Voluntas (2013) 24:606–629

DOI 10.1007/s11266-012-9275-z

ORIGINAL PAPER

Financial Sustainability Within UK Charities:

Community Sport Trusts and Corporate Social
Responsibility Partnerships

Timothy Bingham • Geoff Walters

Published online: 9 March 2012

Ó International Society for Third-Sector Research and The John’s Hopkins University 2012

Abstract The change in political leadership in the UK in 2010 has created

financial uncertainty and instability for many third sector organisations. In a shifting
funding landscape, it is clear that an over-reliance on Government funding is a risky
strategy and that there is a need to diversify and seek out alternative sources of
revenue. This article considers the impact of political change on the financial sus-
tainability of community sports trusts associated with Premier League and Football
League clubs in England. It explores sources of revenue through the analysis of
financial statements, revealing that on average community sports trusts receive a
significant proportion of income from grant funding whilst sponsorship income is
relatively small. The article goes on to discuss the potential for community sports
trusts to diversify revenue streams by developing social partnerships that address the
corporate social responsibility (CSR) agendas of commercial organisations. It
illustrates that although commercial sponsorship can provide benefits including the
provision of additional funding that can enable financial stability, key issues include
the balance of power, the impact on organisational flexibility, whether there is a
need to restructure, and the development of long-term partnerships. Although the
findings from this article are focused on a particular type of charity, given the
importance of CSR partnership income for the charities sector they may also have
broader implications for other charitable organisations.

Résumé Le changement de direction politique au Royaume-Uni en 2010 a suscité

une incertitude et une instabilité financière pour de nombreuses organisations du
secteur tertiaire. Dans un contexte marqué par un financement aléatoire, il est clair
qu’une dépendance excessive à l’égard du financement gouvernemental est une
stratégie risquée et qu’un besoin se fait jour en faveur d’une diversification et d’une
recherche de sources alternatives de revenu. Cet article examine l’impact de

T. Bingham
G. Walters (&)

Birkbeck, University of London, Malet Street, London WC1E 7HX, UK
e-mail: g.walters@bbk.ac.uk

123
Voluntas (2013) 24:606–629 607

l’alternance politique sur la durabilité financière des trusts sportifs communautaires

associés aux clubs de Première division et de Ligue de Football en Angleterre. Il
explore leurs sources de revenus dans le cadre d’une analyse des états financiers,
laquelle révèle qu’en moyenne les trust sportifs communautaires reçoivent une part
significative de leurs revenus des subventions alors que le financement par parrai-
nage est relativement modeste. L’article se poursuit par une discussion sur le po-
tentiel des trusts sportifs communautaires en faveur d’une diversification des flux de
revenus par le biais du développement de partenariats sociaux prenant en compte les
objectifs de responsabilité sociale d’entreprise (corporate social responsibility -
CSR) des organisations commerciales. Il met en évidence que bien que le parrainage
commercial puisse présenter des avantages notamment l’apport d’un financement
supplémentaire susceptible de permettre une stabilité financière, les questions clés
comportent l’équilibre des pouvoirs, l’impact de la flexibilité organisationnelle, le
besoin ou non d’une restructuration et le développement de partenariats à long
terme. En dépit du fait que les conclusions de cet article soient consacrées à un type
particulier d’organisation caritative, eu égard à l’importance des revenus du par-
tenariat CSR pour le secteur caritatif, elles pourraient également avoir des impli-
cations plus vastes pour d’autres organisations caritatives.

Zusammenfassung Die Änderung in der politischen Führung Großbritanniens im

Jahr 2010 brachte vielen Organisationen des dritten Sektors finanzielle Unsicherheit
und Instabilität. In einer sich ändernden Finanzierungslandschaft ist eine allzu große
Abhängigkeit von staatlicher Finanzierung eindeutig eine riskante Strategie, und es
sollten auf jeden Fall verschiedene alternative Einnahmequellen ausgemacht wer-
den. Der vorliegende Beitrag betrachtet die Auswirkungen der politischen Änder-
ungen auf die finanzielle Nachhaltigkeit von Gemeindesportverbänden, die mit
Vereinen der englischen Premier League und Football League verbunden sind. Die
Einnahmequellen werden anhand von Finanzaufstellungen untersucht, wobei sich
herausstellt, dass Zuschussförderungen im Durchschnitt einen Großteil der Ein-
nahmen der Gemeindesportverbände ausmachen, während die Einnahmen aus
Sponsorenschaften nur relativ gering sind. Der Beitrag diskutiert sodann das
Potential für Gemeindesportverbände, ihre Einnahmequellen zu diversifizieren,
indem sie soziale Partnerschaften entwickeln, die sich mit den Programmen ge-
werblicher Organisationen zur Corporate Social Responsibility, der unternehme-
rischen Gesellschaftsverantwortung, befassen. Es wird dargelegt, dass trotz
möglicher Vorteile einer kommerziellen Sponsorenschaft, einschließlich der Bere-
itstellung zusätzlicher Gelder zur Förderung der finanziellen Stabilität, unter an-
derem das Gleichgewicht der Kräfte, die Auswirkungen auf die organisatorische
Flexibilität, ggf. der Bedarf für eine Umstrukturierung sowie die Entwicklung
langfristiger Partnerschaften wichtige Aspekte darstellen. Zwar beziehen sich die
Ergebnisse dieses Beitrags hauptsächlich auf eine bestimmte Art von Wo-
hltätigkeitsorganisation, doch haben sie angesichts der Bedeutung der Einnahmen
aus der Corporate Social Responsibility-Partnerschaft für den gemeinnützigen
Sektor auch weitreichendere Auswirkungen für andere gemeinnützige
Organisationen.

123
608 Voluntas (2013) 24:606–629

Resumen El cambio de liderazgo polı́tico en el Reino Unido en 2010 ha creado

incertidumbre financiera e inestabilidad en muchas organizaciones del sector ter-
ciario. Con un panorama de financiación cambiante, resulta claro que un exceso de
confianza en la financiación gubernamental es una estrategia arriesgada y que hace
falta diversificar y buscar fuentes de ingresos alternativas. Este artı́culo considera el
impacto del cambio polı́tico en la sostenibilidad financiera de las fundaciones de-
portivas comunitarias asociadas a los clubes de la Primera Liga y de la Liga de
Fútbol en Inglaterra. Explora fuentes de ingresos mediante el análisis de los estados
financieros, revelando que, como promedio, las fundaciones deportivas comunita-
rias reciben una proporción significativa de ingresos procedentes de subvenciones
mientras que los ingresos por patrocinio son relativamente pequeños. El artı́culo
prosigue tratando el potencial de que las fundaciones deportivas comunitarias di-
versifiquen los flujos de ingresos mediante el desarrollo de asociaciones sociales que
aborden las agendas sobre responsabilidad social corporativa (RSC o CSR, del
inglés corporate social responsibility) de las organizaciones comerciales. Ilustra que
aunque el patrocinio comercial puede proporcionar beneficios, incluso la provisión
de financiación adicional que puede permitir estabilidad financiera, las cuestiones
claves incluyen el equilibrio de poder, el impacto sobre la flexibilidad organizativa,
si existe la necesidad de reestructurar, y el desarrollo de asociaciones de largo plazo.
Aunque los hallazgos del presente documento se centran en un tipo especı́fico de
organización benéfica, dada la importancia de los ingresos de la asociación RSC
para el sector de las organizaciones benéficas, pueden tener también implicaciones
más amplias para otras organizaciones benéficas.

