6BU004 Corporate Social Responsibility and ethics
6BU004 Corporate Social Responsibility and ethics
LO1 Analyse concepts and theories of Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) and business ethics.
LO2 Discuss the relevance of ethical and CSR concepts in organisational contexts. ?
LO3 Differentiate CSR issues from the perspective of different stakeholders.
LO4 Evaluate the outcomes of CSR strategies and provide reasoned predictions on the future use of CSR, and ethical perspectives, within organisational policy making. ?
Assessment types Weightings (%) Essay
Assessment type, weighting and LOs tested by this assessment indicated in far Right hand column above
Mode of Working: individual
Requirement to pass: 40%
Hand in date 9th May 2016 by 23.59
Date you will receive feedback 6th June 2016
Resit/retrieval date July 2016
Assessment limits (in accordance with UWBS assessment tariff)
Between 3000 and 5000 words.
Always keep a copy of your work. Always keep a file of working papers (containing for instance copied journal article and early drafts of your work, etc.) that show the development of your work and the sources you have used.
Explanation of submission requirements and further guidance
• The assessment for this module is subject to a word limit to ensure consistency of approach across all modules. Your work should not exceed the limit indicated (excluding appendices). Do not feel that you have to “achieve” this word count in your work. What is important is that the work satisfies the stated learning outcomes which are articulated through the assessment criteria (see following).
• The requirement to keep a file of working papers is important. There may be circumstances where it is difficult to arrive at a mark for your work. If this is so you may be asked to submit your file within 3 working days and possibly meet with your tutor to answer questions on your submission.
• In the case of paper copy submissions you may also be required to submit an electronic copy of your work.
• Once your work has been marked, a sample of all work submitted will be checked by another lecturer and then will be subject to further moderation by an independent expert from outside the University.
• Your work will not be returned to you but you will receive detailed feedback explaining how your grade has been arrived at and how your work could have been improved upon.
• Always use of the Harvard style referencing system. The University’s Learning Information Services have produced a series of guides covering a range of topics to support your studies and develop your academic skills including a guide to Harvard referencing http://www.wlv.ac.uk/lib/skills_for_learning/study_guides.aspx
• Expensive or elaborate bindings and covers of written submissions are not required in most instances. (Refer to guidelines however in the case of dissertations).
Avoid academic misconduct
Warning: Collusion, plagiarism and cheating are very serious offences that can result in a student being expelled from the University. The business school has a policy of actively identifying students who engage in academic misconduct of this nature and routinely applying detection techniques including the use of sophisticated software packages.
Avoid Collusion: The business school encourages group working, however to avoid collusion always work on your own in order to complete your individual assessments. Do not let fellow students have access to your work before it is submitted and do not be tempted to access the work of others. Refer to your module tutor if you do not understand or you need further guidance.
Avoid Plagiarism: You must use available and relevant literature to demonstrate your knowledge of a subject, however to avoid plagiarism you must take great care to acknowledge it properly. You should therefore always use of the Harvard style referencing system in all cases. Plagiarism is the act of stealing someone else’s work and passing it off as your own. This includes incorporating either unattributed direct quotation(s) or substantial paraphrasing from the work of another/others. For this reason it is important that you cite all the sources whose work you have drawn on and reference them fully in accordance with the Harvard referencing standard. (This includes citing any work that you may have submitted yourself previously). Extensive direct quotations in assessed work is ill advised because I t represents a poor writing style that is unlikely to meet the pass grade marking criteria, and it could lead to omission errors and a plagiarism offence could be committed accidentally.
Avoid the temptation to cheat: There are temptations on the internet for you to take short cuts. Do not be tempted to either commission work to be completed on your behalf or search for completed past academic work.
Electronic Cover Sheet
• Please complete and insert this form as the first page of your electronic submission.
• Submit the assignment with attached coversheet electronically through the Wolf E-submission gateway
• Please make sure you keep a copy of your assignment.
Student Number Email
Module name Corporate Social Responsibility and ethics Module Code 6BU004
For the attention of William Scarff
Due date 9th May 2016
Assignment title FIFA case study
All forms of plagiarism, cheating and unauthorized collusion are regarded seriously by the University and could result in penalties including failure in the unit and possible exclusion from the University. If you are in doubt, please read the following web page.
