Abstract
Purpose: The purpose of this paper is to consolidate knowledge and benchmark the progress being made across the 32 International Federations (IFs) in the Summer Olympic Programme.
Design/methodology/approach: A website content analysis, analytical hierarchy of information, and social media research was conducted to triangulate the barriers and drivers of environmental sustainability (ES) progress. This data was then analysed to empirically substantiate the findings of previous methods by exploring potential drivers of IF ES progress and communication and refining the ranking of IF ES progress.
Results and findings: World Sailing is by far the most advanced IF in terms of ES progress, followed by World Athletics. Only 4 out of 32 have any sort of strategic ES plans. Only golf, surfing, football, sailing, and hockey have received any academic attention. There is a significant lack of understanding of environmental practices across sport, and their drivers/barriers. There is limited accountability with regards to ES progress and activities throughout the Olympic Movement. This has resulted in uneven diffusion of environmental activities.
Originality: This paper is a new contribution to sport management and ES literature. It provides a benchmark of understanding for ES in the Summer Olympic Programme for the first time using a hierarchy of information to ground results. The exploration and comparison of the perspectives of separate sports adds to the paper's originality.
Keywords
Citation
Santini, D. and Henderson, H. (2023), "The winners and losers in the race to environmental sustainability: a ranking of Summer Olympic International Federation progress", Emerald Open Research, Vol. 1 No. 4. https://doi.org/10.1108/EOR-04-2023-0010
Publisher
:Emerald Publishing Limited
Copyright © 2021 Santini, D. and Henderson, H.
License
This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Licence, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
Introduction
Background
Climate change has and will have a plethora of negative effects on all global anthropogenic systems, posing a variety of risks for the sport sector ( Edenhofer et al., 2015). Immediate climate change mitigation amongst sport organizations is therefore vital ( Orr & Inoue, 2019). Environmental sustainability in sport management is a relatively nascent discipline ( Mallen et al., 2010; McCullough et al., 2020a). All aspects of all sports exert an impact on the natural environment, however due to the bidirectional relationship that exists, it is in the best interest of the sporting sector to preserve the natural environment ( Brymer et al., 2009; Brymer & Gray, 2010; McCullough et al., 2016). This is especially true for those sports whose very existence depends on the ability to directly interact with the natural environment, such as watersports ( Gilchrist & Wheaton, 2017; Humberstone, 2011; Krein, 2014). Consequently, in response to accelerating climate change, the Olympic Movement's (OM) engagement in environmental sustainability (ES) activities has increased over the past decade ( McCullough et al., 2020b).
Research in sport remains largely focused on multi-sport mega-events such as the Olympic Games (OG) ( Mallen et al., 2010). Whilst an attractive phenomenon to study, due to its unique size and nature, the OG do not constitute the majority of global sporting events ( Forrest et al., 2010). Despite the significance of their activities, International Federations in the OM are being overlooked. There are 32 Olympic-recognised International Federations (IFs) that represent 47 individual sports in the Summer Olympic programme ( Table 1). The disproportionate academic attention that the OG receives relative to the rest of the OM, highlighted in Table 2, has narrowed the lens through which issues are viewed ( Forrest et al., 2010).
Context
In a review of environmentalism throughout the OM’s history, Del Fiacco & Orr (2019) identified that ES came onto the International Olympic Committee’s (IOC) radar and agenda in 2010. Consequently, 2010 has been selected as the lower boundary for the time period examined by this paper. Only in 2017 did the IOC announce a sustainability strategy that extends past host bidding to include the whole OM ( Del Fiacco & Orr, 2019). Now more than ever, IFs must engage in ES activities.
The scale of transformation required to effectively implement ES across IFs demands strategic planning ( Dolf & Teehan, 2015; McCullough et al., 2016). The current state of this is yet to be explored academically. Due to commercialization, many sport and business management sub-disciplines are converging, such as organisational change theories ( Maier et al., 2016). This can provide insight into the barriers, drivers, and diffusion of ES practices across the OM. Whilst the IOC holds ultimate authority regarding the OM's overall strategy, tactical power and governance is de-centralised ( Dolles et al., 2011). This governance structure affects the pace and commitment at which strategy is implemented ( Geeraert et al., 2014). Studies have shown that due to the high levels of autonomy that IFs have been granted and the lack of internal accountability, strategic objectives become watered down at increasingly local levels, resulting in inconsistent outcomes ( Graham et al., 2018; Smith, 2010). The structure of OM governance suggests that isomorphic change may not be as simple as a uniform, top down process ( Forster, 2006; Geeraert et al., 2014; Smith, 2010). Subsequently, the isomorphic change required for all IFs to transition towards ES may be driven by multiple factors.
Isomorphic change occurs when organisations with similar operational functions and purpose (such as IFs) adopt similar behaviours to survive external changes ( Babiak & Wolfe, 2009; Cunningham & Ashley, 2001). Three main perspectives on the drivers of isomorphic change exist. Institutional theory presents external governance as the main determinant of organisational change, whereas population ecologists stipulate that it arises primarily from resource-scarcity ( Abson et al., 2017; Washington & Patterson, 2011). Both argue that change is undergone reactively. The third perspective is strategic choice, which attributes organisational change to proactive internal decision-making rather than external factors ( Cunningham & Ashley, 2001).
The OM's environmental management strategy has been reactive thus far, suggesting the presence of institutional and resource-related pressures ( Del Fiacco & Orr, 2019; Paquette et al, 2011). However, another study asserted that institutional theory and strategic choice were key to understanding IF behaviour ( Phelps & Kent, 2010). Thus, all three drivers are potentially present across the OM, however the extent to which they influence ES progress remains undetermined.
Without internal accountability measures, it is difficult to identify the extent to which IFs are engaging in ES practices ( Geeraert et al., 2014; Sartore-Baldwin & McCullough, 2018). Where there is an absence of formal records other documentation, such as external online communications, can provide insight into organisational activities ( Pedersen, 2013). According to the Strategic Sport Communication Model ( Pedersen, 2013), external strategic communication in sport involves multiple platforms, such as websites and social media. Websites are a relatively formal online channel, and have become vital tools for reporting CSR activities, such as ES progress ( Ciletti et al., 2010; Kim & Kuljis, 2010). Social media in sport is also used to provide activity updates however, in a significantly more accessible and public-facing way ( Filo et al., 2015; Pedersen, 2013). Multi-directional relationships between macro factors and the content of these digital platforms exist, and agenda setting theory argues that topics receiving high levels of media coverage determine the public agenda in wider society ( Rowe, 2014). In sport, the few studies that have explored this theory have done so within the OG context and concluded that agenda setting is not present ( Frederick et al., 2015). However, other disciplines have shown that it is present for ES ( Bache, 2013; Pollach, 2014). There is limited understanding of agenda setting and ES within the context of the OM. This is exacerbated by researchers analysing only one digital platform, and the fact that IFs have yet to be the subject of ES communication studies ( Frederick et al., 2015; Pedersen, 2013; Pegoraro, 2014).
This paper aims to create a benchmark ES progress ranking across the 32 IFs in the Summer Olympic Programme. The purpose of this research is to collect and evaluate available knowledge in order to inform strategic ES decision-making within the OM.
Literature review
Review process.
Evaluating the extent to which each IF is making ES progress requires identification of the barriers, drivers, and ES practices that exist in single-sport contexts. To review large quantities of information and extract the most significant findings, a systematic literature review method was used ( Mulrow, 1994). Searches were conducted across six of the highest quality electronic research databases: Google Scholar, Scopus, EBSCOhost, ScienceDirect, ResearchGate, Emerald Insight and ProQuest ( Xiao & Watson, 2019). Key terms (and any variation) were required to be present in the article's title, abstract or keywords. For example: ('athletics' AND ['environmental sustainability' OR 'environment' OR 'sustainability']). This search process resulted in an initial population of 50 articles ( Figure 1).
Sport specific literature.
Golf course operators are moving towards ES at different rates mainly due to a lack of financial resources ( Huth, 2017; Keogh et al., 2014; Minoli, 2018). Whilst strategic planning could strengthen the argument for financial support, ES activities are ad hoc, as their process of initiation is often unclear to staff ( Keogh et al., 2014; Minoli, 2018). Huth (2017); Minoli (2018), and Scott et al. (2018) found (respectively) that the presence of certification, legislation and regulatory pressure induced ES progress. All interventions explored involved economic incentives. Certification is effective when the long-term economic benefits of achieving it are clearly communicated ( Huth, 2017). The examination of the Ontario Ministry of Environment's water conservation programme by Scott et al. (2018) revealed the strong potential of regulatory pressure. The intervention mandates that organisations pay for permits to extract more than 50,000 litres of fresh water per day whilst collecting data and increasing water conservation efforts amongst businesses which are aiming to reduce costs. Efficient and off-the-grid irrigation systems were widely used by golf courses to reduce dependence on fresh water sources. Water needs vary according to soil type, manageable through the use of soil moisture sensors and wetting agents ( Pacini et al., 2016). However, lack of awareness surrounding the impact of soil management means that the uptake of these methods remains low ( Scott et al., 2018).
