Corporate Social Responsibility in NCAA Athletics: Institutional Practices and Decision

Makers

DISSERTATION

Presented in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree Doctor of Philosophy

in the Graduate School of The Ohio State University

By

Lauren Elizabeth Brown

Graduate Program in Education and Human Ecology

The Ohio State University

2012

Dissertation Committee:

Dr. Brian A. Turner, Advisor

Dr. Packianathan Chelladurai

Dr. Donna L. Pastore

Copyright by

Lauren Elizabeth Brown

2012

ii

Abstract

Tactical corporate social responsibility (CSR) can play a central role in an

organization’s strategic management (Hamil & Morrow, 2011) by enhancing the

relationship between an organization and its key stakeholders (Babiak & Wolfe, 2009).

In the context of sport, these stakeholders can include fans, the media, team employees,

and the local community (Babiak & Wolfe, 2009). There is evidence that NCAA

athletics departments are engaging in CSR initiatives, yet there has been no examination

of this in the scholarly literature. This study looked to rectify the dearth in the literature

by examining the emphasis placed on CSR practices by the athletics departments of

NCAA member institutions and which stakeholders within athletics departments are

guiding the decisions behind these CSR practices.

An online questionnaire was emailed to one senior manager from the athletics

department of each NCAA member institution, with 266 responses (25%) being used in

the analysis. The emphasis placed on 17 CSR practices was measured on a 6-point

Likert-type scale with ANOVA and the Welch test being used to examine differences

between the three NCAA Divisions and between Division I institutions based on their

football affiliation. The involvement of stakeholders was measured on a 5-point Likert-

type scale for each of Carroll’s (1991) four domains of CSR (economic, legal, ethical,

and philanthropic). The stakeholder groups examined were senior management, other

iii

departmental administrators, head coaches, assistant coaches, members of the Student-

Athlete Advisory Committee (SAAC), and student-athletes who are not members of

SAAC. Again, ANOVA and the Welch test were used to evaluate differences between

divisions and Division I institutions. Inquiries into institutional requirements in regard to

CSR practices, as well as details regarding institutional practices and philosophy were

included to enhance the analysis.

The results indicate institutions are emphasizing CSR practices in moderate

response to institutional requirements. The results also suggest that aside from the

institution, regulations put forth by governing bodies strongly influence the emphasis

placed on specific CSR practices. In regard to stakeholders, the high involvement scores

of senior management and head coaches in each domain of CSR, reflect the importance

of departmental and sport program leaders in determining CSR practices. Additionally,

the differences among the divisions when examining the head coach, assistant coach,

SAAC, and non-SAAC member stakeholder groups, reflect the differences in structure

and human resources between divisions and departments.

As this study establishes a foundation for additional inquiry into CSR in the

context of NCAA athletics, it has raised several additional questions requiring

exploration. For instance, both scholars and practitioners need to determine how the

involvement in CSR practices impacts the student-athlete experience. Additionally, as

some stakeholder groups, notably assistant coaches, are not involved in the decision

making processes surrounding CSR initiatives, scholars and practitioners should explore

if this lack of involvement is negating some of the benefits of engaging in CSR practices.

iv

This manuscript is dedicated to my grandfather, John Eckert, whose actions have taught

me more life lessons than I can count.

v

Acknowledgments

I am humbled by the support I have received while pursuing my doctorate. The

faculty members in Sport Management and Sport Humanities at The Ohio State

University provided both academic support and an ear for my questions and concerns

over the last three years. I must first thank my advisor, Dr. Brian Turner, for his calming

guidance, encouragement, and patience with me throughout the process. Thanks are also

owed to Dr. Packianathan Chelladurai, Dr. Donna Pastore, and Dr. Sarah Fields for their

guidance and support. Additionally, I must thank Dr. Susan Bandy for her kindness, Dr.

Mel Adelman for his support of my teaching, and Darlene Oglesby for her ability to

seemingly fix everything.

My colleagues have also been central to the successful completion of my degree.

Words do not do justice to the importance of “cohort bonding” and as such, I must

acknowledge Drew Czekanski, Maiya Anderson, Amy Kim, Ye Hoon Lee, and Ali Brian.

A debt of gratitude is also owed to Katie Meyer Bruffy, Robin Dunn, Melissa Wiser,

Claire Williams, Ari DeWilde, and Chris Barnhill for their friendship and guidance, as

well as Lindsay Pieper, Dain TePoel, and Andy Linden for their friendship and support.

I would be remiss to not acknowledge the support of my family, starting with my

parents. Thanks to my mother, Mary Ann Brown, a champion listener who serves as an

excellent example of courage and strength to her daughters and my father, Fred Brown,

whose work ethic continues to inspire me. Along with my parents, my grandfather, John

vi

Eckert, has been a wonderful example and reminder to keep working through the most

challenging times. I must also recognize the support of my siblings, Carey, Fred, and

Makeda, my stepmother, Sarah Barr, my aunts, my uncles, and my many, many

wonderful cousins.

I am also blessed to have amazing friends from each part of my life, especially

from my time at Penn State and Stony Brook. With that said, a special thank you must go

out to my friends from Villa Maria Academy’s Class of 1997: Erin Leslie Rothwell,

Mary Kate Boland Salko, Meghan Burk Stacey, and Renata Koleda Zloza. From your

multiple trips to Columbus to care packages when they were most needed, I cannot

articulate how much your love and support has meant over the last nineteen years, and

especially over the last three years. Thank you so very much.

vii

Vita

September 26, 1979 .......................................Born – Philadelphia, PA

1993-1997 ......................................................Villa Maria Academy, Malvern, PA

2001................................................................B.S. Marketing, Penn State University

2004 ...............................................................M.Ed. Sport and Recreation Administration,

Temple University

2004-2009 ......................................................Academic Advisor, Stony Brook University

Department of Athletics

2009 to present ...............................................Graduate Teaching Associate, The Ohio

State University School of Physical Activity

and Educational Services

Publication

Brown, L. E. & Pastore, D. L. (2011). Navigating a research mentorship:

Recommendations for graduate students. Future Focus, 32(2), 12-17.

Fields of Study

Major Field: College of Education and Human Ecology, Sport Management

viii

Table of Contents

Abstract……………………………………………………………………………………ii

Dedication……………………………………………………………………...…………iv

Acknowledgements……………………………………………………………………..…v

Vita……………………………………………………………………………………....vii

List of Tables…………………………………………………………………………….xii

Chapter 1: Introduction ........................................................................................................1

CSR in the Sport Industry ................................................................................................2

CSR in NCAA Athletics ..............................................................................................5

Statement of the Problem……...………………………………………………………..7

Purpose of the Study………………………………………..…………………………10

Research Questions……………………………………………………………………11

Limitations and Delimitations…………………………………………………………13

Definition of Terms……………………………………………………………………13

Summary………………………………………………………………………………14

Chapter 2: Literature Review……..……………………………………………………...16

Foundations and Definitions of CSR………………………………………………….16

Differences in the Literature………………………………………………………..20

CSR in Practice………………………………………………………………………..27

ix

Theories and Concepts Associated with CSR…………………………………………29

Corporate Social Performance and Corporate Social Responsiveness……………..30

Finding the Connection Between Corporate Social Performance and Corporate

Financial Performance……………………………………………………………...32

Corporate Citizenship………………………………………………………………33

Stakeholder Management…………………………………………………………...33

Arguments For and Against Corporate Social Responsibility………….……………..36

CSR in Sport…………………………………………………………………………..38

Summary………………………………………………………………………………40

Chapter 3: Methods……………………………………………………………………....42

Research Design……………………………………………………………………….42

Sample Selection………………………………………………………………………45

Sampling Method………………………………………………………………...…45

Sample Size…………………………………………………………………………47

Participants………………………………………………………………………….47

Instrument Design…………………………………………………………….……….48

Validity…………………………………………………………………………..…49

Reliability…………………………………………………………………………...50

Pilot Study…………………………………………………………………………..51

Measurement………………………………………………………………………..53

Final Instrument…………………………………………………………………….54

Data Collection………………………………………………………………………..55

x

Data Analysis………………………………………………………………………….56

Summary………………………………………………………………………………57

Chapter 4: Results………………………………………………………………………..58

Final Sample…………………………………………………………………………..58

Demographics………………………………………………………………………59

Emphasis on CSR Practices………………………………………………………...…60

Division I Analysis…………………………………………………………………68

Institutional Requirements…………………………………………………………….73

Institutional Decision Makers…………………………………………………………74

Senior Management………...………………………………………………………78

Department Administrators…………………………………………………………78

Head Coaches……………………………………………………………………….79

Assistant Coaches…………………………………………………………………..81

SAAC Members…………………………………………………………………….81

Non-SAAC Members……………………………………………………………….83

Differences Among Division I Institutions…………………………………………84

Chapter 5: Discussion……………………………………………………………………90

CSR Practices………………………………………………………………………….90

Departmental Decision Makers………………………………………………………..95

Implications for Practitioners………………………………………………………….99

Implications for Researchers and Future Directions…………………………………100

Conclusion…………………………………………………………………………...101

xi

References………………………………………………………………………………103

Appendix A: Invitation to Participate in the Pilot Study……………………...………..114

Appendix B: Instrument………………………………………………………………...116

Appendix C: Responses to Question #15……………………………………………….124

Appendix D: Responses to Question #16………………………………………………128

Appendix E: Prenotification Email……………………………………………………..131

Appendix F: Invitation to Participate in the Study……………………………………..133

Appendix G: Reminder Email………………………………………………………….135

Appendix H: Conference Affiliation of Respondents…………………………………..137

xii

List of Tables

Table 2.1. Definitions of Corporate Social Responsibility……………………..……….21

Table 2.2. Definitions of Corporate Citizenship………………………………………...34

Table 4.1. T-test Comparing Early to Late Respondents………………………………..59

Table 4.2. Job Titles of Respondents……………………………………………………60

Table 4.3. Mean Emphasis Scores of CSR Practices……………………………………61

Table 4.4. Results of Shapiro-Wilk Test of Normality for CSR Practices……………...62

Table 4.5. Levene Test for Equality of Variances for CSR Practices…………………...64

Table 4.6. ANOVA Results for CSR Practices………………………………………….65

Table 4.7. Results of Welch Test for CSR Practices……………………………………67

Table 4.8. Mean Emphasis Scores for Division I Institutions by Football

Classification……………………………………………………………………………..69

Table 4.9. Levene Test for Equality of Variances for CSR Practices Among Division I

Institutions……………………………………………………………………………….70

Table 4.10. Results of Welch Test Identifying Differences in the Emphasis Placed on

CSR Practices Among Division I Institutions…………………………………………...70

Table 4.11. ANOVA Results for CSR Practices Among Division I Institutions……….71

Table 4.12. Mean Scores Identifying the Extent to Which CSR Practices Fulfill

Institutional Requirements……………………………………………………………….73

Table 4.13. Results of Tukey HSD for Institutional Requirements……………………..74

xiii

Table 4.14. Reliability of Stakeholder Involvement Scales……………………………..75

Table 4.15. Results of Shapiro-Wilk Test of Normality for Stakeholder Involvement…76

Table 4.16. Levene Test for Equality of Variances for Stakeholder Involvement……...77

Table 4.17. Mean Scores Measuring the Involvement of Senior Managers…………….78

Table 4.18. Mean Scores Measuring the Involvement of Department Administrators... 79

Table 4.19. Mean Scores Measuring the Involvement of Head Coaches……………….80

Table 4.20. Results of Tukey HSD Examining Differences in the Involvement of Head

Coaches in Philanthropic CSR Practices……………………..………………………….80

Table 4.21. Mean Scores Measuring the Involvement of Assistant Coaches…………...82

Table 4.22. Mean Scores Measuring the Involvement of SAAC Members…………….83

Table 4.23. Mean Scores Measuring the Involvement of Non-SAAC Members……….83

Table 4.24. The Levene Test for Equality of Variances for Stakeholder Involvement

Among Division I Institutions………………………………………………………...…85

Table 4.25. ANOVA Results Identifying Differences Among Division I Stakeholder

Groups……………………………………………………………………………………86

Table 4.26. Results of Welch Test Identifying Differences in the Involvement of

Stakeholder Groups at Division I Institutions……………………………………………89

Table H.1. Divisional Affiliation of Division I Respondents……………………...…...139

Table H.2. Divisional Affiliation of Division II Respondents…………...………..……140

Table H.3. Divisional Affiliation of Division III Respondents………………....……141

1

CHAPTER 1

INTRODUCTION

Corporate social responsibility (CSR) has been regularly addressed in the business

literature throughout the second half of the 20th

century (Carroll, 1999). This attention

has been garnered because of the construct’s prevalence in practical settings (Bradish &

Cronin, 2009; Crane, McWilliams, Matten, Moon, & Siegel, 2008; Walker & Kent,

2009). Organizations in a number of industries have realized that a tactical CSR program

can offer benefits for the organization. CSR practices have been shown to strengthen

relationships between an organization and its key stakeholders, including employees and

customers (Godfrey, Merrill, & Hansen, 2009; Turban and Greening, 1997).

Additionally, CSR practices can be instrumental in building and sustaining a positive

corporate reputation (Kurucz, Colbert, & Wheeler, 2008; Walker and Kent, 2009).

Many of the early CSR scholars focused on determining a clear definition of the construct

(Carroll, 1999, 2008). While several dozen scholars have put forth definitions of CSR,

Carroll’s (1991) conceptualization that CSR consists of the economic, legal, ethical, and

philanthropic responsibilities of an organization as dictated by social norms offers a

broad definition of CSR applicable to several industries. Other scholars have explored

the implications of CSR on other areas of scholarship including corporate social

2

performance (CSP; Carroll, 1979; Turban & Greening, 1997; Wartick & Cochran, 1985;

Wood, 1991), corporate financial performance (CFP; Barnett, 2007; McWilliams, Siegel,

& Wright, 2006; Orlitzky, 2008), and stakeholder management (Dawkins and Lewis,

2003; Jamali, 2008). The link between CSR and stakeholder management in the

literature is especially strong, as stakeholders are often the principal focus of CSR

scholarship (Godfrey, 2009). Stakeholders are “those groups and individuals that can

affect, or is (sic) affected by, the accomplishment of organizational purpose” (Freeman,

1984, p. 25). Adopting a stakeholder-centric perspective encourages organizations to

merge economic and sociopolitical goals reflecting Carroll’s four domains of CSR

(Freeman, 1984).

CSR in the Sport Industry

In the past 15 years, scholars have begun to examine CSR in the context of sport

(Babiak & Wolfe, 2006; Bradish & Cronin, 2009; Hums, Barr, & Gullion, 1999).

Scholars, most notably Smith and Westerbeek (2007), have also recognized the

inimitable qualities of sport that lend directly to CSR practices. Smith and Westerbeek

(2007) built on the work of Welford (2005) to identify 10 social responsibilities specific

to sport:

1. Rules of fair play: equality, access, diversity;

2. Safety of participants and spectators;

3. Independence of playing outcomes;

4. Transparency of governance;

5. Pathways for playing;

3

6. Community relations policies;

7. Health and activity foundation;

8. Principles of environmental protection and sustainability;

9. Developmental focus of participants;

10. Qualified and/or accredited coaching

These responsibilities include ensuring the safety of participants and spectators,

opening opportunities for participation, and to control the impact sport has on the

environment (Smith & Westerbeek, 2007). Smith and Westerbeek also enumerate 7

distinct features that make sport a prime vehicle for CSR:

1. Mass media distribution and communication power;

2. Youth appeal;

3. Positive health impacts;

4. Social interaction;

5. Sustainability awareness;

6. Cultural understanding and integration; and

7. Immediate gratification benefits.

The responsibilities and features proposed by Smith and Westerbeek (2007) are

easily seen in the CSR practices of sport organizations and athletes and have been

reflected in the scholarship addressing CSR in sport. Babiak and Wolfe (2006) examined

the National Football League’s (NFL) CSR initiatives at Super Bowl XL in Detroit. At

this particular event, the CSR initiatives included offsetting carbon emissions brought on

by the Super Bowl and its related activities, several events encouraging diversity and

4

cultural tolerance, and a reading program in conjunction with the Detroit Public School

system (Babiak & Wolfe, 2006). Additionally, environmental activists noted the positive

impact the NFL’s visibility brought to their efforts to reduce and offset carbon emissions

(Babiak & Wolfe, 2006). In their exploration of CSR in the Scottish Premier League,

Hamil and Morrow (2011) called attention to initiatives at the club, or team, level.

Among those teams and CSR practices highlighted were Celtic’s educational programs,

the club’s Celtic against Drugs initiative, and its general charitable engagement.

The two articles cited above detail two different sports in two different countries.

Despite the athletic and geographical differences, the examples of CSR practices in these

articles support several of Smith & Westerbeek (2007)’s responsibilities and features.

The articles further underscore the breadth of ethical and philanthropic CSR activities in

sport. Both articles also acknowledged the benefits derived from these CSR activities,

highlighting the importance of CSR in the strategic management of a sport organization

(Hamil & Morrow, 2011). Specifically, the NFL utilized their CSR initiatives to

compensate for some of the negative repercussions of hosting an event as large as the

Super Bowl, including environmental concerns (Babiak & Wolfe, 2006). Other CSR

initiatives related to Super Bowl XL, such as educational and charitable fundraising

efforts, were aimed to more generally address community relations (Babiak & Wolfe,

2006). In the case of Celtic, the organization’s roots are based in Catholic charity and

their position in the community allows the continuation of such initiatives today (Hamil

& Morrow, 2011).

5

CSR in NCAA Athletics. While the Babiak and Wolfe (2006) and Hamil and Morrow

(2011) articles examined professional sport, there are also numerous examples of CSR

initiatives in college athletics, especially those institutions that are members of the

National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA). Similar to the examples cited above,

CSR practices in NCAA athletics can originate at different levels within the sport: the

national level (the NCAA itself), the conference level, and the institutional level. The

institutions are further classified into three divisions (Division I, Division II, and Division

III) based on several factors, including the number of required sports and the ability to

offer athletic-related financial aid. Division I requires institutions to sponsor a minimum

of 14 sports along with financial aid minimums (National Collegiate Athletic

Association, 2011b). Division I also offers the highest level of competition (Coakley,

2009). Division II institutions are only required to sponsor 10 sports and can offer

students financial aid, but there is not an established minimum for athletic-related

financial aid as it is in Division I (National Collegiate Athletic Association, 2011c).

Institutions are also required to sponsor at least 10 sports at the Division III level, but

there is no athletic-related financial aid available to student-athletes (National Collegiate

Athletic Association, 2011d).

An example of a CSR initiative at the national level is the NCAA’s Achieving

Coaching Excellence (ACE) Program, which looks to assist current assistant basketball

coaches who are ethnic minorities in their preparation for a career as a head coach

(National Collegiate Athletic Association, 2011a). The initiative is one of many to

increase the racial and ethnic diversity in the coaching ranks of the NCAA (National

6

Collegiate Athletic Association, 2011e). The Mid-America Intercollegiate Athletics

Association (MIAA) is a Division II conference whose Student-Athlete Advisory

Committee (SAAC) organizes a conference-wide food drive as part of their philanthropic

efforts (Moses, 2010). An example of CSR initiatives at the institutional level would be

Division III Swarthmore College’s Kid’s Night Out. The Swarthmore Athletics

Department tried to engage local youth by inviting them to their field house four Friday

nights during the spring semester for games and crafts (Swarthmore College, 2011).