By submitting this assignment, I SIGNAL & DECLARE my knowledge and agreement to the following: – where I have indicated, the work I am submitting in this assignment is my own work and has not been submitted for assessment in another unit or for any other purpose. This work conforms to the instructions and submission guidelines as contained in the assessment briefing and the module guide respectively.
This submission complies with University of Wolverhampton policies regarding plagiarism, cheating and collusion.
I acknowledge and agree that the assessor of this assignment may, for the purpose of assessing this assignment:
• Reproduce this assignment and provide a copy to another academic staff member; and/or
• Communicate a copy of this assignment to a plagiarism-checking service. This web-based service will retain a copy of this work for subsequent plagiarism checking, but has a legal agreement with the University that it will not share or reproduce it in any form.
I have retained all assignment drafts, papers, materials and a copy of this assignment for my own records.
I will retain a copy of the notification of receipt of this assignment.
Assessment Brief/ Task
The detailed requirements for this task are as follows:
FIFA Case Study for 6BU004
In this case study you are required to apply ethics and csr theory to the football organisation, FIFA. You will lose marks if you refer often to the difficulties involved in the management of large international organisations.
REMEMBER this module is about ethics and corporate social responsibility, so use the WOLF material thoroughly as well as applying other academic sources. There are compulsory questions at the end of the case.
IMPORTANT note from William Scarff, module leader. Due to the evolving nature of the crises at FIFA, I shall place extra information in the section ‘Supplementary information’ at the end of the case study, before the compulsory questions. This information will be made available by about 4th March. No developments after that date will be included.
In the early hours of 27th May 2015, Swiss police raided the luxury Baur au Lac Hotel in Zurich. Their targets were senior figures in one of the largest, most powerful, and allegedly corrupt organisations in the world. But this was not a criminal gang, nor was it the Italian mafia: it was the Fédération Internationale de Football Association, known globally as FIFA. The following case study covers four key ethical themes in relation to what has become known as the ‘FIFA scandal’, namely leadership ethics, corporate governance, stakeholder perspectives, and organisational context.
FIFA was founded in 1904 and currently comprises 209 national football associations from within six regional confederations: Africa, Asia, Europe, North & Central America and the Caribbean, Oceania and South America. It is a registered charity, established under Swiss law, with headquarters in Zurich. It generates income from sponsorship. In 2013 it had revenues of more than $1.3 billion, resulting in a net profit of $72 million, and retained cash reserves in excess of $1.4 billion. The association is led by an Executive Committee composed of 24 individuals: the President, 8 vice-presidents and 15 members; and daily administration is undertaken by the General Secretariat, with a staff of around 280, under the leadership of the President and General Secretary. Remuneration for the presidency in 2011 was approximately 2 million Swiss francs, (about $ 2million) with 1.2 million Swiss francs /dollars in salary plus bonuses.
The supreme body is the FIFA Congress, an assembly of national representatives, within which each member has one vote, regardless of their country’s population or team ranking. Congress meets in ordinary session once a year and has held additional extraordinary sessions each year since 1998, to make decisions in relation to FIFA’s governing statutes, approval of annual reports, acceptance of new members, and Congress holds elections for Executive Committee roles, including the President. The international structure of the organisation includes operational committees, under Executive authority or created as standing committees by Congress, with responsibility for key issues such as finance, discipline and refereeing. Results are published under the International Financial Reporting Standards (IFRS).
The remit, the task of FIFA, is to organise and promote international tournaments such as the World Cup – including making decisions as to where they are held. FIFA also organises the Confederations Cup, and football within the Olympics. It takes an active role in the running and development of football globally, and has the power to suspend members, for example when they are not functioning properly or when national governments are deemed to be interfering, but the ‘rules’ of the game are controlled externally by the International Football Association Board. IFAB includes four FIFA members and four representatives from the England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland football associations respectively.
With little or even no public warning, the US Department of Justice accused FIFA of corruption on a large scale. Revelations and arrests came in May 2015. A Swiss police raid on FIFA’s headquarters quickly followed. Little of all this is new: such raids have not been the first in FIFA’s recent history. Indeed in the 17 year leadership of current President and Swiss national Joseph ‘Sepp’ Blatter, the organisation has been dogged by accusations, from mismanagement to criminal activity. In 2006, journalist Andrew Jennings published a book detailing an alleged cash-for-contracts scandal following the collapse of FIFA’s marketing partner ISL and vote-rigging in presidential elections. ( Andrew Jennings ‘The Dirty Game’ and in 2015 he published ‘The secret world of FIFA’)
A subsequent Panorama documentary revealed that Sepp Blatter was being investigated by the Swiss police over a secret deal to repay more than £1m of bribes pocketed by football officials. Lord Triesman, former chairman of the English FA, described FIFA as an organisation that “behaves like a mafia family”, highlighting “decades-long traditions of bribes, bungs and corruption”.
