Exploring Social Responsibility in Sports Management: A Comprehensive Literature Review
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study examines the integration of social responsibility within sports management, highlighting its unique challenges compared to traditional corporations. Through a systematic literature review of 51 studies from 1993 to 2021, this paper identifies key challenges and opportunities in promoting Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) in sports. The analysis reveals diverse theoretical frameworks and methodological approaches, with stakeholder theory being most prominent. Findings emphasize the need for theoretical coherence and highlight three primary clusters of CSR in sports: societal impacts, ethical governance, and diversity inclusion. The review underscores the influential role of athletes and the complexities of addressing corruption and racism in sports management. It identifies the influence of celebrity status, stakeholder engagement, and the integration of sustainable practices as crucial factors in promoting positive societal change. It also addresses the complexities of ethical behavior, cultural diversity, and stakeholder management in sports. This study contributes to the discourse on sports management by offering insights into the multifaceted challenges and opportunities inherent in promoting sustainability and ethical conduct in the sports industry.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it