Like the examples at the professional level, these cases illustrate the diverse ways

in which NCAA athletics departments can engage in CSR. While these initiatives may

originate at different levels within the NCAA structure, it is important to note that

ultimately each of these initiatives require participation from the institutional level. The

ACE program benefits coaches, while the MIAA’s food drive and Swarthmore’s Kids’

Night Out are organized by student-athletes.

While the anecdotal evidence indicates the NCAA, its conferences, and its

member institutions are engaged in CSR practices, this evidence provides no other

information. Organizations, both within sport and in other industries, utilize CSR

initiatives as a part of their strategic plan (Babiak & Wolfe, 2009, Hamil & Morrow,

2011). Through CSR initiatives, these organizations look to reap some of the common

benefits of CSR, including improved relationships with stakeholders (Barnett, 2007;

Breitbarth and Harris, 2008; Godfrey, Merrill, & Hansen, 2009; Turban and Greening,

1997) and as a means of risk management (Babiak & Wolfe, 2006; Fombrun, Gardberg,

and Barnett, 2000; Godfrey, 2005; McWilliams et al., 2006). Understanding the impact

7

CSR initiatives have on NCAA athletics would not only advance the literature addressing

CSR in the context of sport, but also assist practitioners in better designing their CSR

practices to fit the needs of their organization.

Statement of the Problem

Despite numerous practical examples of CSR initiatives in NCAA Athletics, the

context has garnered almost no attention in the CSR literature. Yet, several of the

examples listed above clearly fit the features of sport CSR put forth by Smith and

Westerbeek (2007) and indicate that NCAA athletics departments are engaging in CSR

practices. College sport is arguably as prevalent in the sport news cycle as professional

sport in the United States. Television channels such as ESPNU, CBS Sports Network,

and the Big Ten Network have further increased the visibility of student-athletes and

institutions at the Division I level. Additionally, nearly all NCAA institutions have a

presence online with several institutions and programs, including Division III Franklin &

Marshall College’s Volleyball team, maintaining a Facebook page (Franklin & Marshall

Volleyball, 2011). The themes of health and youth, highlighted by Smith and

Westerbeek (2007), are found throughout CSR initiatives including the Swarthmore

College initiative listed above and Wright State University Softball’s involvement in the

Reds Rookie Success League, which teaches life skills and baseball to 7–13 year old

children (WSU Athletics Media Relations, 2011). Smith and Westerbeek (2007) also

emphasized environmental awareness as a feature of CSR in sport. Multiple institutions

at the NCAA level support environmentally-related CSR initiatives, such as California

State University at Monterrey Bay’s Women’s Cross Country team being involved in

8

cleaning a local beach (McRae, 2011). These examples also illustrate the specific

responsibilities of sport put forth by Smith and Westerbeek (2007), including

involvement in the community, environmental awareness, and providing opportunities to

play.

While there are multiple examples of CSR practices in NCAA athletics

departments, further exploration into CSR practices in NCAA athletics departments will

also assist athletics departments in experiencing the benefits of their CSR efforts. As

noted by Hamil and Morrow (2011), tactical CSR is vital to management strategy. This

is especially relevant considering the finances surrounding NCAA athletics are staggering

and indicate the central role of NCAA athletics in the university. The NCAA’s financial

reports from the 2009-2010 academic year indicated the organization generated over

$749 million in revenue over the year (National Collegiate Athletic Association, 2011h).

While most NCAA athletics departments do not generate revenue, their institutions invest

resources into their varsity sports. For example, Eastern Connecticut State University, an

NCAA Division III school with only 4,400 undergraduate students, spent over $8 million

on varsity athletics during the 2010-2011 academic year (Office of Postsecondary

Education, 2011). Along with the financial investment, athletics departments can be the

most public unit of a university (Coakley, 2009). For these reasons, it would be prudent

for NCAA athletics departments to use their CSR initiatives to build trust with key

stakeholders, including faculty and alumni (Babiak & Wolfe, 2009). Additionally, CSR

practices can serve to reinforce an athletics department’s role in the community (Babiak

& Wolfe, 2006; Hamil & Morrow, 2011). Maintaining these relationships is especially

9

important as departments become more reliant on fundraising efforts to maintain their

athletics programs (Shulman & Bowen, 2001; Stinson & Howard, 2010).

Additionally, while there is information regarding CSR initiatives publicly

available through various channels of mass communication, this information only focuses

on ethical and philanthropic activities. There is little discussion of CSR practices in any

of the other domains put forth by Carroll (1991), leaving one to question if institutions

are involved in the full breadth of CSR practices. This is especially relevant as fiscal

prudence and regulatory scandals are key concerns in the current NCAA climate.

Without the economic and legal domains of CSR, an analysis of such practices would be

incomplete.

Along with the questions of what CSR practices are occurring on NCAA

campuses, there is also the critical question of who is making the decisions regarding

CSR initiatives. Some athletics department websites suggest the involvement of senior

management, coaches, and student-athletes however there is little consistency between

institutions. There are also personnel differences, as the number of staff members and

their roles vary by institution and division (Coakley, 2009; Shulman & Bowen, 2001).

Each of the groups mentioned above, administration, coaches, and student-

athletes, can be classified as key stakeholders within the organization (Kihl, Leberman, &

Schull, 2010). Thus, their decisions can impact not only the direct actions of the

organization, but also the success of the organization (Wolfe, Weick, Usher, Terborg,

Poppo, Murrell, Dukerich, Core, Dickson, & Jourdan, 2005). Clarifying exactly who the

decision-makers in regards to CSR initiatives are within an athletics department is vital to

10

gaining an understanding of the motives, and desired outcomes of CSR practices (Wolfe

et al., 2005). As the motives and outcomes of CSR are key aspects of a sport

organization’s overall strategic management (Kihl et al., 2010; Wolfe et al 2005),

knowing who makes the decisions has implications beyond an examination of CSR

practices, both practically and theoretically.

Purpose of the Study

The exploration of CSR in the context of professional sport has expanded to

include discussions of motivations, outcomes, and the impact of key stakeholders on CSR

policies. However, there is no examination of such crucial strategic elements in the

context of NCAA athletics. This study aims to answer fundamental questions regarding

the foundation of CSR practices in NCAA athletics (i.e., what is the focus of athletics

departments and who are making the decisions). The answers to these questions will also

establish a baseline for future research into CSR practices in NCAA Athletics, similar to

those studies already being conducted at the professional level of sport. The literature on

CSR in other contexts and the practical examples found on the websites of the NCAA

and its member conferences and institutions serve as a guide to determine what questions

will begin a sustained line of inquiry into CSR in NCAA athletics. The ultimate goal of

establishing this line of inquiry is to help practitioners utilize their available resources to

employ an efficient CSR program that best meets the dynamic expectations of their

stakeholders.

11

Research Questions

As noted above, the available examples in the context of NCAA Athletics only

indicate an involvement in ethical and philanthropic CSR activities. There is no

discussion of the economic and legal domains of CSR or the emphasis athletics

departments place on each domain. The first research question thus addressed the

uncertainty regarding the breadth and focus of CSR practices:

Research question 1: What emphasis do the athletics departments of NCAA

member institutions place on specific CSR practices?

Additionally, as NCAA institutions are classified into three divisions based on

certain structural differences, it is reasonable to question if institutions in each division

would have the same focal points regarding CSR practices. These concerns were

addressed in the second research question:

Research question 2: Is there a different emphasis placed on CSR practices based

on divisional affiliation?

Research question 2a: Is there a difference in emphasis at the Division I level

based on football status?

In clarifying the CSR priorities in NCAA athletics, it is also necessary to garner

an understanding of who is making such decisions. The internal structure of NCAA

athletics departments varies greatly between institutions (Coakley, 2009; Shulman &

Bowen, 2001). The examples of CSR initiatives in NCAA athletics listed above suggest

the involvement of several key stakeholders. Coaches, SAAC members, and the general

student-athlete population are central to the CSR initiatives detailed previously in this

12

manuscript, but it is unclear if these parties are consistently responsible for the decisions

regarding CSR practices. Additionally, there is little discussion regarding the

involvement of senior athletics department management who are likely engaged in

developing an athletics departments’ strategic plan. An understanding of the parties

involved in the formation of CSR policies and the establishment of CSR practices can

offer a deeper understanding of the motives and outcomes of CSR initiatives.

Furthermore, knowing who the decision makers are will assist scholars in better directing

future inquiry. Thus, the third research question concentrated on these issues:

Research question 3: To what extent are key stakeholders within the organization

involved in the decision-making process regarding:

a. Economic CSR practices

b. Legal CSR practices

c. Ethical CSR practices

d. Philanthropic CSR practices

Finally, as the differences in NCAA divisional affiliation has been established, it

is again important to question if those differences impact who is involved in the decision-

making process. The fourth research question looked to ascertain this information:

Research question 4: Are there differences in the involvement of key

stakeholders within the organization in CSR practices based on Divisional

affiliation?

Research question 4a: Is there a difference in the involvement of key stakeholders

at the Division I level based on football status?

13

As the business of the NCAA and conference offices are driven by their institutional

members, this study will examine CSR practices at the institutional level of NCAA

athletics, the athletics department. This allows for the most inclusive examination of the

CSR practices in NCAA athletics.

Limitations and Delimitations

The researcher acknowledges two limitations in this study. First, given the

breadth of CSR practices, few, if any, respondents will directly manage all CSR

practices. The second limitation addresses concerns about the ability to generalize the

results. The dearth of senior athletics department administrators at the Division II and

Division III levels makes it difficult to obtain a random sample at that level. As such, it

may be difficult to generalize the results. There is also a delimitation in this study. It has

been widely noted that senior administrators in NCAA Athletics Departments are a

racially homogenous group (Lapchick, Hoff, & Kaiser, 2010). Couple this with the need

to limit identifying demographic factors to ensure the anonymity of respondents and it

was decided to not ask participants their race.

Definition of Terms

The following are the conceptual definitions utilized in this paper:

1. Corporate social responsibility (CSR): economic, legal, ethical, and philanthropic

responsibilities of an organization as dictated by current social norms (Carroll,

1991)

14

2. Economic domain of CSR: the economic and financial expectations of an

organization as put forth by the organizations’ board of directors or other such

governing body (Carroll, 1991).

3. Legal domain of CSR: organizations are expected to conduct their business

practices within the regulations put forth by governmental and regulatory bodies

(Carroll, 1991)

4. Ethical domain of CSR: those practices expected of an organization despite not

being officially regulated (Carroll, 1991)

5. Philanthropic domain of CSR: activities focused on “human welfare and

goodwill” (Carroll, 1991, p. 42)

6. Stakeholders: “those groups and individuals that can affect, or is affected by, the

accomplishment of organizational purpose” (Freeman, 1984, p. 25). The specific

stakeholders included in the final instrument were grouped by their role: senior

athletics administrators (senior management team), athletics administrators not on

the senior management team, head coaches, assistant coaches, SAAC members,

and student-athletes who are not members of SAAC.

7. National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA): a governing body overseeing

intercollegiate athletics at over 1,000 institutions (National Collegiate Athletic

Association, 2011j)

8. NCAA athletics departments: the units at each NCAA institution that manage the

intercollegiate athletics teams

15

Summary

While there is practical evidence that CSR practices are prevalent in NCAA

athletics, there is a dearth in the academic scholarship. This study looks to determine the

CSR priorities of NCAA athletics departments are and who is involved in the decisions

regarding CSR practices. The findings in this study will also serve as a foundation for

future studies examining CSR in the context of NCAA athletics. The following four

chapters of this manuscript will give further detail on the current literature addressing

CSR, the methodology used in this study, the results of the study, and a discussion of the

results.

16

CHAPTER 2

LITERATURE REVIEW

This chapter looks to outline the academic literature upon which this study is

based. In the 60 years CSR has been prevalent in the academic literature (Bowen, 1953;

Carroll, 1999), many questions regarding a definition, the scope of CSR activities, and

the value of CSR to an organization have been raised. As such, this chapter contains both

a historical review of CSR and an exploration of the current literature addressing sport.

Foundations and Definitions of CSR

As noted by Dahlsrud (2008), Kurucz et al., (2008), McWilliams and colleagues

(2006), Walker and Parent (2010) and Williams and Aguilera (2008), many of the

challenges faced by scholars studying CSR lie in the fact that there is no clear definition.

In his examination of the development of CSR, Carroll (1999) reviews over two dozen

definitions. Dahlsrud’s work, just nine years later, examines thirty-seven (2008). More

recently scholars, including Carroll (2008) and Babiak and Wolfe (2009), have begun to

move away from a consensus definition, instead focusing on CSR as a general concept

while examining its antecedents and consequences. However, as both Carroll (1999,

2008) and Godfrey (2009) indicate, a clear understanding of the general ideas

surrounding CSR requires an examination of the definitional history of CSR, some of the

divergent points in the literature, and a consideration of CSR in practice.

17

While the roots of CSR are found in philanthropic actions over at least two

centuries (Carroll, 1999; Godfrey, 2009; Sheth & Babiak, 2010), the introduction of

social responsibility of businesses, as it was then known, in academic literature came in

the mid-twentieth century (Carroll, 1999, 2008). One of the earliest proponents of social

responsibility of business was the Dean of the Harvard Graduate School of Business

Administration, Donald K. David. David put forth a call to action in 1949, encouraging

businesses to take a more active role within their communities and for educators to

emphasize this idea in the academic curriculum.

Though David’s work never mentioned CSR or used the term “social

responsibility,” it highlighted some of themes most prevalent in the CSR literature.

David specifically referenced the interdisciplinary nature of social responsibilities and

utilizing an interdisciplinary approach to addressing them (1949). In looking to find

solutions to “social, political, and economic affairs” (David, 1949, p. 1), David suggested

that businessmen should act in concert with their colleagues in other disciplines, such as

“psychology, sociology, and social anthropology” (1949, p. 7). The idea of taking an

interdisciplinary approach to social responsibilities has been echoed in the CSR literature

by Breitbarth and Harris (2008), Carroll (1979), Davis (1967), Godfrey, Hatch, and

Hansen (2010), and McWilliams et al. (2006). Furthermore, David recognized the

dynamic nature of business and society (1949), an idea found more recently in the works

of Barnett (2007) and Godfrey (2009). David argues that “[i]n our dynamic society we

are constantly working out new balances among the manifold interests of business, labor,

18

agriculture, and other segments of the national community” (1949, p. 2). As such,

businesses must go beyond simply being “the economic man” (David, 1949, p. 2).

Definitions specifically describing the social responsibilities of businesses, as

CSR was first known, were the focus of academic literature throughout the 1950s, 1960s,

and 1970s (Carroll, 1999). Several scholars, including Breitbarth and Harris (2008),

Carroll (1999), Dahlsrud (2008), Lockett, Moon, and Visser (2006), and Wartick and

Cochran (1985) have pointed to Howard Bowen’s 1953 book, Social Responsibilities of

the Businessman, as one of the first works to define social responsibility. As indicated by

the number of subsequent citations, Bowen’s definition, which stated “the obligations of

businessmen to pursue those policies, to make those decisions, or to follow those lines of

action which are desirable in terms of the objectives and values of our society” (1953, p.

6), achieved the author’s goal to encourage “discussion and further exploration” (1953, p.

xi) on the topic of social responsibility. Bowen’s work is heavily based in personal

values, morals, and social norms (1953). He argued the behavior of businessmen has

long “been expected to act according to sanctioned rules of conduct” (Bowen, 1953, p.

13) and emphasized “morality is unquestionably vital in those branches of conduct which

are not controlled by law” (Bowen, 1953, p. 13).

The work of Frederick (1960) built on those themes of his predecessors in that he

recognizes the interdisciplinary nature of social responsibility and that the theory is

grounded in “Christian ethics” (p. 56). While Frederick states that the prevailing themes

do not detail what the exact responsibilities of businessmen are, he also acknowledges

that the combination of ethics and economics are the forces that guided the actions of

19

businessmen (1960). This reiterates the interdisciplinary nature of social responsibilities

and the morals behind it.

Keith Davis (1960), another of the early CSR scholars, recognized that social

responsibility was a complicated, “nebulous idea” (p. 70), making a consensus definition

difficult (Davis, 1960). Davis noted that the “decisions and actions [of businessmen are]

taken for reasons at least partially beyond the firm’s direct economic or technical

interest” (Davis, 1960, p. 70). Building on this idea, Davis stated that social

responsibility has “both socio-economic and socio-human” (1960, p. 71) implications.

While the idea that firms have an economic responsibility to the community to remain in

business was not yet commonplace in the literature (Davis, 1960), the interdisciplinary

nature of Davis’ view is a reflection of David’s 1949 work.

Davis’ notable subsequent works offered arguments for the continued

examination of social responsibility as well as the arguments against it (which will be

addressed later in this manuscript). While Davis (1967, 1973) acknowledged the desire

of society to preserve wealth and culture and government regulations, many of his

reasons for encouraging additional inquiry of social responsibility surrounds the

complexities of modern society. Specifically, Davis believed that the relationship

between business and society, coupled with evolving sociocultural norms, warrant the

attention of both scholars and practitioners (1967, 1973).

Davis (1960, 1967, 1973) also contended that businesses were held to the ‘Iron

Law of Responsibility.’ The Iron Law of Responsibility stated “[t]hose who do not take

responsibility for their power, ultimately shall lose it” (Davis and Blomstrom, 1966, p.

20

174). Recognizing the competitive nature of business, Davis suggested that those

businesses who do not comply with the responsibilities set forth by society will be

replaced by those firms who are willing to fulfill the responsibilities (1967).

Numerous other scholars have articulated their own definitions of social

responsibility and CSR, as outlined in Table 2.1. With that said, the early scholarship of

David, Bowen, Frederick, and Davis introduces the ideas central to the CSR literature:

the continually evolving relationship between business and society is heavily influenced

by sociocultural norms, which are interdisciplinary in nature and often contain an

emphasis on morals, ethics, and values. These norms lead to societal expectations and

corresponding responsibilities for businesses.

Differences in the Literature. Where the CSR literature begins to grow fractured is in

detailing the exact parameters of CSR. This is both clearly evidenced in the variety of

definitions and several conceptualizations of CSR. In 1971, the Committee for

Economic Development (CED) proposed one of the earliest conceptualizations of CSR, a

model consisting of three concentric circles.

The inner circle includes the clear-cut basic responsibilities for the efficient

execution of the economic function – product, jobs, and economic growth

The intermediate circle encompasses responsibility to exercise this

economic function with a sensitive awareness of changing social values and

priorities: for example, with respect to environmental conservation; hiring and

21

22

relations with employees; and more rigorous expectations of customers for

information, fair treatment, and protection from injury.