Four years later, Panorama alleged that three senior officials had been paid huge bribes by ISL between 1989 and 1999, and another had been repeatedly involved in reselling World Cup tickets to touts, which FIFA failed to investigate because it had not been told about it by “official channels”. The latter exposé also criticised the organisation for requiring nations bidding to be tournament hosts to implement special laws which gave blanket tax exemptions to FIFA and its sponsors. The confidentiality of the bidding process should have included this clause, but the Dutch government refused to agree to the laws and revealed them, thus adversely affecting its bid. Andrew Jennings was banned from all FIFA press conferences following the 2006 programme. In 2011, the International Olympic Committee started proceedings against honorary FIFA president João Havelange for bribery, specifically that he accepted a $1m ‘bung’ from ISL in 1997.
Later that year, an independent governance committee convened by FIFA, and chaired by Professor Mark Pieth, claimed progress had been made on key areas of reform but called for further progress on the introduction of term limits, integrity checks for Executive Committee members and more transparency on salaries. He predominantly blamed UEFA for the lack of progress on these salaries and praised Blatter in interviews to support publication of the final report, saying “the prospects for reform are probably at their greatest if Blatter wins more time.” Head of the Swiss branch of anti-corruption NGO Transparency International, Eric Martin said “he has had 17 years”.
Throughout his tenure Sepp Blatter has remained a controversial figure, with an obvious passion for football, FIFA and his role, but he has often been outspoken and has been criticised for the inappropriateness of comments. These include the suggestion that female footballers should play in tighter shorts to increase the popularity of the women’s game; he could understand if match-fixing happened in Africa but not Italy; England captain John Terry would have been applauded in some countries for having an extra-marital affair; on the field racism should be settled with a handshake; and gay fans should refrain from having sex in Qatar. His tenacity was highlighted when he likened himself to a mountain goat, saying “I cannot be stopped, I just keep going” but was challenged when he stated he would “not forget” UEFA’s threat to boycott the World Cup if he did not step down in the face of the recent scandal.
The most recent allegations, however, relate to two separate but interlinked scandals, the first a wide-reaching, three-year FBI investigation which led the US Department of Justice to issue a 47-count indictment for fourteen individuals, relating primarily to bribes for commercial deals relating to US and Latin American tournaments from the 1990s to the present day. Nine current and former FIFA officials were named, included vice-president and president of CONCACAF Jeffrey Webb, and his predecessor Jack Warner, who were charged with corruption. Their General Secretary, Charles ‘Chuck’ Blazer had already pleaded guilty, as had his two sons. Sepp Blatter was not arrested or indicted, but the Swiss attorney-general said he could not rule out later interviews.
Through participation in the alleged 24-year ‘scheme’, the perpetrators were described as “enriching themselves through the corruption of international soccer”, whilst it was defined within documents as fostering “a culture of corruption and greed” and it was suggested that “undisclosed and illegal payments, kickbacks and bribes became a way of doing business at FIFA”. Specific details included payments of “well over $150m” in bribes from US/South American marketing executives to secure lucrative marketing and media rights to international matches and tournaments in the region, but also alleged further possible corruption around the world.
The core pivotal issues have been the charges that there was a $10m deal which prosecutors alleged was a bribe to secure the 2010 World Cup in South Africa, with newspaper reports of an email outlining a deal between Blatter and then South African president Thabo Mbeki. The message sent from FIFA general secretary Jerome Valke to a government minister, queried the date of payment and referred to Blatter-Mbeki discussions. In response the South African government said it was a legitimate payment to promote Caribbean football, but documents seen by the BBC suggested that Jack Warner used it for cash withdrawals, personal loans and to launder money. Chuck Blazer was also charged, along with others on the Executive Committee, for accepting bribes to ensure the selection of the country as host.
Although ground operations were executed within Switzerland, the action was very much led by the Americans, on the Department of Justice premise that although the crimes were of a global nature, the planning process was carried out in the US, with the use of US banks to transfer money key to the investigation. Whilst media coverage in the EU remained intense, there was little discussion elsewhere, with a feeling that the lack of political links between those arrested both facilitated the prosecution process and accounted for a lack of public interest. One criticism was of the scope of US ‘leadership’ in the matter via extraterritorial jurisdiction, the legal ability of a government to exercise authority beyond its normal boundaries, with Russian president Vladimir Putin asking “what business is this of America”.