ES progress in surfing is mainly attributed to reporting, partnerships, and governance. Martin & Assenov (2014a) provided a starting point for ES data collection by creating the Surf Resource Sustainability Index (SRSI), however it is unclear the extent to which this has been applied in practice. Martin & Assenov (2014b) empirically substantiated the affinity to the natural environment that surfers have, and this has contributed to the sport’s ES progress through the creation of charities. Ratten's (2019) study was the only one to explore an IF-related intervention. The World Surfing Reserves (WSR) were created in association with the International Surfing Association (ISA) as a social innovation programme that identifies specific coastal areas to preserve for surfing. Funding for conservation is gained by attracting sporting activities to the area. The enforcement of these ES interventions effectively increases the uptake of ES practices in surrounding local areas.
No barriers to ES progress were uncovered in football literature, which Francis et al. (2017) attributes to the sport's popularity providing relatively unrestricted access to resources. Partnerships were found to have positive effects on inducing strategic ES planning ( Baldwin, 2010). ES progress was only explored at club level, and the general rate of activities beyond recycling varied, as almost all ES activities were ad hoc ( Baldwin, 2010; Francis et al., 2017). The only paper to provide an international perspective was Pereira et al.'s (2017) innovative work, which applied mathematical modeling to determine the optimal location for the FIFA (Federation Internationale de Football Association) World Cup from an environmental perspective. The paper concludes that host country selection should occur after the team qualification round to significantly reduce environmental impacts. Although its implications are invaluable, it is unclear whether FIFA are aware of this model.
Only one ES article was found each for sailing and hockey. Both pertained to sport-specific equipment material innovation, and proved the viability of alternative bio-composite materials. Al Rashid et al. (2020) concluded that hybrid polymer matrix composites reinforced by banana fibers are structurally stronger than glass fiber reinforced by epoxy resin, whilst Castegnaro et al. (2017) proved that bio-composite materials were a successful alternative to fibreglass.
Methods
Multi-criteria analysis methods enable complex topics such as ES to be deconstructed by applying hierarchical criteria to assess alternatives ( Ahmad & Tahar, 2014). Based on data extracted from websites, an analytical hierarchy of information was created to arrange IFs in order of ES progress. Social media can provide the insight necessary to triangulate these findings, and distinguish between IF progress within each ES tier ( Baruah, 2012; Pedersen, 2013; Pedersen, 2014). Twitter was selected as all IFs use it to engage with the public about their activities, and its hashtag system creates easy-to-navigate digital archives about topics ( Filo et al., 2015; Frederick et al., 2015).
Hierarchy of information
To identify and code information in a consistent manner, an iterative approach was applied to a multistep content analysis ( McCullough et al., 2020b). IF websites were systematically searched for content using the search terms: "sustainable", "sustainability" and "environment". Sequential criteria were developed based on adapting and combining environmental communication theories and content analysis principles ( Figure 2) ( Boykoff & Mascarenhas, 2016; Delmas & Burbano, 2011; Hu et al., 2011; Jin & High, 2004; Jose & Lee, 2007). A binary coding system was applied to record the presence of criteria. The dates that each IF met criteria were recorded to create time-stamped progress points. Considering the multi-year period examined, monthly timestamps enabled optimum clarity ( Neuendorf, 2016). Logic was combined with content analysis principles to define each criterion’s timestamp ( Figure 2).
Social media
Official IF Twitter accounts were searched for the terms "sustainability" OR "sustainable" OR "environment", either as a hashtag or in post content. Data collection occurred 14th-24th August 2020, consequently the most recent data for the year 2020 ends on this date. Due to the platform's character limit, multiple tweets on the same day about the same topic were regarded as one single post. Posts were only included if the key terms related to ES, which was determined by human coding. In order to ensure content was factually accurate, embedded links were assessed. Only posts with functioning links, containing ES-related content were included.
Exploring the drivers of ES progress and re-evaluating the Hierarchy of Progress (HoP) requires ES progress data and social media content to quantitatively and proportionally represent each progress points' importance. The criteria used for the HoP, increased sequentially in terms of complexity, impact, and resource requirements ( Neuendorf, 2016). Not all criteria nor the steps between them are equal and communication of different progress types reflects varying levels of effort. Weighting factors were therefore assigned to HoP criteria and tweet content types. Four main types of ES tweet content were identified through an iterative process of analysing communication purpose then the content itself ( Table 3). The range of themes was too wide to generate meaningful findings from thematic analysis methods so content analysis was conducted on a case-by-case basis ( Neuendorf, 2016).
As it was difficult to quantify and compare all elements contributing to the achievement of ES progress, working norms for weighting factor calculation were developed which were grounded in logical mathematic progression principles ( Neuendorf, 2016). This determined that the first criterion in the series was given a weighting factor of 1. The progression used an interval ( i) of +1 (i = n+1) meaning that each interval in the series increased by one (i.e. +2, +3, +4, +5). This process was implemented for both HoP criteria ( Table 3) and content type ( Table 4).
External factors
Consistent with Rowe (2014) preliminary inclusion criteria for all external factors required that they were major events that had an impact on all IFs. Selection was informed by the literature reviewed and based on this paper's foci: environmental sustainability, sport, and the intersection at which they meet. Drawing from Pedersen's (2013) Strategic Sport Communication Model, three categories of external factors were identified: sport-specific events (i.e. the OGs); sport-related ES interventions; and societal ES events.
Del Fiacco & Orr (2019) asserted that the OG have influenced ES throughout the rest of the OM. To determine the extent to which it is a driver of ES amongst IFs, Summer OG since 2010 (London 2012, Rio 2016, and Tokyo 2020) will be mapped against ES progress and tweets. Timestamps will be the month of the OG’s end date, as IFs are occupied with other activities during the games. Observing trends post OG will allow for clearer analysis.
Sport policy, systems thinking, and sustainability transitions research indicated that scope of control and intended outcome were the most suitable criteria upon which to base intervention selection ( Abson et al., 2017; Kelly, 2011; Luederitz et al., 2017; Sallis et al., 1998). Therefore, interventions had to be global in reach and aimed to induce, accelerate, or sustain IF ES activities. Five interventions were subsequently identified ( Figure 3).
Societal factors
Consistent with agenda setting theory, a relationship likely exists between macro-societal factors, public awareness of ES, and IF ES progress and/or tweets ( Rowe, 2014). The event categories that have driven the increase in public awareness of climate change over the past five years are namely; the publication of major scientific reports ( Hamilton, 2016), global climate summits, and their outcomes ( Bakaki & Bernauer, 2017), the rise of key activists and advocacy groups ( Carmichael & Brulle, 2017), and high profile environmental documentaries ( Males & Van Aelst, 2020). Determining which category most influences IFs requires a narrower geographic scope. A large majority of IF HQs are located in Europe and likely impacted by events that received mass media attention in this region ( Knight, 2016). To compare the effects of different categories, one event that entered the European mass media from 2010–2020 was selected from each. Five major events were selected in Figure 4.
Hypotheses
The presence of research across only five sports suggests that these sports will have made the most ES progress ( Popay et al., 1998). As watersports have a higher dependence on the natural environment than others, it is likely that their affinity to the environment will be reflected by their progress. OM awareness of ES has increased over the last decade, which is likely reflected by the number of IF ES communications ( Del Fiacco & Orr, 2019). As one of social media’s primary purposes is to disseminate information about activities, logic dictates that ES tweets are likely the result of ES progress ( Clavio & Walsh, 2014; Filo et al., 2015). ES tweets made by IFs likely mirror the ES tiers. The literature review indicated that the strongest driver of progress was governance, and this trend should be observed across ES tweets and progress ( Abson et al., 2017). The following hypotheses have been formed ( Figure 5).
Results
All 32 IF websites were analysed and ordered according to ES progress ( Figure 6). The HoP revealed that only 15 IF websites featured the term "sustainability" in reference to the environment, one of which was cosmetic in nature. In total, 13 IFs demonstrated commitment by having statements of intent, guidelines for event organisers, by participating in an ES project or initiative, and/or having voluntary certification systems in place. Only four IFs had strategic ES plans with explicit SMART objectives, two of which had mandatory accountability measures. World Sailing and World Athletics, followed by World Rowing (WR) and FIFA, have made the most progress. Although WR's strategy mentions voluntary certification as an aim, and FIFA reports on World Cup events, neither require subsidiaries to engage in ES activities.
