CSR For The Entertainment Industry

Over 300,000 people are expected to attend the Formula 1 Dutch Grand Prix this weekend, but not a single one of these fans will arrive by car. Here's how Zandvoort used incentives to create the world's most sustainable sporting event (and why other events should copy their strategy) 👇 First, it's essential to understand why Zandvoort is so unique. The race track is surrounded by water, beaches, dunes, and even a natural park. It's essentially a dead end — there is only one way in and one way out. This is why race organizers banned cars altogether. Instead, they increased the frequency of trains so that one would arrive every 5-10 minutes before, during, and after the race. It's just a short walk to the track from there. Then, race organizers set up "Park & Bike" stations, allowing fans to park their cars a few miles away from the venue and then rent a bicycle to complete the final leg of their journey through the scenic dunes. The result is 40,000 bikes parked directly outside the track, with 98% of attendees arriving via train, bus, or bicycle. The only people allowed to drive into the venue (2%) were drivers, media members, team employees, and F1 personnel. But even more impressive than the Dutch Grand Prix's transportation initiative is how they eliminated waste through a gamified system. When fans arrive at the track, they are given a token that can be exchanged for a plastic cup when purchasing a drink. If you bring your plastic cup back when purchasing your second drink, you will receive another plastic cup in exchange. If you lose your cup, you will be charged 2 euros for a replacement cup. Once the race is over (and you return your last cup), you can then enter the code on the back of each token to win prizes online. This system is commonly used at other events in the Netherlands (concerts, etc.), but it helped achieve a 75% recycling rate for cups during the race. It worked so well because it gamified the recycling process with incentives. Some people held onto their cups to avoid paying the fee, while others proactively picked up trash to increase their chances of winning a prize. Think of it like this: Instead of spending money to hire hundreds of crew members to pick up trash, organizers paid fans (via prizes) to do it for them. This saved them money in the long run, but also produced better results, as people are more likely to recycle when everyone else is doing it too. Genius! P.S. Follow me (Joe Pompliano) for more sports business content! #sports #sportsbiz #linkedinsports

I recently came across a viral post from an HR professional who described firing an employee for being late — only to later discover she had been living in her car with her child. The story ends with the manager tracking her down in a grocery store parking lot, offering her job back, and helping her find housing. I’m choosing not to reshare the post because I don’t want it to receive more traffic or further violate the subject’s privacy. But this post follows a troubling trend: using poverty and trauma as a vehicle for clicks, a redemption arc, or a personal brand moment rather than actually centering the person who’s suffering. It treats people’s pain as content. It flattens them into stories instead of seeing them as human beings. If the story is true, it raises serious ethical concerns: • Informed consent is impossible in this kind of power dynamic. Sharing a former employee’s deeply personal, traumatic experience — likely without permission — is unethical and exploitative. • The safety risks are real. There’s enough detail that the individual may be identifiable. If she’s fleeing an abusive ex or facing homelessness, this post could put her and her child at further risk from that ex, from CPS, or just from public exposure. • It’s another example of using an employee’s trauma as a narrative arc for engagement, for applause, for self-congratulation. Coming from someone in HR, this reflects a serious violation of privacy, professional ethics, and power. And if it’s fictionalized, it trivializes very real struggles. We see the same thing in higher education — students facing housing and food insecurity are too often treated as case studies or statistics, rather than people with agency, dignity, and the right to privacy. Ethical storytelling matters. Whether in HR or higher ed, the stories we tell about people should never put them at risk or center ourselves. #socialimpact #philanthropy #responsiblestorytelling

Blind football fans now feel the game through their fingertips. For free. While stadiums charge £50 for tickets, they're giving these devices away. Mike Kearney couldn't see Liverpool score. His cousin traced the ball's path on his hand. 90,000 fans roared around them while Mike experienced football through human touch. Think about that. Three Dublin students watched that viral moment. Tim Farrelly, David Deneher, and Omar Salem saw Mike celebrating Salah's goal and thought: No blind fan should need a human scoreboard. Traditional Stadium Experience: ↳ Audio commentary only ↳ Delayed radio broadcasts ↳ Depends on sighted companion ↳ Miss the game's flow entirely Field of Vision Reality: ↳ Tactile pitch in your hands ↳ Magnetic ball tracks real gameplay ↳ Instant vibrations for goals, fouls ↳ Feel the match as it happens But here's what stopped me cold: They didn't just build the technology. They built a model where blind fans never pay. Stadiums invest $50,000 for 12 devices per season. Sponsors cover the costs. Every visually impaired fan gets one free. The device fits in your palm. Raised pitch boundaries guide your fingers. The magnetic ball moves exactly where Haaland or Salah strike. When the crowd erupts, you know why. When play builds, you feel it building. Testing from FIFA to Premier League proved what matters: ↳ Touch2See at MLS matches—free ↳ Telstra Touch in Australia—free ↳ Every major deployment—free ↳ Accessibility without barriers The Multiplication Effect: 1 stadium equipped = hundreds included free 10 leagues adopting = thousands connected 100 sponsors investing = new standard emerges At scale = no blind fan pays to feel the game From Reddit video to global stadiums. From three students sketching to clubs investing $50,000 per season. From "who pays?" to "nobody pays." Traditional accessibility adds costs. Field of Vision removes them. We spent decades pricing out disabled fans. Three students made inclusion free. Because Mike Kearney's joy shouldn't depend on his cousin's hand—or his wallet. Follow me, Dr. Martha Boeckenfeld for innovations that refuse to leave anyone on the sidelines. ♻️ Share if accessibility should never cost extra. Video: Social Media