In terms of the second scandal to rock the organisation, within hours of the first police raid Swiss authorities also announced that were opening criminal proceedings to consider the awarding of hosting rights to Russia and Qatar, for the World Cup 2018 and 2022 respectively. As part of an investigation into “criminal mismanagement” and “money laundering”, based on electronic data seized from FIFA headquarters later the same day, they expressed their intent to question ten Executive Committee members who took part in the voting process in December 2010.
Doubts had already been raised about the legitimacy of the 2010 vote and so in 2012, in an attempt to address accusations, FIFA hired former US prosecutor Michael Garcia to investigate allegations of bribery. But following a two-year enquiry, the decision was made in December 2014 not to release the full report, but instead to publish an executive summary compiled by chairman of the FIFA ethics committee Hans-Joachim Eckert which cleared the hosts of wrongdoing, exonerated the bidding process and reported “no major irregularities”. In response Michael Garcia resigned, and released his own statement saying the summary “contained numerous materially incomplete and erroneous representations”.
Six months earlier, the Sunday Times had also alleged that former FIFA vice-president Mohamed bin Hamman had paid £3 million to football officials to gain support for the Qatari bid, and used contacts within the Qatar royal family and government to broker commercial deals with representatives from Thailand and Germany. He had also arranged meetings between Sepp Blatter and the royal family, and the Qatari bid team and president of the UEFA Michel Platini, and discussed “bilateral relations” between Russia and Qatar with Vladimir Putin just prior to the vote in 2010. Mohamed Bin Hamman was subsequently banned from football for life in 2012 for his part in another corruption scandal.
Concerns had also been raised in respect of the countries who bid successfully, to be able to host the forthcoming tournaments. Russia already had a problem with significant racism in domestic football and discrimination against LGBT people in society generally, but more recently, it faced condemnation from around the globe for its military action in Ukraine, and its alleged involvement in the shooting down of a Malaysian passenger plane. Climate was an initial worry with regard to Qatar, with clubs then objecting to a move to a winter tournament to address this, but further outcry related to the treatment of workers on World Cup facilities, and general apprehension over cultural differences such as the banning of alcohol and prohibition of homosexuality that would affect visiting fans.
Unsurprisingly, there was widespread response to the combined scandals, initially from Walter De Gregorio, FIFA’s communications director who suggested that “this is good for FIFA… it hurts, it is not easy, but it confirms we are on the right track”. He said Blatter was at the time “very calm” and “is fully co-operating” but “not dancing in his office”, and insisted the organisation was committed to reform. A further written FIFA statement welcomed “actions that can help contribute to rooting out any wrongdoing in football”. UEFA said it was “astonished and saddened by the events”, whilst here in the UK, the FA said that events were “very serious for FIFA and its current leadership”.
Corporate sponsors also expressed their views with Adidas stating that “the negative tenor of the public debate around FIFA at the moment is neither good for football nor for FIFA and its partners”; Coca-Cola noting “anything that detracts from the mission and ideals of the FIFA World Cup is a concern to us”; and Hyundai/Kia declaring “we are confident that FIFA is taking these allegations seriously and that the investigatory chamber of the FIFA ethics committee will conduct a thorough investigation”. Sony and Visa also issued statements, but Emirates declined to comment. Former England captain Gary Lineker tweeted “There can’t be a more corrupt, deplorable organisation on earth than FIFA. The house of cards is falling. Time for change!”… “This is extraordinary! FIFA is imploding. The best thing that could possibly happen to the beautiful game.”
Three days after the raids, and despite numerous calls to postpone the presidential elections, Sepp Blatter was voted back into post for a fifth term, declaring “I am the president now, the president of everybody”. Tom Fordyce Chief Sports Writer BBC Sport 2nd June 2015. But as pressure increased and confirmation that the FBI was widening its investigation, he made an announcement four days later on 2nd June that he would be stepping down “when a successor is chosen”. He stated that he would remain in post until the election, the date for which was later set for 26th February 2016, and until then would be “working on reforms” at FIFA.