The outer circle outlines newly emerging and still amorphous

responsibilities that business should assume to become more broadly involved in

actively improving the social environment. (Committee for Economic

Development, 1971, p. 15)

While the CED puts forth a very broad categorization, Carroll (1979) offered

clear domains of CSR. Carroll’s oft cited conceptualization of CSR (Babiak and Wolfe,

2009; Carroll, 1999; Godfrey, 2009; Wartick and Cochran, 1985; Wood, 1991) suggests

there are four domains: economic responsibilities, legal responsibilities, ethical

responsibilities, and discretionary (philanthropic) responsibilities (Carroll, 1979, 1991).

Carroll and his colleagues have allowed this conceptualization to evolve over the years

(Carroll, 1991; Schwartz and Carroll, 2003), and this study utilized a broad application of

Carroll’s 1991 conceptualization.

Wood (1991) took a different approach, organizing CSR into three principles:

legitimacy, public responsibility, and managerial discretion. The principle of legitimacy

is a clear reflection of Davis’ (1973) Iron Law of Responsibility (Wood, 1991). Public

responsibility is included to hold businesses accountable for their actions (Wood, 1991),

while the principle of managerial discretion recognizes that an organization’s leaders are

the “moral actors” (Wood, 1991, p. 698) who ultimately make decisions.

The three conceptualizations above again highlight that respected academics and

practitioners envision the parameters of CSR in very different manners. Most proponents

23

of CSR recognize its ethical and philanthropic components. However, the inclusion of

economic and legal responsibilities is not consistent throughout the literature. Scholars

also disagree on the voluntary nature of CSR and whether a firm’s social responsibilities

extend beyond the problems it creates.

Carroll built on David’s (1949) statement that the first responsibility of

businessmen is to run a successful business when including an economic domain in his

1979 conceptualization of CSR. Carroll contended that the business is fundamentally an

economic unit from which all other responsibilities stem (1979). Furthermore, Davis

(1960) recognized that the economic failure of a firm has implications for the entire

community. The loss of jobs and tax revenue due to poor economic management can

impact a community with the same severity as a callous ethical decision (Davis, 1960).

The argument against including economics as part of a business’ social responsibility is

that it benefits the business (Carroll, 1999). However, several scholars have indicated

that few decisions by businesses can be considered completely altruistic (Schwartz and

Carroll, 2003).

Davis’ (1960) argument for the inclusion of economic responsibilities is

particularly relevant in sport, as clubs in Major League Baseball and European soccer

have recently experienced severe financial problems. The issues with the European

teams have a broad impact. In 2010, the Union of European Football Associations

(UEFA) responded to growing concerns over the questionable financial management

exhibited by numerous clubs and instituted financial fair play regulations requiring clubs

to break even over a 3-year period in order to compete in the financially lucrative

24

Champions League competition or the Europa League competition (ESPN, 2010). In

short, UEFA decided the economic responsibilities were handled so badly, the governing

body instituted competition and financial penalties. Additionally, the first week of the

2011-2012 La Liga season was cancelled as the players went on strike in order to force

the league to guarantee $70 million in unpaid salaries to players in the top two divisions

(Saleh, 2011). While professional athletes, especially those at world-renowned clubs like

Barcelona and Real Madrid, are unlikely to garner much sympathy regarding their

finances, this remains a direct example of how dire financial circumstances impact club

and its employees.

The legal domain is also debated among scholars. Davis (1973) argued “social

responsibility begins where the law ends” (p. 313). This thought is echoed by current

scholars, such as McWilliams et al. (2006). Obeying the law, according to Davis, is the

responsibility of all citizens; CSR should exceed this (Davis, 1973). S. Prakash Sethi

(1975) agreed that legal requirements were obligations, which he differentiates from

responsibilities. On the other hand, Carroll (1979) posits “society expects business to

fulfill its economic mission within the framework of legal requirements set forth by the

society’s legal system” (p. 500). It should also be noted that the general public outcry

regarding legal and regulatory violations, including major NCAA violations in men’s

basketball and football at the University of Southern California, indicate that the public

does, in fact, expect organizations to operate within specific rules (Forde, 2010; Joyner &

Payne, 2002).

Another area not clearly expressed in the literature is the voluntary nature of CSR.

25

Voluntarism, however, is not quite debated in the literature in a manner similar to those

of the economic and legal responsibilities. Voluntarism tends to be included in a

scholar’s definition or not addressed in the manuscript at all. Walton (1967) was one of

the first scholars to qualify voluntarism as a facet of social responsibility. He contends

that the voluntary nature of social responsibility leaves organizations free to achieve its

additional objectives (Walton, 1967). While other scholars agree with Walton’s point of

view (Carroll, 1999), those who support the inclusion of economic and legal

responsibilities, specifically Carroll (1999) and Godfrey (2009) tend to restrict the

voluntary nature to philanthropic activities.

The breadth of an organization’s CSR activities opens further debate. Some

scholars, including Chelladurai (personal communication, October 21, 2009) and Fitch

(1976) believe organizations should restrict their CSR activities to those that would right

a social wrong caused by the organization’s business practices. For instance, a bus

company may look for methods to reduce its carbon footprint. While few would argue

that efforts to minimize the damage caused by a firm’s business practices are

irresponsible, restricting one’s CSR activities to these efforts alone appears to be a

narrow interpretation of the concept. It is also easy to see how this “problem-solving

perspective” (Carroll, 1999, p. 281) may not fulfill all the expectations set forth by

society (Carroll, 1999).

Although the debates within the literature are well-reasoned, a broad, inclusive

view of CSR and Carroll’s domains better reflects sport organizations and the

expectations of their stakeholders. With that said, the applications of Carroll’s economic

26

and legal domains require modernization. Carroll’s original assertion regarding

organizations’ economic responsibilities was that organizations have a “responsibility to

produce goods and services that society wants and to sell them at a profit” (1979, p. 500).

This is problematic in the context of sport as organizations have varied financial

structures. Instead, a more modern, inclusive interpretation is suggested. Carroll is

correct in stating that organizations have a “responsibility to produce goods and services

that society wants” (1979, p. 500), for why would an organization exist if it is not

fulfilling some need or desire in society (Walters, 2009). However, the idea that all

organizations must turn a profit is not reflective of the mission of many organizations

engaged in CSR, including many sport organizations. A community-based youth athletic

league may be classified as nonprofit, however few would suggest that excuses the league

from its responsibilities towards the health and safety of their athletes. Moreover, despite

nonprofit status, such a community athletic league is expected to generate enough money

to cover their expenses and as noted by Davis (1960), and reiterated in a modern context

by Hamil & Morrow (2011), economic failure of the firm comes with consequences

beyond the direct interests of the firm. The inability of a nonprofit organization to cover

expenses could result in financial harm to suppliers, safety concerns resulting from

inadequate facilities or medical support, and other such behaviors unlikely to be

classified as socially responsible.

As such, and in agreement with Carroll (1979, 1991), economic obligations must

come first as the economic status of an organization clearly impacts other domains of

CSR. The primacy of economic responsibilities is echoed in the sport management

27

literature by Godfrey (2009) who feels the establishment of economics first is a key

advantage of Carroll’s framework. Therefore, it is suggested that Carroll’s own words be

used to describe the economic domain of CSR in a more comprehensive manner. Carroll

states “society expects businesses to fulfill its economic mission” (1979, p. 500). This is

a more inclusive way to describe the broad economic goals of organizations engaged in

CSR while still remaining true to the spirit of Carroll’s assertion.

Carroll’s explanation of the legal domain of CSR also impacts sport

organizations. Aside from governmental laws, Carroll also notes that regulations are part

of the “ ground rules” (1979, p. 500), established by society for organizations. As

indicated by Smith and Westerbeek (2007), sport is political and there is no shortage of

regulations. Similar to general societal laws, sport organizations that violate regulations

set forth by governing bodies are punished. The legal domain is both broad, in that it

does require detailing the specific regulations of every sport organization (a near

impossible task), and straightforward in stating that violations of laws and regulations go

against social norms. The breadth of the regulations a sport organization must address

can include tax laws, local noise ordinances, laws related to alcohol consumption, and

regulations set forth by sport governing bodies.

CSR in Practice

While the previous section of the manuscript has addressed the common themes

and points of debate within the foundations of CSR, Godfrey et al. (2010) also find it

important to recognize that the theories must align with practical applications. One of the

important contributions to the early CSR literature was the CED’s 1971 publication,

28

Social Responsibilities of Business Corporations (Carroll, 1999). While the CED

reiterated the change in the expectations for businesses, their findings carried additional

weight because the CED was composed of practitioners (Carroll 1999). Sheth and

Babiak (2010) have noted discrepancies between theory and practice, while their

colleagues, including Bradish and Cronin (2009) and Godfrey et al., (2010), have

continued the call to bridge the gap between CSR theory and practice.

Understanding CSR in practice is yet another aspect of CSR blurred by the

dispute over the definitions, parameters, and related concepts (to be discussed in further

detail below). With that said, a good deal of the current literature on CSR initiatives

discusses philanthropy. Practitioners openly contend it is the main focus of their

community-related programs (Babiak and Wolfe, 2009) and can result in a number of

positive effects, including an increase in brand loyalty among consumers (Buchholtz,

Amason, and Rutherford, 1999). Strategic philanthropy, or that which can offer positive

financial results for an organization, is currently an important buzzword (Buchholtz et al.,

1999). A consistent strategic philanthropy program, well aligned with company

competencies, has the ability to satisfy the expectations of many stakeholders (Dawkins

and Lewis, 2003).

Often included in strategic philanthropy programs are cause-related marketing

strategies. This phenomenon of the past twenty years aligns organizations with a cause,

most prominently through sponsorship and advertising (Lachowetz and Gladden, 2002).

It fulfills both economic and CSR objectives within a firm, therefore combating several

arguments against CSR initiatives (Varadarajan and Menon, 1988). A prominent

29

example of cause-related marketing is FedEx’s 26-year sponsorship of the St. Jude

Classic golf event (Lachowetz & Irwin, 2002). During FedEx’s association with the

event, over $10 million has been raised to support the St. Jude Children’s Research

Hospital (Lachowetz & Irwin, 2002).

In addition to philanthropic work, the literature also discusses environmental

concerns, product safety issues, employment issues, and other concerns related to the

ethical expectations of society (Carroll, 2008; Joyner and Payne, 2002; McWilliams et

al., 2006). The salience of these issues fluctuates over time, however their presence in

the literature reflects those societal concerns that organizations cannot ignore (Carroll,

2008; Godfrey, 2009). While many other issues are likely to be of concern to scholars

and practitioners, their presence depends on the application of CSR by a specific firm in a

given situation (Jamali, 2008). Though practice should not dictate scholarship, a

discrepancy between the two certainly does not reflect complete scholarship (Babiak and

Wolfe, 2009; Godfrey, 2009)

Theories and Concepts Associated with CSR

The CSR puzzle is further complicated by the number of theories associated with

or related to CSR. Corporate social performance (CSP), corporate social responsiveness,

the link between CSP and corporate financial performance (CFP), corporate citizenship

(CC), and stakeholder theory are all commonly referenced in the CSR literature, most

prominently since the 1970s (Mele, 2008; Wood, 1991). The following section will

review these theories and their place in the CSR literature.

30

Corporate Social Performance and Corporate Social Responsiveness. Like CSR, CSP

and corporate social responsiveness are often discussed in the literature, but historically

have lacked clarity in definition (Wartick & Cochran, 1985; Wood, 1991). The difficulty

stemmed from the fact that the terms, at times, were used interchangeably and that the

concepts and principles behind them are so interconnected, it can be challenging to

accurately discern their meanings (McWilliams and Siegel, 2000; Mele, 2008).

However, the development of the CSP literature, specifically four seminal pieces by Sethi

(1975), Carroll (1979), Wartick and Cochran (1985) and Wood (1991) has led to a better

conceptual understanding of each distinct construct.

Sethi (1975), Carroll (1979), and Wartick and Cochran (1985) offered

conceptualizations of CSP and definitions that begin to clarify the CSP/CSR/corporate

social responsiveness equation. Sethi stated CSP, an evaluation of corporate behavior,

was comprised of social obligations, social responsibilities, and social responsiveness

(1975). Social obligations are actions “in response to market forces or legal constraints”

(Sethi, 1975, p. 60), while social responsibilities are the expectations that corporate

behaviors will fall inline with current social norms (Sethi, 1975). Sethi further explained

that social responsiveness calls for firms to anticipate their “long-run role in a dynamic

social system” (1975, p. 63).

While Carroll (1979) did not offer a clear definition of CSP, he proposed a three-

dimensional model of CSP that incorporated social responsibilities, social issues, and a

philosophy of social responsiveness. Carroll (1979) defined social responsibilities

through his 4 domains, while the identification of social issues depends on the specific

31

circumstances of each firm. The philosophy of responsiveness, or social responsiveness,

identifies the strategy used by management to address social responsibilities (Carroll,

1979).

Wartick and Cochran (1985) also offered a three-dimensional model of CSP.

Using the classifications of principles (CSR), processes (corporate social responsiveness),

and policies (Social issues management), each construct becomes a component of this

CSP model (Wartick & Cochran, 1985). Wartick and Cochran’s (1985) model bears

great similarities to that of Carroll (1979), including the use of Carroll’s four domains of

CSR, addressing responsiveness as a continuum, and through the inclusion of social

issues (Wartick & Cochran, 1985).

Despite the similarities in the previous three models, Wood (1991) identified them

as among a number of “competing” ideas (p. 691). Wood built upon the work of her

colleagues to develop her own definition of CSP and accompanying model. Specifically,

the work of Wartick and Cochran (1985) influenced Wood’s definition of CSP as “a

business organization’s configuration of principles of social responsibility, processes of

social responsiveness, and policies, programs, and observable outcomes as they relate to

the firm’s societal relationships” (1991, p. 693). Under the headings of principles (CSR),

processes (corporate social responsiveness) and outcomes (corporate behaviors), Wood

incorporates ideas similar to those of her colleagues into a different framework (1991).

While other scholars have offered additional methods to frame CSP, the ideas

remain comparable in regards to the CSR puzzle. CSP is an evaluation of the social

actions of organizations (Carroll, 1979; Sethi, 1975; Wartick and Cochran, 1985; Wood,

32

1991). CSR and corporate social responsiveness are integral parts in the evaluation of

those actions (Carroll, 1979; Sethi, 1975; Wartick and Cochran, 1985; Wood, 1991).

Finding the Connection Between Corporate Social Performance and Corporate

Financial Performance. One of the challenges scholars find with CSP (and CSR) is the

ability to operationalize it (Barnett, 2007; McWilliams et al., 2006). As one of the key

justifications for practitioners to embrace CSR, an inability to measure the social

performance of an organization versus its financial performance has given CSR critics

additional support in their argument that organizations need to focus all resources on

maximizing shareholder returns. However, thirty years of research on the relationship

between CSP (or CSR, as they are at times used interchangeably) and CFP has yielded

inconclusive results (Barnett, 2007; Beliveau, Cottrill, and O’Neill, 1994; Margolis and

Walsh, 2003; Marom, 2006; Orlitzky, 2008). Recently, scholars have begun to question

the consistency of the measurement and methodologies in these studies (Barnett, 2007;

Orlitzky, 2008). McWilliams and Siegel (2000) found research to be neglecting outside

variables that may impact a firm’s financial performance. Furthermore, scholars

recognized that variations in social actions at both the industry and firm levels might

impact the ability to find a universal evaluation technique (Barnett, 2007; Gardberg &

Fombrun, 2006; McWilliams et al., 2006; Orlitzky, 2008). Though Orlitzky and his

colleagues (Orlitzky, 2008; Orlitzky & Benjamin, 2001) argue that a meta-analysis offers

a complete picture of the CSP-CFP link, several scholars, including Godfrey (2005), have

turned their attention to other theories to support the adoption of CSR by management.

Notably, Margolis and Walsh (2003) suggest practitioners consider moving away from

33

the economic model of the firm. They note that more organizations are participating in

philanthropic activities and taking a normative view of the firm may be more productive

(Margolis and Walsh, 2003).

Corporate Citizenship. Corporate citizenship (CC), like CSR, CSP, and corporate social

responsiveness, suffers from a lack of clarity in definition and, as such, is often used

interchangeably with CSR, CSP, and business citizenship (Logsdon & Wood, 2002;

Mele, 2008; Moon, Crane, & Matten, 2005). Table 2.2 is a sampling of definitions from

the literature. Aside from identifying a relationship with the community, these

definitions allude to inconsistencies as to exactly what CC is and its place in both

scholarship and practice. Moon et al. (2005) argued much of the CC scholarship to be

theoretically similar to interpretations of CSR and some of the benefits of CC reflect

those of CSR (Fombrun et al., 2000; Waddock, 2000). Scholars also struggle to establish

a framework to evaluate CC (Logsdon & Wood, 2002; Mele, 2008; Moon et al., 2005).

Although CC may ultimately better reflect the philanthropic activities with which it is

commonly associated (Walker and Parent, 2010), the theoretical confusion surrounding it

simply complicates the literature at this juncture (Carroll, 2008; Mele, 2008).

Stakeholder Management. R. Edward Freeman widely introduced the stakeholder

perspective, also known as stakeholder management in 1984. Freeman argued that the

survival of organizations depended on their ability to manage those groups that can affect

their business (1984). Scholars widely recognized the challenges of managing the

interests of all groups associated with an organization (Mitchell, Agle, & Wood, 1997).

As the academy has conceded that addressing all interests is impractical, some scholars

34

have supported more narrow definitions of who is a stakeholder (Mitchell et al., 1997;

Roloff, 2008). These definitions often looked to determine who is a stakeholder based on

the voluntary or involuntary involvement of groups with a particular organization or the

legitimacy of the stakeholder (Mitchell et al., 1997; Roloff, 2008). These debates are

often expanded to address the salience of stakeholders within an organization, in the

hopes of better prioritizing the expectations of stakeholders (Jamali, 2008; Mitchell et al.,

1997). Despite this divergence, Freeman’s definition is still widely utilized in the

academic literature and it is applied in defining stakeholders in this study (Mitchell et al.,

1997; Roloff, 2008).

In addition to the questions as to who is a stakeholder, scholars acknowledged the

difficulty in separating any discussion of stakeholders from the environment surrounding

the relationship between stakeholders and the firm (Mitchell et al., 1997). As

relationships cannot exist in a vacuum, organizations must be aware of those outside

35

factors that can impact their relationships with stakeholders, such as societal expectations

(Mitchell et al., 1997). This awareness of stakeholder expectations in a given context has

been identified as a means to increase shareholder value, thus emphasizing the

importance of incorporating stakeholder management into strategic planning (Jamali,

2008).

In his seminal work, Strategic Management: A Stakeholder Approach, Freeman

specifically noted the relationship between CSR and stakeholder management (1984). He

argues that the CSR literature reflected the application of the stakeholder approach, in

that CSR encourages organizations to recognize the expectations of their community,

their employees, and the general public (Freeman, 1984). Freeman also emphasized that

the stakeholder perspective also supports the integration of social and economic goals

(1984), similar to Carroll’s domains of CSR. An awareness of stakeholders is key to the

success of CSR initiatives, as well as the strength of an organization (Dawkins and

Lewis, 2003). Meeting the expectations through strategic CSR programs can build trust

between stakeholders and an organization (Barnett, 2007; Breitbarth and Harris, 2008). It

also creates an atmosphere of openness and honesty, which can lead to long-term benefits

for the organization (Barnett, 2007; Dawkins and Lewis, 2003).