Keywords Financial sustainability
Charities
Community sport trusts

Social partnerships
Corporate social responsibility

Introduction

It is widely acknowledged that organisations within the third sector, including

charities, social enterprises, community interest companies, mutuals and
co-operatives, voluntary associations and community trusts (Evans 2011), differ
from for-profit organisations in a number of ways. They demonstrate different
ownership structures; they can be subject to the non-distribution constraint
(Hansmann 1980); they often require the involvement of a large number of
volunteers; and the motivations for operating differ, where multiple objectives
contrast to the prioritising of the financial bottom line. A further difference is in
relation to the ways that third sector organisations are financed. Often, multiple
sources of funding contribute to the income streams of third sector organisations,
which can have implications on the financial sustainability of the organisation
(Froelich 1999; Helmig et al. 2004). Government funding is one particular source of
finance that is significant for many third sector organisations (Young et al. 2010).
However, it can vary due to changes in political leadership and this can lead to
instability (Hodge and Piccolo 2005). This is the current situation within the UK:

123
Voluntas (2013) 24:606–629 609

the third sector is experiencing financial uncertainty following the formation of the
Coalition Government in 2010. The advance of the ‘Big Society’, and the outcomes
of the 2010 spending review, threaten the viability of many third sector
organisations given their dependence on public funding (Evans 2011).
Within the charities sector—a specific sub-sector of the third sector—revenues
are generated from various sources, including earned revenues, Government
contracts, memberships, business activities and returns on investment, as well as
revenues that are unique to the sector, such as charitable contributions, grants from
Government and private foundations and gifts in-kind (Moore 2000; Young et al.
2010; Zappala and Lyons 2006). Research by the National Council for Voluntary
Organisations (2009) revealed that in 2006/2007, Government funding accounted
for approximately 34.5% of charities’ income, with 25% of charities having a
funding relationship with Government. For some charities, there is the potential risk
of overdependence on Government funding: a number of charitable organisations
have been significantly affected by the spending review (Ramesh 2010; Savage
2011). In a changing funding landscape, it is clear that charities that rely on grant
funding, particularly from Government sources, are at risk. Where this is the case,
there is a need for some to diversify their funding portfolio in order to reduce
revenue volatility (Carroll and Stater 2009). Nevertheless, it is also evident that
charitable organisations are financed in different ways with 75% of charities not in
receipt of Government funding. Whilst these charities may not be so vulnerable to
public sector cuts, the Charity Forecast Survey from the National Council for
Voluntary Organisations (2011) showed that 60% of chief executives, trustees and
senior managers claimed that the organisation’s financial situation had declined
between 2010 and 2011, with 65% expecting it to decline further in 2012. These
figures demonstrate that financial sustainability is an important issue across the
charities sector and that alternative ways for charities to generate additional
revenue, including private sector payments and contributions, to maintain and
expand programs and services are important (Crittenden 2000; Struthers 2004;
Doherty and Murray 2007).
This article considers the impact of political change on the financial sustainability
of community sports trusts. A community sports trust is a particular type of
charitable organisation that uses sport as the vehicle with which to deliver a range of
community-oriented initiatives. They have become common across many local
authorities in the UK as a model to manage and operate leisure facilities and
reinvest profit into providing services to local communities (Sesnan 2001). This
article will focus on a particular type of community sports trust in place within the
professional football industry in England. This type of charitable organisation
evolved out of the Football in the Community schemes that were originally set up in
the 1980s at professional football clubs as a response to problems of hooliganism
and the need for clubs to engage and develop closer links with local community
stakeholders (Walters and Chadwick 2009). Whilst Football in the Community
schemes were operated by football clubs, it was acknowledged that increasing
commercial practices resulted in confusion surrounding club-community responsi-
bilities, and subsequently football clubs were failing to understand what was meant
by the concept of community and how they should respond to different stakeholders

123
610 Voluntas (2013) 24:606–629

(Brown et al. 2006). At the same time, it was argued that there has been a lack of
strategy from Government on how football clubs should address social issues,
despite the fact that football was promoted as a way to do so. Brown et al. (2006)
recommended that Football in the Community departments should convert to
outward facing independent charitable organisations. Whilst in 2006 a small number
had already done so, over the past 6 years, there has been a trend for Football in the
Community schemes to register as charitable organisations: in May 2011, there were
a total of 89 community sports trusts which operate under the names of community
trusts, foundations and community education and sporting trusts. This separation
from a football club allows for a greater level of autonomy in relation to strategic
and financial decision-making (Walters 2009); however, a community sports trust
maintains the name of a football club through a licence agreement.
During the period in which the Labour Government was in office, Football in the
Community schemes, and subsequently community sports trusts, were seen as a way
to deliver the ‘third way’ agenda (Mellor 2008) and many were in receipt of public
funding. Whilst prior research has looked at the governance of community sport
trusts in the football industry (Walters 2009; Walters and Chadwick 2009), little is
known about revenue sources. Given the lack of previous research on an emerging
sub-sector within the charity sector, this article has two key objectives. Firstly, it
seeks to illustrate the revenue mix at community sports trusts and to determine the
level of funding received from Government sources and from commercial
organisations. Given the concerns around the current financial climate, the second
objective is to consider whether there is potential for community sports trusts to
diversify revenue streams through the development of social partnerships with
commercial organisations that address the issue of corporate social responsibility
(CSR). The focus on CSR partnerships between community sports trusts and
commercial organisations provides exploratory insights into CSR partnerships
within a sub-sector of the charities sector. The findings may also have relevance to
the broader charities sector given that in 2010 £2 billion was generated for UK
charities through CSR partnerships demonstrating that for many it is an important
source of revenue (Demetriou et al. 2010; Barrett 2011). It has also been claimed
that charities need to develop a collaborative approach to CSR partnerships (Staples
2004; Barrett 2011)—a reflection of the move towards CSR activities adding value
to a business (Porter and Kramer 2006). Furthermore 65% of charities are expecting
to have to engage in greater collaboration with other organisations in 2012 (National
Council for Voluntary Organisations 2011).
The article is structured as follows. It begins by setting out the changing political
context within the UK and how this could impact on third sector organisations, and
more specifically, on charities. Drawing on resource dependency as a theoretical
frame, it then considers the potential for charitable organisations to develop CSR
partnerships with commercial organisations in order to reduce grant funding and
improve financial sustainability. The method is set out, which details the empirical
work carried out. Following this, the results are presented and discussed. Although
the findings relate to community sports trusts, in light of the importance of CSR
partnership income, the results may also have broader implications for other
charitable organisations.

123
Voluntas (2013) 24:606–629 611

The Changing Policy Context Within the UK

The landscape in which charitable organisations operate in the UK has changed

significantly over the last three decades. In the 1980s, the Conservative Government
sought to privatise public sector activities and argued for the separation of welfare
activities from the State. This policy objective was underpinned by the argument
that State provision led to welfare dependency and the corrosion of individual,
family and social responsibility, whilst at the same time it was believed that the
public sector was inefficient and ineffective (Stewart 2007, in Powell 2007). The
idea that there is a mixed economy of welfare (Powell 2007) led to the growth of
service providers from outside the State that addressed welfare issues, particularly
around the areas of health, community care and sheltered housing (Bennett 2008).
With Government increasingly looking to contract out activities that were once seen
as the role of the State, this enabled the development of the ‘Third Sector’, or
voluntary sector, as a legitimate sector in its own right. Indeed, over a period of
10 years between 1982 and 1992, Government contracts to the third sector rose
from £1.85 to £42 billion (Bennett 2008). Notwithstanding its increasing promi-
nence, Kendall (2003) observed that the voluntary sector was never central to the
Conservatives original policy priorities.
Following the election success of the Labour Government in 1997, four broad
streams were central to public and social policy (Harris 2010). These included
partnerships and collaboration; redefining the nature of public services provision;
the belief in market principles; and expectations on local communities. Inspired by
the ‘Third Way’ approach, the third sector was considered to be a key partner in the
modernisation of the welfare state and a pro-voluntary sector stance was taken with
the State providing support for the development of community and voluntary
organisations. This led to a ‘‘step change in the relationship between the voluntary
sector and the UK Central Government’’ (Kendall 2003, p. 62) whereby the Labour
Government sought to recognise the independence of the voluntary sector rather
than the previously held conservative view of the sector as an alternative service
provider (Lewis 2005). This recognition was evidenced through the development of
partnerships between the Government and the voluntary sector to address welfare
and social inclusion issues. Indeed, partnerships became a central feature of New
Labour policy (Kendall 2003; Lusted and O’Gorman 2010).
The acknowledgement of the third sector by the Labour Government led to
increasing financial support from central and local Government (Chew and Osborne
2009). This has raised some concerns. For example, Hutchison and Cairns (2010,
pp. 138–142) outline that increased funding from Government meant that many
third sector organisations faced a shift in the purpose and mission of the
organisation, the prioritising of areas where funding was available, and a reduction
in their capacity to act as community advocates. For Hutchison and Cairns (2010),
this led to two organisational responses: the need to develop additional sources of
independent funding and restructuring the organisation to increase awareness of the
policy environment. Within the charities sector, similar changes have occurred, as
increased funding from Government was also a key feature throughout the duration
of the Labour Government. Indeed, Government funding has been shown to be the

123
612 Voluntas (2013) 24:606–629

most significant source of revenue, followed by market activities and contributions

