moholoa, 2012). FIFA asserted it instituted a ‘series of checks and balances’ to ensure funds were not misused (Ntloko, 2010), giving 82 million ZAR to approved non-governmental organizations (NGOs) by 2014. However, FIFA has not specified amounts, making it difficult to track fund allocation (FIFA, 2014i).
Participation
FIFA’s efforts reflected the South African concept of tiriasano (Milhouse, 2001). The Football for Hope Festival included ‘an array of exciting programmes’ to encourage participation, including football and dancing (FIFA, 2007c). A total of 20 Centers for 2010 offered ‘engaging learning environments’, including sessions on HIV/AIDS (FIFA, 2013a). Other recreational activities included dance, a choir, and homework club; each facility also received a football pitch (FIFA, 2013a). Win in Africa with Africa enabled football officials, journalists, and youth to join football development programs (Odeyemi, 2012). By offering 40,000 tickets to stadium construction workers and 120,000 complimentary tickets to those who could not afford tickets, the Ticket Fund increased participation at World Cup events (FIFA, 2009f), reflecting the concept of Ubuntu. Ubuntu entails bringing ‘people together in a spirit of humanity and community’ (FIFA, 2010a: 5) and underlies many modern African CSR practices (Visser, 2011). However, the majority of the 120,000 tickets were given to FIFA’s commercial affiliates for distribution in their own CSR programs (FIFA, 2009f), confirming Zirin’s (2016) concern that Ubuntu was used to quell ‘uncomfortable questions’ about such decisions. 2 Moreover, the eviction of poor residents living in ‘eyesore’ shantytowns near stadiums also disputes FIFA’s claims of Ubuntu; Zirin notes one particularly drastic dislodgment near Cape Town prompted the United Nations to issue a complaint on behalf of the 20,000 displaced individuals.
FIFA highlighted that many of its initiatives engaged ‘disadvantaged communities’ (FIFA, 2011b), including its 20 Centers for 2010 which sought ‘to combat AIDS, poverty and crime and uplift communities that live far away from the flashy stadiums’ (‘Work Starts in Cape on First Football for Hope Centre’, 2009, para. 1). This initiative, along with the Legacy Trust, incorporated programming in smaller towns and townships near large cities (FIFA, n.d.). Critics argue FIFA’s efforts were not inclusive, further marginalizing certain populations (Clarke, 2010). During the Football for Hope event in Alexandra, the only food available was supplied by official vendors, making it too expensive for the local children. Srinath (2010) claimed FIFA’s efforts largely benefited populations close to event sites by emphasizing ‘photo-opportunity friendly, urban, established, globally-known projects’ (para. 10), such as its Football for Hope Festival. The director of an HIV awareness NGO stated, ‘The reality is we haven’t seen a thing’ (para. 11). Scholars echoed this sentiment, arguing the event was ‘marked by exclusion and marginalization’ (Schausteck de Almeida et al., 2015: 272).
Empowerment
Participation in some programs encouraged empowerment, acknowledging the gender equality gap pervading South Africa (Oliphant, 2015). A female participant stated, ‘being part of the Football for Hope Festival really boosted my self-esteem and confidence … you rarely see girls playing football where I live’ (FIFA, 2011a, para. 8). One center held a National Women’s Day, promoting ‘gender equality and empowerment of women’ with a street football tournament for 40 women combined with exercises on HIV/AIDS prevention, respect, and support (FIFA, 2009c, para. 3). Yet, FIFA’s behavior contradicts the message of such initiatives. Blatter was widely criticized in 2004 for his sexist suggestion that female football players should wear ‘tighter shorts’ to appeal to male viewers; more recently, the pay gap between professional male and female football players sparked outrage (Venetis, 2015).
