Disclaimer: This article is written by Amwene Etiang. Any views and opinions expressed in this article are those of the writers and do not necessarily reflect the views or positions of the team editor nor any entities they represent.
Introduction
Billie Jean King in an interview after the semi-final Wimbledon match between Jasmine Paolini and Belinda Vekic said that ‘Women’s tennis is not charity anymore, it’s an investment. This means that people expect a return.’ Nonetheless, gone are the days when one can claim that investments are to be analysed solely in terms of their financial return. This is especially the case when large companies and investment funds are concerned. Often when institutions like the Saudi Public Investment Fund invest in a new sport, they are accused of sports-washing. Referring to the PIF’s investments into tennis, especially in light of the ongoing Olympics and this being a summer of sport, this article will seek to establish how a firm can avoid sportswashing. It will also mention how a firm can avoid greenwashing, another form of ‘washing’ one’s image.
What is Sports/Green washing?
‘Washing’ generally involves institutions making investments or using advertising to improve their image but operating in a manner that contrasts with the values they seek to espouse. Sports washing is when a country invests in sport to improve its image, capitalising on a sports’ popularity and association with values like fairness and dignity, whilst at the same time undermining these values in its actions. For example, a country investing in sports to improve its image as a modern state whilst still stifling opposition and limiting women’s rights. Green washing refers to the use of companies of advertising to improve their image and portray their activities as having a significantly lesser negative impact on the environment than they actually do. For example, oil companies are criticised for investing in clean energy solutions whilst also expanding oil production and exploration. This would be an example of them trying to appear more environmentally sustainable whilst still polluting the environment.
How to avoid sports washing?
Saudi Arabia chose to invest in tennis because it is a growing game that is lucrative and in dire need of investment. As was seen by the semi-final match between Paolini and Vekic, and has been demonstrated for decades by legends like Billie Jean King, Martina Navratilova, Serena Williams, Maria Sharapova, Aryna Sabalenka, Coco Gauff and countless other women, women’s tennis is dynamic and can attract attention. The Saudi PIF recently signed a multiyear partnership with the Saudi Arabian Public Investment Fund which has led to it being the naming partner for the WTA rankings and the host of the WTA Finals for the next 3 years. It also earlier on this year signed a 5 year deal with the ATP, acquiring naming rights for the ATP rankings, partnering with it in events in Beijing, Indian Wells, Madrid and Miami as well as hosting the Next Gen ATP finals from 2023-2027. In an article I wrote last year, I commented on how the sport’s fractured and complicated governance leads to most athletes outside the top 100 struggling to make a living, despite playing year round. The investment from the Saudi Public Investment Fund will help increase the amount of money that goes to the players as well as supporting grassroots tennis. The PIF’s investment into tennis has not gone unopposed with key figures like Chris Evert and John McEnroe expressing caution about accepting PIF investment citing concerns about sports washing. Nonetheless, it is evident that the funding from the PIF is going to have a positive impact on the game of tennis. Furthermore, many current players like Novak Djokovic, Ons Jabeur and Nick Kyrgios have supported the deals citing the need for greater funding for the game especially for the lower ranked players. Furthermore, the country is taking steps to increase access to sports for women and so is not undermining its investment in the game.
How to avoid allegations of greenwashing?
Following recent laws being passed in the EU and the UK, greenwashing can land a company in legal trouble. As with other commercial risks, companies should seek advice on how best to accurately report and publish its climate impacts in order to avoid allegations of greenwashing. This would be opposed to just merely conducting it as a tick box exercise. Furthermore, with the recent passing of the Corporate Sustainability Due Diligence Directive (CS3D) by the EU, companies incorporated in the EU with more than 1000 employees and €1500 million in turnover will also be under scrutiny for the human rights standards in their supply chains. There are principles like the OECD Guidelines for Multinational Enterprises on Responsible Business Conduct, the United Nations Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights and the Principles for Responsible Investment that provide guidance to corporations and their advisors on how to respect human rights in principle and in practice. As opposed to viewing human rights due diligence as an unnecessary cost, corporations should view it as an opportunity to uphold the highest standards in their supply chains, remain compliant with the law and maintain and improve their public image.
Conclusion
In sum, to avoid allegations of ‘washing’ companies ought to operate with integrity. For funds investing in sport, actually commit to improving and making a tangible necessary difference in the game. For companies involved in other commercial ventures, invest in quality advice on how to most accurately report, monitor and evaluate your performance against recognised standards. Doing what one has said they were going to do is more economical than using sly marketing schemes to improve one’s image or just throwing money at a game. Companies have responsibilities beyond the bottom line. By committing to operating responsibly in word and action, companies position themselves to perform well in today’s market.