IFs were grouped into tiers according to level of progress ( Table 5), no pattern was observed regarding the percentage of IFs in each tier. This uneven distribution of progress suggests that ES is not diffused across the OM by organisational level. As their website content shows an absence of ES awareness, 53% of IFs are Tier 6. Consistent with literature, many ES efforts are ad hoc and lack strategic commitment, with 28% of IFs falling into Tier 3. Whilst the IFs for sailing and football were both classed in the top two tiers, surfing and golf were both in Tier 3, and hockey was a Tier 6 sport. Although these findings do not support hypothesis 2 (H2), hypothesis 1 (H1) holds true to an extent, as two of the top four are watersport IFs.
Social media findings
A total of 7 IFs did not contribute to the dataset as golf, handball, and tennis IFs ( n= 3) had 0 ES post results whilst badminton, gymnastics, shooting, and skate ( n= 4) were categorized as having 0 posts after analysis revealed that none were substantiated. The final sample included 188 ES tweets ( Figure 7). Since 2010, IFs have posted a total of 718,295 tweets, meaning that only 0.03% of Twitter content published by IFs is related to ES. Figure 7 shows total ES posts per year from 2010–2020. The year with the most ES posts was 2020 ( n= 56) followed by 2019 ( n=39). There was an increase in ES-related posts from 2010 to 2013, which subsequently fell in 2014 and 2015. This may be related to the OM's environmental phases, in which efforts were intense until 2012, however, does not explain the continued increase in 2013, and following decline in ES attention until 2015 ( Del Fiacco & Orr, 2019). ES posts have experienced consistent annual growth since 2015, with the steepest increase in posts being from 2017 to 2018, suggesting significant ES progress during this time. Consistent with hypothesis 5 (H5), an overall increase of 55% from 2010 to 2020 was observed with a steady annual increase from 2015 onwards.
There is a relationship between ES tweets and weighted ES progress points ( Figure 8). The peaks of progress are close to those of tweets but appear slightly offset. For example, progress made in September 2018 and April 2020, immediately precede spikes in ES tweets from October-November 2018 and May-July 2020, respectively. Typically, peaks in progress occur within the same month or immediately before an increase in ES tweets. Whilst the timing of the offset varies, there is a noticeably stronger relationship in second half of the decade than first, as increases in progress and tweets coincide more closely. For example there is a significant increase in progress in July 2015 however no increase in ES tweets around this time. Conversely wherever there is an increase in progress in the second half of the decade, there is an increase in ES tweets. The two variables approximately follow the same trend, suggesting that there may be external factors influencing both. Three categories of external factors were examined: OG, sport-related ES interventions, and public ES events.
External factors and ES
In the year following both the London 2012 and Rio 2016 OG, the overall number of ES tweets increased ( Figure 9). Due to the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, the Tokyo 2020 OG was postponed and this trend could not be observed a third time. Despite this, there was a spike in ES tweets in the months prior to when the 2020 games should have been, suggesting communication of ES in anticipation of the games.
The large majority of post content does not reference the games; however the consistent timing of these increases suggests that the OG raise ES awareness amongst IFs. For instance, the successful London 2012 ES strategy that brought sustainability to the forefront of the OM likely impacted ES communications ( Del Fiacco & Orr, 2019). Although a significant increase in progress can be observed following Rio 2016, this was a result of activities completely unrelated to the OM. Therefore, as seen from the timing of surges in ES tweets, the OG do raise awareness of ES, but do not appear to directly cause progress.
Governance interventions were mapped in Figure 10. No correlation was found between ES interventions and the number of ES tweets posted or ES progress for points B (Kazan Action Plan), D (Clean Seas) and E (Sport for Climate Action). At points A (ISO20121) and C (IOC Sustainability Strategy), where spikes in ES progress coincide within one month of interventions, re-evaluation of IF website content was conducted. This revealed that progress was unrelated to interventions, which may be due to latency of implementation or uneven rate of intervention-induced practices. Whilst there is an increase in both the number of ES interventions introduced and ES activity in the second half of the decade, peaks in activity do not directly correspond to interventions. There is no apparent causal relationship between ES interventions and ES activity. Rather, it is likely that both the increase in ES interventions and activity is a result of the overall increase in ES awareness from 2016–2020.
Societal ES events
Selected societal ES events were plotted against ES tweets and progress ( Figure 11). There does not appear to be a significant relationship between ES tweets and progress and the selected societal ES events when considered as a whole. However, closer analysis reveals that some events have a stronger impact than others. Points A (IPCC 5 th report), B (Paris Agreement), and C (UN SDGs), could be considered official, political, and top-down strategic ES events (formal) whereas D (Blue Planet 2) and E (Greta Thunberg) are more accessible, non-political and public-driven events (informal).
There was only one tweet relating to A, B or C, which was posted years after the event occurrence and no related progress was documented. Formal events appear to have little to no bearing on ES activities. The data might suggest that formal events had less impact on ES activities because they occurred before the mid-decade acceleration in global ES awareness. However, other external factors (such as OGs) have had an impact in the first half of the decade, indicating that this is not a sufficient justification for lack of influence.
Informal events directly correspond to peaks in ES activity, suggesting the presence of agenda setting. Blue Planet 2 aired from October to December 2017 and raised global awareness of ocean plastics and pollution ( Males & Van Aelst, 2020). Awareness increase is reflected by a spike in progress in November 2017, as well as an increase in plastic pollution-related content the following year. Throughout 2018, World Sailing and the International Surf Association were the most active IFs in this regard. The global rise in activism related to Greta Thunberg from September 2018 onwards had an effect on activities, with key events corresponding to advances in progress in September 2018 and May 2019. Although posts around this time do not refer directly to her 'Fridays for Future' protests, there has been an increase in content related to environmental stewardship and activism. For example, since November 2018, World Athletics have actively promoted the involvement of famous athletes in environmental projects.
ES communications per IF
The number of ES posts varied according to IF. It was hypothesized that the number of ES tweets would be directly proportional to the IFs ES progress tier. This was not found to be the case and Figure 12 shows the distribution of total ES posts per IF from 2010–2020. The four federations that posted the most about ES were World Sailing ( n=45), WR ( n=29), World Athletics ( n=17), and International Surfing Association ( n=14). FIFA, a Tier 2 federation, only posted 9 times about ES in the past decade, the same amount as the International Modern Pentathlon Union and World Rugby, both of which are Tier 5 federations. All Tier 1 and 2 IFs are in the top 5 posters of ES Tweets, and the ISA was the Tier 3 IF with the most ES tweets. Within Tier 3, United World Wrestling posted the least ( n=1), being ranked the same, or lower, than most Tier 6 federations. The majority of Tier 6 IFs did not post about ES at all ( n=7) or posted once ( n=5). The International Fencing Federation posted the most (n=6) out of Tier 6 federations, ranking in the top ten and higher than the majority of T3 federations.
The purpose of the majority of ES posts was to generate awareness of ES issues (61%). ES progress (29%) was tweeted about the second most frequently, whilst IFs tweeted about Milestones and Reporting, 6% and 4%, respectively. Even if ES progress and subsequent communication increased, relative proportions between all types of content would likely remain similar due to the content's inherent nature. This analysis enabled the HoP to be re-evaluated and refined. Figure 13 was plotted by applying weighting factors to content type, and the order of IFs within each progress tier was re-arranged ( Table 6). All IFs in Tier 1 and 2 had content referring to milestones, whereas only half posted about Reporting. This compares to Tier 3, where no IFs engaged in reporting, and only the top four IFs tweeted about milestones. No IFs in Tier 4, 5 or 6 tweeted about milestones or reporting. In the following analysis, the term 'ES advances' will be used to describe the combination of milestones, reporting, and progress content types.
When tweet content is weighted, the progress differences between World Sailing and World Athletics are accentuated, with the former making significantly more advances. Although FIFA posted about reporting, WR did not, and both IFs had the same number of milestone posts ( n=1). Overall WR made more advances than FIFA. There were no tiebreaks in Tier 3, and the International Surfing Association made the most ES advances. The International Fencing Federation and International Volleyball Federation were the most advanced Tier 6 IFs. The seven Tier 6 IFs with 0 ES posts, were all grouped together as having made no advances.