Social change
FIFA’s CSR initiatives also emphasized social change for issues ranging from stigma associated with HIV/AIDS to education, which were appropriate given the rate of the disease and South Africa’s struggling educational system (Nkosi, 2016). 20 centers for 2010 used football to reach youth in disadvantaged communities on these topics, along with social integration (FIFA, 2013a). While FIFA implemented the program in other African nations, the primary focus for 20 centers in South Africa was HIV/AIDS awareness (FIFA, 2009e). One young participant explained, ‘I’ve learned that if you take risks, you can get AIDS very quickly, and I’ve also learned that you shouldn’t reject people suffering from the disease’ (FIFA, 2009d, para. 8). By the end of the tournament, however, only one-fifth of the facilities were completed and the others delayed (Cornelissen, 2011). In its final report (FIFA, 2013a), FIFA claimed the program helped thousands of young people across Africa, but program updates only included vague language such as the program resulted in ‘many success stories to date’ (FIFA, 2010b) and generated ‘tremendous change’ (FIFA, 2011b), failing to offer supporting details.
The Legacy Trust reportedly achieved its goal of providing access to education and health services to over 70,000 children through funding various programs (FIFA, 2013b). FIFA issued a follow-up article on the Football for Hope Festival containing quotes from a participant (FIFA, 2011a) but no other outcome measurement. Finally, the Win in Africa with Africa program focused on ‘concrete action’ by providing Africans with ‘tools’ and ‘skills’ to advance the sport of football, training nearly 300 people in journalism and photography (FIFA, 2009a; Kortjaas, 2007: 12). Again, FIFA offered no evaluation of the program, but 1 year after the tournament, evidence suggested it ‘yielded few of the substantive results initially promised’ (Cornelissen et al., 2011: 314).
Diversity
Many efforts also focused on diversity, including intercultural awareness, touching on the scars of apartheid (York, 2015). The Football for Hope Festival brought together disadvantaged youth from more than 40 countries for a ‘cultural exchange programme’ (Van Rooyen, 2010, para. 2) A participant stated, ‘I’ve never participated in a mixed group like that before … When I say “mixed,” I mean we were a group of Israelis and Palestinians’ (FIFA, 2011a, para. 4). Part of the Festival was held in Alexandra, which suffered xenophobic attacks in 2008; the Local Organizing Committee (LOC) hoped the event would ‘help write a new chapter’ for the city (FIFA, 2009e, para. 7). The festival emphasized fair play as participants engaged in matches with no referees and resolved differences through dialogue (FIFA, 2007c), fostering ‘personal development and mutual understanding’ (FIFA, 2009b, para. 2). Some critics called this expression of unity ‘short-lived’ when a public spat between two politicians began shortly after the tournament about South Africans’ racial traits and differences (Cornelissen, 2013).
FIFA (2009f) proclaimed the Ticket Fund ‘will celebrate the vibrant diversity of cultures and peoples across South Africa’ without offering the particulars as to how the festival would achieve these goals or measure the outcomes (para. 5). Despite the ability for mega-events and these corresponding CSR initiatives to generate cultural pride, the ‘longevity or even authenticity of these expressions of unity are or what they mean in a country where racial divisions exist’ is unclear (Cornelissen, 2013: 423).
Brazil
For its 2014 efforts, FIFA prepared for the events in conjunction with the LOC, generating its first comprehensive strategy, complete with ‘a clear, ambitious and yet realistic set of objectives’ based on previous experience, formative research, the public policy agenda in Brazil, and ISO 26000, the international standard on social responsibility (FIFA, 2015c: 22). Four themes emerged from analyzing FIFA’s efforts in Brazil: collaboration, future orientation, social change, and diversity, illustrating similarities to South Africa.
Collaboration
Like South Africans, Brazilians value collaboration and relationships; as a high-context culture, partnerships with local organizations are valued (Freitag and Stokes, 2009). FIFA reflected these concepts through several programs, noting that the impacts of these efforts ‘depend on the contribution of, and collaboration between, the many actors involved’ (FIFA, 2015c: 66). For Football for Hope, FIFA worked with the LOC and conducted a nationwide study to identify 25 sustainable NGOs using football for social development (FIFA, 2014j). FIFA’s head of CSR stated, ‘Our role is not to implement FIFA programmes in communities, but to recognize the intense efforts organisations are making in supporting that work’ (FIFA, 2014f, para. 4). Although FIFA contributed US$1.05m (FIFA, 2014e), FIFA’s paycheck for the tournament was closer to US$4bn (Ozanian, 2014).
