Giving them a voice: Examining nonprofits’ perspectives on their relationships with professional sport organizations Kim Soltis, Sport Sociology Professional sport organizations (PSOs) are increasingly engaging in corporate social responsibility (CSR) initiatives within their local communities. While past studies have examined why PSOs work with local communities, the beneficiaries of these partnerships are widely dismissed from the literature. Therefore, the purpose of this study is to examine how nonprofits perceive PSOs’ CSR initiatives. This study has three specific aims: 1) To identify the unique benefits and challenges that nonprofits believe they yield from partnering with PSOs; 2) To understand how the relationships between nonprofits and PSOs are established from the perspective of nonprofits; and 3) To account for the (de)evolution of relationships between nonprofits and PSOs over time. Semi-structured interviews were conducted with nonprofit practitioners who have collaborated with PSOs in the United States. The findings draw on gaps in the literature and provide insights into how PSOs and nonprofits can practice CSR more coherently together. Abstract Semi-structured interviews - 26 nonprofit practitioners in one metropolitan area of the United States - 19 women, 7 men - 17 white, 4 Black, 1 bi-racial, 1 American Indian, 1 Pacific Islander, 2 did not disclose - Ages ranged from 24 years-old to 58 years-old - 11 youth-based, 5 food-based, 4 health-based, 2 disability-based, 1 Native-based, 1 race-based, 1 faith-based, 1 first responder-based nonprofits - 90 nonprofit-PSO relationships Methods and Materials The uniqueness of professional sport provides both benefits and challenges for nonprofits who partner with PSOs (Formentin & Bortree, 2019; Sheth & Babiak, 2010). - PSOs’ resources (e.g., media access, celebrity athletes) can help bring attention to partnering nonprofits. - Uncertainty and disconnect by PSOs lead to relationships feeling inauthentic. Most nonprofits in the philanthropic stage would like to evolve into Austin’s (2000) transactional or integrative stages. - Nonprofit-PSO relationships evolve into higher stages (e.g., philanthropic up to transactional), and in rare cases, lower stages of Austin’s (2000) collaboration continuum (e.g., integrative down to philanthropic). - The relationships in the integrative stage are built upon years of collaboration, board member integration, and value alignment. What can PSOs do to better fit the needs of the nonprofits they work with? Conclusions Benefits v vv - RQ1: What unique benefits and challenges do nonprofits believe they yield from partnering with PSOs? - RQ2: How are the relationships between nonprofits and PSOs established from the perspective of nonprofits? - RQ3: How does the collaboration continuum manifest in nonprofit and PSO relationships? Research Questions Challenges “Sometimes [nonprofit youth] get to go to games, and very often they get to meet players. And those are things that they naturally wouldn't be able to do when you're living in a life of poverty.” - Participant 3 Philanthropic - Most common stage - Infrequent or minor interactions between nonprofits and organizations - Small magnitude or resources allocated to nonprofits Transactional - Formal communication between nonprofits & organizations - Focus on activities that benefit both entities Integrative - Rarest stage - Missions & actions merge together Austin’s (2000) Nonprofit-Business Collaboration Continuum “Most of the non-sport organizations don't really have the brand recognition that the [PSO] have, so they can't do quite as much on the awareness side.” - Participant 12 “And it's like, ‘Oh wow, that [PSO] stand with them, so [nonprofit] must be legit,’ or ‘[nonprofit] has to be doing something that's really important for these [PSOs] to show up.’ And I think that's what happened with [nonprofit]. A lot of people start seeing us and noticing, like taking us serious.” - Participant 20 “[professional sport organizations] aren't youth workers. They don’t run programs. They don't know what I do, and they don't understand what I do.” - Participant 2 “We often say that we're not a petting zoo, but oftentimes it is a traditional practice for celebrities, sports figures to come into kids’ hospitals and do bedside visits or engage with the kids. But we're definitely not there to parade around our sick kids.” - Participant 8 “And they're very secretive. It's hard to know what their priorities are. It's hard to build a relationship. It's hard to know where we sit in their priorities because they're very tight lipped. And I just don't know where we are. Sometimes I'm like, ‘Do they hate us? Do they like us? What do I?’ They're just hard to build a relationship with, and a lot of it is personality. You know, so much of what we rely on is the personality of the person running it.” - Participant 1 “Getting to meet and see behind the scenes, there's so much more that goes into a sports team than just the players or the athletes on the field. I mean even just giving them a little bit of a peek behind the curtain and different perspective, I think is equally impactful too and just their future and what they see and dream for themselves.” - Participant 4 “But when you're bringing these families, and you're like, ‘Oh, it's this fun special night.’ And then you're kind of stuck in the worst seats. There's just kind of that feeling, ‘Oh, maybe we're kind of just an afterthought.’” - Participant 10 PSOs offer golden opportunities for contributing to positive change in society (Walters, 2009). - PSOs implement collaborations with nonprofits to enhance their teams’ reputation and create a loyal fan base within the specific regions they serve (Babiak & Wolfe, 2013; Chiu et al., 2023; Rowe et al., 2019; Sheth & Babiak, 2010). - Nonprofits have the societal capabilities and trust that PSOs lack in order to address specific social needs, and PSOs have the resources and competence that the nonprofits need (Aaker et al., 2010; Austin & Seitanidi, 2012; Shumate & O’Connor, 2010). Why Nonprofits and Professional Sport Organizations Quality of Donations Lasting Impacts Rare Opportunities Uncertainty of the Sports Industry Being used for Publicity Disconnect Between Organizations Awareness and Reach Feeling Legitimized References Aaker, J., Vohs, K. D., Mogilner, C. (2010). Nonprofits are seen as warm and for‐profits as competent: Firm stereotypes matter. The Journal of Consumer Research, 37(2), 224–237. https://doi.org/10.1086/651566 Austin, J. E. (2000). Strategic collaboration between nonprofits and businesses. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 29(1_suppl), 69–97. https://doi.org/10.1177/0899764000291S004 Austin, J. E., & Seitanidi, M. M. (2012). Collaborative value creation: A review of partnering between nonprofits and businesses: Part I. value creation spectrum and collab stages. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 41(5), 726–758. https://doi.org/10.1177/0899764012450777 Babiak, K., & Wolfe, R. (2013). Perspectives on social responsibility in sport. Routledge Handbook of Sport and Corporate Social Responsibility, 17–35. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203747537.ch1 Chiu, W., Cho, H., & Won, D. (2023). The knowledge structure of corporate social responsibility in sport management: A retrospective bibliometric analysis. International Journal of Sports Marketing & Sponsorship, 24(4), 771–792. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJSMS-09-2022-0178 Formentin, M., & Bortree, D. (2019). Giving from the heart: Exploring how ethics of care emerges in corporate social responsibility. Journal of Communication Management (London, England), 23(1), 2–17. https://doi.org/10.1108/JCOM-09-2018-0083 Rowe, K., Karg, A., & Sherry, E. (2019). Community-oriented practice: Examining corporate social responsibility and development activities in professional sport. Sport Management Review, 22(3), 363–378. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.smr.2018.05.001 Sheth, H., & Babiak, K. M. (2010). Beyond the game: Perceptions and practices of corporate social responsibility in the professional sport industry. Journal of Business Ethics, 91(3), 433–450. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-009-0094-0 Shumate, M., & O’Connor, A. (2010). The symbiotic sustainability model: Conceptualizing NGO-corporate alliance communication. Journal of Communication, 60(3), 577–609. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1460-2466.2010.01498.x Walters, G. (2009). Corporate social responsibility through sport: The community sports trust model as a CSR delivery agency. Journal of Corporate Citizenship, 35(1), 81-94. Contact Information Kim Soltis Sport Sociology, MS Student solti022@umn.edu https://doi.org/10.1086/651566 https://doi.org/10.1177/0899764000291S004 https://doi.org/10.1177/0899764012450777 https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203747537.ch1 https://doi.org/10.1108/IJSMS-09-2022-0178 https://doi.org/10.1108/JCOM-09-2018-0083 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.smr.2018.05.001 https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-009-0094-0 https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1460-2466.2010.01498.x mailto:solti022@umn.edu Slide 1