(Hodgkinson et al. 1996, in Crittenden 2000). Nevertheless, it has been stated that
‘‘describing this picture with a sufficient degree of clarity and detail has proved
elusive’’ (National Council for Voluntary Organisations 2009, p. 12). For instance,
whilst Crittenden (2000) suggested that Government contributes 50% of funding for
charities, the National Council for Voluntary Organisations (2009) put the figure at
a more conservative 34% in 2009. These differences notwithstanding, what is
evident is that Government funding is a significant source of income for many
charitable organisations.
Funding for the charities sector, and the third sector more broadly, has, since the
formation of the coalition Government of the Conservatives and Liberal Democrats
in 2010, been under threat. A key strategy of the incoming Government has been the
adaptation of the ‘Third Way’ into a political vision labelled the ‘Big Society’. The
Conservative Party describes the aims of the Big Society as seeking to be a cheaper
alternative to an oversized and over-spending public sector; to drive change; and to
give voters greater power and information (Evans 2011). The implementation of the
Big Society vision is underpinned by the desire to devolve power and responsibility
from the State to individuals, neighbourhoods and the lowest tier of Government
(Evans 2011). Within this context, third sector organisations are expected to expand
their scope of activities to supplement and eventually replace the State in the field of
public service. Although this would seem to be a continuation of the Labour
Government’s policy to involve the third sector, in parallel to the advance of the Big
Society is a significant debt reduction policy. The coalition inherited a public deficit
of approximately £150 billion. Throughout 2010, a series of measures were
announced to reduce public borrowing by £113 billion by 2014–2015, including
£83 billion through funding cuts (Rogers 2010). These cuts averaged 19% across
each Government Department although there are considerable differences between
Departments: the Department of Health and the Department of Work and Pensions
received real-term increases in funding, whilst the Department of Communities and
Local Government lost 51% of their budget (Allen and Stratton 2010), with local
Governments hit by a 7.1% reduction. These cuts threaten the viability of third
sector organisations given their dependence on public funding (Evans 2011).
Within the charities sector, it has been noted that many organisations have
already been significantly affected (Evans 2011). Early figures indicate a loss of
funding from local authorities of £110 million, causing 2,200 charities to either
close or reduce their operations (Savage 2011). This situation mirrors the reduction
in Government spending on the third sector in the US in the early-1980s and mid-
1990s (Salamon 1999). Similarly, Struthers (2004) researched the financial vibrancy
of charitable organisations in Canada when the sector was growing and the
Government was downsizing. It was found that around 60% of charitable
organisations reported problems in reductions or the flow of funds and 25% of
those were ‘serious’. Despite the focus on the Big Society in the UK, there is
concern that the withdrawal of funding to the third sector will negatively impact
upon the survival ability of many charities (Young 2011; Evans 2011; Savage
2011).

123
Voluntas (2013) 24:606–629 613

Resource Dependence, Social Partnerships and CSR

Resource dependency theory offers an appropriate theoretical framework with

which to understand the current environment faced by charitable organisations.
Resource dependency theory is based on the premise that organisations are
dependent on other organisations that control critical resources (Pfeffer and
Salancik 1978). Effective organisations will strengthen relationships with sources of
dependence and/or modify the locus of their dependence in order to reduce
uncertainty in external environments and to survive (Froelich 1999, referring to
Pfeffer and Salancik 1978). The degree of dependence is determined by the
importance and concentration of its resources (Froelich 1999). For charitable
organisations, financial resources have been argued to be the critical factor
determining the activities of the organisation (Weisbrod 1998). As such, the issue of
resource dependency is clearly important to charitable organisations that are
dependent upon funding bodies and are less able to generate income from other
sources such as capital markets (Helmig et al. 2004). There are two implications
arising from this. First, it is important for charitable organisations to manage the
relationship with the funding organisations on which they are dependent. Second, it
requires that those responsible for the management of charities consider alternative
sources of funding in order to address resource dependency issues (Hodge and
Piccolo 2005).
This second implication and the extent to which charitable organisations
diversify revenue streams have been the focus of a small body of literature (Chang
and Tuckman 1994; Hager 2001; Young et al. 2010). Indeed, in a landscape of
limited Government funding, it has been argued that charitable organisations must
develop alternative funding sources to maintain and expand programs and services
(Doherty and Murray 2007). Whether revenue diversification is an appropriate
strategy for charitable organisations is debatable. Some argue that the additional
costs in pursuing other revenues are prohibitive, and that the lower administrative
costs associated with a limited revenue base are advantageous (Frumkin and
Keating 2002). Moreover, there have been concerns that the drive for additional
funds will lead to a shift in the overall purpose of the charity (Hutchison and Cairns
2010). Alternatively, Chang and Tuckman (1994) and Kingma (1993) claim that
revenue diversification is positively associated with long-term stability, and
Galaskiewicz and Bielefeld (1998) added that revenue diversification increases
organisational legitimacy. One particular way that many charities have sought to
diversify revenues has been to form social partnerships with commercial organi-
sations. A social partnership is a form of collaboration between organisations from
different economic sectors created to address social issues and within which there is
a shared understanding of responsibilities and a commitment of resources (Waddock
1988; Warhurst 2001; Selsky and Parker 2005). As mentioned above, the discourse
of partnerships have become a central tenet within public and social policy (Harris
2010; Alcock and Kendall 2011), and increasingly organisations have been
encouraged to consider cross-sector collaborations.
Whilst charitable organisations will, in the current funding climate, have to seek
additional revenue streams and resources to enable the continued delivery of

123
614 Voluntas (2013) 24:606–629

initiatives and expansion of operations (Demetriou et al. 2010), the appetite for
partnerships within the commercial sector is mutual. Increasingly, private compa-
nies have looked to third sector partnerships to address CSR agendas (Barone et al.
2000). From the company’s point of view, these partnerships are often termed as
cause-related marketing (CRM) (Hempel and Gard 2004) and are often considered
as part of a marketing strategy that combines their social responsibilities through
charitable sponsorships with fundraising and raising awareness for the charitable
organisation (Wu and Hung 2008). The benefits to companies are largely based on
the notion that identifying initiatives to form a long-term relationship (i.e. a social
partnership) can deliver more benefits than one-off donations (Demetriou et al.
2010). These benefits include increasing legitimacy, improving corporate image and
reputation, expanding the target market and offsetting Government regulation
(Varadarajan and Menon 1988; Sagawa and Segal 2000; Arya and Salk 2006; Porter
and Kramer 2006; Jamali and Keshishian 2009). For these reasons, many companies
are open to the development of a social partnership with a charitable organisation as
part of a long-term CSR strategy.
For charitable organisations, the benefit is principally through the provision of
funding and resources (Demetriou et al. 2010; File and Prince 1998) and the
opportunity to increase delivery of initiatives (Walters 2009). Importantly, Grau and
Folse (2007) noted that the charity has the opportunity to diversify its revenue
streams. Warneke (2005, in Thomas et al. 2010) acknowledged that an alliance with
a for-profit organisation can provide access to a network of future partners, whilst
Lafferty et al. (2004, in Du et al. 2008) found that attitudes towards a particular
cause were improved as a result of the partnership. Moreover, partnerships between
for-profit and not-for-profit organisations have been argued to provide the
opportunity to ‘infuse participants with greater incentives to be socially responsible’
(Arya and Salk 2006, p. 211).
Despite the fact that social partnerships have been described as ‘one of the most
exciting and challenging ways that organisations have been implementing CSR in
recent years’ (Seitanidi and Ryan 2007, p. 413), there are also a number of
challenges. They are considered high-risk and more challenging than other forms of
CSR (Harley and Warburton 2008; Jamali and Keshishian 2009). Andreasen (1996)
identified four potential risks for non-profit organisations including wasted
resources, reduced donations, a loss of organisational flexibility and tainted
partners. It has also been argued that the creation of partnerships requires a level of
commitment from both organisations over a number of years (Waddock 1988). This
may be difficult if the commercial organisation views the partnership as a short-term
arrangement: indeed much ‘corporate philanthropy’ is actual pseudo-altruism in that
it is commercially motivated (Collins 1994, in Polonsky and Speed 2001). The issue
of fit is also critical and there is a need for a strategic match between the activities of
the non-profit organisation and the commercial organisation in terms of mission,
target audience and/or values (Becker-Olsen and Hill 2006). A lack of fit can
adversely affect perceptions of both sponsor and the recipient charity. Thomas et al.
(2010) agreed adding that firms with high levels of compatibility between core
business and social activities are viewed favourably.