11 for Health was a ‘specific’ program developed for Brazil in partnership with Johnson & Johnson, the Brazilian Football association, and the Ministry of Education, Health and Sport (FIF A, 2012). FIFA emphasized the specificity of the program, but the health messages created for the campaign were broad in nature and included playing football, respecting females, avoiding drugs, drinking clean water, and getting vaccinated. The Football for Hope Festival focused largely ‘interaction, cooperation and exchange’ (FIFA, 2014h: 9) as the 288 participants solved disagreements through dialogue (FIFA, 2014a). In addition to improving the ‘lives and prospects of young people around the world’ (FIFA, 2015c: 4), FIFA claims the Festival provided an opportunity for more Brazilians to participate in the tournament by holding it in a ‘disadvantaged community’ (FIFA, 2015c: 60). In other areas, FIFA scaled back its initiatives. FIFA offered significantly fewer free tickets than in South Africa, distributing them to 50,000 stadium construction workers through its Ticket Distribution (FIFA, 2015c; World Cup 2010: South Africa’s stadium workers handed free tickets, (2010)), hindering the already limited ability for many Brazilians to participate.
FIFA (2015c) touted its collaboration with Brazilian stakeholders as it planned its CSR initiatives, yet data indicate that it considered the LOC, federal government, and the like, not attendees and community members, to be key stakeholders. For these secondary stakeholders, FIFA conducted a ‘desk-research study’, followed by a public survey that indicated social and environmental responsibilities should be a priority. It then conducted only 16 interviews, ‘mostly with stakeholders from civil society organisations’ who were not previously affiliated with the non-profit (p. 27) about initiatives.
Future orientation
FIFA emphasized the sustainability of many of its initiatives, tying into the future-tense orientation of Brazilian culture (Goode, 2011). The governing body established a Legacy Fund for sport facilities, youth and women’s football, and health projects to ‘spread the benefits’ and promote football (FIFA, 2014d, para. 3) with ‘the objective of leaving a lasting legacy’ (FIFA, 2013c, para. 1). As part of Football for Hope, FIFA hosted a 3-day workshop to ‘strengthen the know-how of NGOs’ (FIFA, 2014f, para. 1); FIFA also announced it would financially support the projects through 2016 (FIFA, 2015c). FIFA (2016) offered a list of funded organizations in 2015 and 2016; however, this document only included 28 of the 32 originally funded organizations and shows 14 organizations received funding only through 2015.
11 for Health used money from the Legacy Fund with a goal of reaching 45,000 Brazilian schools by 2018 to contribute ‘to their future well-being’ (FIFA, 2015c: 68). Jiri Dvorak, FIFA’s chief medical officer, claimed the effort would ‘serve as a catalyst to improve the life of young people in Brazil well beyond the final whistle’ (FIFA, 2012, para. 5). However, the health program reportedly had ‘limited impact’, leading FIFA to discontinue the global initiative in June 2017 (Crossman, 2017).
Football for the Planet reflected Brazil’s focus on the environment, aiming to offset the tournament’s effects on the environment and reduce carbon emissions by financing Amazon reforestation, wind farms, and hydroelectric plants (2014 World Cup as polluting as 560,000 cars’, 2013). Noting that waste is a pressing environmental issue in Brazil, the program aimed to ‘improve its participants’ knowledge and awareness of the sustainable management of football stadiums’ (FIFA, 2014k, para. 2). It provided environmental education in the stadiums, encouraging fans to reduce waste through displays, the mascot Fuelco, and 13 social media posts (FIFA, 2015c). FIFA (2015c) claimed it ‘comfortably met previously benchmarks’ (p. 7), collecting 445 tons of recyclable material and receiving Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) certification on 7 of its 12 stadiums. Nevertheless, critics asked whether building ‘FIFA-quality stadiums’ in the middle of the Amazon rainforest, ‘the lungs of the world’ was truly an environmentally responsible choice (Zirin, 2016).
Social change
For most Brazilians, access to health services and education ‘is woeful’ (Zimbalist, 2015: 96). FIFA touted the Football for Hope program as a social catalyst by providing after school programs, increasing educational assistance, and raising awareness about health issues (FIFA, 2015c). Supportive efforts included providing funding, equipment, training, and networking opportunities for the NGOs; during the tournament, FIFA expanded the number of supported Football for Hope organizations in Brazil from 5 to 37 (FIFA, 2015c). Although program funding ended in 2016, FIFA has not provided an update on whether or not it achieved its goals. Indeed, for protestors wielding signs that read ‘We need FIFA-quality schools’ and ‘We need FIFA quality hospitals’ in addition to ‘FIFA-quality stadiums’ this information is critically important (in Zirin, 2016: 208).