There were two instances of tie-breaks in Tier 6. The first was between the International Judo Federation (IJF), the International Table Tennis Federation (ITTF), and the International Weightlifting Federation (IWF) which each posted one progress tweet. Primarily, the IJF announced that the theme for World Judo Day 2019 was 'Plant a Tree', however, there was no information regarding projects that were implemented so impact could not be verified. This compares to IWF who posted about an initiative to plant a tree for every medalist at an international event. ITTF created an educational course about environmental equipment production. Unlike IWF's event-specific initiative, which occurred in isolation, ITTF engaged in an activity that was organisation-wide. ITTF was deemed to have made more ES progress than IWF, both making more advances than IJF. The second tie-break was between World Baseball Softball Confederation (WSBC) and the International Basketball Federation (FIBA). WSBC's tweet related to the green design of a Tokyo 2020 stadium whereas FIBA's posted about a campaign in 2010 to get fans involved in Earth Hour. Although the effects of WSBC's progress have not yet come to pass, it is more recent than FIBAs. There was no update regarding the impact of FIBA's campaign whereas WSBC's practices will be high impact and showcased on a global stage. Therefore, WSBC was considered to have undertaken more ES advances than FIBA.
Discussion
The literature review revealed that only five sports (golf, surfing, football, sailing, and hockey) have received any sport-specific ES academic attention. It is evident that the quantity of literature on sport-specific ES is extremely limited. Whilst the availability of literature made comparison and exploration of topics difficult, it provided general knowledge of relevant themes. Whilst top drivers were partnerships, governance and strategic choice, lack of resources was the most oft-cited barrier. This indicates that resource-scarcity may not drive isomorphic change in sport but rather prevent it. Overall, the ES progress explored was deemed to be ad hoc in nature, which led to resources being allocated on a case-by-case basis ( Baldwin, 2010; Francis et al., 2017; Keogh et al., 2014; Mallen et al., 2010; Minoli, 2018). Strategic ES plans and financial forecasting are considered essential in overcoming barriers and accelerating progress. Currently there is no universally recognized approach to evaluate or measure ES across sport, the depth and breadth of research data and scope is inconsistent. Consistency in measurement is fundamental to the development of this academic field, and further research is needed in multiple directions to contribute to this.
Disparity exists between academic research findings and ES progress amongst IFs. This is highlighted by the lack of correlation between the ES progress made across sports in literature, and in practice. For instance, only two of the HoP’s top four sports (sailing and football), received any academic attention. Furthermore, the research that has been conducted does not appear to be applied by IFs in practice. This is perhaps because the contexts of the academic findings available are not directly applicable to IFs. In order to accelerate ES progress, the relationship between academia and industry must become more integrated.
The HoP showed that the majority of IFs are not making any ES progress. Consistent with literature, the majority of ES progress that was being made was ad hoc in nature. The ES progress tier system revealed that the diffusion of progress is uneven across the OM, suggesting that ES is not the product of institutional implementation. Although literature asserts that organisational change occurs when ES practices are diffused in a structured manner, this was not the case with IFs ( Geeraert et al., 2014; Graham et al., 2018; Smith, 2010). The findings indicate that ES progress is more likely the result of sport-specific strategic choice. Due to their close, interdependent relationship with the natural environment, it was hypothesized that watersports would be the most advanced in terms of ES progress ( Gilchrist & Wheaton, 2017; Humberstone, 2011; Krein, 2014). The literature review found this to be true for sailing and surfing, whilst the website analysis found sailing and rowing to be amongst the most advanced, with canoeing sitting in Tier 3. The only water-based sport that was not found to be making progress was swimming. This suggests that ES progress is impacted by the sport's relationship with the environment, but only if the practice of the sport is directly integrated into the natural environment. Olympic swimming for instance, occurs indoors. Therefore, perhaps it is more accurate to state that open-water sports are amongst the most advanced in terms of ES progress, as a result of a more direct interdependence on the natural environment than other sports. This does not, however, explain the drivers of ES progress amongst sports that do not share this relationship. Further research into this relationship as well as the drivers of strategic choice across other sports would provide a more holistic view of how to diffuse ES across the OM more efficiently and effectively.
Twitter findings indicated that both ES progress and communication of ES-related activities have increased significantly since 2015. However, the exact nature of the relationship between ES tweets and progress was unable to be identified. Further research could increase the uptake and effectiveness of ES practices by exploring the interdependence of ES progress and communication strategies, developing indicators to eradicate greenwashing or encourage best practices, and understanding the role of communications in ES-based partnerships. Tweets and progress were influenced by external factors. The OG exert influence on IF ES communication, however the strength of this relationship was only partially explored due to an incomplete data set (postponement of Tokyo 2020). Future studies could provide further insight into the ES links between the OG and IFs, contributing to IOC strategic decision-making.
Conversely, no relationship was apparent between interventions and ES progress or tweets. This contradicted the literature findings, which assert that governance impacts the uptake of ES practices. The disparity in these findings could be attributed to the type of interventions explored. The literature determined that economic governance interventions were effective, whereas those analysed were ES-related. Institutional theory held explanatory power to an extent, as it appears that economic-based governance interventions exert more influence than ES-related ones. Further research is required to distinguish between various types of governance interventions and if their impact is uniform across all sports and organisational levels.
The close relationship between societal ES events, and IF ES progress and communication, suggested the presence of agenda setting. The exact extent to which agenda setting plays a role in IF ES communication and progress remains unclear. The examination of sport-specific ES content across multiple social and mass media platforms would enable a deeper understanding of agenda setting theory in sport. Furthermore, the impact of societal ES events on tweets and progress varied according to event type. Where events were official and politically-rooted, little to no effect was observed. Conversely, informal and public-facing events had significant impacts on the uptake of ES practices. This further develops the argument against governance as a driver of ES progress. However, the full complexity of societal ES events was unable to be captured, as the events selected were among many that occurred globally at the time. Cross-sectional studies would more comprehensively capture the range of societal events surrounding key ES progress decisions and identify which ones exert most influence.
As only Tier 1 and 2 IFs tweeted about reporting, it is clear that engaging in reporting activities impacts ES progress. These findings are consistent with Scott et al. (2018) who asserted that accountability is vital in driving ES progress. ES progress would perhaps be accelerated uniformly across the OM if mandatory ES reporting were introduced. To substantiate this, future research could explore the relationship between reporting and the achievement of milestones, and identify the most effective management framework.
Whilst empirically reliable, the literature reviewed was neither up to date nor in the context of IFs and there was not enough data to make any valid conclusions. Twitter is comparatively less reliable, however it provides up to date information that is specific to individual IFs. Websites on the other hand, are more factual and official than social media, but also more up to date than academic literature. The various triangulation measures implemented throughout the paper ensure reliability and factual accuracy, thereby eliminating potential issues in this regard. With the aim of determining the current state of ES, sources that are up to date take priority. Therefore, findings from the website content analysis will be regarded as most accurate, followed by Twitter, then literature. Whilst this made the process of ranking very clear for the majority of IFs, there were instances that required discussion.
Tier 2 ranks FIFA below WR. Although Football received academic attention, the main progress findings were not the product of FIFA's activities. WR posted a significantly higher number of ES tweets than FIFA, however unlike WR, FIFA posted reporting content. Tweet content analysis revealed FIFA’s ES practices were event-specific whereas WR consistently championed a sport-specific cause and introduced sustainability awards. This demonstrates that WR is cause-driven and that its efforts are aimed at inducing long-term, sport-wide change. Consequently, this ranking in this tier remained.
Golf received the most academic attention, however again the practices explored might not be credited to the International Golf Federation (IGF). A lack of any ES posts on social media suggests that the IGF is disengaged with ES. Literature indicates that significant ES progress is being made across the sport on a multi-national level. This compares to other Tier 3 IFs such as United World Wrestling (UWW), who only posted once about awareness, and the International Federation of Sport Climbing (IFSC) who's single progress post was related to an isolated, event-specific initiative. It is evident that there are more instances of ES activities across golf than in wrestling or sport climbing. Consequently, the IGF has been ranked 11th, above IFSC and UWW.
There was one piece of academic literature present for hockey, its findings were preliminary and not concerned with the IF ES activities but rather with manufacturing processes ( Al Rashid et al., 2020). Additionally, the extent to which the International Hockey Federation is aware of these advances is unclear. It was concluded that Hockey's rank should not change.