123
Voluntas (2013) 24:606–629 615

Managing the relationship between partners is also critical to the partnership, and
relational quality plays an important role in partner interactions (Ariño et al. 2005).
It has been suggested that partnerships formed around social issues are based more
on trust than power (Tomlinson 2005). Jamali et al. (2011) found that attributes of
trust, communication and coordination enhanced the quality of the relationship,
facilitated collaborative behaviour, reduced opportunism and led to new types of
association. This point is important in the context of social partnerships between
charities and commercial organisations. Where the commercial organisation is
funding a charity, the relationship can be viewed as a power relationship (Shaw and
Allen 2009). As such, it has been argued that non-profit organisations will be
constrained by the needs of the funder and the environment in which the funding
organisation exists (Salamon 1996). More specifically, in relation to CSR, there
have been some that have questioned whether it is appropriate for commercial
organisations to achieve their CSR objectives through non-profit (third sector)
organisations (Parkes and Harris 2008, in Harris 2010). Indeed, there are concerns
that fund recipients are not always at the centre of CSR campaigns (Liston-Heyes
and Liu 2010). The concern here is that the activities of the non-profit organisation
will be driven by the requirements of the funding organisation and there exists the
potential for a shift in the focus of the non-profit organisation (Shaw and Allen
2009). This particular criticism is not exclusive to charitable-commercial partner-
ships: it has also been argued that Government funding can also be detrimental
(Young and Salamon 2002). Charities therefore need to consider whether there are
any associated risks with a commercial partner, the impact on the organisation’s
autonomy and the predictability of the source of funding (Fischer et al. 2011;
Kingma 1993).

Method

This article is based on a two-staged mixed method approach. The first stage of
research involved the collection and analysis of the financial statements of
community sports trusts to explore revenue sources. The purpose of this was to
address the first research objective to illustrate the revenue mix at these
organisations and to determine the level of funding received from Government
sources and commercial organisations. The second stage involved a small number of
semi-structured interviews with senior staff at community sports trusts, together
with supporting secondary data, with the aim to explore whether community sports
trusts could diversify revenue streams by developing CSR partnerships with
commercial organisations. The mixed method has the central premise that, when
combined appropriately, the two approaches can together provide a better
understanding of the research problem than either alone (Creswell 2009).

Data Collection

Stage one of the data collection involved obtaining financial data from the published
accounts available on the website of the Charity Commission. In accordance with

123
616 Voluntas (2013) 24:606–629

the Charities Act 1993, all charitable organisations are required to prepare a
Trustees’ Annual Report which must be submitted to the Charity Commission if the
total income exceeds £25,000. The Charity Commission then makes each charity’s
accounts and Trustees’ Annual Report publicly available through each charity’s
profile. Of the 89 community sports trusts, appropriate accounts were not available
for 15: two were not submitted as in both cases the total income was not sufficient to
require full accounts; 11 related to newly registered charities such that accounts
were not yet required; and two were overdue, one of which related to a registered
community sports trust that had not yet submitted any annual accounts, whilst the
other related to a community sports trust that had submitted accounts up until year
ending 31 March 2008 but not since then—this was omitted from the analysis as the
period arguably does not reflect the current economic landscape. Accordingly the
final sample size was 74.
The second stage of data collection involved semi-structured interviews with five
senior staff at four community sports trusts. The advantages of conducting semi-
structured interviews are that they provide a better understanding of context,
facilitate the understanding of the motivating rationales behind behaviours and
actions, and give a better appreciation of the meanings that an interviewee may
attach to a particular issue (Easterby-Smith et al. 2008). Interviewees included two
chief executives, a joint managing director responsible for strategy, a community
director and a founder of a community sports trust. The selection of interviewees
was based on the data collected in stage one, therefore reflecting a purposive
sampling technique (Silverman 2001). The main criteria used for selection was total
income. It was decided to select community sports trusts that were in the upper
echelon of total income as the assumption was made that these would be
undertaking the widest range of activities and have the greatest resources available
and so be more able to engage commercial organisations. Total income at the four
community sports trusts was £1.22, £1.41, £2.29 and £3.45 m. Sponsorship income
from commercial organisations was also considered with the four community sports
trusts demonstrating considerable variations: two reported no sponsorship income,
one received £26,500 and the other reported £1.86 m from sponsorships.
Interviews were conducted between July 2011 and November 2011. Two were
conducted in person, and three were conducted over the telephone. Two interview
schedules were developed, one for the community sports trusts that had reported
income from sponsorship and one for those that had not. The questions attempted to
provide detail around the community sports trusts operations and organisational
structure that were not otherwise known from the review of secondary data, to
confirm the revenue mix at the community sports trusts, to consider the resources
available, to reveal any current reliance on grant funding, and to explore the
mechanisms in place to reduce reliance on grant funding, in particular the
opportunities for sponsorship arrangements with commercial organisations. Where
sponsorship arrangements were in place the questions focused on the terms and
timing of these agreements, the strength of relationship between the parties and any
challenges encountered. Whilst the interviews provided the primary form of data
secondary data was also collected and analysed. This included financial statements,
Trustees’ Annual Reports, information from each community sports trust’s website,

123
Voluntas (2013) 24:606–629 617

external affairs materials, newspaper articles and other publications. Secondary

source data were used to inform the development of interview questions, provide
background material in preparation for each interview, as well as triangulate the
interview response data.
It is recognised that there are a number of limitations with the data collection.
First, the choice of community sports trusts that had a significant level of total
income meant that small community sports trusts were not part of the interview
process and that they could also have provided an interesting perspective on the
issue of CSR partnerships. Second, whilst we support the interviews with secondary
data from each of the community sports trusts, we recognise that five interviews is a
small number with which to base our analysis. Although by no means a
representative sample, these interviews provide some exploratory insights into the
issue of social partnerships and CSR. Third, the use of the telephone interview in
qualitative research has been criticised for its failure to allow the interviewer to
develop rapport with the interviewee, to probe deeper on issues of interest, and
therefore compromise the interpretation of responses (Novick 2008). Fourth, with
annual accounts and interviews conducted within one particular year, this research
is representative of a particular point in time and, as such, offers a limited
understanding of longitudinal developments. For these reasons, the conclusions
offer exploratory insights that require further investigation.

Data Analysis

The analysis of the financial statements involved allocating the income of the
community sports trusts to five different streams as per the definitions of each
revenue type provided by the Charity Commission in their Statement of
Recommended Practices (Charity Commission 2005, pp. 19–23) (Table 1).
Analysing community sports trusts data based on these income allocations is
suitable given the specific definitions provided and the fact that community sports
trusts ought to have reported against these categories. Nevertheless, there are
problems inherent in such a reliance on these accounts. Particular issues were
encountered around interpreting whether grants are for general or specific purposes
and therefore voluntary or charitable activity income, and whether sponsorships are
classified as pure donations or in return for a good or service and so voluntary
income or income derived from activities for generating funds (trading income). For
instance, one community sports trust declared their grants in two forms: grants
received from charitable foundations and grants received for the provision of
services. Others, though, are not quite so clear and treat all income from grants
under activities for generating funds, or in the case of one, treat grant income
entirely as income relating to charitable activities. The detail in the accounts is often
minimal with limited explanation as to what organisations provide each type of
grant and whether these are restricted or unrestricted funds. Similar to grant funding
classifications, income from sponsors is often left undefined or combined with other
incomes with no details available. Assumptions can be made as to whether the
various income sources are restricted or unrestricted based on the presumption that

123
618 Voluntas (2013) 24:606–629

Table 1 Sources of revenue for charitable organisations

Revenue source

Voluntary income Resources generated from gifts and donations; grants of a general
nature from Government and charitable foundations; membership
subscriptions and sponsorships where these are essentially donations
rather than payment for goods or services; and gifts in-kind
Activities for generating funds Trading or other fundraising activities undertaken by the charity to
generate incoming resources to carry out its charitable activities.
Activities within this category require an element of exchange, such
that the charity receives income in return for providing a good or
service. These activities may include fundraising events, sponsorship
that is not pure donation, shop income, providing goods and services
other than for the benefit of the charity’s beneficiaries, or letting and
licensing arrangements of the charity’s property when temporarily
surplus to requirements
Investment income Derived from investment assets, including dividends, interest
receivable and rent
Incoming resources from Any resources generated through promoting the charity’s objects, such
charitable activities as the sales of goods or services as a charitable activity or provided by
the charity’s beneficiaries, letting of non-investment property in
carrying out the charity’s objects, or grants specifically for the
provision of goods or services as part of charitable activities or
services to beneficiaries
Other incoming resources Gains from the disposal of tangible fixed assets or any incoming
resources not included under the alternative categories

