Doing good in the right place: city residents' evaluations of professional football teams' local (vs. distant) corporate social responsibility activities

Abstract

Research question: If recipients of corporate social responsibility (CSR) campaigns perceive them to be motivated by philanthropic (vs. profit) reasons, CSR increases important outcome variables. This study looks at moderators of this relationship in the context of professional football teams based on attribution and egocentrism theory: one CSR-specific factor (i.e. the geographical focus of CSR) and one organization-specific factor (i.e. the division in which the teams are playing).Research methods: The study applied a between-participant design, manipulating both the geographical focus of the initiative (local vs. distant CSR initiative) and the professional football teams that carried out the CSR initiative (first-division vs. third-division team). Both teams were located in Munich, where 444 city residents participated in the study. Regression-based moderation analyses were used to test the hypotheses.Results and findings: Perceived philanthropic motivation for CSR has a more positive effect on outcome variables – including the team’s CSR perception, attitudes toward the team, and behavioral intentions – for the first-division team than for the third-division team, and this interaction effect is present (absent) in first-division team’s distant (local) CSR activities. The relationship between perceived philanthropic motivation and outcome variables is unaffected by the proximity of the social cause supported by the third-division team.Implications: Professional football teams are encouraged to actively manage their portfolio of CSR activities to increase CSR outcomes as perceived by city residents. Higher-division (vs. lower-division) teams should make sure that CSR is perceived to be motivated by philanthropy (as opposed to self-interest), particularly when CSR takes place at distant locations.

Cite this work

No public copy is stored for this record, so only the metadata is cited.

Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 41 citations exist upstream.

Papers that cite the same references — the relational fallback while embeddings are still backfilling.