There were seven IFs with no ES-related data whatsoever: Badminton World Federation, International Gymnastics Federation, International Handball Federation, International Shooting Sport Federation, International Tennis Federation, World Karate Federation, and World Skate. The website content analysis revealed that none of these IFs used any terms related to ES, suggesting that there is a lack of awareness of environmental issues. Whilst these could be due to limited resources, attempting to explain their absence of ES progress is purely speculative. Further research is required to explore ES themes with relation to these IFs. As there is no data to distinguish between these IFs, all seven have been ranked equally, in last place. Based on the findings of each research method, and the discussion, Table 7 shows the final ranking of ES Progress amongst IFs.
Conclusions
This paper is one of the first contributions to the field of ES in sport from an IF perspective. It provides a starting point for future research by highlighting the current state of ES progress across the OM. Only five out of the 32 sports had any relevant ES literature. Whilst two out of the five sports covered were watersports (Sailing and Surfing), the total volume of literature about watersports (n=4) was less than for the other sports reviewed (n=9). The presence of literature was higher for watersports than for all other sports (H1). It was also found that whilst governance, partnerships, and strategic choice were all drivers, resource-related pressures in fact created barriers to ES progress. As only one study in the final sample ( Ratten, 2019) featured ES progress related to an IF, it is unclear whether IFs are aware of advances in relevant sport-specific innovations, potentially providing a barrier to ES progress. Exploration of themes was limited in terms of context, geography, and organisational level. The academic understanding of ES in sport is sparse and shallow, leaving multiple gaps and directions for future research. Overall, there was not enough literature to comprehensively or accurately identify ES progress amongst IFs.
Examination of IF websites revealed a lack of ES awareness and activity amongst the majority. A significant portion ( n=9) are engaging in activities but without a strategic ES plan. The most advanced IFs in terms of ES progress are athletics and sailing, followed by football and rowing (H2). The HoP and tier system provide a clear way to visualize ES progress across the OM, and a sound basis for further exploration into the dynamics of ES in sport. Analysis of potential relationships between IF ES Tweets and various external factors revealed several key findings. IF's ES efforts and engagement in ES communication on Twitter has increased consistently on an annual basis since 2015 (hypothesis 3 [H3]). Despite similarities in trend, the number of ES tweets made by IFs does not correspond to the ES progress made by IFs (hypothesis 4 [H4] and [H5]). ES interventions and formal public events were found to have little to no effect on IF's ES activities over the past decade (hypothesis 6 [H6]). The external factors that exert the most influence IF's ES activities are OGs and informal societal ES events. These findings indicate that public-facing external factors have more impact on IF's ES activities than political or governance-related ones. IFs in higher tiers displayed more engagement with reporting and milestone tweet content. Analysis of weighted content type informed the re-ranking of IFs within each tier according to ES advances.
Strategic choice and the establishment of partnerships with environmental-based organisations were strong drivers of ES progress. Where there is a direct dependent relationship between a sport and the natural environment, the likelihood of strategic choice increases (H1). The role of institutional theory in driving isomorphic change varies according to governance intervention type, with economic incentives appearing to exert a stronger influence than ES-based interventions. The OG enhance ES awareness amongst IFs, whilst informal and public-facing societal ES events positively impact the uptake of ES practices amongst IFs. Resource-scarcity is not a driver of organisational change towards ES, but rather a prominent barrier for IFs. Establishing strategic ES plans was deemed essential to overcome this barrier and ensure consistent, long-term ES progress; however, widespread lack of ES knowledge and expertise often prevented action form being taken.
Further empirical research is required to validate and develop this paper's findings. In order to further develop the field and accelerate ES progress throughout the OM, an impact assessment should be conducted across the gaps highlighted in this paper, to determine which should take priority on the research agenda. The IOC should establish a mandatory annual ES reporting system for IFs to increase accountability. A platform needs to be created to train, support, and accelerate IF ES progress by enabling resources to be shared regarding transferrable ES practices related to funding, procurement, and partnerships.
Data availability
Dryad: Olympic International Federation Environmental Sustainability Progress and Social Media Data. https://doi.org/10.5061/dryad.n2z34tmwh
This project contains the following underlying data:
README.docx: Descriptions of the tabs in the data file (Word)
Sport Sustainability_Progress & Social_Media_Dataset (Excel)
Data are available under the terms of the Creative Commons Zero "No rights reserved" data waiver (CC0 1.0 Public domain dedication).
Publisher’s note
This article was originally published on the Emerald Open Research platform hosted by F1000, under the ℈Responsible Management℉ gateway.
The original DOI of the article was 10.35241/emeraldopenres.14195.1
Author roles
Santini D: Conceptualization, Data Curation, Formal Analysis, Investigation, Methodology, Project Administration, Resources, Visualization, Writing - Original Draft Preparation; Henderson H: Conceptualization, Funding Acquisition, Project Administration, Supervision, Visualization, Writing - Review & Editing
Grant information:
The authors disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: this work was supported by the University of Exeter.
Competing interests
No competing interests were disclosed.
Reviewer response for version 1
Cheryl Mallen, Brock University, St. Catharines, ON, Canada
Competing interests: No competing interests were disclosed.
This review was published on 14 September 2021.
This is an open access peer review report distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Licence, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
recommendation: approve-with-reservations
Originality and value of the topic
This is an original paper, and the topic is relevant to sport today; there is a paucity of research on sport and environmental sustainability so this paper aids to, in part, fill a void.
Decision
The article requires revisions - it is hoped that the author(s) complete the revisions and resubmit as the manuscript has merit. The revisions needed are in the front end of the manuscript...as the critically important elements from the methods, results, discussion, and conclusion are strong.
Front End
In the Introduction - Background, in the first paragraph:
It states that “sports whose very existence depends on the ability to directly interact with the natural environment” –clarity is needed as natural resources are essential to conduct sport (not just for some sports) … i.e an interaction with the natural environment during sport by breathing air when participating (in sport or life)
The statement about climate change and negative effects is supported with one reference … it would be stronger if another reference was added from the International Panel on Climate (IPCC) – as the work from this group represents hundreds of researchers/scientists.
The statement: “in response to accelerating climate change” just gets inserted as an acceleration has not been discussed prior to this point (just add the point early with a reference so the statements flow).
Table 2 … add greater commentary concerning the table in the discussion (currently the heading of the table states more than what is in the discussion)
In the Context section, paragraph 1:
It states that environmental sustainability started in 2010 in the history of the Olympic Movement … I question this time statement as the Paquette et al paper used in this manuscript outlines that all of the Olympic Games since 1994 (I believe) has indicated that they are the ‘green’ Games. So, a focus on environmental sustainability issues began before 2010. This does not mean that the research cannot focus on the past decade (starting in 2010) ... but the historical statement does need to be adapted.
In the Context section, paragraph 2:
There is a disconnect between the first and third sentences … indicate how change theories can provide insight into barriers etc. (what do they reveal? And how and why does it apply to the OM).
When it states: “lack of internal accountability” … is the discussion about the IOC, the OM, or the IF’s?
This section jumps around with the various topics … ensure the flow is correct.
In the Context section, paragraph 5:
You state that “without internal accountability measures, it is difficult to identify the extent to which IFs are engaging in ES practices” … just because it is not on their website does not mean they do not have internal accountability measures … so rework to indicate that the websites do not indicate their internal accountability measures … [transparency may be an issue … you could ask the IFs about their internal accountability measures and find out .. but that would be another study!].
In the Literature Review section:
It was stated that: “Evaluating the extent to which each IF is making ES progress requires identification of the barriers, drivers, and ES practices that exist in single-sport contexts. To review large quantities of information and extract the most significant findings, a systematic literature review method was used (Mulrow, 1994).” The issue is that early statements said that you were benchmarking the ES practices of the IFs … now you have introduced barriers and drivers and stated single-sport context instead of Summer Olympic sports as stated earlier. This is an easy fix … but needs to be done to ensure clarity concerning the research. The barriers and drivers will not necessarily be on the IF webpages … so you can state that this type of knowledge is needed to support why benchmarking progress is – or in not – happening.
The process used to conduct the literature review is strong.
The flow of the sport specific literature needs a better introduction … i.e. to state that the work will be organized based on the following sports …. . Next, the topic discussion bounces around in these paragraphs … perhaps it could be reorganized to outline the barriers first and then the drivers for each sport or introduce the sport and discuss their barriers and drivers … and state why you are not including the other sports. This means indicating which Summer Olympic sports did not have any literature associated with the sport and ES (how many were not the focus of any of the literature?) – this needs to be discussed in the front end to link to the statements in the back end of this manuscript
Methods
The approach to hierarchical information is strong and fully referenced.
What about additional search words in the search … such as “ecology” and “greening” … I wonder if additional words would have made a difference in the results?