Source Charity Commission (2005, pp. 19–23)

community sports trusts are strictly adhering to the Charity Commission’s

definitions of income sources, but these are assumptions only.
The challenges in understanding and interpreting the accounts of the community
sports trusts further demonstrate that within the charities sector describing sources
of revenue is difficult (National Council for Voluntary Organisations 2009). As a
result of the above challenges, the decision was made to total all grant income,
regardless of source or classification, to find a total proportion of revenues received
from grant funding of any type. Similarly, the decision was made to total all
references to funding from partnerships or sponsors, including where it is reported
together with other types of fundraising. In this way, grant funding includes general
grants (voluntary) and those for specific purposes (charitable activity), covering
funding from both Government and other foundations. The total figures for
sponsorships include those that may be pure donations (voluntary) as well as those
in return for a good or service (trading) and include when sponsorship income was
reported with other income on one line. It should be noted that this means the
proportion of income from such sponsorships will be overestimated, rather than
underestimated, suggesting that any differences between grant and sponsorship
funding may be even more pronounced.
Beyond these issues, auditors may also classify types of revenues differently or
elect not to include particular types of revenue, resulting in a lack of homogeneity
and clarity as to how income sources are recorded across community sports trusts.

123
Voluntas (2013) 24:606–629 619

For instance, one community sports trust stated that the value of voluntary help
given by the trustees and other workers is not included in the financial statements,
whilst another declared such in-kind gifts as a voluntary incoming resource. These
issues have implications for the accuracy of the allocations; however, for the
purposes of this research it was important only to know the proportions of income
from grants and sponsorship which could then be explored in further detail through
the interviews. Accordingly, the above approach in summing for total grants and
total sponsorship income is appropriate in this instance.
Inductive thematic data analysis was adopted for the analysis of interview and
secondary source data. The literature review and stage one research informed the
research topic and key interview questions, but within that broad umbrella the
themes were analysed as they became evident; that is, the experience and responses
from the initial interviews served to inform patterns of inquiry for subsequent
interviews. The interview data were then compared and contrasted for similarities
and differences in an attempt to triangulate between cases and build a stronger
picture of the revenue opportunities across community sports trusts.

Results

Sources of Income

The first aim of this article is to illustrate the revenue mix at community sports trusts
and to determine the level of funding received from Government sources and
commercial organisations. The accounts revealed that the mean total income for the
74 community sports trusts was £678,936 (standard deviation £646,588). The
skewness measure of 1.79 indicates that the distribution is highly positively skewed;
this is supported by the median of £448,919 and the vast range: the maximum income
was £3,449,863, whilst the minimum was £32,919. The results show that whilst the
majority of community sports trusts tend to have income of up to £600,000 per
annum, the few that have higher levels of income positively skew the mean.
Table 2 splits the income of the community sports trusts into the five sources
noted above: voluntary income; activities for generating funds (trading activities
undertaken by the community sports trust to generate incoming resources to carry out
its charitable activities such as summer school coaching schemes); investment
income; income from charitable activities (such as grants received to deliver specific
community programmes) and other incoming resources. It illustrates that the mean
for voluntary income was £183,310. Overall, voluntary income accounted for
27.19% of all community sports trusts income; however, there were 22 that reported
no voluntary income. Of those that reported income from this source (n = 52), 16
community sports trusts reported that it accounted for more 50% of the total, and for
seven it accounted for more than 75%. The average proportion of total income for
these 52 community sports trusts was 31.06%, whilst the maximum was 99.98%.
The mean amount of income generated through activities for generating funds
(trading activities) was £85,872, which accounted for 12.74% of revenues overall.
Whilst the reported maximum income derived from activities for generating funds

123
620 Voluntas (2013) 24:606–629

Table 2 Sources of income for the 74 community sports trusts (£s)

Voluntary Activities for Investment Income from Other incoming
income generating funds income charitable activities resources

Mean 183,310 85,872 1,257 402,439 1,384

Maximum 2,956,479 2,287,687 17,895 1,695,761 61,595
Total 13,564,975 6,354,562 93,005 29,780,501 102,411
Percent of 27.19 12.74 0.19 59.69 0.21
total income

was £2,287,687, there were 40 community sports trusts that reported no income at
all. Of those that reported income from activities for generating funds (n = 34), the
average proportion of total income was 29.41%; seven community sports trusts
reported that it accounted for more than 50% of the total, whilst six reported it
accounted for more than 75%.
The mean income from charitable activities was £402,439. There were 11
community sports trusts that reported no income from charitable activities, whilst
the maximum was £1,695,761. Charitable activities accounted for 59.69% of the
total income reported across all community sports trusts. For those that relied on any
charitable activity income (n = 63), the average proportion of total revenues it
accounted for was 73.36%. Income from charitable activities accounted for more
than 50% of the total at 47 community sports trusts and more than 75% of the total
at 40 community sports trusts. The final two sources of income—investment and
other activities—only account for a small proportion of the total income of
community sports trusts. Table 2 illustrates that the mean income through
investment was £1,257 and accounted for 0.19% of all community sports trusts
income, whilst other incoming resources accounted for 0.21% of all community
sports trusts income, with a mean of £1,384 across the 74 community sports trusts.
Table 2 illustrates that income from charitable activities, voluntary income and
activities for generating funds (trading activities) are the key sources of revenue. Of
these, charitable activities (59.69%) accounts for over twice as much income from
than voluntary donations (27.19%) and almost five times more than activities for
generating funds (12.74%). It was found that the number of community sports trusts
that rely on charitable activity income for more than half of their total revenues (47) far
exceeds those that rely on either voluntary income (16) or on activities for generating
funds (7) for more than half of their total revenues. Over 75% (56) of community sports
trusts relied on activities for generating funds for between 0 and 10% of total income;
this compares to fewer than 18% (11) of community sports trusts that have a minimal
reliance on charitable activity income. Clearly, community sports trusts are relying
more on charitable activity income than other income sources.

Grant and Sponsorship Income

The annual accounts revealed that the mean amount of income generated though
grant funding was £213,557. The mean amount generated through sponsorships was

123
Voluntas (2013) 24:606–629 621

£38,676. The analysis of the financial statements revealed that 18 community sports
trusts reported no grant income whatsoever whilst a third of community sports trusts
(n = 25) stated that they received at most 10% of their total income from grants.
Nevertheless, such a limited reliance on grant funding is not widespread. Of those
that did receive grant income (n = 56), the average proportion of total income it
accounted for was 43.22%. At 24 community sports trusts, grant income accounted
for more than 50% of the total income and more than 80% of the total at six
community sports trusts. The maximum total income from grants was £1,169,669,
whilst the maximum proportion was 90.77%. Overall, grant income accounts for
31.45% of the total income for community sports trusts.
A total of 37 community sports trusts reported no sponsorship income at all, whilst
over 90% of community sports trusts (67) receive between 0 and 10% of their total
income from sponsorships. Only one community sports trust reported sponsorship
income that accounted for more than 50% of total revenues with the highest
proportion of 53.98%. Sponsorship income accounted for 5.70% of the total income
across all community sports trusts, whilst for those that did receive sponsorship
income (n = 37) the average proportion of total income it accounted for was 6.91%.
Given the inclusion of other incomes in the sponsorship allocation as detailed in the
method section, this proportion may even be higher than the actual figure. On
average, community sports trusts receive over six times the income from grant
funding (31.45%) than sponsorships (5.70%). It was also found that the number of
community sports trusts that rely on grant funding for more than half of their total
revenues (24) far exceeds those that rely significantly on sponsorships (one).
The figures reported above show community sports trusts receive on average a
small proportion of income through commercial sponsorships. The view of all the
interviewees was that there has been a heavy reliance on grant funding within the
community sports trust sector and that this would, in the future, be a particularly
risky strategy. For example, even at the community sports trust that acknowledged
they had a balanced income and were therefore less reliant on Government funding
compared to other trusts, the current political context and the reduction of local
authority budgets had left the trust feeling exposed. Nevertheless, due to the fact
they had been in existence for 6 years and had a balanced income, the trust had been
able to remain resilient in the face of Government cuts. The interviews also revealed
that there was a belief that the reliance on Government funding was an issue that
was affecting the broader charities sector and that too many were too heavily
dependent on Government grants. Both the analysis of the financial statements and
the interviews suggest that there is a need for community sports trusts to develop
alternative funding sources to maintain and expand programs and services.