Introduced for the 2014 tournament, 11 for Health aimed to reach 7,000 children before the end of 2014 with its 11 health-based messages and football-based activities in cities hosting an event (FIFA, 2014c). The head of one school stated, ‘A lot of them were in the street or had no access to education. We’re now seeing results thanks to the help we’re getting them’ (FIFA, 2014b, para. 12). FIFA (2015a) also claimed that its efforts went beyond the host cities: We took on a commitment with the states that did not host the event to make sure the benefits of the World Cup will reach places where, although the love for football is huge, the structure offered to the community still cannot be compared to that which we see in the bigger cities. (para. 5)
By June 2014, the program was established in 121 schools in the 12 host cites, but FIFA did not offer the number of students impacted (FIFA, 2014c). FIFA last provided an update on the program in 2015 (FIFA, 2015b), likely because of its termination in 2017 (Crossman, 2017). Like 11 for Health, the Legacy Fund was intended to incite improvement nationally as parts of the fund were ‘targeted for the 15 states where the game is not so well funded’ (‘Brazil Get World Cup Boost’, 2015, para. 14). Whereas the 2010 Legacy Fund has its own website to provide general updates (FIFA, n.d.), the 2014 trust does not, making it unclear how much of the funds have been to be distributed and to whom.
Diversity
Several initiatives also embraced the diverse culture of Brazil (Gannon and Pillai, 2013), including the Football for Hope Festival, where a 15-year-old Cambodian girl remarked, ‘I can samba. I’m so happy. I never imagined I would have an opportunity like this’ (FIFA, 2014g, para. 3). Participants also played on mixed gender teams to promote diversity in the sport (FIFA, 2014a). As a nod to the racism prevalent in the sport of football (Cashmore and Cleland, 2014), FIFA held anti-discrimination days, featuring a special pre-game ceremony to send ‘an unequivocal message to the billions of spectators around the world that there is no place for racism or any kind of discrimination in football, and by extension, society’ (FIFA, 2015c: 40). FIFA also launched a social media campaign, asking fans around the world to post selfies using #SayNoToRacism, claiming ‘over 1.2 million Facebook users actively engaged in the campaign’ (FIFA, 2015c: 40). However, such ‘awareness campaigns’ often offer ‘a lack of substance’ and thereby fail to ‘give back to society in any substantive measure’ (Levermore and Moore, 2015: 252), making such initiatives ‘distant’ with ‘little linkage’ to the communities in which the organization operates (Levermore, 2010: 231).
Discussion
Although there were some strengths of FIFA’s implementation of CSR, analysis suggests several initiatives did not reflect their hosts’ cultures, suggesting a self-serving rather than society-driven interest. We assess how FIFA’s programs reflected the cultures and values of South Africa and Brazil, as advocated by Zaharna (2001), before examining how they could be improved from a critical perspective, offering theoretical and practical implications for CSR in different cultures.
In South Africa, FIFA’s partnerships with local organizations through the 20 Centers for 2010, Win in Africa with Africa, and the Legacy Fund emphasized the relational element valued by South Africans based on their high-context, polychronic, and ‘being’ cultural values. Efforts such as the Football Festival for Hope, Ticket Fund, and 20 Centers for 2010 encouraged South African participation, demonstrating tiriasano. 20 centers for 2010, the Football for Hope Festival, the Legacy Fund, and Win in Africa with Africa, also addressed relevant areas of social change, such as equality, including cultural and racial integration, education, gender equality, and HIV/AIDS.