But on 25th September, only three months later, the BBC reported in its 10 pm news bulletin that Swiss authorities had arrested and then released Sepp Blatter on bail for ‘criminal mismanagement and misappropriation’ of FIFA funds. His successor Michel Platini has also been implicated in corruption.
Clearly this story has a long way to run yet……
Supplementary Information to be added by 4th March.
You may use this information with the case study above.
If you do need help and guidance please do so at an agreed scheduled session during the module. Your lecturer will not mark emailed draft assignments. When you have fully understood the case, write an essay for each question below. Word length. The guidance is 1000 words per question but a total of 3000 words will be acceptable. The word length should not exceed 5000 words. To achieve a grade of 60% or above you must include at least 2 academic journal articles in the total assignment, but not for each question. Do not include general unreferenced sources from Wikipedia or other sources without peer academic review.
In your answers restrict yourself to the information from the case study. You will NOT gain extra marks from adding later information about the development of the case unless you can show that the extra information does raise new moral /csr, not managerial, issues.
1 Using two ethical contrasting ethical theories/perspective studied on the module, discuss the actions of the FIFA Executive Committee, and particularly those of the President, Sepp Blatter.
2 With regard to both its hierarchical structure and global charity status, use CSR/ethical theory to discuss the governance of FIFA, with particular regard to transparency and accountability.
3 Consider the impact of the FIFA scandals on the reputation of FIFA, on football and on sport. How might the scandals affect / may affect the actions of stakeholders? Discuss in the context of module theory.
4 In the context of the future of CSR and ethics, consider the advantages and disadvantages of the role that diverse national cultures, including morals, play in multinational organisations such as FIFA.
The following information is important when:
• Preparing for your assessment
• Checking your work before you submit it
• Interpreting feedback on your work after marking.
The module Learning Outcomes tested by this assessment task are indicated on page 1. The precise criteria against which your work will be marked are as follows:
• Analyse concepts and theories of Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) and business ethics.
• Discuss the relevance of ethical and CSR concepts in organisational contexts.
• Differentiate CSR issues from the perspective of different stakeholders
• Evaluate the outcomes of CSR strategies and provide reasoned predictions on the future use of CSR, and ethical perspectives, within organisational policy making.
• Performance descriptors indicate how marks will be arrived at against each of the above criteria. The descriptors indicate the likely characteristics of work that is marked within the percentage bands indicated.
% Work will often demonstrate some of the following features
The work varies from very good (70-79%), excellent (80-89%) to outstanding (in excess of 90%). Very good, possibly outstanding or exceptional level of analysis, showing deep critical engagement with a comprehensive range of contextual material. Demonstration of independent thought resulting in creative responses to the assignment brief and some telling insights. Clear evidence of understanding of current scholarship and research based on an extensive range of relevant sources. Clarity of structure demonstrating complete focus of argument. Little or no obvious errors in referencing or grammar or syntax. Mature links made between relevant ideas, theories and practice.
Clear links between theory and practice. Good coverage of assignment issues. Full understanding of core issues. Evidenced level of understanding of appropriate theory and concepts. Some small repeated errors in referencing or grammar or syntax as appropriate
Identifies main issues and relevant theory. Coverage of most of assignment issues. Competent application of relevant theory and states obvious links to practice. Some repeated errors in grammar or syntax possibly failure to apply Harvard referencing standard correctly in places.
Makes few links between theory and practice. Answers question in a very basic way. Describes relevant theory accurately, and some relevant ideas offered. Possibly failure to apply Harvard referencing standard correctly. Limited coherence of structure.
Some learning outcomes and / or assessment criteria not met. Inadequate content with issues not addressed; insufficient evidence of understanding of relevant theory and concepts and only partial understanding shown. Very limited application of theory. Use of extensive quoted passages is evident. Evidence of sufficient grasp of learning outcomes to suggest that the student will be able to retrieve the module on resubmission.
No learning outcomes fully met. No demonstration of adequate knowledge or understanding of key concepts or theories. There is no recognition of the complexity of the subject. Little attempt to engage with assignment brief and has not met learning outcomes. Inadequate demonstration of knowledge or understanding of key concepts, theories or practice.
To help you further:
• Refer to the WOLF topic for contact details of your module leader/tutor, tutorial inputs, recommended reading and other sources, etc. Resit details will also appear on WOLF.
• The University’s Learning Information Services offer support and guidance to help you with your studies and develop your academic skills http://www.wlv.ac.uk/lib/skills_for_learning/study_guides.aspx