While there is debate as to how an organization determines who their stakeholders

are, CSR practitioners must determine this information and the manner in which

stakeholders impact their CSR initiatives (Godfrey, 2009; Jamali, 2008). Jamali (2008)

notes stakeholder theory is a “way to organize thinking about organizational

responsibilities” (p. 217). In the context of sport, understanding the impact each

36

stakeholder group has on the organization is especially important. The unique qualities

of sport, including the passion (Babiak & Wolfe, 2009) and exposure (Babiak & Wolfe,

2009; Smith & Westerbeek, 2007) force sport organizations to “work within a complex

set of stakeholder relationships” (Babiak & Wolfe, 2009, p. 723). Strategically planned

CSR initiatives assist sport organizations in balancing the sometimes conflicting demands

of stakeholders, such as the media, fans, and employees, who may have competing

interests in the organization (Babiak & Wolfe, 2009).

Arguments For and Against Corporate Social Responsibility

With such confusion in the literature, one must wonder why CSR garners so much

attention (van Oosterhout & Heugens, 2008). Despite the theoretical confusion, the

number of philanthropic contributions by firms quadrupled between 1950 and 2000 and

corporations are clearly committed to CSR initiatives (Margolis and Walsh, 2003). As

such, the following details the most relevant arguments in favor of and in opposition to

adopting CSR initiatives.

Most of the support for CSR relates back to the long-term sustainability of the

firm (Turban & Greening, 1997). CSR programs allow an organization to differentiate

themselves in the market (Babiak & Wolfe, 2006). Careful branding can signal a

responsible corporate reputation (Kurucz et al., 2008; Walker & Kent, 2009) and also

benefit corporations in their relationships with employees and stakeholders. Building on

signaling theory and identity theory, Turban and Greening (1997) point to the importance

of CSR programs in attracting quality employees. As the applicants believe that CSR

initiatives are indicative of a quality work environment (Turban & Greening, 1997),

37

organizations are likely to see improvements in productivity, employee turnover, and

absenteeism (Babiak & Wolfe, 2006; Davis, 1973). Additionally, CSR programs that

align with the interests of stakeholders can facilitate feelings of trust, openness, and

honesty (Barnett, 2007; Dawkins & Lewis, 2003; Godfrey, 2005).

Firms who utilize their CSR programs as part of their business strategy may also

find it to be an important risk management technique (Babiak & Wolfe, 2006; Fombrun

et al., 2000; Godfrey, 2005; McWilliams et al., 2006). With the increased media

attention (Babiak & Wolfe, 2006; Dawkins & Lewis, 2003), especially in regards to

corporate scandals (Barnett, 2007), organizations would be wise to build up goodwill as a

preventative measure (Godfrey, 2005). As Joyner and Payne (2002) indicated, “public

outrage over perceived illegal or immoral acts is as harsh” (p. 299). This strategy,

however, does not come without risk. The work of Dawkins and Lewis (2003), as well as

Deshpande and Hitchon (2002), revealed that consumers do not respond positively to

corporations whose CSR initiatives are viewed as reactionary. Furthermore, the severity

of a social offense can also adversely impact the reaction of consumers (Deshpande &

Hitchon, 2002).

While scholars have made a worthy case in support of CSR initiatives, there are

dissenting arguments. As conceded in this manuscript, the variation in the CSR literature

creates a challenge for scholars and practitioners (van Oosterhout & Heugens, 2008).

Kuhn and Deetz (2008) argued that critical theorist might also view CSR initiatives as

corporations promoting their political agendas and “mollifying citizens who might

otherwise demand systemic change” (p. 174).

38

However, the strongest argument against CSR remains Milton Friedman’s (1970)

article, The Social Responsibility of Business is to Increase its Profits. Friedman, citing

agency theory, stated that the sole responsibility of management is to maximize profits

for shareholders (1970). It is in response to this criticism that Carroll (1979) made

economic responsibilities the base of his CSR pyramid. CSR scholars have been trying

to determine that there are financial benefits to CSR, specifically through the CSP-CFP

link; however, the inconclusive results give further credence to Friedman’s statement.

What this argument does not consider is that not all shareholders are motivated by profits

alone (Mackey, Mackey, & Barney, 2007; Salazar & Husted, 2008). As such, managers

may need to consider CSR initiatives in order to properly serve their shareholders.

The theoretical arguments for and against CSR are compelling. The difficulties in

measuring CSR and CSP make a definitive business case for CSR impractical (van

Oosterhout & Heugens, 2008) and further highlight the personal values of the actors

involved. However, the breadth of CSR initiatives across many industries indicates that

CSR is an important managerial construct.

Corporate Social Responsibility in Sport

The literature addressing CSR in sport is still in its early stages (Babiak & Wolfe,

2009; Bradish & Cronin, 2009;). Although Hums and colleagues (1999) wrote an article

addressing the ethical issues facing sport managers, most of the early writings addressing

CSR in sport centered around cause-related marketing activities, including event

sponsorship. However, there has been a recent increase in the number of theoretical

39

articles on CSR in sport, including a special issue of the Journal of Sport Management in

2009 (Bradish and Cronin, 2009).

The works of Lachowetz and Gladden (2002), Lachowetz and Irwin (2002), and

Irwin, Lachowetz, Cornwell, and Clark (2003) were among the early works identifying

some of the CSR initiatives in sport. Lachowetz and his colleagues established a solid

foundation to explore cause-related marketing specific to sport. While these articles did

address the benefits of marrying sport and philanthropy, they were more focused on

consumer behavior than the implications for the CSR literature (Lachowetz & Gladden,

2002; Lachowetz & Irwin, 2002; Irwin et al., 2003). These articles were also precursors

to examining sport participation and philanthropic organizations, including the works of

Filo, Funk, and O’Brien (2008, 2009).

Recently, the focus of the CSR in sport literature has expanded to include both

CSR practices and theories in sport. Though the exact nature of these articles varies,

many have recognized the unique qualities sport brings to CSR initiatives (Babiak &

Wolfe, 2006; Babiak & Wolfe, 2009; Bradish & Cronin, 2009; Breitbarth & Harris; Sheth

& Babiak, 2010; Smith & Westerbeek, 2007). Most notably the power of sport as “both a

social and economic institution” (Bradish & Cronin, 2009, p. 692) cannot be ignored by

CSR scholars and practitioners (Godfrey, 2009; Sheth & Babiak, 2010; Smith &

Westerbeek, 2007). Sport provides passion, interest, and exposure that many

corporations cannot (Babiak & Wolfe, 2009). Smith and Westerbeek (2007) highlighted

this power of sport in encouraging the use of its inimitable resources in achieving CSR

initiatives. Walters (2009) presented such an example in his examination of community

40

sports trusts as a means of deploying CSR. His examination highlighted the range of

CSR activities carried out by the Charlton Athletic Community Trust and the Brentford

Football Club Community Sports Trust, indicating that sport organizations with truly

exceptional resources can tackle a variety of initiatives (Walters, 2009).

Additional research in sport is beginning to mirror the progress of the general

CSR literature. Instead of justifying CSR practices within sport organizations, scholars

are working to examine the relationship between current theory and practice in the field.

Researchers have looked to establish a framework for CSR in sport organizations

(Breitbarth and Harris, 2008), while others have examined factors of motivations (Babiak

and Wolfe, 2009), the CSR priorities of sport organizations (Sheth and Babiak, 2010),

and the impact of CSR on consumers (Walker and Kent, 2009). The quality and volume

of literature is increasing at a rate that is encouraging for both scholars and practitioners.

Despite the growth of literature addressing CSR and sport, the context of NCAA

athletics has received little attention. Casper, Pfahl, & McSherry (2011) examined the

role of environmental initiatives, but there has not been a more complete examination of

all aspects of CSR in NCAA athletics. As the practical examples indicate considerable

resources are being devoted towards CSR initiatives in NCAA athletics, academic

exploration will assist practitioners in more efficiently deploying those resources to

achieve organizational objectives.

Summary

Despite the abundance of literature addressing CSR theory and practice, such

examinations are still in their infancy in the context of sport. This is even more

41

pronounced in NCAA athletics. While the various definitions of CSR and the numerous

related theories can lead to confusion, the athletic departments in NCAA member

institutions can clearly benefit from CSR practices in the same manner as organizations

addressed in the literature outlined above. As such, adding NCAA athletics to the

contexts in which CSR is examined would continue to advance the literature.

42

CHAPTER 3

METHODS

This chapter details the specific research design and methodology used in this

study. The chapter is divided into the following five sections: research design, sample

selection, instrument design, data collection, and data analysis.

Research Design

A research study should begin with an understanding of the objectives of the

study and the information sought from the study (Andrew, Pederson, & McEvoy, 2011).

The four primary objectives of research are to explore, describe, explain, and predict

(Andrew et al., 2011). Exploratory research is commonly used in the early stages of

investigation when the problem is often ill-defined (Andrew et al., 2011). Descriptive

research depicts the attributes and features of the object studied (Andrew et al., 2011).

Explanatory research delves deeper to explicate why phenomena occur (Andrew et al.,

2011). Predictive research determines the chance that specific conditions will lead to

expected results (Andrew et al., 2011). This study was descriptive, as it built on existing

literature to report the CSR priorities of NCAA athletic departments, as opposed to

explaining the motives for these practices or predicting behaviors related to CSR

(Andrew et al., 2011). Additionally, the use of questionnaires in this study is consistent

with descriptive research (Andrew et al., 2011).

43

The information sought in a study can be either qualitative or quantitative.

Qualitative research looks to answer questions through description and narrative

(Andrew et al., 2011; Ary, Jacobs, & Sorenson, 2010), without quantifying the data

(Gratton & Jones, 2004). Case studies, ethnographies, and historical research are

common types of qualitative inquiry (Ary et al., 2010).

Conversely, quantitative research utilizes numerical data to answer the questions

at hand (Andrew et al., 2011) and can be divided into experimental, quasi-experimental,

and nonexperimental research (Andrew et al., 2011; Ary et al., 2010). Random

assignment of subjects and the manipulation of the independent variable(s) are key to any

experimental design (Andrew et al., 2011; Ary et al., 2010). Quasi-experimental designs

differ from experimental in that they do not randomly assign or select subjects (Andrew

et al., 2011). Nonexperimental designs do not manipulate the variables and often explore

the relationships between variables (Ary et al., 2010). Additionally, nonexperimental

research can further be classified as ex post facto, correlation, or survey research (Ary et

al., 2010). Both ex post facto and correlational research focus on the relationship

between variables, while survey research looks to collect information on a particular

population in order to assess characteristics and attitudes of that population (Ary et al.,

2010). As such, it was appropriate for this study to employ a quantitative methodology to

survey intercollegiate athletic departments on their CSR priorities.

Interviews and questionnaires are two common methods by which one can

conduct a survey (Andrew et al., 2011). Personal and telephone interviews allow for

personal interaction, but can be time intensive and expensive (Andrew et al., 2011).

44

Questionnaires offer a variety of distribution methods, each with their own advantages

and disadvantages (Andrew et al., 2011). Direct distribution of questionnaires reduces

costs if the researcher has easy access to a setting that contains all the participants

(Andrew et al., 2011). Mailed questionnaires can be less expensive than interviews and

offer greater geographic reach, but the historically low response rates are a deterrent

(Andrew et al., 2011).

Recently, distributing surveys through the Internet has become more common

(Dillman, Smyth, & Christian, 2009). While there are numerous advantages to Internet

questionnaires, those most relevant to this study are the ability to accommodate a variety

of schedules (Andrew et al., 2011), access to broad geographic populations, and allowing

anonymity for the respondents when addressing sensitive material (Andrew et al., 2011;

Ary et al., 2010; Gratton & Jones, 2004). Some of the disadvantages of Internet surveys

include protecting against multiple submissions and low response rates (Andrew et al.,

2011). When utilizing an Internet survey, the researcher must also consider the literacy

level and Internet access of their chosen populations (Andrew et al., 2011; Ary et al.,

2010; Dillman, et al., 2009; Gratton & Jones, 2004). Despite these concerns, the

geographic breadth, financial limitations, and the availability of the Internet for the

population of this study made distribution through the Internet the best method.

Sample Selection

Sampling Method. As the type of research and method of distribution have been

established, selecting the subjects is the next step. The population is the entirety of the

45

group to be examined, while a sample is a smaller part of that population (Ary et al.,

2010; Singleton & Straits, 2005). Sampling is the method by which subjects are selected

for participation in a study (Singleton & Straits, 2005). Applying the appropriate

sampling method is vital to any study as it can impact response rates and biases in the

data (Ary et al., 2010; Singleton & Straits, 2005). The numerous sampling methods are

divided into probability and nonprobability sampling (Ary et al., 2010; Singleton &

Straits, 2005).

In probability sampling, each member of the stated population has an equal

possibility of being selected (Ary et al., 2010; Singleton & Straits, 2005). Simple random

sampling is the most common form of probability sampling (Ary et al., 2010). This

procedure involves defining the population, creating a list of all the members of that

population, and utilizing a method that ensures selection through complete chance (Ary et

al., 2010). Another form of probability sampling is stratified sampling. Stratified

sampling allows for subgroups with differing characteristics to be appropriately

represented in the final sample (Ary et al., 2010; Singleton & Straits, 2005). Cluster

sampling addresses the challenges of compiling a full list of a large population (Ary et

al., 2010; Singleton & Straits, 2005). Instead of selecting individuals, established groups

of individuals from the population are randomly selected to be part of the sample (Ary et

al., 2010; Singleton & Straits, 2005). Finally, systematic sampling calls for researchers to

assemble a list of the total population and select every Kth case based on the ratio of the

population to sample size (Ary et al., 2010; Singleton & Straits, 2005).

46

Garnering a complete list of a population for the purpose of probability sampling

and gaining access to that population often creates challenges for a researcher.

Nonprobability sampling addresses those challenges as it allows for the use of

nonrandom methods to select a sample (Ary et al., 2010; Singleton & Straits, 2005). The

most common types of nonprobability sampling are convenience sampling, purposive

sampling, and quota sampling. Convenience sampling is a nonprobability sampling

procedure commonly used in sport management (Andrew et al., 2011). A convenience

sample is one selected based on access to the participants (Ary et al., 2010; Singleton &

Straits, 2005). This is not the strongest sampling method as there are concerns as to how

representative the sample may be of the population (Ary et al., 2010; Singleton & Straits,

2005). Another nonrandom sampling technique is purposive sampling. When using

purposive sampling, the researcher selects a target sample that fulfills a specific purpose

(Singleton & Straits, 2005). This sample is often believed to be representative of the

population (Ary et al., 2010; Singleton & Straits, 2005). Quota sampling is the

nonrandom sampling method in which the sample is selected in a manner that fulfills

specific quotas (Ary et al., 2010; Singleton & Straits, 2005).

This study employed a census of NCAA member institutions. A census

comprises all members of a population (Ary et al., 2010). Some of the concerns

regarding a census include the cost and accessibility of a large population (Singleton &

Straits, 2005). However, neither concern is a factor given the design of this study.

Furthermore, this technique ensured the appropriate representation of the NCAA

membership as further detailed in the sample size and participants sections below.

47

Sample Size. The population for this study was one representative from each NCAA

institution (N=1082). The reported response rates for Internet surveys vary by field, with

several fields reporting lower rates than other distribution methods (Ary et al., 2010).

Additionally, it is recommended that 5–10 respondents per scale item will help ensure a

reliable statistical analysis of an instrument (Dillman et al., 2009). Therefore, the entire

population will be used in this study to help ensure enough respondents for the required

statistical analysis.

Participants. This study looked to garner information from the athletic department of

each NCAA institution. However, sending the survey link to a general departmental

email is unlikely to elicit a good response rate. Additionally, Dillman and colleagues

(2009) encourage personalization with each contact from the researcher, which cannot be

done without selecting a contact at each institution. As such, it was deemed prudent to

randomly select one administrator from each institution within the NCAA. The 2011-

2012 National Directory of College Athletics was used to determine the names of

administrators at each institution. The research questions asked required broad

knowledge of daily business within each department. Therefore, senior-level

administrators (Athletic Directors, Associate Athletic Directors, and Assistant Athletic

Directors) were surveyed, as they oversee the functional areas within the athletic

department. For instance, an associate athletic director may supervise financial

operations, academic relations, or have sport supervision. The specific tasks will vary by

institution, but as a senior-level manager, each of the three positions listed above are

privy to the overall strategic planning of the organization, as opposed to being focused on

48

one area. At the Division I level, only Athletic Directors and Associate Athletic

Directors were included as potential respondents. However, as the structure at Division

II and Division III institutions leaves athletics departments less likely to have as many

Associate Athletic Directors, Assistant Athletic Directors were also included as potential

respondents. As stated earlier, one senior-level administrator was randomly selected

from the list of administrators at each institution, utilizing a table of random numbers.

Instrument Design

Variables are concepts or characteristics that can assume a value (Ary et al.,

2010). Variables can be measured, controlled, or manipulated within a study (Ary et al.,

2010; Gratton & Jones, 2004). This study attempted to measure multiple variables

through a scale incorporating items from Sheth and Babiak (2010). Variables can also be

classified as independent, dependent, or extraneous (Ary et al., 2010). Independent

variables are part of the study and influence the dependent variables (Ary et al., 2010).

Extraneous variables, also called confounding variables, interact with the dependent

variable despite not being a part of the study (Ary et al., 2010). Researchers must try to

control for extraneous variables in their study as extraneous variables can impact the

validity of a study (Gratton & Jones, 2004).

In this study, the independent variables in this study were the divisional

classification of the NCAA institutions and the football classification of Division I

institutions. There were three levels of each independent variable to be analyzed:

Division I, Division II, & Division III for NCAA classification and Football Bowl

Subdivision (FBS), Football Championship Subdivision (FCS), and no football for

49

Division I institutions. Respondents could also state that their institution is reclassifying

divisions. As these institutions are so few, they were removed from the final analysis.

The dependent variables were the emphasis given to the individual CSR practices and the

level of decision-making involvement of each stakeholder group.

Validity. Validity is the term used to express whether an instrument measures what it is

intended to measure (Ary et al., 2010). In this particular study, face validity and content

validity needed to be established. Face validity ensures an instrument is appropriate for

the population being surveyed (Ary et al., 2010; Singleton & Straits, 2005). Having the

instrument reviewed by a sample of the population or similar to the population will

accomplish this (Gratton & Jones, 2004). Content validity determines the suitability of

the instrument from the perspective of an expert in the field (Ary et al., 2010; Gratton &

Jones, 2004). While face validity focuses on the instrument in relation to the population,

content validity looks to assess the instrument’s validity from a conceptual standpoint

(Ary et al., 2010; Gratton & Jones, 2004; Singleton & Straits, 2005). As such, content

validity is established by experts in the appropriate field(s) of study (Ary et al., 2010;

Gratton & Jones, 2004).