Social Partnerships and CSR

The small level of income drawn from commercial sponsorships suggests that there
is the need for community sports trusts to seek to develop social partnerships with
commercial organisations to address CSR agendas. Three of the community trusts
interviewed revealed that they had implemented sponsorship and partnership
strategies as a core element of commercial growth, whilst the other had recently had

123
622 Voluntas (2013) 24:606–629

a primary sponsor, although income from these was not necessarily reported in the
financial statements due to the timing of the accounting period that was analysed.
Furthermore, all the interviewees revealed that their community sports trusts were
continually seeking new opportunities for sponsorship from commercial companies
and that the opportunity to take advantage of the prominence attached to CSR by
companies was important. Indeed, the community sports trusts had created different
levels of commercial partnership, from headline partnerships that appeal more to
larger organisations, to smaller scale partnerships. This enabled the trusts to target
different types of company, from nationally recognised organisations to smaller,
local or regional organisations. It was also found that two of the community sports
trusts were proactive in seeking out commercial organisations where they felt there
was an alignment with the activities of the commercial company and the specific
areas in which they deliver activities. Finding a strategic match between the
sponsoring firm and the charity in terms of mission, target audience and/or values, is
argued to lead to a more successful partnership (Becker-Olsen and Hill 2006;
Thomas et al. 2010). In these two cases, the fact that the community sports trusts
were seeking to identify appropriate commercial organisations is important as it
potentially enables the trust to obtain funding to continue to deliver programmes in
a particular area in which they have the expertise, knowledge and experience. It is
also beneficial for the commercial organisation in that it provides an opportunity for
programmes that fit the company’s CSR agenda and can enable the commercial
organisation to embed themselves within the community. Notwithstanding the
above, this income does not come without certain constraints: the existing
sponsorship agreements with the commercial partners enabled the commercial
organisations to request that their funds were used for specific projects and
initiatives and also to provide opportunities for employee volunteers to give their
time to these projects. It therefore demonstrates the potential for a loss of
organisational flexibility (Andreasen 1996).

Discussion

Government funding has been found to be a relatively significant source of finance

for community sports trusts. Although there are variations, with the analysis of the
financial statements revealing that some are more heavily reliant on Government
funding than others, given the current cuts in public sector spending this raises
concerns relating to the financial sustainability of community sports trusts. If a
community sports trust is faced with a significant reduction in finance, there is the
potential that it will constrain their ability to sustain the level of activities that they
currently deliver. The impact of a reduction in funding would be to scale back their
community activities. The interviews with community sports trust representatives
demonstrate a clear recognition that the current funding environment has the
potential to adversely impact on their finances and, in parallel with the arguments
made by Hutchison and Cairns (2010), the organisations in this study were found to
be responding to the current financial circumstances in two ways. Firstly, it was
found that these community sports trusts are seeking to reduce uncertainty by

123
Voluntas (2013) 24:606–629 623

diversifying their funding portfolio, with a focus on the private sector. The
respondents indicated that the community sports trusts were seeking to increase the
number of commercial sponsors in the hope that overall commercial income would
increase and that the programmes would become more sustainable. It was also clear
that they identify the development of social partnerships that address the CSR
agendas of commercial organisations as a way for them to continue to receive the
financial support necessary to deliver community-based activities.
The second response has been to undergo an organisational restructure. For
example, one community sports trust had implemented a major overhaul of the way
it was organised with the new departmental structure used as the basis for generating
funding through theme-based sponsorship (sports participation; education; health;
social inclusion). Another had implemented a similar theme-based programme to
attract funding, whilst one community sports trust had created a commercial
department to seek out new forms of revenue through sponsorships. This latter
strategy was unique: two of the community sports trusts revealed that they had
minimal resources to commit to finding sponsorship, with the task falling on the
Chief Executive. Although the need to develop additional sources of independent
funding and restructuring the organisation can be considered as distinct issues, it is
clear that in the case of the community sports trusts in this study, restructuring is
driven by the need to be more strategic and is intended to sharpen the organisational
focus on generating alternative sources of funding income.
Hutchison and Cairns (2010) argued that organisational restructuring was
necessary to increase awareness of the policy environment and to develop more of
an external focus and spend more time on marketing and developing links with other
organisations. Similarly, Froelich (1999) observed that organisations need to modify
their locus of reliance to survive. The three community sports trusts that are
restructuring are clearly aware of how the issue of survival for them is dependent
upon some level of restructuring, whilst all four community sports trusts are seeking
alternative revenue sources through CSR partnerships. These responses can be
understood within the context of resource dependency theory (Pfeffer and Salancik
1978) as it is evident that community sports trusts, in the current financial climate,
perceive the need to consider alternative sources of funding in order to reduce
uncertainty in external environments. Nevertheless, the development of social
partnerships with commercial organisations and increasing dependence on the
commercial sector for finance raises issues for community sports trusts.
Of particular interest is the nature of the relationship between the community
sports trust and the commercial organisation. It has been argued more broadly that
where the relationship between a charity and a commercial organisation is based on
the provision of funding, there are potential issues of power (Shaw and Allen 2009)
and the charity may potentially find itself constrained by the needs of the funder.
This was an issue that was recognised by the community sports trusts in the study as
it was stated that with a commercial organisation there is the potential for the
relationship to be scaled back as the sponsor’s position and strategies change.
Indeed, it was also stated at two of the community sports trusts that existing
sponsorship agreements with commercial partners enabled the commercial organ-
isations to request that their funds were used for specific projects and initiatives and

123
624 Voluntas (2013) 24:606–629

also to provide opportunities for employee volunteers to give their time to these
projects. Although this is not unexpected, and it was noted that there were
advantages in that sponsorship funding could potentially be unrestricted and did
provide organisational flexibility, it was also made clear that it was important to
ensure that the sponsor was satisfied and their objectives were met. These findings
have relevance for other community sports trusts as they need to be aware of these
types of issues if they are seeking to derive income from the commercial sector
through developing social partnerships. It may also be of relevance to other
charitable organisations when developing a social partnership around the issue of
CSR. For example, whether there is an impact on the organisation’s autonomy and a
possible shift in the overall purpose and focus of the charity are critical factors that
must be balanced against the need for additional funding through a commercial
partnership. Given the current funding climate, this could be a critical issue and it
may be that in order to survive, charities will indeed face difficulties in maintaining
an independent strategic vision (Hutchison and Cairns 2010).
Despite the potential for commercial influence, the community sports trusts in
this study have shown that they are seeking long-term CSR partnerships, with one
having signed a 10-year sponsorship deal. Indeed, it was stated that a long-term deal
would allow the sharing of resources between parties, the ability to seek guidance
from the commercial organisation on commercial operations, as well as the
community sports trust being in a position to share its expertise in engaging local
communities. Indeed, long-term social partnerships were advocated by Waddock
(1988) as they suggest a more meaningful commitment on the part of the
commercial organisation and encourage a reciprocal partnership approach that was
argued by Ning et al. (2006, in Du et al. 2008) to produce potential advantages for a
commercial organisation through obtaining social capital and learning from the
charitable organisation. Whether the development of a long-term CSR partnership is
a realistic prospect for the broader charities sector is unclear. For a community
sports trust, there is arguably more scope for the development of CSR partnerships
than other charitable organisations given that the association with a professional
football club provides a community sports trust with a greater profile than other
charitable organisations of similar size. This may lead to an enhanced ability for a
community sports trust to form long-term CSR partnerships when seeking to attract
funding.
Nevertheless, an issue that was identified that was specific to the community
sports trust model in the professional football industry that may impact on the
ability to develop a CSR partnership was the association that a trust maintains with a
football club. Although such an association can provide a community sports trust
and the football club with a range of benefits (Walters 2009), it was found that the
link to the club required a cautious approach to engaging commercial sponsorships.
This was underpinned by a concern that the community sports trust may undermine
the commercial sponsorship strategy of the football club and therefore it could
potentially have an effect on the number and type of commercial organisations that
a community sports trust can target. There were also concerns about the public
perception of a trust with the feeling that the association with a football club meant
that they were financially stable. This is not the case—many clubs provide little

123
Voluntas (2013) 24:606–629 625

financial support, if any, to the community sports trusts. Whilst independence is

advantageous in that the club’s direction has minimal impact on the activities of
trust, support of the club is also important. Many do provide support in-kind. For
example, the lack of resources to devote to attracting commercial sponsors could be
an area that the football club is able to offer support through providing access to
business networks or by the commercial team promoting the community sports trust
to potential sponsors that are interested in community initiatives. This requires a
good working relationship between the community sports trust and the club. It is
also dependent upon the circumstances of the football club: one of the interviewees
revealed that when the football club itself faced financial uncertainty the in-kind
support to the community sports trust was cut.
The relationship with a professional football club is a distinguishing feature of
the community sports trust model. An additional distinguishing characteristic is the
fact that many community sports trusts are relatively new organisations with the
majority having been in existence for less than 5 years. This demonstrates that the
vast majority are in an embryonic stage of development, illustrated by the survey
results that showed only a small percentage of income (0.19%) was generated
through investments and therefore community sports trusts have not had the time to
build endowments. Given that community sports trusts are in an early stage of
development and have not been in existence long enough to demonstrate longevity,
care must be taken when considering the broader implications around the issue of
financial sustainability. Nevertheless, like many charitable organisations, commu-
nity sports trusts are still facing financial challenges brought on by the changing
political context and therefore the issue of funding is as relevant to them as it is to
other charitable organisations.