The question arises: Can you state that it is a lack of understanding of environmental practices that could be conducted … just because it is not on the IF website? Or, is this what practices they choose to publish and have not kept their transparent statements up to date? Yes, further research is necessary!
- Is the argument information presented in such a way that it can be understood by a non-academic audience?
Yes
- Could any solutions being offered be effectively implemented in practice?
Yes
- Is the work clearly and accurately presented and does it cite the current literature?
Yes
- If applicable, is the statistical analysis and its interpretation appropriate?
Yes
- Is real-world evidence provided to support any conclusions made?
Yes
- Are all the source data underlying the results available to ensure full reproducibility?
Yes
- Is the study design appropriate and is the work technically sound?
Yes
- Are the conclusions drawn adequately supported by the results?
Yes
- Does the piece present solutions to actual real world challenges?
Yes
- Are sufficient details of methods and analysis provided to allow replication by others?
Yes
Reviewer Expertise:
Sport environmental sustainability; sport event management; sport ethics
I confirm that I have read this submission and believe that I have an appropriate level of expertise to confirm that it is of an acceptable scientific standard, however I have significant reservations, as outlined above.
Figures
The 32 International Federations and sub-sports recognised by the International Olympic Committee for the 2020 Summer Olympic Programme (Sources: ASOIF; Tokyo 2020 Organizing Committee).
| Sport | International Federation (IF) | Sub-Category Sports |
|---|---|---|
| Archery | World Archery | |
| Athletics | World Athletics | |
| Badminton | Badminton World Federation | |
| Baseball | World Baseball Softball Confederation | |
| Basketball | International Basketball Federation | |
| Canoeing | International Canoe Federation | Canoe Slalom Canoe Sprint |
| Cycling | International Cycling Union | Cycling BMX Cycling Mountain Bike Cycling Road Cycling Track |
| Equestrian | International Equestrian Federation | Equestrian Dressage Equestrian Eventing Equestrian Jumping |
| Fencing | International Fencing Federation | |
| Football | International Association Football Federation | |
| Golf | International Golf Federation | |
| Gymnastics | International Gymnastics Federation | Gymnastics Artistic Gymnastics Rhythmic Trampoline |
| Handball | International Handball Federation | |
| Hockey | International Hockey Federation | |
| Judo | International Judo Federation | |
| Karate | World Karate Federation | |
| Modern pentathlon | International Modern Pentathlon Union | |
| Rowing | World Rowing | |
| Rugby sevens | World Rugby | |
| Sailing | World Sailing | |
| Shooting | International Shooting Sport Federation | |
| Skateboarding | World Skate | |
| Sport climbing | The International Federation of Sport Climbing | |
| Surfing | International Surfing Association | |
| Swimming | International Swimming Federation | Artistic Swimming Diving, Marathon Swimming Swimming Water Polo |
| Table tennis | International Table Tennis Federation | |
| Taekwondo | World Taekwondo | |
| Tennis | International Tennis Federation | |
| Triathlon | International Triathlon Union | |
| Volleyball | International Volleyball Federation | |
| Weightlifting | International Weightlifting Federation | |
| Wrestling | United World Wrestling | Wrestling Freestyle Wrestling Greco-Roman |
International Olympic Committee and International Federation events compared to academic attention received.
| International Olympic Committee | International Gymnastics Federation | International Fencing Federation | World Archery Federation | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Number of events held in 2016 (Olympic and non-Olympic sanctioned) | 1 | 22 | 154 | 27 |
| Search term used | Olympic Games | Olympic Gymnastics | Olympic Fencing | Olympic Archery |
| Literature search results between 2015 – 2017 | 23,000 | 7,420 | 3,460 | 2,110 |
| Ratio of literature search results per event | 1 : 23,000 | 1 : 337 | 1 : 22 | 1 : 78 |
Hierarchy of information criteria weighting factors.
| Criteria | Weighting Factor |
|---|---|
| Terminology | 1 |
| Ethical corporate communication | [3]* |
| Proof of commitment | 6 |
| Strategic environmental sustainability plan | 10 |
| Management framework | 15 |
*The sole purpose of assigning a weighting factor to these criteria is to demonstrate the weighting pattern. The multiple data points required for these criteria would result in a skewed data set if weightings were applied. It is not utilised past this point.
Tweet content types, descriptions, and weighting factors.
| Tweet Content Type | Description | Weighting Factor |
|---|---|---|
| Awareness | Content aimed at increasing awareness and engagement with an environmental sustainability (ES) topic or issue or sharing general ES information | 1 |
| Progress | Communication about ES progress projects and initiatives | 3 |
| Reporting | Includes showcasing internal progress reports or measurements, as well as engaging with stakeholders to feedback on ES activities | 6 |
| Milestone | Milestones or notable achievements | 10 |
International Federation (IF) environmental sustainability progress tiers.
| Tier | IF | % | |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | World Athletics | World Sailing | 7% |
| 2 | World Rowing | Federation Internationale de Football Association (FIFA) | 7% |
| 3 | International Canoe Federation | United World Wrestling | |
| International Equestrian Federation | International Golf Federation | ||
| The International Federation of Sport Climbing | World Rugby | 28% | |
| International Surfing Association | World Taekwondo | ||
| International Triathlon Union | - | ||
| 4 | Union Cycliste Internationale | - | 3% |
| 5 | International Modern Pentathlon Union | - | 3% |
| 6 | International Volleyball Federation | International Judo Federation | |
| World Archery | World Karate Federation | ||
| Badminton World Federation | International Shooting Sport Federation | ||
| World Baseball Softball Confederation | World Skate | ||
| International Basketball Federation | International Swimming Federation | 53% | |
| International Fencing Federation | International Table Tennis Federation | ||
| International Gymnastics Federation | International Tennis Federation | ||
| International Handball Federation | International Weightlifting Federation | ||
| International Hockey Federation | - | ||
Re-ranked International Federation (IF) environmental sustainability progress tiers.
| Tier | Rank within tier | IF |
|---|---|---|
| Tier 1 | 1 | World Sailing |
| 2 | World Athletics | |
| Tier 2 | 1 | World Rowing |
| 2 | Federation Internationale de Football Association (FIFA) | |
| Tier 3 | 1 | International Surfing Association |
| 2 | International Triathlon Union | |
| 3 | International Equestrian Federation | |
| 4 | World Rugby | |
| 5 | World Taekwondo | |
| 6 | International Canoe Federation | |
| 7 | The International Federation of Sport Climbing | |
| 8 | United World Wrestling | |
| 9 | International Golf Federation | |
| Tier 4 | 1 | Union Cycliste Internationale |
| Tier 5 | 1 | International Modern Pentathlon Union |
| Tier 6 | 1 | International Fencing Federation |
| 2 | International Volleyball Federation | |
| 3 | International Hockey Federation | |
| 4 | World Archery | |
| 5 | International Table Tennis Federation | |
| 6 | International Weightlifting Federation | |
| 7 | International Judo Federation | |
| 8 | World Baseball Softball Confederation | |
| 9 | International Basketball Federation | |
| 10 | International Swimming Federation | |
| 11 | Badminton World Federation | |
| International Gymnastics Federation | ||
| International Handball Federation | ||
| International Shooting Sport Federation | ||
| International Tennis Federation | ||
| World Karate Federation | ||
| World Skate |
Final International Federation (IF) environmental sustainability progress ranking.
| Ranking | IF |
|---|---|
| 1 | World Sailing |
| 2 | World Athletics |
| 3 | World Rowing |
| 4 | Federation Internationale de Football Association (FIFA) |
| 5 | International Surfing Association |
| 6 | International Triathlon Union |
| 7 | International Equestrian Federation |
| 8 | World Rugby |
| 9 | World Taekwondo |
| 10 | International Canoe Federation |
| 11 | International Golf Federation |
| 12 | The International Federation of Sport Climbing |
| 13 | United World Wrestling |
| 14 | Union Cycliste Internationale |
| 15 | International Modern Pentathlon Union |
| 16 | International Fencing Federation |
| 17 | International Volleyball Federation |
| 18 | International Hockey Federation |
| 19 | World Archery |
| 20 | International Table Tennis Federation |
| 21 | International Weightlifting Federation |
| 22 | International Judo Federation |
| 23 | World Baseball Softball Confederation |
| 24 | International Basketball Federation |
| 25 | International Swimming Federation |
| 26 | Badminton World Federation |
| International Gymnastics Federation | |
| International Handball Federation | |
| International Shooting Sport Federation | |
| International Tennis Federation | |
| World Karate Federation | |
| World Skate |
References
Abson, DJ, Fischer, J., Leventon, J. et al., “Leverage points for sustainability transformation”, Ambio, (2017), Vol. 46 No. 1, pp. 30-39. 27344324 doi: 10.1007/s13280-016-0800-y, 5226895.