Although some rural South African communities anticipated that the World Cup would leave positive economic and infrastructural legacies, other respondents believed the event would not leave any form of a positive legacy because these potential benefits were inaccessible by rural communities (Bob and Majola, 2011) and many urban areas (Pillay and Bass, 2008). Despite being lauded as a success by FIFA, South Africa, and the media, socio-economic impacts were ‘marginal’ (Schausteck de Almeida et al., 2015) as non-host areas saw little to no economic benefit from anticipated ‘spillover effects’ (Swart and Bob, 2012). Even FIFA’s (2015c) market research found 56 percent of South Africans believed the benefits were limited to only a few people, leading critics to argue ‘if FIFA’s World Cup Legacy is something concrete … it has not delivered’ (Clarke, 2010: D01). Cornelissen (2013) elaborated, ‘despite the event’s pro-poor casting, it benefited a fairly small and elite number of players’ (p. 422).
In Brazil, the Football for Hope Festival reflected Brazilians’ love for large public gatherings (Molleda et al., 2003) and, along with Anti-Discrimination Days, emphasized the importance of diversity. Similar to South Africa, establishing relationships with local NGOs and the government through 11 for Health and Football for Hope adhered to the country’s high-context and polychronic leanings. These programs also recognized the economic disparities and health challenges. 11 for Health, Football for the Planet, and the Legacy Trust reflected Brazilians’ future-tense orientation by implying a long-term focus, focusing on the environment and the sustainability of the tournament’s potential for social development.
Throughout the event, FIFA suffered intense scrutiny over its ethics (Mitra, 2015), including changing Brazilian laws so corporate sponsor Budweiser could sell beer at stadiums, reportedly encouraging questionable working conditions to ensure stadium completion, and marginalizing population groups (Zirin, 2016). One critic argued that for these reasons, FIFA left ‘with its image devastated in terms of social responsibility’ (Wallace, 2014: 4). Research based on the 2014 tournament and upcoming 2022 World Cup in Qatar shows football fans believe FIFA strongly violates standards of integrity and ethical behavior, legal compliance, and social and environmental responsibility (Zeidan and Fauser, 2015).
Reflecting on insufficient and ineffective sport CSR, Levermore and Moore’s (2015) critical CSR approach aims to address ‘ill-thought out’ projects, depicting corporate philanthropy and awareness campaigns as ‘a short-term pet project linked to the whims of those leading organizations’ (p. 251). They contend this ‘(often unethical) use’ of CSR, particularly in low- and middle-income countries can perpetuate power imbalances in sport, reinforcing L’Etang’s (1994) concerns of exploitation. Many of these concerns haunt FIFA’s CSR programming during the 2010 and 2014 World Cups.
While FIFA (2007b) claims to be shifting from its ‘charity-driven’ approach (para. 1), a few initiatives suggest the federation continues to cling to this model. Specifically, the Ticket Fund permitted FIFA and its partners to distribute over 100,000 tickets in South Africa while also discounting tickets for locals to US$17, still considerably expensive for many members of the nation, who often bring home less than US$100 per month (‘FIFA’S 120,000 World Cup freebies’, 2009). On a grander scale, FIFA’s Legacy Trust leaves behind a substantial donation for the development of football and relevant NGOs in the host nation but exemplifies the disengaged check-writing approach that is no longer valued in the South Africa (Holtzhausen, 2005) and is increasingly less prevalent in Brazil (Flores, 2014).
Organizations should also be careful that their CSR efforts are not solely ‘awareness campaigns’ (Levermore and Moore, 2015), which often appear as ‘superficial image polishing’ (Heath and Ryan, 1989: 22). Focusing on the Olympic games, Walker et al. (2010) found consumers responded negatively to CSR perceived to be strategic but positively to programs that appeared to be stakeholder or values-driven. Many FIFA initiatives, including Anti-Discrimination Days, the Football for Hope Festival, and the Ticket Fund reflect a more symbolic than instrumental approach (Heath, 2006). While addressing racism within the sport is certainly a noble endeavor, holding a ceremony or introducing a hashtag is a more figurative attempt to initiate social change. These initiatives also have a short shelf life, leaving the host nation along with FIFA executives, television crews, and tourists. Importantly, the perception of the organization implementing the efforts can also influence perceptions of CSR (Floter et al., 2016). Because of FIFA’s ongoing corruption scandals (Chaufen, 2015), consumers are likely to be increasingly skeptical of the organization and its efforts. Given information is readily available and easily accessible in a technology-driven age, information about FIFA and its misdoings is highly public, making the motives behind its CSR more questionable.
