Applying a Communicating Vessels Framework to CSR Value Co-creation: Empirical Evidence From Professional Team Sport Organizations

Abstract

Despite the increasing number and significance of charitable foundations in various business sectors, their role in cocreating corporate social responsibility (CSR) value remains unclear. This paper identifies CSR value cocreation in professional team sport organizations (PTSOs) and answers three key research questions: (a) Why have PTSOs developed charitable foundations as their means toward CSR value cocreation? (b) What CSR-related resources do PTSOs and their charitable foundations integrate? and (c) How do they manage, share, and transfer such resources to cocreate CSR value? Drawing theoretical insights from service dominant logic and consumer culture theory—and using empirical data from 47 semistructured interviews of UK-based professional football (soccer) clubs—this study develops a communicating vessels framework to illustrate the role of charitable foundations in the CSR value cocreation process. Through four tentative CSR value cocreation levels of relationship (bolt-on, cooperative, controlled, and strategic) the study suggests several internal strategies that can enhance the level of collaboration between founders and foundations. These include information sharing through customer relationship management (CRM) systems and social media platforms; staff sharing or flexible movement across the organizations; quality assurance agreements; flexible team cooperation; partnership protocols with social, media, cultural, and commercial stakeholders; and cotraining of personnel.

The board–executive relationship in team sport charitable foundations: unpacking trust building through ‘exchange currencies’

“…According to the reciprocity principle, it is expected the trustee will not abuse the trustor as they give direct or indirect benefits to one another (Lévi-Strauss, 1969;Molm et al, 2007). For example, the 'parent' team supports its charitable foundation with financial and/or contributions-in-kind with the view that the latter will juxtapose a positive image in the community where the former exists and operates (Anagnostopoulos et al, 2017;Kolyperas et al, 2016).…”

“…As previous research has shown (e.g., Anagnostopoulos et al, 2017;Kolyperas et al, 2016), foundation executives/CEOs are trying to secure as large and as consistent a buy-in as possible from the board members affiliated with the 'parent' team in exchange for contributing towards the latter's business-related objectives.…”

“…As an organisational format, charitable foundations are well positioned in an environment that increasingly requires all types of organisations to practically showcase their social responsibility (Breitbarth et al, 2015). It has been empirically evidenced, both outside (e.g., Herlin and Pedersen, 2013;Minefee et al 2015) and inside the sporting domain (e.g., Kolyperas et al, 2016;Sparvero and Kent, 2014), that companies have formed charitable foundations for their philanthropic activities and community-based programmes. Indeed, this mode of governance for implementing corporate social responsibility (CSR) (see Husted, 2003) has now become the one most adopted by not only blue-chip companies across the world (Marquis and Lee, 2013), but also by the professional team sport organisations (Walzel, Robertson and Anagnostopoulos, 2018).…”

“…Such an influential presence in the board from the 'parent' team's perspective is neither incidental nor inexplicable. Above all, the charitable foundations are at least partially dependent on their founding teams and its network and human resources (Kolyperas et al, 2016).…”

Guest editorial: performance strategies for meeting multiple objectives

“…The two most prominent of these are generally: to maintain a high level of on-field performance and, to maximise off-field commercial business operations in the pursuit of revenue gains. For the latter, the concept of corporate social responsibility has started playing an increasingly important role (Breitbarth et al, 2015;Kolyperas et al, 2016). It is widely acknowledged in academia that these objectives are linked yet there is no clear consensus as to which is the cause and effect.…”