For this study, face validity was established by four administrators in NCAA

athletic departments. The administrators were asked to determine if the instrument was

clear and easily understood, if the wording of the instrument was appropriate for the

subject matter and population, their thoughts on the length of the instrument, and any

additional feedback the participants deemed relevant. The content to be reviewed was

not specific to any job requirements other than knowledge of daily management functions

50

in an NCAA athletic department. Each administrator had the experience and requisite

knowledge to offer constructive feedback. These four administrators were removed from

consideration from the final sample.

Additionally, four scholars in sport management assessed the content validity of

the instrument. Scholars were selected based on their knowledge of the CSR literature or

their knowledge of intercollegiate athletics. Specifically, the scholars were asked to

determine if the items reflected the key CSR issues in intercollegiate athletics, the

frequency of the scaling, if any additional items would improve the study, and for any

additional feedback they felt to be helpful.

Reliability. The reliability of the instrument is the consistency of the results produced by

the instrument (Ary et al., 2010; Singleton & Straits, 2005). Without establishing

reliability, the results of a study will come into question (Ary et al., 2010; DeVellis,

2003; Gratton & Jones, 2004; Singleton & Straits, 2005). Three types of reliability

include test-retest reliability, equivalence reliability, and internal consistency reliability

(Ary et al., 2010; Singleton & Straits, 2005). Test-retest reliability determines

consistency through administering the instrument to the same sample at two different

times (Ary et al., 2010; Singleton & Straits, 2005). The correlation between the scores

will indicate if the instrument is reliable (Ary et al., 2010; Singleton & Straits, 2005).

Using multiple, equivalent forms of an instrument administered to the same sample in

succession establishes reliability through equivalence or parallel forms (Ary et al., 2010;

Singleton & Straits, 2005).

51

Internal consistency reliability can be determined through split-half reliability or

measures of homogeneity (Ary et al., 2010). Both methods require one administration of

the instrument and establish that the items are measuring the same thing (Ary et al.,

2010). Split-half reliability divides the instrument in two and correlates the scores on

each half (Ary et al., 2010; Singleton & Straits, 2005). The measures of homogeneity

ascertain the consistency between items on an instrument (Ary et al., 2010). Two

commonly used procedures to establish homogeneity are the Kuder-Richarson 20 formula

(K-R 20) and Cronbach’s Alpha (Ary et al., 2010). K-R 20 is not applicable for this

instrument, as the K-R 20 procedure is intended for dichotomous scores (Ary et al., 2010;

DeVellis, 2003). Cronbach’s alpha, however, is especially useful when the scores to be

measured are represented by a range of values, such as a Likert-type scales (Ary et al.,

2010; DeVellis, 2003). A Cronbach’s alpha value between .70 and .90 indicates good

reliability (Nunnally & Bernstein, 1994). A Cronbach’s alpha score higher than a .90

indicates the items in the instrument are too limited in the breadth of their focus

(Nunnally & Bernstein, 1994). Any Cronbach’s alpha score below a .70 reveals items are

not consistently measuring the latent construct (Nunnally & Bernstein, 1994).

Pilot Study. A pilot study was used in the process of establishing validity and reliability

(Ary et al., 2010; Gratton & Jones, 2004). Pilot studies are a smaller trial of the study

(Gratton & Jones, 2004). Using a sample similar to or from the population, researchers

can ensure the final instrument is easy to read and understand, as well as test the

statistical analyses, including establishing reliability (Ary et al., 2010; Gratton & Jones,

52

2004). This is especially important for newly developed instruments and Internet surveys

(Dillman, et al., 2009).

The pilot test was conducted following the review of the instrument used in this

study by athletic administrators and the panel of experts. The instrument was adjusted to

include their suggestions and administered to a stratified random sample of 100 senior-

level administrators. In order to remain consistent with the size of each division, 31

Division I administrators, 28 Division II administrators, and 41 Division III

administrators were randomly selected to participate in the pilot test. Subjects were

emailed a prenotification letter three business days in advance of a second email

containing an invitation to participate in the pilot study and a link to the instrument

(Appendix A). Prenotification was used in the pilot study to best reflect the conditions of

the final study (Dillman et al., 2009).

Subjects were invited to complete the questionnaire in a manner replicating the

final study with one exception. An additional screen was added to the end of the

instrument requesting additional feedback from participants regarding the instrument or

the administration of the instrument. In accordance with the recommendations of Gratton

& Jones (2004), the statistical analyses intended for the final administration of the

instrument were run. The small number of responses (n = 32) made it difficult to utilize

Cronbach’s alpha in establish the reliability of the instrument. As such, reliability was

established through the final sample. Similar to the panel of experts, those who

participated in the pilot study were removed from consideration for the final study.

Measurement. The following are the operational definitions utilized in this study.

53

Emphasis placed on individual CSR practices. Each variable was

measured on a 6-point Likert-type scale (1 = Never emphasize, 6 = Always

emphasize) that describes the emphasis each athletic department places on each

CSR practice. There were 17 items measured in this manner. The items were

derived from the work of Smith and Westerbeek (2007), Sheth and Babiak (2010),

which identified CSR priorities in professional sport, and from the key issues as

indicated on the NCAA website (National Collegiate Athletic Association,

2011f). The complete list of items can be found in Appendix B.

Level of involvement in CSR decision-making. The involvement of each

stakeholder group was measured on a 5-point Likert-type scale (1 = Not at all

involved; 5 = Extremely involved) that describes their level of involvement in the

decision making process. The particular stakeholder groups were selected due to

their implied involvement CSR practices based on the anecdotal evidence of CSR

practices at NCAA member institutions. The involvement of each stakeholder

group was separately evaluated for each of the four domains of CSR. A total of

24 items were measured in this manner.

CSR as an institutional requirement. This single-item employed a 4-point

Likert-type scale (1 = Not at all in fulfillment, 4 = In complete fulfillment) to

determine the extent to which each athletics department’s CSR practices were in

fulfillment of institutional requirements. A 4-point scale was employed as the

practitioners who reviewed the instrument for validity indicated that a 4-point

54

scale offered a more clear distinction between response categories than a 5-point

scale.

Demographics. Respondents were asked to report their athletic

department’s divisional classification and primary conference affiliation

(Appendix B, #8 - #14). Division I institutions were asked to report their football

classification, as well. Respondents were also asked for their gender and title.

This information was requested to aid in the data analysis.

Open-ended items. As a limitation of Internet questionnaires is the ability

to probe, adding these items will encourage additional depth of analysis (Andrew

et al., 2011). Respondents were asked to broadly identify the athletic department

philosophy behind their CSR practices (Appendix B, #15). Additionally,

respondents were offered the opportunity to offer any details regarding their CSR

practices that they felt might aid in the study (Appendix B, #16). The responses

for items #15 and #16 are reported in Appendix C and Appendix D, respectively.

Final Instrument. The final instrument consisted of 17 scaled items addressing the

emphasis placed on the CSR practices of NCAA athletic departments, 24 scaled items

determining the involvement level of key stakeholder groups in the decision-making

processes regarding CSR practices, 1 scaled item to determine the influence of

institutional policy, 4 demographic questions, and 2 open-ended questions. The scaled

items contained 4 - 6 response categories, as that number of response categories has been

found to balance the variation necessary in the responses with cognitive considerations

for the respondents (Dillman et al., 2009). The items on the CSR emphasis scale were

55

generated using item stems from Sheth & Babiak (2010), deriving items from the work of

Smith & Westerbeek (2007), and the Key Issues listed by the NCAA (National Collegiate

Athletic Association, 2011f). Skip logic was used to ensure respondents only answer

those demographic questions specifically related to their institution.

Data Collection

Data was collected online through the Select Survey System and stored on the

researcher’s personal computer. A list of the names and email addresses of the

participants was compiled and entered into the survey system. A prenotification message

(see Appendix E) was emailed to subjects three business days before the final

questionnaire was distributed. As prenotification helps to improve response rates, it also

reduces nonresponse error in the results (Dillman et al., 2009; Kent & Turner, 2002).

The link to the questionnaire was sent to subjects via email with an invitation to

participate in the study. The text of the email can be found in Appendix F. As more than

2 contacts in 10 days time is discouraged (Dillman et al., 2009), an email reminding those

subjects who had not responded was sent 14 days after the invitation to participate

(Appendix G).

Each of the contacts with the subjects was personalized with the name of each

recipient, as personalization has also been found to increase response rates (Dillman et

al., 2009). The contacts all varied slightly in text and emphasized the importance of each

subject’s participation in the study, as per the recommendations of Dillman and

colleagues (2009).

56

Data Analysis

Upon the completion of data collection, the data was analyzed using SPSS

Macintosh 19 software. The researcher examined the data for anomalies and descriptive

statistics were run, including measures of central tendency and variability (Singleton &

Straits, 2005). As per the recommendation of Miller & Smith (1983), early respondents

were compared to late respondents to assess nonresponse bias.

Research question 1 was addressed by computing the means for question #1, the

CSR practices emphasis scale, on the instrument. An overall mean was calculated for

each CSR practice, along with means for each CSR practice corresponding to each level

of the independent variable, divisional affiliation. One-way ANOVA was run to

determine if the differences between the mean of each CSR practice by divisional

affiliation, and between Division I institutions based on their football status, was

statistically significant, thus addressing research question 2. The normality of the data

and the independence of each level of the independent variable were established when

running frequencies. The Levene test was used to establish homogeneity of variance.

Those items in violation of the homogeneity assumption were evaluated using Welch’s F

test. Multiple comparison procedures, the Tukey HSD test and the Games-Howell test,

were also administered post hoc to better understand which differences were statistically

significant. As there are several dependent variables in the instrument, multiple analysis

of variance (MANOVA) was considered as an analytical tool. However, the use of

MANOVA implies a relationship between the dependent variables that conceptually does

not exist.

57

Means were also computed to determine the level of involvement each key

stakeholder group (senior management team, administrators beyond the senior

management team, head coaches, assistant coaches, SAAC members, student-athletes not

involved in SAAC) has in the decision-making processes of each CSR domain. For the

same reasons detailed above, one-way ANOVA and Welch’s F test were run to determine

if there were differences in the mean involvement by CSR domain of each stakeholder

group was statistically significant. Frequencies were used to determine independence,

the Levene test was again used to ascertain the homogeneity of variance, and multiple

comparison procedures were administered post hoc.

Summary

The design and methods employed in this study were intended to elicit responses

from a representative sample of senior athletic administrators at NCAA member

institutions. This resulted in the development of an online questionnaire emailed to

senior-level administrators at each NCAA member institution. The results of the data

analysis outlined above are further addressed in Chapter 4.

58

CHAPTER 4

RESULTS

The following chapter will detail the results garnered from the questionnaire. It

has been divided into demographic information, CSR emphases, institutional

requirements, and involvement of decision makers.

The Final Sample

A total of 1082 questionnaires were emailed with 390 returned with data (36%).

Several of the returned questionnaires were not fully completed and were ultimately not

used in the analysis. This left a final sample of 266 (N = 266) and a usable response rate

of 25%. The responses detailing the emphasis placed on CSR practices were used to

evaluate nonresponse bias. Miller and Smith (1983) identified statistically comparing

early to late respondents as a method to combat nonresponse bias as late respondents

often mirror nonrespondents. Early respondents were defined as those who responded to

the questionnaire before the reminder email was sent. Late respondents were those who

responded after the reminder email. A t-test revealed no statistically significant

differences between the groups (see Table 4.1).

59

Demographics. Of the 266 questionnaires used in the analysis, 28.9% (n = 77) were from

respondents at Division I institutions, 27.8% (n = 74) were from respondents at Division

II institutions, and 43.2% (n = 115) were from Division III institutions. Respondents

from Division I institutions were further asked to identify their football classification. Of

60

the 77 Division I respondents, 28 (36.4%) indicated their institution competed in the FBS,

33 respondents (42.9%) indicated their institution was in the FCS, and 16 respondents

(20.8%) reported their institution did not sponsor football. The respondents are further

broken down by their institution’s primary conference affiliation in Appendix H.

Respondents were also asked to indicate their gender and job title. Females

comprised 33.7% of respondents (n = 90); males comprised 64.7% of respondents (n =

172); and 4 respondents did not indicate their gender. The job titles of respondents and

their corresponding frequencies are listed below in Table 4.2.

Emphasis on CSR Practices

Research question 1, which inquired as to the emphasis institutions place on

specific CSR practices, was measured on a six-point Likert-type scale (1 = never

emphasize; 6 = always emphasize) and consisted of 17 items. The scale had an internal

61

consistency (α = .90) within the acceptable range of .70 < α ≤ .90 (Nunnally & Bernstein,

1994). As indicated in Table 4.3, no item on the scale had a mean less than 4, indicating

that there is some emphasis placed on each item.

Note. SD in parentheses.

62

In response to research questions 2 and 2a, a one-way ANOVA was calculated to

ascertain determine if there were any statistically significant differences between

institutions in different divisions. The data was tested for the three assumptions of

ANOVA: independence, normality, and homogeneity of variance (Lomax, 2007).

Independence was confirmed as respondents were asked to select the primary divisional

affiliation for their institution. Institutions that were in the process of reclassifying were

removed from the data set to further ensure there was no violation of this assumption.

Although the data violated the normality assumption (see Table 4.4), the violation has

63

little effect unless n is small (Lomax, 2007). As such, the violation of the normality

assumption would have little effect on the results of this study. Homogeneity of variance

was evaluated through the Levene test for equality of variances, as seen in Table 4.5.

The results of the ANOVA are detailed in Table 4.6. Two items, student-athlete well-

being, F(2,263) = 3.690; p = .026, and environmental concerns, F(2,263) = 4.398; p =

.013, were found to be in violation of the assumption of homogeneity. As such, the

Welch test was used to evaluate divisional differences in those items, as seen in Table

4.7.

64

Note. * indicates significance at the .05 level

65

Continued

65

66

Note. * indicates significance at the .05 level

66

67

In the case there was a statistically significant differences between divisions, the Tukey

HSD and the Games-Howell tests were used to further interpret the results of the

ANOVA and the Welch test, respectively.

The analysis revealed three statistically significant differences when the means of

each item were compared by divisional affiliation: remaining economically viable,

F(2,263) = 4.413, p = .013, supporting student groups on your campus, F(2,263) = 3.667,

p = .027, and supporting youth sports, F(2,263) = 3.453, p = .033. The Tukey HSD test

was used to detail the differences between divisions for each of these items. The analysis

revealed Division I institutions (M = 5.36, SD = .72) placed greater emphasis on

remaining economically viable than Division III institutions (M = 4.98, SD = 1.15; p =

.015). There was also a difference in the emphasis Division II institutions (M = 4.88, SD

= .79) place on supporting student groups on their campuses as opposed to Division I

institutions (M = 4.55, SD = .87; p = .028). Additionally, the ANOVA called attention to

statistically significant differences between divisions in regards to supporting youth

sports, F(2,263) = 3.453, p = .033. However, the post hoc analysis did not reveal any

specific statistically significant differences between specific divisions.

68

Division I Analysis. Further analysis was done to determine if there were statistically

significant differences between Division I institutions based on their football status. The

means of each classification are listed in Table 4.8. The Levene test (Table 4.9)

indicated that the Welch test would need to be applied to 5 items: student-athlete safety,

employee safety, fan safety, employee well-being, and student-athlete well-being (see

Table 4.10). The results of the ANOVA detailed in Table 4.11. Student-athlete well-

being, F(2,34.20) = 3.295, p = .05, was the only item that revealed a statistically

significant difference. The Games-Howell test did not offer additional clarification as to

the differences. However, the small sample size for each football classification suggests

all results should be reviewed with caution.

69

Note. SD in parentheses.

70

Note. * indicates significance at the .05 level

Note. * indicates significance at the .05 level

71

Continued

71

72

72

73

Institutional Requirements

Item #8 in the questionnaire asked respondents to specify on a 4-point scale

whether their CSR practices were in fulfillment of institutional requirements (1 = not at

all in fulfillment; 4 = in complete fulfillment). Responses were garnered from 262

respondents yielding a mean of 2.74 (SD = 1.03) and are further detailed in Table 4.12.

The data was tested for the assumptions of ANOVA, with the normality

assumption being violated, W = .858, p < .001. However, similar to the analysis of the

emphasis placed on CSR practices, this violation should have a minimal impact due to

the size of n (Lomax, 2007). ANOVA revealed a statistically significant difference,

F(2,259) = 3.50; p =. 032, based on the divisional affiliation of the respondents’

institution. With that said, the Tukey HSD test did not offer additional clarity as to the

difference (see Table 4.13). Furthermore, ANOVA showed no statistically significant

differences between Division I institutions, F(2,73) = 1.362, p = .263.

74

Institutional Decision Makers

Research question 3 inquired as to the involvement of key stakeholders within the

athletics department in the decision-making process surrounding CSR initiatives.

Research questions 4 and 4a looked to determine any differences in the involvement of

these stakeholder groups along divisional lines. A 5-point, Likert-type scale (1 = not at

all involved; 5 = extremely involved) was developed to measure the involvement of

stakeholder groups in the decision-making processes regarding CSR initiatives. For this

study, the involvement of six stakeholder groups within the athletics department were

measured: senior management, administrative staff outside the senior management team

(department administrators), head coaches, assistant coaches, SAAC members, and

student-athletes who are not members of SAAC (non-SAAC members). The internal

consistency of the scale was tested for each stakeholder group with the results shown in

Table 4.14. All alpha levels were within the recommended range of .70 < α ≤ .90

(Nunnally & Bernstein, 1994).

75

An evaluation of the means was used to address research question 3, which sought

to determine the level of involvement each stakeholder group had in the decision-making

processes surrounding CSR practices. Research questions 4 and 4a looked to determine

if there were statistically significant differences in the means based on divisional

affiliation and by Division I football status, respectively. The same statistical procedures

utilized to answer research questions 2 and 2a were applied to answer research questions

4 and 4a. The data was tested for the assumptions of ANOVA. Similar to the results

addressing CSR practices, the independence assumption was ensured and the normality

assumption was violated. Again, a violation of the normality assumption (see Table 4.15)

is only an issue with a small n (Lomax, 2007).

The Levene test of equality of variances determined the following items were in

violation of the homogeneity assumption (see Table 4.16): senior management – legal

decisions, F(2,263) = 3.966, p = .020, head coaches - legal decisions, F(2.263) = 3.961, p

= .020, head coaches - ethical decisions, F(2,263) = 5.946, p = .003, assistant coaches -

76

economic decisions, F(2,263) = 5.144, p = .006, assistant coaches - philanthropic

decisions, F(2,263) = 4.435, p = .013, and SAAC members - legal decisions,

77

Note. * indicates significance at the .05 level

78

F(2,263) = 4.189, p = .016. The Welch test was used to evaluate divisional differences

among the items in violation of the homogeneity of variance assumption. The results for

each stakeholder group were detailed below.

Senior Management. The means indicated senior management are involved in the

decisions regarding all four domains of CSR. As noted in Table 4.17, the means for each

domain of CSR are at least a 3.5 on the 5-point scale. There were no statistically

significant differences between divisions in the means addressing economic decisions,

F(2,263) = 1.917, p = .149, legal decisions, F(2, 164.416) = 1.576, p = .21, ethical

decisions, F(2,263) = .694, p = .50, and philanthropic decisions, F(2,263) = 2.216, p =

.111.