Conclusion

This article has presented the results of a study that has considered the impact of
political change on the financial sustainability of community sports trusts associated
with Premier League and Football League clubs in England. It set out firstly to
illustrate the revenue mix at community sports trusts in order to determine the level
of funding received from Government sources and commercial organisations. The
second objective was to consider the potential for community sports trusts to
diversify revenue streams by developing social partnerships that address the CSR
agendas of commercial organisations. Despite a number of challenges in classifying
and allocating income to different revenue sources due to differences in definitions,
accounting processes, and lack of detail provided on grant providers and purposes,
the analysis of the financial accounts at 74 community sports trusts revealed that on
average community sports trusts receive a significant proportion of income from
grant funding whilst sponsorship income is relatively small. The interviews,
although by no means a representative sample, detail the experiences at four
community sports and demonstrate firstly that there is a perception that Government
funding cuts will adversely impact on the community sports trusts, and secondly
that there is a need to diversify revenue sources.

123
626 Voluntas (2013) 24:606–629

These findings suggest the need for community sports trusts to develop strategies
to attract commercial sponsorship income and that CSR offers a potential platform
to do so. Indeed, it was found that clear steps had been taken to position the
community sports trusts in such a way as to facilitate this process. This was based
on an understanding that CSR sponsorship has the potential to provide benefits to a
community sports trust including the provision of additional funding and resources,
financial stability and the expansion of operations. Nevertheless, a number of
challenges were identified. These include the nature of the relationship between the
commercial funder and community sports trust and the balance of power; the impact
on organisational flexibility; whether pursuing commercial sponsorship requires the
community sports trusts to restructure; and the need to focus on developing long-
term partnerships.
The findings from this article provide some exploratory insights into the issue of
social partnerships and CSR within a particular sub-sector of the charities sector in
which little research has been undertaken. Further in-depth qualitative research is
needed that takes a longitudinal perspective to understand the processes involved in
developing a CSR partnership. Moreover, research into the organisational structures
at community sports trusts could also help to determine whether they are appropriate
in a more competitive funding environment. This is a particularly relevant point
given the embryonic status of many of these organisations. This research has
provided an initial understanding of financial sustainability within community
sports trusts, and, although it has been shown that community sports trusts
demonstrate certain features that distinguish them from many charitable organisa-
tions, there is potential relevance for the broader charities sector given the
importance of CSR partnership income (Demetriou et al. 2010; Barrett 2011).
Nevertheless, these distinguishing features mean that care must be taken when
considering the relevance of the findings for the broader charities sector.

References

Alcock, P., & Kendall, J. (2011). Constituting the third sector: Processes of decontestation and contention
under the UK labour governments in England. VOLUNTAS: International Journal of Voluntary and
Nonprofit Organizations, 22(3), 450–469.
Allen, P., & Stratton, A. (2010, October 20). Spending review 2010: The winners and losers. The
Guardian.
Andreasen, A. R. (1996). Profits for non-profits: Find a corporate partner. Harvard Business Review, 74,
47–55.
Ariño, A., de la Torre, J., & Ring, P. S. (2005). Relational quality and inter-personal trust in strategic
alliances. European Management Review, 2(1), 15–27.
Arya, B., & Salk, J. E. (2006). Cross-sector alliance learning and effectiveness of voluntary codes of
corporate social responsibility. Business Ethics Quarterly, 16(2), 211–234.
Barone, M. J., Miyazaki, A. D., & Taylor, K. A. (2000). The influence of cause-related marketing on
consumer choice: Does one good turn deserve another? Journal of the Academy of Marketing
Science, 28(2), 248–262.
Barrett, H. (2011, July 26). Charity funding: How to approach business for help. The Guardian.
Becker-Olsen, K. L., & Hill, R. P. (2006). The impact of sponsor fit on brand equity: The case of
nonprofit service providers. Journal of Service Research, 9(1), 73–83.

123
Voluntas (2013) 24:606–629 627

Bennett, R. (2008). Marketing of voluntary organizations as contract providers of national and local
government welfare services in the UK. VOLUNTAS: International Journal of Voluntary and
Nonprofit Organizations, 19(3), 268–295.
Brown, A., Crabbe, T., Mellor, G., Blackshaw, T., & Stone, C. (2006). Football and its Communities:
Final Report, The Football Foundation and Manchester Metropolitan University.
Carroll, D. A., & Stater, K. J. (2009). Revenue diversification in nonprofit organisations: Does it lead to
financial stability? Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 19(4), 947–966.
Chang, C., & Tuckman, H. (1994). Revenue diversification among nonprofits. VOLUNTAS: International
Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit Organizations, 5(3), 273–290.
Charity Commission. (2005). Accounting and reporting by charities: Statement of recommended practice.
London: Charity Commission.
Chew, C., & Osborne, S. P. (2009). Exploring strategic positioning in the UK charitable sector: Emerging
evidence from charitable organizations that provide public services. British Journal of Management,
20(1), 90–105.
Collins, M. (1994). Global corporate philanthropy and relationship marketing. European Management
Journal, 12(2), 226–233.
Creswell, J. W. (2009). Research design, qualitative, quantitative and mixed methods approaches.
Thousand Oaks: Sage.
Crittenden, W. F. (2000). Spinning straw into gold: The tenuous strategy, funding, and financial
performance linkage. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 29(1), 164–182.
Demetriou, M., Papasolomou, I., & Vrontis, D. (2010). Cause-related marketing: Building the corporate
image while supporting worthwhile causes. Journal of Brand Management, 17, 266–278.
Doherty, A., & Murray, M. (2007). The strategic sponsorship process in a nonprofit sport organization.
Sport Marketing Quarterly, 16(1), 49–59.
Du, L., Hou, J., & Huang, Y. (2008). Mechanisms of power and action for cause-related marketing:
Perspectives of enterprise and non-profit organizations. Baltic Journal of Management, 3(1),
92–104.
Easterby-Smith, M., Thorpe, R., & Jackson, P. R. (2008). Management research (3rd ed.). London: Sage.
Evans, K. (2011). ‘Big society’ in the UK: A policy review. Children and Society, 25, 164–175.
File, K. M., & Prince, R. A. (1998). Cause related marketing and corporate philanthropy in the privately
held enterprise. Journal of Business Ethics, 17(14), 1529–1539.
Fischer, R. L., Wilsker, A., & Young, D. R. (2011). Exploring the revenue mix of nonprofit organizations:
Does it relate to publicness? Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 40(4), 662–681.
Froelich, K. A. (1999). Diversification of revenue strategies: Evolving resource dependence in nonprofits
organizations. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 28(3), 246–268.
Frumkin, P., & Keating, E. K. (2002). The risks and rewards of nonprofit revenue concentration. Paper
presented at the ARNOVA annual conference, Montreal, QC, Canada.
Galaskiewicz, J., & Bielefeld, W. (1998). Nonprofit organizations in an age of uncertainty. New York:
Aldine De Gruyter.
Grau, S. L., & Folse, J. A. G. (2007). Cause-related marketing: The influence of donation proximity and
message-framing cues on the less-involved consumer. Journal of Advertising, 36(4), 19–33.
Hager, M. A. (2001). Financial vulnerability among arts organizations: A test of the Tuckman–Chang
measures. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 30(2), 376–392.
Hansmann, H. B. (1980). The role of nonprofit enterprise. Yale Law Journal, 89, 835–898.
Harley, M., & Warburton, J. (2008). Risks to business in social involvement: An Australian case example.
Journal of Corporate Citizenship, 29, 49–60.
Harris, M. (2010). Third sector organizations in a contradictory policy environment. In D. Billis (Ed.),
Hybrid organizations and the third sector (pp. 25–45). Basingstoke: Palgrave MacMillan.
Helmig, B., Jegers, M., & Lapsley, I. (2004). Challenges in managing nonprofit organizations: A research
overview. VOLUNTAS: International Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit Organizations, 15(2),
101–116.
Hempel, J., & Gard, L. (2004, November 29). The corporate givers. Business Week, pp. 100–104.
Hodge, M. M., & Piccolo, R. R. (2005). Funding source, board involvement techniques, and financial
vulnerability in nonprofit organizations: A test of resource dependence. Nonprofit Management and
Leadership, 16(2), 171–190.
Hodgkinson, V., Weitzmann, M., Abrahams, J. A., Crutchfield, E. A., & Stevenson, D. R. (1996).
Nonprofit almanac 1996–1997. Washington: Independent Sector.