Heath (2006) contends that organizations should use CSR to ‘make society better’ by favoring ‘the public interest over (or at least equal to) personal (partisan) interest’ (p. 103). Relying on public relations in its fundamental role as a bridge between organization and publics would help build CSR programs that help create a more fully functioning society. If CSR is to be a public relations function focusing on relationships, then it must adhere to the highest standards of public relations. Thus, to adopt a stakeholder- and values-driven approach to CSR in international sport, considering cultural preferences is essential. When introducing the in-awareness approach, Zaharna (2001) emphasized the framework was ‘a preliminary guide for increasing awareness and cultural sensitivity’, adding that ‘components beg future research and refinement’ (p. 147). Based on our findings, which apply in-awareness to sport CSR, we suggest extending the in-awareness approach within this context by linking it to critical CSR. A marriage between these two theoretical frameworks would suggest that practitioners ensure CSR efforts adhere to cultural expectations and norms but also bridge, rather than amplify, unequal power relations by consulting communities in the conceptualization and implementation of CSR (Levermore and Moore, 2015). Both South Africa and Brazil value engagement and have high expectations for organizations that exceed charitable donations or ticket distributions. For cultures valuing relationships, transparency, and trust, organizations should ensure their efforts suggest sincere motives. Brazil and South Africa believe CSR should improve the quality of life; thus practitioners should adopt a more relational approach by including publics as partners (Zaharna and Uysal, 2016).
Public relations literature suggests research (including an environmental assessment and problem definition) are essential (Clark, 2000; Kotler and Lee, 2005) as it permits organizations to generate initiatives with measurable goals that are achievable in 5–15 years (Werbach, 2010). Including the perspectives of stakeholders to determine expectations and desires is also essential (O’Connor and Meister, 2008). For the 2014 tournament, FIFA developed a more comprehensive strategy because of ‘the lessons learnt from previous World Cups’ (FIFA, 2015a, para. 2). FIFA highlighted its formative research and evaluation efforts to demonstrate it was aware of the event’s impact. When creating its strategy for 2014, FIFA (2015c) collaborated with stakeholders, namely, government organizations, host cities, and business partners, to identify key issues for CSR efforts. The concerns and priorities of Brazilians, who were considered a secondary stakeholder group by FIFA, were ‘captured by public surveys’ (FIFA, 2015c: 27).
In addition, other initiatives (e.g. Anti-Discrimination Days and the Legacy Fund) showed little reflection of the Brazilian culture and benefited FIFA more than Brazil. If an organization aspires to effectively use CSR for social development, simple surveys and the occasional interview to accomplish this goal will yield poor results. Rather, in keeping with a critical CSR perspective, practitioners at a minimum must work with external agencies with strong local ties, but ideally should engage in ‘strong dialogue’ with community members (Giulianotti, 2015) to privilege ‘the beneficiaries’ perceptions and experiences of CSR needs’ (Idemudia, 2011: 13).
Using a case study approach, Heinze et al. (2014) explained how the Detroit Lions successfully employed a participatory, ‘bottom-up’ approach to CSR by ‘going into the community to listen and learn from others involved in city revitalization efforts’ rather than ‘assuming they knew the city’s needs’ (p. 677). After matching the team’s strengths and resources with the community’s needs, the Lions focused their efforts in community development and health and wellness. Importantly, the Lions tried to establish mutually beneficial relationships reflecting ‘respect and humility’ by listening to various perspectives and deferring to the expertise of partners rather than ‘imposing’ their own opinions or mandates.
Although the Detroit Lions are a stationary fixture in the Motor City rather than a transitory body overseeing a limited event in a host nation, this participatory nature is equally important for international organizations. Because sport mega-events often leave behind ‘white elephant’ stadiums, environmental damage, and significant debt (Leopkey and Parent, 2012; Nobre, 2017; Zimbalist, 2015), generating short-term benefits rather than tangible and intangible legacies (Giulianotti et al., 2015; Holtzhausen and Fullerton, 2015) and excluding many members of the population (Celik, 2011; Pillay and Bass, 2008), even FIFA (2015c) acknowledges its responsibility to leave a ‘lasting and positive impact on a host country’ (p. 66). By including community members in the CSR process, organizations can not only ensure these initiatives will not fail or backfire but will also be more effective, sustainable, and society-driven.