Note. SD in parentheses.

Department Administrators. The means for departmental administrators outside the

senior management team are noted in Table 4.18. No statistically significant differences

based on divisional affiliation were found for any of the 4 domains of CSR: economic

decisions, F(2,263) = 0.69, p = .934; legal decisions, F(2,263) = .195, p = .823; ethical

79

decisions, F(2,263) = .323, p = .724; and philanthropic decisions, F(2,263) = 1.306, p =

.273.

Note. SD in parentheses.

Head Coaches. Table 4.19 contains the means measuring the involvement of head

coaches. There were statistically significant differences between divisions for each

domain of CSR: economic decisions, F(2,263) = 7.478, p = .001; legal decisions,

F(2,165.569) = 8.248, p < .001; ethical decisions, F(2,168.385) = 4.996, p = .008; and

philanthropic decisions, F(2,263) = 3.140, p = .045.

As indicated by the Tukey HSD test, Division I head coaches (M = 3.39, SD =

.93) were more involved than Division III head coaches (M = 2.84, SD = 1.01) in

economic decisions (p = .001). Similarly, the Games-Howell test revealed Division I

head coaches (M = 3.18, SD = .96) to be more involved in legal decisions (p < .001) than

their Division III (M = 2.56, SD = 1.16) counterparts. The Games-Howell test also

showed Division I head coaches (M = 3.82, SD = .93) to be more involved in ethical

decisions than Division III head coaches (M = 3.36, SD = 1.17), p = .008. However, as

80

indicated in Table 4.20, the Tukey HSD test did not reveal any specific statistically

significant differences in the philanthropic domain.

Note. SD in parentheses.

81

Assistant Coaches. The means detailing the involvement of assistant coaches in the

decision making process related to CSR initiatives are noted in Table 4.21. The analyses

determined there were statistically significant differences between divisions in regards to

economic decisions, F(2,143.893) = 15.113, p < .001, legal decisions, F(2,263) = 5.711,

p = .004, ethical decisions, F(2,263) = 5.493, p = .005, and philanthropic decisions, F(2,

156.64) = 11.12, p <.001.

The Games-Howell test indicated assistant coaches at Division III institutions (M

= 1.54, SD = .68) were less involved in economic decisions than their Division I (M =

2.08, SD =.87; p < .001) and Division II (M =2.09, SD 1.02; p < .001) counterparts. The

Tukey HSD test showed Division III assistant coaches (M = 1.74, SD = .97) were also

less engaged in legal decisions than Division I (M = 2.17, SD = .91; p = .010) and

Division II (M = 2.14, SD = 1.10; p = .021) assistant coaches. In the ethical domain, the

Tukey HSD test revealed Division I assistant coaches (M = 2.95, SD = 1.10) were more

involved in decision-making than Division III assistant coaches (M = 2.38, SD = 1.22; p

= .004). According to the results of the Games-Howell test, Division III assistant coaches

(M = 1.81, SD = .92) were, again, less involved in philanthropic decisions than their

Division I (M = 2.36, SD = .887; p < .001) and Division II (M = 2.35, SD = 1.09; p =

.002) colleagues.

82

Note. SD in parentheses.

SAAC Members. Table 4.22 lists the means denoting the involvement of SAAC members

in CSR decisions. In evaluating the differences between divisions, no statistically

significant differences were found in the economic domain, F(2,263) = .85, p = .431. The

analyses found statistically significant differences between divisions in the involvement

of SAAC members regarding legal decisions, F(2,159.298) = 3.114, p = .047, ethical

decisions, F(2,263) = 3.204, p = .042, and philanthropic decisions, F(2,263) = 3.110, p =

.046.

The Games-Howell test was used to evaluate the differences in the legal domain.

The results revealed Division III SAAC members (M = 1.79, SD = 1.01) to be less

involved in legal decisions than their Division II peers (M = 2.19, SD = 1.13; p = .040).

The Tukey HSD test was utilized in examining the differences in the ethical and

philanthropic domains. Specific differences were found between Divisions II (M = 3.22,

SD = 1.20) and III (M = 2.81, SD = 1.13) SAAC members in regards to their involvement

in ethical decisions (p = .042). In regard to philanthropic decisions, Division II SAAC

83

members (M = 3.14, SD = 1.28) were more involved than their Division III counterparts

(M = 2.68, SD = 1.24; p = .043).

Note. SD in parentheses.

Non-SAAC Members. The means addressing the involvement of non-SAAC members for

each domain of CSR are listed in Table 4.23. No statistically significant differences were

found in the economic, F(2,263) = 1.649, p = 1.94, legal, F(2,263) = 2.87, p = .058, or

ethical, F(2,263) = 1.419, p = .244, domains. ANOVA revealed a statistically significant

difference in the involvement of non-SAAC members in the philanthropic domain,

F(2,263) = 3.351, p = .037. Tukey HSD test revealed the difference to be between

Divisions II (M = 2.26, SD = 1.16) and Division III (M = 1.84, SD = 1.08; p = .028).

84

Note. SD in parentheses.

Differences Among Division I Institutions. Separate analyses were conducted to

determine if there were any differences in the involvement of the stakeholder groups

among Division I institutions. The Levene test (see Table 4.24) indicated which items

would need to be evaluated through the Welch test. The results of the ANOVA (see

Table 4.25) and Welch test (see Table 4.26) revealed no significant differences.

85

Note. * indicates significance at .05 level.

86

Continued

86

87

Continued

87

88

88

89

90

CHAPTER 5

DISCUSSION

This chapter will utilize the results detailed in Chapter 4 to address the research

questions, discuss the implications of the findings, and offer recommendations for future

exploration.

CSR Practices

The results of this study suggest CSR practices are prevalent in the athletics

departments of NCAA member institutions. Over half of respondents (n = 167) indicate

CSR practices are undertaken in at least in considerable response (a score of 3 or 4) to

institutional requirements. Furthermore, as the means of the 17 CSR practices are all

above 4 on the 6-point scale, it implies the athletic departments of NCAA institutions are

responding to the greater institutional impetus by placing some emphasis on these

initiatives. These results addressed research question 1, which inquired as to the

emphasis NCAA member institutions place on CSR practices. In addition to the

emphasis placed on these initiatives, research question 2 asked if there were differences

between divisions. The results indicated there were only 3 three differences in the

emphasis institutions in each division place on these practices. Details as to these

91

differences are explored below. In response to research question 2a, Division I

institutions were compared based on their football status. Only student-athlete well-being

had a statistically significant difference, F(2,34.199) = 3.295, p = .049. However, the

Games-Howell test did not offer clarity as to the difference.

The most emphasized practices across all divisions: following NCAA regulations

(M = 5.85, SD = .43), following university regulations (M = 5.75, SD = .54), student-

athlete well-being (M = 5.64, SD = .57), student-athlete safety (M = 5.59, SD = .68), and

legal regulations (M = 5.56, SD = .80), mirror points of emphasis on the NCAA website

(National Collegiate Athletic Association, 2011f). This suggests the NCAA is influential

in establishing the CSR priorities of member institutions. In the open ended section of

the instrument, one respondent expressly noted their institution’s initiatives “are

representative [of] the NCAA.” The most emphasized practices also reflect news stories

heavily covered by the media, such as the rules violation scandal at the University of

Southern California (Forde, 2010) and the concerns across sports regarding concussions

(ESPN, 2012). As such, one can see the influence of the media on CSR practices.

In addition to the inferences made based on the quantitative data, respondents

specifically mentioned other influences on their CSR practices in the qualitative data.

Respondents suggested the religious affiliation of the institution to be a guiding force on

CSR practices by respondents, with one respondent noting, “We are a religiously oriented

school and that permeates our department’s philosophy.” Furthermore, the experience of

student-athletes was identified in the qualitative data as a central concern to all

92

departmental decisions by 8 respondents. One respondent even stated, “All decisions are

made based on enhancing the student-athletes experience.”

A unique aspect of CSR is that the particular practices will vary for each

organization (Carroll, 1979). The practices which had the lowest emphasis scores:

environmental concerns (M = 4.11, SD = 1.11), supporting social causes (M = 4.22, SD =

1.01), supporting youth sport (M = 4.50, SD = 1.05), and supporting student groups on

your campus (M = 4.74, SD = .80), reflect this difference between organizations. As

these practices are not central to the daily operations of an athletics department, the

emphasis they receive could be dependant on a number of factors, such as the integration

an athletics department has with their campus life or how emphasized these practices are

in the community surrounding an athletics department.

In response to research question 2, it should be reiterated that there was no

statistically significant difference in emphasis based on divisional affiliation on 14 of the

17 CSR practices. There were statistical differences in the emphasis placed on remaining

economically viable. The divergence (p = .015) was between Divisions I (M = 5.36, SD

= .72) and III (M = 4.98, SD = 1.15). This result is hardly surprising given the basic

economic differences between the two divisions. Division I institutions are required to

support more sports than Division III institutions (National Collegiate Athletic

Association, 2011b; National Collegiate Athletic Association, 2011d). Additionally,

Division III institutions do not offer athletically-related financial aid (National Collegiate

Athletic Association, 2011d), whereas Division I institutions must offer a minimum

amount of financial aid (National Collegiate Athletic Association, 2011b). However, the

93

general public may be more familiar with the spending at the Division I level associated

with the expansion of various facilities as a recruiting tool to improve their programs and,

in turn, drive more revenue (National Collegiate Athletic Association, 2010b). This

spending was totaling millions of dollars and had become so extreme the NCAA

developed a task force in 2006 to review this spending (National Collegiate Athletic

Association, 2010b). There are not and have not been concerns regarding spending of

such magnitude at the Division III level, thus supporting the statistically significant

difference in the results.

The other CSR practices in which there was a difference in the results were the

emphasis placed on supporting student groups on campus and supporting youth sport.

While the Tukey HSD test revealed the difference (p = .028) in supporting student groups

to be between the Division I (M = 4.55, SD = .87) and Division II (M = 4.88, SD = .79)

levels, there was no statistical clarification on where the difference lies in regard to youth

sport. In examining the general focus of each division, the ‘six key attributes’ of

Division II imply an added emphasis on service to the community in that division

(National Collegiate Athletic Association, 2011g). This fact offers some clarity to the

results in regard to supporting student groups, but this does not necessarily explain the

differences in supporting youth sport. However, as some CSR practices are carried out

based on the discretion of the organization (Carroll, 1979), it stands to reason that there

will be some differences among such discretionary and non-regulatory practices.

The lack of differences between divisions in emphasizing most CSR practices

may further reflect the fundamental similarities in the athletics departments of NCAA

94

member institutions. While there may be different regulations for Divisions I, II, and III

(National Collegiate Athletic Association, 2010c), all institutions are still subject to rules

and the consequences of breaking those rules. The ramifications of regulatory actions are

also reflected in examining the most commonly emphasized CSR practices. Each of the

three specifically regulatory practices (NCAA, legal, and university regulations) had a

mean above a 5.5 on the 6-point scale and were among the most commonly emphasized

practices. Two practices that currently are less regulated, if at all, for NCAA institutions,

environmental concerns (M = 4.11, SD = 1.112) and supporting social causes (M = 4.22,

SD = 1.008), had the two lowest means of the 17 CSR practices.

In addition to the commonalities brought on by regulation, the emphasis on the

student-athlete permeates throughout the results for each division and reflects the idea

that student-athletes are the prime beneficiaries of NCAA athletics programs

(Chelladurai, 1987). The two CSR practices directly addressing the needs of student-

athletes, student-athlete safety (M = 5.59, SD = 1.044) and student-athlete well-being (M

= 5.64, SD = 0.573), had very high means. As noted above, the experience of student-

athletes was also discussed as key to departmental decision-making in the qualitative

data. While there are questions of institutions using their student-athletes for profits at

the highest levels of NCAA competition (Coakley, 2009), the bottom line is NCAA

athletics do not exist without the student-athlete, thus the emphasis on student-athletes in

making departmental decisions is hardly surprising. There is no question that some

decisions regarding student-athlete safety and well-being have also been regulated,

including regulations regarding tackling in football (National Collegiate Athletic

95

Association, 2010a). However, the items addressing the well-being and safety of other

groups did not score as high. As such, the overlap between regulation and the emphasis

placed on student-athlete safety and well-being should not detract from the fact that

student-athletes are central to the athletics departments at all NCAA member institutions.

In short, the results support the anecdotal evidence detailed in Chapter 1

suggesting NCAA member institutions and their athletics departments are involved in

CSR practices. The specific practices are influenced heavily by regulatory action,

institutional policies, and the experience of the student-athlete. There are differences in

the emphasis placed on specific CSR practices in three cases: supporting youth sport,

supporting student groups on your campus and remaining economically viable.

Additional analysis specifically revealed Division I institutions place a greater emphasis

on remaining economically viable than institutions in Division III and Division II

institutions place a greater emphasis on supporting student groups on their campus than

Division I institutions.

Departmental Decision Makers

Research question 3 inquired as to how involved key stakeholders within the

athletics department are with decisions regarding CSR practices. The results indicate the

influence of senior management on choice of CSR practices is clear. Senior managers

had high means (M > 3.5) in each of the four domains of CSR (economic, legal, ethical,

and philanthropic) and there was no statistically significant difference in the means

between divisions. The involvement of senior management is vital to the success of CSR

initiatives. As the leaders of their respective athletics department, senior management is

96

in a position to establish social responsibility as important goal for the athletics

department (Chelladurai, 2006). Such integral involvement from top management also

aligns with the high means for each of the CSR practices in the emphasis scale, further

supporting the importance of CSR initiatives to the athletic departments of NCAA

institutions.

The involvement level of the head coaches reinforces the involvement of

leadership in deciding upon CSR practices. The means for head coaches suggest at least

moderate involvement in each domain of CSR. Such involvement was supported by the

thoughts of one respondent who observed that head coaches, as head of their sport

program, inevitably exercise a certain amount of control over CSR within their program.

Department administrators beyond senior management were also moderately involved in

the decision-making processes surrounding CSR practices. As these administrators are

working their way through the departmental hierarchy, it stands to reason that they would

have moderate involvement in the decision making process.

The involvement of SAAC members, however, varied by the domain of CSR. As

a whole, this group was moderately involved in ethical (M = 3.00, SD = 1.14) and

philanthropic (M = 2.87, SD = 1.24) practices, but were not particularly involved in legal

practices (M = 1.96, SD = 1.03). The purpose of SAAC is to provide a voice for the

student-athlete experience, with student-athlete welfare and promoting a positive image

being specifically mentioned as focal points (National Collegiate Athletic Association,

2011i). As these practices tend to fall under the ethical and philanthropic domains of

97

CSR, it is understandable that SAAC members would be more involved in such

decisions.

Neither assistant coaches nor non-SAAC members were very involved in

decisions addressing CSR practices. Between those two stakeholder groups, only one

mean (assistant coaches involvement in ethical decisions) was above a 2.5. While there

is little definitive evidence as to why these stakeholders are not involved in the decision

making process, there is also no evidence that assistant coaches and non-SAAC members

have avenues to become involved. Head coaches and SAAC members have opportunities

to become involved through their positions as leaders. However, assistant coaches and

non-SAAC members do not have clear roles that would encourage involvement.

In addressing research question 4, which asked as to the differences between

divisions, the results invite as many questions as they do answers. There were a number

of statistically significant differences found in the results addressing head coaches,

assistant coaches, SAAC members, and non-SAAC members in Divisions I, II, and III.

Each of the differences involved Division III institutions. Such variation in the data

makes it difficult to draw strong inferences, however the qualitative data offers some

direction.

The qualitative data implied that the statistically significant differences, regardless

of divisional affiliation, might be due to departmental structure and the availability of

human resources. Respondents specifically mentioned the influence of unionization and

the role of graduate students as influential in the involvement of specific stakeholder

groups. One respondent detailed how the job duties laid out in the collective bargaining

98

agreements for employees limited the tasks in which certain department personnel could

be involved. Thus, certain employees legally could not be involved in some decision-

making processes. Another respondent explained the assistant coaches at that particular

institution were graduate students in a coaching program. The limits on their time were

among the factors preventing these assistant coaches from being more involved in the

athletics department. These are just a few examples of how a department’s structure,

through size, legal constraints, personnel selection, can influence CSR decision makers.

In turn, these factors influence the availability of the human resources within an athletics

department. While this data provides direction, the resulting suppositions require

additional inquiry.

Although there were many differences between divisions, there were no

statistically significant differences in the involvement of key stakeholders at Division I

institutions. The results suggest that in spite of any financial disparities among Division I

institutions (Coakley, 2009; Shulman & Bowen, 2001), the salience of these stakeholder

groups and their roles within the athletics department are similar across Division I

institutions. As Jamali (2008) noted that stakeholder management is a method to

“organize thinking about organizational responsibilities” (p. 217), it appears Division I

institutions are similar in their evaluation of the responsibilities of the athletics

department. These results, though addressing research question 4a, should be interpreted

cautiously due to the small n in each football classification.

99

Implications for Practitioners

The results of this study indicated the athletics departments of NCAA member

institutions and the leaders of these departments place emphasis on CSR practices in their

regular operations. As the data highlighted the influence of several forces, most notably

the parent institution, the NCAA, and the media, athletic administrators would benefit

from ensuring they remain abreast of the expectations of these influential groups.

Additionally, the variation in the quantitative data, combined with the findings

from the qualitative data, suggest institutions are working within their university and

departmental structures and with the human resources available to them. The data

revealed internal structure to be a potential reason for limited involvement by certain

stakeholder groups, most notably, assistant coaches. However, the academic literature on

decision making indicates there may be advantages to more consistently including each

stakeholder group in the decision making process regarding CSR initiatives. Including

group members in decision making, known as participative decision making, can increase

the number of options to achieve the goal, help the group to better understand and

implement decisions, and to promote group ownership of the decision (Chelladurai, 2006;

Chelladurai & Turner, 2006). The leaders of athletics departments need to ensure that

the lack of inclusion in the decision-making process regarding CSR practices is not

negatively impacting those stakeholder groups less involved in the process. As a key

benefit of CSR is improved effort and morale among employees, (Babiak & Wolfe, 2006;

Davis, 1973; Turban & Greening, 1997), indifferent or negative feelings resulting from

exclusion may negate the potential benefits of CSR initiatives for the department.

100

Although student-athletes are not department employees, the literature also

suggests decision-making can contribute to student-athletes’ personal growth and impact

their overall experience at the institution (Chelladurai, 2006; Chelladurai & Turner,

2006). The data revealed student-athletes are playing some role CSR practices; however,

it appears to be in the execution of these initiatives rather than the planning. Respondents

identified student-athlete participation in CSR practices, specifically community service,

as a learning tool for institutions. One respondent even indicated the ultimate goal of

CSR practices was to instill good citizenship as a lifelong value in student-athletes.