Ahmad, S. and Tahar, RM “Selection of renewable energy sources for sustainable development of electricity generation system using analytic hierarchy process: A case of Malaysia”, Renew Energy, (2014), Vol. 63 No. 1, pp. 458-466, doi: 10.1016/j.renene.2013.10.001.
Al Rashid, A., Khalid, MY, Imran, R. et al., “Utilization of Banana Fiber-Reinforced Hybrid Composites in the Sports Industry”, Materials (Basel), (2020; ) 13 No. 14, p. 3167. 32708520 doi: 10.3390/ma13143167, 7411865.
Babiak, K. and Wolfe, R. “Determinants of corporate social responsibility in professional sport: Internal and external factors”, J Sport Manag, (2009), Vol. 23 No. 6, pp. 717-742, doi: 10.1123/jsm.23.6.717.
Bache, I. “Measuring quality of life for public policy: an idea whose time has come? Agenda-setting dynamics in the European Union”, J Eur Public Policy, (2013), Vol. 20 No. 1, pp. 21-38, doi: 10.1080/13501763.2012.699658.
Bakaki, Z. and Bernauer, T. “Do global climate summits influence public awareness and policy preferences concerning climate change?” Environmental Politics, (2017), Vol. 26 No. 1, pp. 1-26, doi: 10.1080/09644016.2016.1244964.
Baldwin, R. “Football and climate change: strange bedfellows or a means of going beyond the usual suspects in encouraging pro-environmental behavioural change?” Local Environment, (2010), Vol. 15 No. 9–10, pp. 851-866, doi: 10.1080/13549839.2010.531252.
Baruah, TD “Effectiveness of Social Media as a tool of communication and its potential for technology enabled connections: A micro-level study”, International Journal of Scientific and Research Publications, (2012), Vol. 2 No. 5, pp. 1-10. available at: Reference Source.
Boykoff, J. and Mascarenhas, G. “The Olympics, sustainability, and greenwashing: The Rio 2016 summer games”, Capitalism Nature Socialism, (2016), Vol. 27 No. 2, pp. 1-11, doi: 10.1080/10455752.2016.1179473.
Brymer, E., Downey, G. and Gray, T. “Extreme sports as a precursor to environmental sustainability”, J Sport Tour, (2009), Vol. 14 No. 2–3, pp. 193-204, doi: 10.1080/14775080902965223.
Brymer, E. and Gray, T. “Developing an intimate “relationship” with nature through extreme sports participation”, Leisure/Loisir, (2010), Vol. 34 No. 4, pp. 361-374, doi: 10.1080/14927713.2010.542888.
Carmichael, JT and Brulle, RJ “Elite cues, media coverage, and public concern: an integrated path analysis of public opinion on climate change, 2001–2013”, Environmental Politics, (2017), Vol. 26 No. 2, pp. 232-252, doi: 10.1080/09644016.2016.1263433.
Castegnaro, S., Gomiero, C., Battisti, C. et al., “A bio-composite racing sailboat: Materials selection, design, manufacturing and sailing”, Ocean Engineering, (2017), Vol. 133 pp. 142-150, doi: 10.1016/j.oceaneng.2017.01.017.
Ciletti, D., Lanasa, J., Ramos, D. et al., “Sustainability communication in North American professional sports leagues: Insights from web-site self-presentations”, International Journal of Sport Communication, (2010), Vol. 3 No. 1, pp. 64-91, doi: 10.1123/ijsc.3.1.64.
Clavio, G. and Walsh, P. “Dimensions of social media utilization among college sport fans”, Communication & Sport, (2014), Vol. 2 No. 3, pp. 261-281, doi: 10.1177/2167479513480355.
Cunningham, GB and Ashley, FB “Isomorphism in NCAA athletic departments: The use of competing theories and advancement of theory”, Sport Manage Rev, (2001), Vol. 4 No. 1, pp. 47-63, doi: 10.1016/S1441-3523(01)70069-1.
Del Fiacco, AG and Orr, M. “A review and synthesis of environmentalism within the Olympic Movement”, International Journal of Event and Festival Management, (2019), Vol. 10 No. 1, pp. 67-80, doi: 10.1108/IJEFM-05-2018-0038.
Delmas, MA and Burbano, VC “The drivers of greenwashing”, California Management Review, (2011), Vol. 54 No. 1, pp. 64-87, doi: 10.1525/cmr.2011.54.1.64.
Dolf, M. and Teehan, P. “Reducing the carbon footprint of spectator and team travel at the University of British Columbia's varsity sports events”, Sport Manage Rev, (2015), Vol. 18 No. 2, pp. 244-255, doi: 10.1016/j.smr.2014.06.003.
Dolles, H., Söderman, S. and Robinson, L. “Developing strategic capacity in Olympic sport organisations”, Sport, Business and Management: An International Journal, (2011), Vol. 1 No. 3, pp. 219-233, doi: 10.1108/20426781111162648.
Edenhofer, O., Pichs-Madruga, R., Sokona, Y. et al., “Technical Summary”, In: Climate Change 2014: Mitigation of Climate Change.Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge University Press,2015), pp. 33-108, doi: 10.1017/CBO9781107415416.006.
Filo, K., Lock, D. and Karg, A. “Sport and social media research: A review”, Sport Manage Rev, (2015), Vol. 18 No. 2, pp. 166-181, doi: 10.1016/j.smr.2014.11.001.
Forrest, D., Sanz, I. and Tena, JD “Forecasting national team medal totals at the Summer Olympic Games”, Int J Forecast, (2010), Vol. 26 No. 3, pp. 576-588, doi: 10.1016/j.ijforecast.2009.12.007.
Forster, J. “Global sports organisations and their governance”, Corporate Governance: The International Journal of Business in Society, (2006), Vol. 6 No. 1, pp. 72-83, doi: 10.1108/14720700610649481.
Francis, T., Norris, J. and Brinkmann, R. “Sustainability initiatives in professional soccer”, Soccer Soc, (2017), Vol. 18 No. 2–3, pp. 396-406, doi: 10.1080/14660970.2016.1166769.
Frederick, EL, Burch, LM and Blaszka, M. “A shift in set: Examining the presence of agenda setting on Twitter during the 2012 London Olympics”, Communication & Sport, (2015), Vol. 3 No. 3, pp. 312-333, doi: 10.1177/2167479513508393.
Geeraert, A., Alm, J. and Groll, M. “Good governance in international sport organizations: an analysis of the 35 Olympic sport governing bodies”, International journal of sport policy and politics, (2014), Vol. 6 No. 3, pp. 281-306, doi: 10.1080/19406940.2013.825874.
Gilchrist, P. and Wheaton, B. “The social benefits of informal and lifestyle sports: A research agenda”, International Journal of Sport Policy and Politics, (2017), Vol. 9 No. 1, pp. 1-10, doi: 10.1080/19406940.2017.1293132.
Graham, J., Trendafilova, S. and Ziakas, V. “Environmental sustainability and sport management education: bridging the gaps”, Managing Sport and Leisure, (2018), Vol. 23 No. 4–6, pp. 422-433, doi: 10.1080/23750472.2018.1530069.
Hamilton, LC “Public awareness of the scientific consensus on climate”, Sage Open, (2016), Vol. 6 No. 4, pp. 1-11, doi: 10.1177/2158244016676296.
Hu, AH, Chen, LT, Hsu, CW et al., “An evaluation framework for scoring corporate sustainability reports in Taiwan”, Environmental Engineering Science, (2011), Vol. 28 No. 12, pp. 843-858, doi: 10.1089/ees.2010.0282.
Humberstone, B. “Embodiment and social and environmental action in nature-based sport: Spiritual spaces”, Leisure studies, (2011), Vol. 30 No. 4, pp. 495-512, doi: 10.1080/02614367.2011.602421.
Huth, C. “Evaluation of the Golf&Natur Environmental Certificate From an Ecological-Economic Perspective”, International Journal of Golf Science, (2017), Vol. 6 No. 2, pp. 142-158. available at: Reference Source.
Jin, X. and High, KA “A new conceptual hierarchy for identifying environmental sustainability metrics”, Environ Prog, (2004), Vol. 23 No. 4, pp. 291-301, doi: 10.1002/ep.10048.
Jose, A. and Lee, SM “Environmental reporting of global corporations: A content analysis based on website disclosures”, J Bus Ethics, (2007), Vol. 72 No. 4, pp. 307-321, doi: 10.1007/s10551-006-9172-8.