We offer three primary practical implications for practitioners. First, in addition to research, evaluation is needed to better address global initiatives (Clark, 2000; Kotler and Lee, 2005). Following the 2010 World Cup, critics portrayed FIFA’s CSR as ‘tokenism with substandard outcome evaluation’ (Witzig, 2010, para. 10). Our findings suggest FIFA offered little evaluation of CSR programs to the public; other forms of evaluation included indeterminate language heralding a program was a ‘success’ with no metrics or quantifying information, thus functioning more as a rhetorical ‘cloaking device’ (L’Etang, 2013b: 118). This finding reflects a larger tend as such information is rarely provided, if evaluation is conducted at all (Levermore, 2011b, 2011c). If some of these efforts, such as the Legacy Fund, seek to provide sustainable change, information should be provided regularly to stakeholders to offer a more thorough understanding of the long-term impact of its efforts. Although evaluating efforts can be challenging and laborious (Giulianotti, 2015), proper reflection can help improve future CSR programs (Levermore, 2011a). Such efforts should be formative, not just summative, to improve the implementation and management of these programs (Coalter, 2013). Furthermore, evaluation must also be inclusive, involving community members to gain a holistic understanding of the impacts rather than reflecting the perspectives of practitioners attempting a positive portrayal. Indeed, scholars and journalists alike offered critical evaluation of FIFA’s initiatives (Campbell, 2014; Cornelissen, 2013; Zirin, 2016). In addition, a participatory approach to evaluation can not only improve the construction and implementation of such efforts but also generate ‘more realistic and contextually relevant outcomes’ (Coalter, 2010: 311).
Second, international CSR efforts must be inclusive. South Africans deeply value societal inclusion, yet critics questioned how the efforts largely implemented in host cities would benefit rural populations (Srinath, 2010; Witzig, 2010). Similarly, in Brazil, the first four pitches constructed through the Legacy Fund were located near an event site in an urban area, and the 11 for Health campaign was implemented in cities hosting a match. Programs in both countries (e.g. 20 Centers for 2010, Football for Hope Festival, 11 for Health) primarily targeted the youth population. Other initiatives, such as the Ticket Fund, benefited a small fraction of the population and seem to be publicity driven. Organizations should better incorporate marginalized groups who may be overlooked because the agency may not profit from including them. Vujnovic and Kruckeberg (2010) argue strategic publics and stakeholder groups no longer exist for an organization as ‘the most important stakeholder of every corporation is society itself’ (p. 38). This approach aligns with Coombs and Holladay’s (2012) advocacy that organizations should not restrict efforts to highly visible areas. Furthermore, although both South Africa and Brazilians value partnerships and collaborations with local groups, partnering agencies must be reputable, particularly when the organization’s reputation (such as SAFA’s) is under question.
Third, for CSR to benefit society, organizations should prepare for a long-term investment of resources. FIFA (2014e) consistently noted the importance of investing in social development projects that left a positive legacy (para. 5), and in terms of raising awareness about community issues or environmental needs, FIFA’s efforts may impact individuals for years to come. Yet, as this study illustrates, some projects are short term. Funding for Football for Hope projects ended in 2016, and the Legacy Fund ends in 2018. FIFA (2015c) acknowledged this deficiency. Again, mega-events often leave huge financial burdens on countries hosting such events, and critics argue money could be spent better elsewhere (Wilson, 2014; Witzig, 2010), as few would question Brazil’s need to update its infrastructure, but many condemned the decision to allocate US$5bn for football stadiums (Zimbalist, 2015), making CSR initiatives appear insincere and insufficient.