Without taking away from the importance of reinforcing positive community

involvement, institutions must be clear in their goals for the involvement of student-

athletes in CSR practices. These goals must also align with departmental practices. If

institutions are serious about utilizing CSR practices as a developmental or learning tool,

partaking in the planning stages of CSR practices would help in strengthening practical

skills, including problem-solving (Chelladurai & Turner, 2006).

Implications for Researchers and Future Directions

This study was intended as a foundation for future inquiry into CSR in the context

of NCAA athletics. Thus, the number of questions raised based on the results detailed

above is encouraging for scholars. Scholars examining CSR in other sport contexts,

including Babiak & Wolfe (2009), have noted that CSR evolves over time. Therefore,

periodic reexamination of the emphasis placed on specific CSR practices is warranted.

Additionally, Babiak and Wolfe explored the groups influencing CSR practices in

professional sport (2009). The results detailed in chapters 4 and 5 of this study called

101

attention to the influence the media, the NCAA, and the university have on such practices

at NCAA member institutions. Further exploration would determine the extent of such

influence, as well as other groups who can affect CSR practices.

The differences in the level of involvement of key stakeholders regarding

decisions addressing CSR practices also require further exploration. Determining what

aspects of the Division III philosophy impact CSR would elucidate the dissimilar

involvement of stakeholders at the Division III level. While the structure of the athletics

department and the corresponding human resources were revealed to be potential causes

for the disparity, other factors related to each institution and its surrounding community

should be explored. Additionally, it would behoove both scholars and institutions to

better understand the impact planning and participating in CSR initiatives has on the

student-athlete experience. This is especially important in college athletics current

economic climate, as the student-athlete experience has been identified as a factor in

athletic alumni donations (O’Neil & Schenke, 2007). Such research would also impact

the implications of CSR initiatives for practitioners.

Conclusion

This study serves as empirical evidence that CSR practices are prevalent in the

athletics departments of NCAA member institutions and those in leadership positions

within the athletics department are involved in the decision making process regarding

these practices. Across all divisions, the results highlight the influence of the media,

regulation, and regulatory bodies on the specific CSR practices, as well as a continued

focus on the student-athletes in the decision-making process. In addition, the results

102

notably revealed differences regarding the involvement of stakeholder groups between

Division III institutions and their counterparts in Divisions I & II.

While the small n in each Division I football designation is a limitation of the

analysis, the study still calls attention to the need for additional inquiry into CSR in the

context of NCAA athletics. Several implications for both practitioners and researchers

arising from this study are listed above, but those implications do not reflect the full

extent of potential questions and issues to address. The literature focusing CSR in other

contexts indicates there are several other lines of inquiry to be explored, including the

implications of CSR on consumers of NCAA athletics (Babiak & Wolfe, 2009, Walker &

Kent, 2009). As such, one of the most important implications of this study is the need for

continued inquiry into CSR in the context of NCAA athletics.

103

References

Andrew, D. P. S., Pederson, P. M., & McEvoy, C. D. (2011). Research methods and

design in sport management. Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics.

Ary, D., Jacobs, L. C., Sorenson, C. (2010). Introduction to research in education.

Belmont, CA: Wadsworth, Cenage Learning.

Babiak, K. & Wolfe, R. (2006). More Than Just a Game? Corporate Social

Responsibility and Super Bowl XL. Sport Marketing Quarterly, 15(4), 214-222.

Retrieved from SPORTDiscus with Full Text database.

Babiak, K., & Wolfe, R. (2009). Determinants of Corporate Social Responsibility in

Professional Sport: Internal and External Factors. Journal of Sport

Management, 23(6), 717-742. Retrieved from SPORTDiscus with Full Text

database.

Barnett, M. (2007). Stakeholder influence capacity and the variability of financial

returns to corporate social responsibility. Academy of Management Review, 32(3),

794-816. Retrieved from Business Source Alumni Edition database.

Beliveau, B., Cottrill, M., & O’Neill, H. M. (1994). Predicting corporate social

responsiveness: A model drawn from three perspectives. Journal of Business

Ethics, 13(9), 731 - 738. Retrieved from Business Source Complete database.

Bradish, C. & Cronin, J. J. (2009). Corporate social responsibility in sport. Journal of

Sport Management, 23(6), pp. 691-697.

Breitbarth, T., & Harris, P. (2008). The Role of Corporate Social Responsibility in the

Football Business: Towards the Development of a Conceptual Model. European

Sport Management Quarterly, 8(2), 179-206. Retrieved from SPORTDiscus with

Full Text database.

Bowen, H. (1953). Social responsibilities of the businessman. New York: Harper

and Row.

Buchholtz, A. K., Amason, A. C., & Rutherford, M. A. (1999). Beyond Resources.

Business & Society, 38(2), 167-187. Retrieved from Business Source Complete

database.

104

Carroll, A. (1979). A Three-Domain Conceptual Model of Corporate

Performance. Academy of Management Review, 4(4), 497-505. Retrieved from

Business Source Complete database.

Carroll, A. (1991). The Pyramid of Corporate Social Responsibility: Toward the

Moral Management of Organizational Stakeholders. Business Horizons, 34(4),

39-48. Retrieved from Business Source Complete database.

Carroll, A. (1999). Corporate Social Responsibility. Business & Society, 38(3), 268.

Retrieved from Business Source Complete database.

Carroll, A.B. (2008). A history of corporate social responsibility: Concepts and

practices. In A. Crane, A. McWilliams, D. Matte, J. Moon, D.S. Siegel (Eds.),

The Oxford Handbook of Corporate Social Responsibility (19-46). New York:

Oxford University Press.

Casper, J. M., Pfahl, M. E., McSherry, M. W. (2011). Athletics department awareness

and action regarding the environment: A study of NCAA athletics department

sustainability practices. Journal of Sport Management. Advance online

publication. http://journals.humankinetics.com/jsm

Chelladurai, P. (1987). Multidimensionality and Multiple Perspectives of Organizational

Effectiveness. Journal of Sport Management 1(1), 37-47.

Chelladurai, P. (2006). Human Resource Management in Sport and Recreation.

Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics.

Chelladurai, P. & Turner, B. (2006). Styles of Decision Making in Coaching. In J. M.

Williams (Ed.), Applied Sport Psychology: Personal Growth to Peak

Performance (140-154). New York: Mc Graw Hill

Coakley, J. (2009). Sports in society: Issues and controversies. New York: McGraw

Hill.

Committee for Economic Development. (1971). Social responsibilities of business

corporations. New York: Author.

Crane, A., McWilliams, A., Matten, D., Moon, J., & Siegel, D. The corporate social

responsibility agenda. In A. Crane, A. McWilliams, D. Matte, J. Moon, D.S.

Siegel (Eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Corporate Social Responsibility (3-15).

New York: Oxford University Press.

105

Dahlsrud, A. (2008). How corporate social responsibility is defined: an analysis of 37

definitions. Corporate Social Responsibility & Environmental Management,

15(1), 1-13. doi:10.1002/csr.132.

David, D. (1949). Business responsibilities in an uncertain world. Harvard

Business Review, 27(3), 1-8. Retrieved from Business Source Complete database.

Davis, K. (1960). Can Business Afford to Ignore Social Responsibilities? California

Management Review, 2(3), 70-76. Retrieved from Business Source Alumni

Edition database.

Davis, K. (1967). Understanding The Social Responsibility Puzzle. Business Horizons,

10(4), 45. Retrieved from Business Source Complete database.

Davis, K. (1973). The case for and against business assumption of social

responsibilities. Academy of Management Journal, 16, 312-322.

Davis, K., & Blomstrom, R. L. (1966). Business and its environment. New York:

McGraw- Hill.

Dawkins, J., & Lewis, S. (2003). CSR in Stakeholder Expectations: And Their

Implication for Company Strategy. Journal of Business Ethics, 44(2), 185-193.

Retrieved from Business Source Complete database.

Deshpande, S., & Hitchon, J. (2002). Cause-related marketing ads in the light of negative

news. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly, 79(4), 905-926. Retrieved

from Communication & Mass Media Complete database.

DeVellis R. F. (2003). Scale development: Theory and application. Thousand Oaks,

CA: Sage Publications.

Dillman, D. A., Smyth, J. D., & Christian, L. M. (2009). Internet, mail, and mixed-mode

surveys: The tailored design method. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

ESPN. (2010, May 27). UEFA approves new financial standards. Retrieved September

2, 2011 from

http://soccernet.espn.go.com/news/story?id=790800&sec=europe&cc=5901

ESPN. (2012, January 31). Topics: Concussions in sports. Retrieved April 3, 2012 from

http://espn.go.com/nfl/topics/_/page/concussions

Filo, K., Funk, D., & O’Brien, D. (2008). It’s Really Not About the Bike: Exploring

Attraction and Attachment to the Events of the Lance Armstrong Foundation.

Journal of Sport Management, 22(5), 501-525. Retrieved from SPORTDiscus

with Full Text database.

106

Filo, K., Funk, D., & O’Brien, D. (2009). The Meaning Behind Attachment: Exploring

Camaraderie, Cause, and Competency at a Charity Sport Event. Journal of Sport

Management, 23(3), 361-387. Retrieved from SPORTDiscus with Full Text

database.

Fitch, H. G. (1976). Achieving corporate social responsibility. Academy of

Management Review, 1, 38-46.

Fombrun, C. J., Gardberg, N. A., & Barnett, M. L. (2000). Opportunity Platforms and

Safety Nets: Corporate Citizenship and Reputational Risk. Business and Society

Review, 105(1), 85-106. Retrieved from Business Source Complete database.

Forde, P. (2010, June 10). USC Trojans receive thunderous penalty from NCAA.

Retrieved from

http://sports.espn.go.com/ncf/columns/story?columnist=forde_pat&id=5273422

Franklin & Marshall Volleyball. (2011, November 13). Facebook [Social networking

site]. Retrieved from https://www.facebook.com/DiplomatsVolleyball?sk=wall

Frederick, W. (1960). The Growing Concern Over Business Responsibility. California

Management Review, 2(4), 54-61. Retrieved from Business Source Complete

database.

Freeman, R. E. (1984). Strategic management: A stakeholder approach. Boston:

Pitman.

Friedman, M. (1970). The social responsibility of business is to increase its profits.

New York Times Magazine. p. 33. Retrieved from

http://www.marshall.edu/cber/LE691/Friedman-The_Social_Responsibility.pdf

Gardberg, N., & Fombrun, C. (2006). Corporate citizenship: Creating intangible assets

across institutional environments. Academy of Management Review, 31(2), 329-

346. Retrieved from Business Source Alumni Edition database.

Godfrey, P. (2005). The relationship between corporate philanthropy and shareholder

wealth: A risk management perspective. Academy of Management Review, 30(4),

777-798. Retrieved from Business Source Alumni Edition database.

Godfrey, P. (2009). Corporate Social Responsibility in Sport: An Overview and Key

Issues. Journal of Sport Management, 23(6), 698-716. Retrieved from

SPORTDiscus with Full Text database.

107

Godfrey, P. C., Hatch, N. W., & Hansen, J. M. (2010). Toward a General Theory of

CSRs. Business & Society, 49(2), 316-344. Retrieved from Web of Science

database.

Godfrey, P. C., Merrill, C. B., & Hansen, J. M. (2009). The relationship between

corporate social responsibility and shareholder value: An empirical test of the risk

management hypothesis. Strategic Management Journal, 30(4), 425-445. doi:

10.1002/smj.750

Gratton, C. & Jones, I. (2004). Research methods for sport studies. London: Routledge.

Hamil, S. & Morrow, S. (2011). Corporate social responsibility in the Scottish Premier

League: Context and motivation. European Sport Management Quarterly, 11(2),

143-170. doi: 10.1080/16184742.2011.559136

Hums, M.A., Barr, C.A., & Gullion, L. (1999). Ethical issues confronting managers in

the sport industry. Journal of Business Ethics, 20, 51–66.

Irwin, R., Lachowetz, T., Cornwell, T., & Clark, J. (2003). Cause-related sport

sponsorship: an assessment of spectator beliefs, attitudes, and behavioral

intentions. Sport Marketing Quarterly, 12(3), 131-139. Retrieved from

SPORTDiscus with Full Text database.

Jamali, D. (2008). A stakeholder approach to corporate social responsibility: A fresh

perspective into theory and practice. Journal of Business Ethics, 82, 213–231. doi

10.1007/s10551-007-9572-4

Joyner, B. E., & Payne, D. (2002). Evolution and implementation: A study of values,

business ethics and corporate social responsibility. Journal of Business

Ethics, 41(4), 297-311. Retrieved from Business Source Complete database.

Kent, A. & Turner, B. (2002). Increasing response rates among coaches: The role of

prenotification methods. Journal of Sport Management, 16(3), 230-238.

Kihl, L. A., Leberman, S., & Schull, V. (2010). Stakeholder constructions of leadership

in intercollegiate athletics. European Sport Management Quarterly, 10(2), 241-

275. doi: 10.1080/16184740903559917

Kuhn, T. & Deetz, S. (2008). Critical theory and corporate social responsibility:

Can/should we get beyond cynical reasoning? In A. Crane, A. McWilliams, D.

Matte, J. Moon, D.S. Siegel (Eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Corporate Social

Responsibility (173-196). New York: Oxford University Press.

108

Kurucz, E.C., Colbert, B.A., & Wheeler, D. (2008). The business case for corporate

social responsibility. In A. Crane, A. McWilliams, D. Matte, J. Moon, D.S.

Siegel (Eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Corporate Social Responsibility (83-112).

New York: Oxford University Press.

Lachowetz, T., & Gladden, J. (2002). A Framework for Understanding Cause-Related

Sport Marketing Programs. International Journal of Sports Marketing &

Sponsorship, 4(4), 313-333. Retrieved from SPORTDiscus with Full Text

database.

Lachowetz, T., & Irwin, R. (2002). FedEx and the St. Jude classic: an

application of a cause-related marketing program. (CRMP). Sport Marketing

Quarterly, 11(2), 114-116. Retrieved from SPORTDiscus with Full Text

database.

Lapchick, R., Hoff, B., & Kaiser, C. (2010). 2010 Racial and gender report card:

College Sport. Retrieved from The University of Central Florida, The Institute

for Diversity and Ethics in Sport website:

http://web.bus.ucf.edu/documents/sport/2010-college-rgrc.pdf

Lockett, A., Moon, J., & Visser, W. (2006). Corporate Social Responsibility in

Management Research: Focus, Nature, Salience and Sources of Influence. Journal

of Management Studies, 43(1), 115-136. Retrieved from Business Source

Complete database.

Logsdon, J.M., & Wood, D.J. (2002). Business citizenship: From domestic to global

level of analysis. Business Ethics Quarterly, 12(2), 155-187. Retrieved from

http://www.jstor.org/stable/3857809.

Lomax, R. G. (2007). An Introduction to Statistical Concepts. New York: Psychology

Press.

Mackey, A., Mackey, T., & Barney, J. (2007). Corporate social responsibility and firm

performance: Investor preferences and corporate strategies.

Academy of Management Review, 32(3), 817-835. Retrieved from Business

Source Alumni Edition database.

Margolis, J.D. & Walsh, J.P. (2003). Misery loves companies: Rethinking social

initiatives by business. Administrative Science Quarterly, 48(2), 268-305.

Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/3556659.

Marom, I.Y. (2006). Toward a unified theory of the CSP–CFP link. Journal of

Business Ethics, 67,191–200. doi: 10.1007/s10551-006-9023-7

109

McRae, C. (2011, September 17). CSUMB participates in Save our Shores event.

Retrieved from

http://www.otterathletics.com/news/2011/9/17/XC_0917115415.aspx

McWilliams, A., & Siegel, D. (2000). Corporate social responsibility and financial

performance: Correlation or misspecification? Strategic Management Journal,

21(5), 603. Retrieved from Business Source Complete database.

McWilliams, A., Siegel, D.S., & Wright, P.M. (2006). Corporate Social Responsibility:

Strategic Implications. Journal of Management Studies, 43(1), 1. Retrieved from

Business Source Complete database.

Mele, D. (2008). Corporate social responsibility theories. In A. Crane, A.

McWilliams, D. Matte, J. Moon, D.S. Siegel (Eds.), The Oxford Handbook of

Corporate Social Responsibility (47-82). New York: Oxford University Press.

Miller, L. E. & Smith, K. (1983). Handling non-response issues. Journal of Extension,

21(5), 45-50.

Moon, J., Crane, A., & Matten, D. (2005). Can corporations be citizens? Business Ethics

Quarterly, 15(3), 429-453. Retrieved from Business Source Complete database.

Moses, E. (2010, February 9). MIAA launches Harvesters virtual food drive. Retrieved

from http://www.themiaa.com/general/releases/02092010

National Collegiate Athletic Association. (2010a). A primer on NCAA rules for football

safety. Retrieved from

http://ncaa.org/wps/wcm/connect/public/ncaa/resources/latest+news/2010+news+

stories/october/a+primer+on+ncaa+rules+for+football+safety

National Collegiate Athletic Association. (2010b). NCAA Facilities arms race.

Retrieved from

http://www.ncaa.org/wps/wcm/connect/public/Test/Issues/Commercialism/Faciliti

es+arms+race

National Collegiate Athletic Association. (2010c). How athletics programs are

classified. Retrieved from

http://ncaa.org/wps/wcm/connect/public/ncaa/about+the+ncaa/who+we+are/about

+the+ncaa+how+programs+are+classified

National Collegiate Athletic Association. (2011a). Achieving Coaching Excellence

(ACE) programs. Retrieved from

http://www.ncaa.org/wps/portal/ncaahome?WCM_GLOBAL_CONTEXT=/ncaa/

110

NCAA/About+The+NCAA/Diversity+and+Inclusion/Diversity+Programs/ace_pr

ogram

National Collegiate Athletic Association. (2011b). Differences among the three

divisions: Division I. Retrieved from

http://ncaa.org/wps/wcm/connect/public/ncaa/about+the+ncaa/who+we+are/differ

ences+among+the+divisions/division+i/about+division+i

National Collegiate Athletic Association. (2011c). Differences among the three

divisions: Division II. Retrieved from

http://ncaa.org/wps/wcm/connect/public/ncaa/about+the+ncaa/who+we+are/differ

ences+among+the+divisions/division+ii/about+division+ii

National Collegiate Athletic Association. (2011d). Differences among the three

divisions: Division III. Retrieved from

http://ncaa.org/wps/wcm/connect/public/ncaa/about+the+ncaa/who+we+are/differ

ences+among+the+divisions/division++iii/about+division+iii

National Collegiate Athletic Association. (2011e). Diversity programs. Retrieved from

http://www.ncaa.org/wps/portal/ncaahome?WCM_GLOBAL_CONTEXT=/ncaa/

NCAA/About+The+NCAA/Diversity+and+Inclusion/Diversity+Programs/

National Collegiate Athletic Association. (2011f). Key Issues. Retrieved

from http://ncaa.org/wps/wcm/connect/public/ncaa/issues

National Collegiate Athletic Association. (2011g). Life in the Balance. Retrieved from:

http://www.ncaa.org/wps/wcm/connect/public/NCAA/Academics/Division+II/Life

+in+the+Balance

National Collegiate Athletic Association. (2011h). Revenue. Retrieved from

http://ncaa.org/wps/wcm/connect/public/ncaa/finances/revenue

National Collegiate Athletic Association. (2011i). Student-Athlete Advisory Committee.