Kelly, L. “‘Social inclusion’ through sports-based interventions?” Crit Soc Policy, (2011), Vol. 31 No. 1, pp. 126-150, doi: 10.1177/0261018310385442.
Keogh, C., Mallen, C., Chard, C. et al., “Greener Golf Operations: A Comparative Case Study of Ontario Golf Courses Engaged in Environmental Sustainability Initiatives”, Management and Organizational Studies, (2014), Vol. 1 No. 2, pp. 100-121, doi: 10.5430/mos.v1n2p100.
Kim, I. and Kuljis, J. “Applying content analysis to web-based content”, Journal of Computing and Information Technology, (2010), Vol. 18 No. 4, pp. 369-375, doi: 10.2498/cit.1001924.
Knight, KW “Public awareness and perception of climate change: a quantitative cross-national study”, Environ Sociol, (2016), Vol. 2 No. 1, pp. 101-113, doi: 10.1080/23251042.2015.1128055.
Krein, KJ “Nature sports”, Journal of the Philosophy of Sport, (2014), Vol. 41 No. 2, pp. 193-208, doi: 10.1080/00948705.2013.785417.
Luederitz, C., Abson, DJ, Audet, R. et al., “Many pathways toward sustainability: not conflict but co-learning between transition narratives”, Sustainability Science, (2017), Vol. 12 No. 3, pp. 393-407, doi: 10.1007/s11625-016-0414-0.
Maier, F., Meyer, M. and Steinbereithner, M. “Nonprofit organizations becoming business-like: A systematic review”, Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, (2016), Vol. 45 No. 1, pp. 64-86, doi: 10.1177/0899764014561796.
Males, J. and Van Aelst, P. “Did the Blue Planet set the Agenda for Plastic Pollution? An Explorative Study on the Influence of a Documentary on the Public, Media and Political Agendas”, Environ Commun, (2020), Vol. 13 No. 6, pp. 1-15, doi: 10.1080/17524032.2020.1780458.
Mallen, C., Adams, L., Stevens, J. et al., “Environmental sustainability in sport facility management: A Delphi study”, Eur Sport Manag Q, (2010), Vol. 10 No. 3, pp. 367-389, doi: 10.1080/16184741003774521.
Martin, SA and Assenov, I. “Developing a surf resource sustainability index as a global model for surf beach conservation and tourism research”, Asia Pac J Tour Res, (2014a), Vol. 19 No. 7, pp. 760-792, doi: 10.1080/10941665.2013.806942.
Martin, SA and Assenov, I. “Investigating the importance of surf resource sustainability indicators: Stakeholder perspectives for surf tourism planning and development”, Tour Plan Dev, (2014b), Vol. 11 No. 2, pp. 127-148, doi: 10.1080/21568316.2013.864990.
McCullough, BP, Orr, M. and Kellison, T. “Sport ecology: Conceptualizing an emerging subdiscipline within sport management”, J Sport Manag, (2020a), Vol. 1 No. aop, pp. 1-12, doi: 10.1123/jsm.2019-0294.
McCullough, BP, Pelcher, J. and Trendafilova, S. “An Exploratory Analysis of the Environmental Sustainability Performance Signaling Communications among North American Sport Organizations”, Sustainability, (2020b), Vol. 12 No. 5, pp. 1950, doi: 10.3390/su12051950.
McCullough, BP, Pfahl, ME and Nguyen, SN “The green waves of environmental sustainability in sport”, Sport in Society, (2016), Vol. 19 pp. 1040-1065, doi: 10.1080/17430437.2015.1096251.
Minoli, DM “Influences on the Diffusion of Environmental Programmes in Small Businesses in the Greening of an Industry for Sustainability: The Case of Golf”, Journal of Management and Sustainability, (2018), Vol. 8 No. 2, pp. 1-17, doi: 10.5539/jms.v8n2p1.
Mulrow, CD “Systematic reviews: rationale for systematic reviews”, BMJ, (1994), Vol. 309 No. 6954, pp. 597-599. 8086953 doi: 10.1136/bmj.309.6954.597, 2541393.
Neuendorf, KA “An Integrative Approach to Content Analysis”, In: K. Omer (Ed.): The Content Analysis Guidebook. Sage, (2016), pp. 1-10, doi: 10.4135/9781071802878.n2.
Orr, M. and Inoue, Y. “Sport versus climate: Introducing the climate vulnerability of sport organizations framework”, Sport Manage Rev, (2019), Vol. 22 No. 4, pp. 452-463, doi: 10.1016/j.smr.2018.09.007.
Pacini, GC, Staglianò, N., Meo, F. et al., “Assessment of management of a golf course by means of sustainability indicators”, Italian Journal of Agronomy, (2016), Vol. 11 No. 2, pp. 114-121, doi: 10.4081/ija.2016.768.
Paquette, J., Stevens, J. and Mallen, C. “The interpretation of environmental sustainability by the International Olympic Committee and Organizing Committees of the Olympic Games from 1994 to 2008”, Sport Soc, (2011), Vol. 14 p. 355-369, doi: 10.1080/17430437.2011.557272.
Pedersen, PM “Reflections on communication and sport: On strategic communication and management”, Communication & Sport, (2013), Vol. 1 No. 1–2, pp. 55-67, doi: 10.1177/2167479512466655.
Pedersen, PM “A commentary on social media research from the perspective of a sport communication journal editor”, Communication & Sport, (2014), Vol. 2 No. 2, pp. 138-142, doi: 10.1177/2167479514527428.
Pegoraro, A. “Twitter as disruptive innovation in sport communication”, Communication & Sport, (2014), Vol. 2 No. 2, pp. 132-137, doi: 10.1177/2167479514527432.
Pereira, RPT, Camara, MVO, Ribeiro, GM et al., “Applying the facility location problem model for selection of more climate benign mega sporting event hosts: A case of the FIFA World Cups”, J Clean Prod, (2017), Vol. 159 pp. 147-157, doi: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.05.053.
Phelps, S. and Kent, A. “Isomorphism and choice in the creation and development of an international sports federation: a review of the International Triathlon Union”, Int J Sport Manag Mark, (2010), Vol. 8 No. 3–4, pp. 277-295, doi: 10.1504/IJSMM.2010.037509.
Pollach, I. “Corporate environmental reporting and news coverage of environmental issues: An agenda‐setting perspective”, Bus Strategy Environ, (2014), Vol. 23 No. 5, pp. 349-360, doi: 10.1002/bse.1792.
Popay, J., Rogers, A. and Williams, G. “Rationale and standards for the systematic review of qualitative literature in health services research”, Qual Health Res, (1998), Vol. 8 No. 3, pp. 341-351. 10558335 doi: 10.1177/104973239800800305.
Ratten, V. “Social innovation in sport: The creation of Santa Cruz as a World Surfing Reserve”, Int J Innov Sci, (2019), Vol. 11 No. 1, pp. 20-30, doi: 10.1108/IJIS-12-2017-0135.
Rowe, D. “Following the Followers: Sport Researchers’ Labour Lost in the Twittersphere?” Commun Sport, (2014), Vol. 2 No. 2, pp. 117-121, doi: 10.1177/2167479514527431.
Sallis, JE, Bauman, A. and Pratt, M. “Environmental and policy interventions to promote physical activity”, Am J Prev Med, (1998), Vol. 15 No. 4, pp. 379-397. 9838979 doi: 10.1016/s0749-3797(98)00076-2.
Sartore-Baldwin, ML and McCullough, B. “Equity-based sustainability and ecocentric management: Creating more ecologically just sport organization practices”, Sport Manage Rev, (2018), Vol. 21 No. 4, p. 2018, doi: 10.1016/j.smr.2017.08.009.
Scott, D., Rutty, M. and Peister, C. “Climate variability and water use on golf courses: optimization opportunities for a warmer future”, J Sustain Tour, (2018), Vol. 26 No. 8, pp. 1453-1467, doi: 10.1080/09669582.2018.1459629.
Smith, SR “Hybridization and nonprofit organizations: The governance challenge”, Policy Soc, (2010), Vol. 29 No. 3, pp. 219-229, doi: 10.1016/j.polsoc.2010.06.003.
Washington, M. and Patterson, KD “Hostile takeover or joint venture: Connections between institutional theory and sport management research”, Sport Manage Rev, (2011), Vol. 14 No. 1, pp. 1-12, doi: 10.1016/j.smr.2010.06.003.
Xiao, Y. and Watson, M. “Guidance on conducting a systematic literature review”, J Plan Educ Res, (2019), Vol. 39 No. 1, pp. 93-112, doi: 10.1177/0739456X17723971.