123
628 Voluntas (2013) 24:606–629

Hutchison, R., & Cairns, B. (2010). Community anchor organizations: Sustainability and independence.
In D. Billis (Ed.), Hybrid organizations and the third sector (pp. 134–152). Basingstoke: Palgrave
MacMillan.
Jamali, D., & Keshishian, T. (2009). Uneasy alliances: Lessons learned from partnerships between
businesses and NGOs in the context of CSR. Journal of Business Ethics, 84(2), 277–295.
Jamali, D., Yianni, M., & Abdallah, H. (2011). Strategic partnerships, social capital and innovation:
Accounting for social alliance innovation. Business Ethics: A European Review, 20(4), 375–391.
Kendall, J. (2003). The voluntary sector. London: Routledge.
Kingma, B. R. (1993). Portfolio theory and nonprofit financial stability. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector
Quarterly, 22(2), 105–119.
Lafferty, B. A., Goldsmith, R. E., Tomas, G., & Hult, M. (2004). The impact of the alliance on the
partners: A look at cause-brand alliances. Psychology and Marketing, 21(7), 509–527.
Lewis, J. (2005). New labour’s approach to the voluntary sector: Independence and the meaning of
partnership. Social Policy and Society, 4(2), 121–131.
Liston-Heyes, C., & Liu, G. (2010). Cause-related marketing in the retail and finance sectors: An
exploratory study of the determinants of cause selection and nonprofit alliances. Nonprofit and
Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 39(1), 77–101.
Lusted, J., & O’Gorman, J. (2010). The impact of new labour’s modernisation agenda on the English
grass-roots football workforce. Managing Leisure, 15(1/2), 140–154.
Mellor, G. (2008). The Janus-faced sport: English football, community and the legacy of the ‘third way’.
Soccer and Society, 9(3), 313–324.
Moore, M. H. (2000). Managing for value: Organizational strategy in for-profit, nonprofit, and
governmental organizations. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 29(1), 183–204.
National Council for Voluntary Organisations. (2009). The state and the voluntary sector: Recent trends
in government funding and public service delivery. London: National Council for Voluntary
Organisations.
National Council for Voluntary Organisations. (2011). Charity forecast: A quarterly survey of sector
leaders, December 2011. London: National Council for Voluntary Organisations.
Ning, C., Hu, Y., & Zhang, B. (2006). Mechanisms of obtaining corporate competitive advantage by
collaborating with nonprofit organizations. Studies in Science of Science, 24(3), 339–343.
Novick, G. (2008). Is there a bias against telephone interviews in qualitative research? Research in
Nursing & Health, 31(4), 391–398.
Parkes, C., & Harris, M. (2008). Corporate responsibility, ethics and strategic HRM in Aston Centre for
Human Resources. In Strategic human resource management: Building research based practice
(pp. 296–326). London: Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development.
Pfeffer, J., & Salancik, G. R. (1978). The external control of organizations. New York: Harper and Row.
Polonsky, M. J., & Speed, R. (2001). Linking sponsorship and cause related marketing: Complementaries
and conflicts. European Journal of Marketing, 35(11/12), 1361–1385.
Porter, M. E., & Kramer, M. R. (2006). Strategy and society: The link between competitive advantage and
corporate social responsibility. Harvard Business Review, 84, 78–92.
Powell, M. (Ed.). (2007). Understanding the mixed economy of welfare. Bristol: The Policy Press.
Ramesh, R. (2010, October 20). Spending review 2010: Key points at a glance. The Guardian.
Rogers, S. (2010, October 19). Comprehensive spending review: What is the £83 bn? The Guardian.
Sagawa, S., & Segal, E. (2000). Common interest, common good: Creating value through business and
social sector partnerships. Boston: Harvard Business School Press.
Salamon, L. M. (1996). The crisis of the nonprofit sector and the challenge of renewal. National Civic
Review, 85(4), 3–17.
Salamon, L. (1999). The non-profit sector at a crossroads: The case of America. VOLUNTAS:
International Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit Organizations, 10(1), 5–23.
Savage, M. (2011, August 2). Council’s cuts to 2,200 charities undermine Big Society. The Times.
Seitanidi, M., & Ryan, A. (2007). A critical review of forms of corporate community involvement: From
philanthropy to partnerships. International Journal of Non-profit and Voluntary Sector Marketing,
12(3), 247–266.
Selsky, J. W., & Parker, B. (2005). Cross-sector partnerships to address social issues: Challenges to
theory and practice. Journal of Management, 31(6), 1–25.
Sesnan, M. (2001). Greenwich Leisure Limited—the ‘third way’: From cuts and closures to expansion
and success. Journal of Leisure Property, 1(3), 220–226.

123
Voluntas (2013) 24:606–629 629

Shaw, S., & Allen, J. B. (2009). ‘‘To be a business and to keep our humanity’’: A critical management
studies analysis of the relationship between a funder and nonprofit community organizations.
Nonprofit Management and Leadership, 20(1), 83–96.
Silverman, D. (2001). Interpreting qualitative data: Methods for analysing talk, text and interaction.
London: Sage.
Staples, C. (2004). What does corporate social responsibility mean for charitable fundraising in the UK?
International Journal of Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Marketing, 9(2), 154–158.
Stewart, J. (2007). The mixed economy of welfare in historical context. In M. Powell (Ed.),
Understanding the mixed economy of welfare (pp. 26–40). Bristol: The Policy Press.
Struthers, M. (2004). Supporting financial vibrancy in the quest for sustainability in the not-for-profit
sector. The Philanthropist, 19(4), 241–260.
Thomas, M. L., Mullen, L. G., & Fraedrich, J. (2010). Increased word-of-mouth via strategic cause-
related marketing. International Journal of Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Marketing, 16(1),
36–49.
Tomlinson, F. (2005). Idealistic and pragmatic versions of the discourse of partnership. Organization
Studies, 26(8), 1169–1188.
Varadarajan, P. R., & Menon, A. (1988). Cause-related marketing: A co-alignment of marketing strategy
and corporate philanthropy. Journal of Marketing, 52(3), 58–74.
Waddock, S. (1988). Building successful partnerships (pp. 17–23). Summer: Sloan Management Review.
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.
Walters, G., & Chadwick, S. (2009). Corporate citizenship in football: Delivering strategic benefits
through stakeholder engagement. Management Decision, 47(1), 51–66.
Warhurst, A. (2001). Corporate citizenship and corporate social investment: Drivers of tri-sector
partnerships. Journal of Corporate Citizenship, 1(1), 57–73.
Warneke, K. (2005). Keeping tabs at the Ronald McDonald house in Omaha: How a nonprofit garnered
press attention. Public Relations Tactics, 12(8), 19.
Weisbrod, B. A. (Ed.). (1998). To profit or not to profit. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Wu, S., & Hung, J. (2008). A performance evaluation model of CRM on non-profit organisations. Total
Quality Management, 19(4), 321–342.
Young, N. (2011, August 3). The Big Society is dying the death of a thousand cuts. The Times.
Young, N., & Salamon, L. (2002). Commercialization, social ventures and for-profit competition. In
L. Salamon (Ed.), The state of nonprofit America (pp. 122–140). Washington, DC: The Brookings
Institution.
Young, D. R., Wilsker, A. L., & Grinsfelder, M. C. (2010). Understanding the determinants of nonprofit
income portfolios. Voluntary Sector Review, 1(2), 161–173.
Zappala, G., & Lyons, M. (2006). Factors associated with fundraising dependency among nonprofit
organisations in Australia. Journal of Social Issues, 41(4), 399–417.

123