Retrieved from http://www.ncaa.org/wps/wcm/connect/public/Test/Student-

Athlete+Experience/Student-Athlete+Well+Being/Student-

Athlete+Advisory+Committee

National Collegiate Athletic Association. (2011j). Who we are. Retrieved from

http://ncaa.org/wps/wcm/connect/public/ncaa/about+the+ncaa/who+we+are+landi

ng+page

National Collegiate Athletic Association. (2012). Health and safety. Retrieved from

http://ncaa.org/wps/wcm/connect/public/ncaa/health+and+safety/index.html

111

Nunnally, J. C. & Bernstein, I. H. (1994). Psychometric theory. New York: McGraw

Hill.

Office of Postsecondary Education. Equity in Athletics Data Analysis Cutting Tool

Website. In U.S. Department of Education. Retrieved November 19, 2011, from

http://ope.ed.gov/athletics/InstDetails.aspx?756e697469643d31323932313526796

561723d323031302673656172636843726974657269613d3331336434353631373

337343635373236653230343336663665366536353633373436393633373537343

230353337343631373436353236373236343734336433313331326633323331326

633323330333133313230333133303361333433313361333533373230343134642

67264743d31312f32312f323031312031303a34313a353720414d

O’Neil, J. & Schenke, M. (2007). An examination of factors impacting athlete alumni

donations to their alma mater: A case study of a U.S. university. International

Journal of Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Marketing, 12(1), 59-74. doi:

10.1002/nvsm.274

Orlitzky, M. (2008). Corporate social performance and financial performance: A

research synthesis. In A. Crane, A. McWilliams, D. Matte, J. Moon, D.S. Siegel

(Eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Corporate Social Responsibility (113-136).

New York: Oxford University Press.

Orlitzky, M. & Benjamin, J.D. (2001). Corporate Social Performance and Firm Risk: A

Meta-Analytic Review. Business & Society, 40(4), 369. Retrieved from Business

Source Complete database.

Salazar, J. & Husted, B.W. (2008). Principals and agents: Further thoughts on the

Friedmanite critique of corporate social responsibility. In A. Crane, A.

McWilliams, D. Matte, J. Moon, D.S. Siegel (Eds.), The Oxford Handbook of

Corporate Social Responsibility (137-155). New York: Oxford University Press.

Saleh, I. (2011, August 23). La Liga players continue strike as Spanish clubs battle

financial woes. Retrieved September 2, 2011 from

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/soccer-insider/post/la-liga-players-continue-

strike-as-spanish-clubs-battle-financial-woes/2011/08/23/gIQAJoXIZJ_blog.html

Schwarz, M.S. and Carroll, A.B. (2003). Corporate social responsibility: A three

domain approach. Business Ethics Quarterly, 13(4), 503-530. Retrieved from

http://www.jstor.org/stable3857969

Sethi, S. P. (1975, Spring). Domains of corporate social performance: An analytic

frame- work. California Management Review, 17, 58-64.

112

Sheth, H. and Babiak, K. (2010). Beyond the game: Perceptions and practices of

corporate social responsibility in the professional sport industry. Journal of

Business Ethics, 91, 433-459.

Shulman, J.L. and Bowen, W.G. (2001). The game of life: College sports and

educational values. Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press.

Singelton, R. A. & Straits, B. C. (2005). Approaches to social research. New York:

Oxford University Press.

Smith, A.C.T., & Westerbeek, H.M. (2007). Sport as a vehicle for deploying corporate

social responsibility. Journal of Corporate Citizenship, Spring, 2007, 43-54.

Stinson, J. L. & Howard, D. R. (2010). Intercollegiate athletics as an institutional

fundraising tool: An exploratory donor-based view. Journal of Nonprofit &

Public Sector Marketing, 22(4), 312-335. doi:10.1080/10495140802662572

Swarthmore College. (2011, January 12). Spring 2011 Kids’ Night Out schedule now

available. Retrieved from

http://www.swarthmoreathletics.com/sports/mbkb/2010-

11/releases/20110112b1m0us

Turban, D. & Greening, D. (1997). Corporate social performance and organizational

attractiveness to prospective employees. Academy of Management Journal,

40(3), 658-672. Retrieved from Business Source Complete database.

van Oosterhout, J. & Heugens, P. (2008). Much ado about nothing: A conceptual

critique of corporate social responsibility. In A. Crane, A. McWilliams, D. Matte,

J. Moon, D.S. Siegel (Eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Corporate Social

Responsibility (197-226). New York: Oxford University Press.

Varadarajan, P.R. & Menon, A. (1988). Cause-related marketing: A coalignment of

marketing strategy and corporate philanthropy. The Journal of Marketing, 52(3),

58-74. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/1251450.

Waddock, S. (2000). The Multiple Bottom Lines of Corporate Citizenship: Social

Investing, Reputation, and Responsibility Audits. Business and Society Review,

105(3), 323-345. Retrieved from Business Source Complete database.

Walker, M., & Kent, A. (2009). Do Fans Care? Assessing the Influence of Corporate

Social Responsibility on Consumer Attitudes in the Sport Industry. Journal of

Sport Management, 23(6), 743-769. Retrieved from SPORTDiscus with Full

Text database.

113

Walker, M., & Parent, M. (2010). Toward an integrated framework of corporate

social responsibility, responsiveness, and citizenship in sport. Sport Management

Review, 13(3), 198-213. doi:10.1016/j.smr.2010.03.003

Walters, G. (2009). Corporate social responsibility through sport: The community sports

trust model as a CSR delivery agency. Journal of Corporate Citizenship, 35, 81-

94.

Walton, C.C. (1967). Corporate social responsibilities. Belmont, CA: Harper and Row.

Wartick, S., & Cochran, P. (1985). The Evolution of the Corporate Social Performance

Model. Academy of Management Review, 10(4), 758-769. Retrieved from

Business Source Complete database.

Welford, R. (2005). Corporate social responsibility in Europe, North America, and Asia:

2004 survey results. Journal of Corporate Citizenship, 33(20), 33-52.

Williams, C.A. & Aguilera, R.V. (2008). Corporate social responsibility in a

comparative perspective. In A. Crane, A. McWilliams, D. Matte, J. Moon, D.S.

Siegel (Eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Corporate Social Responsibility (452-

472). New York: Oxford University Press.

Wolfe, R. A., Weick, K. E., Usher, J. M., Terborg, J. R., Poppo, L., Murrell, A. J.,

Dukerich, J. M., Core, D. C., Dickson, K. E., & Jourdan, J. S. (2005). Sport and

organizational studies: Exploring synergy. Journal of Management Inquiry,

14(2), 182-210. doi: 10.1177/1056492605275245

Wood, D. (1991). Corporate social performance revisited. Academy of

Management Review, 16(4), 691-718. Retrieved from Business Source

Complete database.

WSU Athletic Media Relations. (2011, July 7). Softball assists with Reds Rookie

Success League. Retrieved from

http://www.wsuraiders.com/ViewArticle.dbml?DB_OEM_ID=27000&SPSID=63

0792&SPID=92407&DB_LANG=C&ATCLID=205207394

114

Appendix A: Invitation to Participate in the Pilot Study

115

[DATE]

Dear [NAME],

We are writing to request your help in better understanding how social responsibilities

impact the daily operations of an NCAA athletics department. The feedback of senior

administrators is key to understanding the relationships between social expectations,

management functions, and how athletics departments can maximize the benefits of their

social initiatives. You will also be asked for your feedback on the ease and design of the

questionnaire.

The link below will take you directly to the questionnaire, which will take about 10-15

minutes to complete. Your participation in this is voluntary and confidential, as your

contact information will not be attached to your responses. For questions about your

rights as a participant in this study or to discuss other study-related concerns or

complaints with someone who is not part of the research team, you may contact Ms.

Sandra Meadows in the Office of Responsible Research Practices at 1-800-678-6251.

<Link to Survey>

We want to thank you for you assistance with this study. Should you have any questions

or feedback, please feel free to contact us (brown.3808@osu.edu).

Sincerely,

Lauren E. Brown, M.Ed.

Doctoral Candidate

Sport Management

Dr. Brian A. Turner, Ph.D.

Associate Professor

Sport Management

116

Appendix B: Instrument

117

118

119

120

121

122

123

124

Appendix C: Responses to Question #15

125

Question 15: Departmental Philosophy

1. We are a religiously oriented school and that permeates our department’s

philosophy

2. The concept of community service and good citizenship is one of our three areas

of emphasis. One and two are athletic performance and academic success.

3. We try to mirror the philosophy of the Division III model as much as possible.

4. We currently are in transition with a new VP and interim AD, so these answers

may change dramatically in a year.

5. The Department of Athletics and Recreation reviews its core Vision and Mission

on an annual basis as an overall part of the educational mission at the University

by creating this structure and vision statement the department continually using

this as a touchstone for its role at the university.

6. We try to get employees and student-athletes actively involved so that they feel

like they are a part of the process and are empowered to help fulfill our goals.

7. We strongly keep in mind that athletics on our level (II) should be about

educating our athletes first about the importance of education and the importance

of creating athletic opportunities. Athletics at our level have to be fun, an

enjoyable experience for all involved, but it has to be done at all times abiding by

NCAA rules and regulations and with diversity and gender equity issues always at

the forefront.

8. There has been a significant shift in the college’s philosophy on athletic

fundraising. The percentage of my job spend cultivating donors has dramatically

increased in recent years. Thus, my awareness of economic, legal, ethical, and

philanthropic concerns around athletics development have been heightened.

9. Our president has instituted 5 basic focal points. All of our budget requests and

basic operational plans need to address one of those five focal points. Our athletic

philosophy is to create a positive environment and experience for our student-

athletes who will be the leaders in the world of engineer and science in the near

future.

10. We are currently working to establish varsity athletics as co-curricular to the

University. Specifically, we are looking at ways to incorporate leadership

learning on the field of play within the leadership concentration on campus, and to

involve our coaches in discussion about teaching pedagogy that is transferable to

the classroom.

11. We hire teachers first, emphasize life skills for our athletes, our coaches do a good

job of monitoring academic progress and success in most cases, and this

philosophy leads to many athletic achievements as well, our though our

athletically successful baseball team does have a high number of pro draft and

free agent signings (we’ve led ALL Florida universities a few times) which does

affect some student-athlete commitment to academics. So the students who have

strong reason to believe they will go pro early are not as committed to the total

college experience.

126

12. We have a monthly staff meeting and a monthly coaches meeting that we are able

to communicate many issues to our coaches and staff and helps with open lines of

communication, which keeps the department involved in most decision making.

13. The athletic director often says, “It’s all about the kids,” referring to the student-

athletes.

14. The University has had three different Presidents in the last two years. The State

and institution are also facing tough budget situations. Right now the athletics

department has a desire to be successful at the conference level both academically

and competitively. We are waiting to see if the institutional philosophy will

support or be different and thus set goals for the department. The AD is a faculty

member and not a part of the current decision making team of the president.

15. Our goal is to do three things in the athletic department - recruit the best possible

student-athlete, nurture and develop the best possible student-athlete, and finally

produce the best possible citizen in a global society.

16. Our institutional policy is to not have our student-athletes raising monies for

outside groups, but rather for their own individual teams.

17. We strongly adhere to the DIII philosophy. We want to win every contest but in

the right way.

18. We give back as much as we can to the youth in the community (within NCAA

compliance) and involved our student-athletes in community service as often as

possible. Giving back and being a role model are important to our department.

19. Institution does not have a requirement for graduation when it comes to

community service but the campus environment is extremely involved in many

areas. This is why I answered we don’t follow institutional practices.

20. All teams have a community service requirement.

21. We are a Christian Institution with accompanying mission and philosophy.

22. One of our six core values as a comprehensive Catholic institution founded by the

Sisters of Mercy states that we are ambassadors of service.

23. Student-athlete welfare, patron welfare, and NCAA regulations drive most

decision-making practices. Legal concerns impact most decision making

involving coach-player, supervisor-subordinate relationships.

24. Our department is very involved with community service to enhance not only our

student-athletes experiences to “give back” but to also do good in our community.

25. Our philosophy is to try to do the right thing simply because it is the right thing to

do.

26. Extensive community service and engagement is utilized as a student

development tool in our department. Our belief is that our student become more

well-rounded individuals upon graduation with the proper valance of community

service, athletics, and of course, academics to enable them to become productive

members of their respective communities once they matriculate from CSUDH.

27. We have initiatives that are representative of the NCAA.

28. As a Christian institution, we are guided by principles set forth by our

denomination, the Christian and Missionary Alliance. These are set on Biblical

principles so we have layered levels that affect our philosophy.

127

29. We are actively engaged in leadership education with our students which

confronts the issue of service and the value it pays.

30. Students first, athletes second. Welfare is a priority.

31. Student and Student-athlete success is always stressed and measured by the

experience the student has while in college and our ability to guide them to take

the right path towards graduating in 4 years.

32. We are a very diverse university with an emphasis on gender equity.

33. Strong institutional commitment to community service and engagement. Mission

and motto driven.

34. We are commonwealth coast conference which was listed. Yes.

35. All decisions are made based on enhancing the student-athletes experience and

budget.

128

Appendix D: Responses to Question #16

129

Question 16: Departmental practice

1. Assistant coaches are all graduate students in a coaching curriculum so the

questions regarding their decisions is not always relevant. Coaches are faculty.

2. The department holds monthly meetings, is present at multiple events, is

responsible to the student-athletes’ well-being and this keeps everyone engaged

with the central purpose of The College and the University as a whole – the

mission of education and research at a strong academic institution. This

responsibility is taken very seriously and with great good fortune as we are

members of the UAA conference and with that comes considerable expectations

to be mindful of the whole student-athlete experience and the professionalism that

is expected of the staff.

3. We are a small, understaffed department in terms of administrative and coaching

staffs. We are to have a hand in literally everything so it stretches our service to

the maximum. Despite this we do a great job of creating the type of atmosphere

that is expected on the Division II level.

4. The Athletic Department at SDSM&T attempts to involved the student-athletes in

a variety of internal and external events that provides opportunities for them to get

a wide range of experiences while attending SDSM&T. We want to make sure

our S-As understand what being a member of a community is about and to

establish a ‘learned’ habit of being involved and giving back. We also require

high levels of sportsmanship and integrity in representing our institution in a

public setting.

5. There are exceptions, but in my 23 years of experience, the majority of our DII

athletes find it difficult to put themselves in marketing/promotion roles to

promote their teams around campus.

6. Being a small department (senior management is 4), we are able as a group to stay

very involved in all decisions that are made in the athletic department and able to

support decisions that are made on campus. Having a small coaching staff (29

assistant and head coaches) works the same way. It may be completely different

at a larger university with more employees.

7. The coaches and athletics administrators are unionized in two separate unions.

The duties and responsibilities of each group are outlined in the Collective

Bargaining Agreements for the groups. Neither group is management…which

has ultimate decision making authority.

8. We discuss CSR and ethics as a staff, but each coach is different in their approach

and commitment in taking opportunities to educate their respective student-

athletes about he value and responsibility we share.

9. The inclusion – making sure that the student-athletes voice is heard – is a very

important component of input into the process of CSR.

10. We have more stringent rules to keep our program within acceptable parameters.

Ex: 1. Max of 2 hours practice per day (includes all activity off or no

fields/courts). 2. No ECAC (terminal) tournaments. 3. Mid February start date for

spring sports. No need to be fanatic.

130

11. Individual teams can choose a specific service project that is special to that team.

SAAC also does separate service projects that represents the entire Athletic

Department but it does change yearly.

12. Run programs for cancer awareness and fundraise for certain social/medical

issues.

13. Our institution does not require any community service, but our athletes are

heavily involved in doing service projects. Also, I wasn’t really sure what you

meant by economic questions.

14. We (collegiate athletic departments) need to improve our efforts at educating our

donor base, fans, faculty, and staff on the value that college athletics brings to

campus and it’s a long list.

15. We are very proud of the fact that we have 100% participation in community

service activities by our student-athletes and coaches.

16. We make it a goal to raise funds for the Make-A-Wish foundation and do so

throughout the year.

17. Just this year the DIII philosophy is geared towards Special Olympics. So our

SAAC is actively involved with that particular area of community outreach.

18. We actively promote good sportsmanship. Through our announcers at all home

contests; the Athletic Director personally meets with all sport teams to explain

what hazing is and that it will not be tolerated in any way, we also discuss the

important of excelling in the classroom and always representing themselves and

the institution in a very positive way.

19. This is an important part of the overall experience for the student-athletes and

staff. We ask our communities to give, attend games, etc. We need to give back

to them also.

20. Community service by our student-athletes

21. Moving to a learning outcomes approach with greater student involvement in

decisions.

22. Our institution has one rule of conduct: the student is expected to act as a

gentleman and a responsible citizen both on and off campus. All actions emanate

from living up to that one rule.

131

Appendix E: Prenotification Email

132

[DATE]

Dear [NAME],

We are requesting your help with a study conducted in conjunction with Ohio State

University aimed at garnering a better understanding of social responsibilities in NCAA

athletics departments. Later this week, you will receive an email inviting you to

participate in this internet-based study by answering questions about the relationships

between social expectations and management functions.

We thank you in advance for your participation. Just 10-15 minutes of your time can

help ensure this study is successful and offers both scholars and administrators insight as

to the role of social responsibilities in intercollegiate athletics.

Kind regards,

Lauren E. Brown, M.Ed.

Doctoral Candidate

Sport Management

Dr. Brian A. Turner, Ph.D.

Associate Professor

Sport Management

133

Appendix F: Invitation to Participate in the Study

134

[DATE]

Dear [NAME],

We are writing to request your help in better understanding how social responsibilities

impact the daily operations of an NCAA athletics department. The feedback of senior

administrators is key to understanding the relationships between social expectations,

management functions, and how athletics department can maximize the benefits of their

social initiatives.

The link below will take you directly to the questionnaire, which will take about 10-15

minutes to complete. Your participation in this is voluntary and confidential, as your

contact information will not be attached to your responses. For questions about your

rights as a participant in this study or to discuss other study-related concerns or

complaints with someone who is not part of the research team, you may contact Ms.

Sandra Meadows in the Office of Responsible Research Practices at 1-800-678-6251.

<Link to Survey>

We want to thank you for you assistance with this study. Should you have any questions

or feedback, please feel free to contact us (brown.3808@osu.edu).

Sincerely,

Lauren E. Brown, M.Ed.

Doctoral Candidate

Sport Management

Dr. Brian A. Turner, Ph.D.

Associate Professor

Sport Management

135

Appendix G: Reminder Email

136

[DATE]

Dear [NAME],

The study exploring the role of social responsibilities in NCAA athletics departments is

still open and in need of your response. Taking 10-15 minutes to complete the

questionnaire will go a long way in making this study a success.

Many thanks for your time.

Sincerely,

Lauren E. Brown, M.Ed.

Doctoral Candidate

Sport Management

Dr. Brian A. Turner, Ph.D.

Associate Professor

Sport Management

137

Appendix H: Conference Affiliation of Respondents

138

139

140

Continued

141