Limitations and future directions
Although multiple case studies generate more generalizable and robust findings than one case (Creswell, 2013), additional research to understand how organizations culturally tailor CSR is needed. First, research should examine the efforts of both global sporting organizations and non-sport organizations, as well as initiatives implemented in other areas in the world. While Brazil and South Africa have unique cultural elements, both are also products of European colonialism, which may produce some similarities. Expanding this research into new contexts would produce a richer, more robust understanding of this phenomenon. Second, this study focused on how organizations communicate about CSR initiatives to stakeholders, who can access and assess website and media coverage independent of what may have led to their creation. Incorporating interviews with practitioners who research, plan, implement, and evaluate CSR programs may provide additional insight, perhaps showing the clash between practitioner suggestion and management decision. Future research should examine how publics respond to initiatives, including those most affected by these events: members of the host nation. Such research should include analyzing whether or not publics perceive the initiatives to be aligned with the nation’s culture and the extent to which they perceive these problems to be impactful. Third, longitudinal studies should be conducted to analyze long-term effects of CSR programs on various actors, including the communities in which these programs are implemented and the sponsoring organization. Finally, more research is needed to refine our theoretical understanding of CSR from both public relations and cultural perspectives, extending our knowledge on the subject and addressing any discrepancies between extant theory and practice (Benn et al., 2010).
Conclusion
Through examining the extent to which a global governing body tailored its social responsibility efforts for the host nation of a premier sporting event, this study contributes to an interdisciplinary discussion on the melding of public relations, sport, and CSR by considering the importance of culture in international practice. Analysis demonstrates that FIFA’s CSR efforts do not always reflect the profiles of the host nation, adopting aspirational talk more than substantive change. Publics detect attempts to greenwash or buy CSR credit through donations (O’Connor and Meister, 2008), and with FIFA already under scrutiny for bribery and corruption, poorly implemented CSR may widen FIFA’s legitimacy gap rather than narrowing it. Thus, this study underscores the importance of incorporating a public relations–driven approach when designing, implementing, and evaluating these programs to set realistic objectives for initiatives, avoid marginalizing certain populations, and ensure programs deliver on the organization’s promises to offer long-term, positive impacts.
For international organizations, this article emphasizes that CSR planning must reflect the needs and culture of each country (Zaharna, 2001). In 2016, the Summer Olympics visited Brazil; in 2018, Russia hosted the FIFA World Cup, and construction practices for Qatar’s 2022 hosting of the World Cup make complaints about Brazil’s ‘look positively benign’ (Zirin, 2016: 169). Similarly, within the next decade, the Olympics will travel to Japan, China, France, and the United States. The implications for this study apply to sport and non-sport, for-profit or non-profit organizations operating internationally, demonstrating that dedication to efforts should be global, but concerns about effective implementation should be local (Coombs and Holladay, 2012). As analysis shows, host nations may share similar cultural and communication traits. However, each nation has unique attributes that must be considered when designing these programs and many countries, including South Africa and Brazil, have growing expectations for private sector organizations to engage in political and social matters. To be effective, organizations should integrate public opinion to ensure initiatives reflect the issues, cultural orientation, and expectations of the host country.
To that end, we recommend that organizations not only consider the culture but also adopt a critical CSR approach (Levermore and Moore, 2015) by involving participants in the design, execution, and evaluation of programming. Weiss (1993) lamented that in many social programming initiatives, ‘We mount limited-focus programs to cope with broad-gauge problems. We devote limited resources to long-standing and stubborn problems’ (p. 105). This study illustrates that these concerns continue to plague CSR practices. In doing so, this article links public relations, intercultural communication, and sport CSR concepts and theory, in addition to offering suggestions for CSR and public relations practitioners. Sport organizations have potential to lead CSR efforts, but must ensure their programs reflect the culture, are guided by research and given appropriate resources, and demonstrate commitment to the issue and the community. Only then will FIFA reflect its slogan and be ‘For the game. For the world’.
Footnotes
Funding
The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
Notes
Author biographies
Ashli Q. Stokes (PhD, University of Georgia) is a Professor of Communication Studies at the University of North Carolina at Charlotte and the Director of its Center for the Study of the New South. Her award-winning research using rhetorical approaches to analyze public relations controversies, frequently concerning activism and social movements, has been published in Public Relations Inquiry, Journal of Public Relations Research, Journal of Communication Management, Public Relations Review, and the Southern Communication Journal, among others. Stokes also co-authored Global Public Relations: Spanning Borders, Spanning Cultures (Routledge, 2009); and, in her work on communicating Southern identity, published Consuming Identity: The Role of Food in Redefining the South (with Wendy Atkins-Sayre; University of Mississippi Press, 2016) and essays for the Southern Communication Journal, Smithsonian, and Academic Minute.