Making your events more accessible for blind & visually impaired people really isn’t as hard as you think. Here are my top tips. 1. Provide precise venue information. Include things like clear drop off and pick up point information, what the key features of the building are, a rough description of where the toilets are, describe where the reception desk is, and let us know in advance if you’ll need a Personal Emergency Evacuation Plan completed. Bonus points for using a service like Euan's Guide or AccessAble to provide specialist access information. 2. Provide as much event information as possible. Share all key details in advance, ideally by email in an accessible format. Include timings, speaker names, attendee names, a brief agenda, and any known accessibility considerations. It helps us plan travel, support, and energy levels and it also helps us know who’s attending so when we’re surprised with a “Hey Robbie!” we can narrow it down to who it might be. 3. Food information is key. It sounds simple, but make sure menus are firstly available, then accessible - even for buffets. Relying on a fellow attendee to tell me something “looks chickeney” gives me the absolute fear. Include dietary details in an electronic format we can read with a screen reader, and avoid handwritten or printed-only menus. Tell us how food will be served so we can prepare (for example, buffet vs plated service). 4. Ask about adjustments - don’t assume you’ll know what someone needs. Just ask the question when people register. Keep it open and inclusive, such as “Do you have any access requirements you’d like us to be aware of?” 5. Provide complimentary +1 places as an adjustment - if someone needs a guide, PA, or support worker to attend with them, they shouldn’t be charged double. It’s an inclusion basic that makes a big difference. 6. Finally, provide training to your staff and event volunteers. Organisations like The Guide Dogs for the Blind Association and RNIB can help you here with things like sighted guide training. And most importantly - don’t wait until someone asks before you do this. It won’t help just blind people, it’ll help everyone. Think about this list - is there anything on here that genuine would help you as a sighted person? Build accessibility in from the start and everyone benefits. #DisabilityInclusion #Disability #DisabilityEmployment #Adjustments #DiversityAndInclusion #Content

4 steps framework for organizing a net zero event. (Offsetting your carbon footprint should be the last one) When planning sustainable events - most companies think of offsetting first. And other 3 important steps are usually skipped. If you don't want to make the same mistake. Follow this framework: Step 1. 𝐀𝐯𝐨𝐢𝐝𝐚𝐧𝐜𝐞 Make a conscious effort to avoid venues, transport, or other activities that create more emissions than others. Step 2. 𝐑𝐞𝐝𝐮𝐜𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧 Focus on improving efficiency, reusing materials, and minimizing waste to lower the overall carbon footprint of the event. Step 3. 𝐑𝐞𝐩𝐥𝐚𝐜𝐞𝐦𝐞𝐧𝐭 Substitute high-carbon activities with low-carbon alternatives. Consider virtual or hybrid events to reduce travel-related emissions. Step 4. 𝐎𝐟𝐟𝐬𝐞𝐭𝐭𝐢𝐧𝐠 Invest in carbon offset projects to balance out the emissions that cannot be eliminated, such as renewable energy projects or reforestation initiatives. Following these steps sequentially lowers your event's footprint to begin with. Minimizes waste and saves the natural resources along the way. And reduces offsetting cost too. So when you are organizing your next event. Focus on these biggest emission sources first. And apply the 4-step framework to each one of them. Start with 𝐓𝐫𝐚𝐧𝐬𝐩𝐨𝐫𝐭𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧 Responsible for 45% of emissions. Use shared vehicles, public transport, or carpool. Offer virtual attendance options. Then consider the 𝐕𝐞𝐧𝐮𝐞 Contributes to 20% of emissions. Choose venues with renewable energy. Opt for green or LEED-certified buildings. Then think about the 𝐅𝐨𝐨𝐝 sources Makes up 15% of emissions. Source food locally. Offer plant-based options. Avoid food waste. And plan for 𝐖𝐚𝐬𝐭𝐞 Adds 10% to the emissions. Select venues with waste management programs. Use biodegradable utensils and reusable items. And finally, 𝐄𝐧𝐞𝐫𝐠𝐲 That contributes to 10% to the emissions. Use renewable energy sources. Schedule events during daylight hours. So by following this four-step process. And focusing on the bigger emission sources first. You can plan a more sustainable event without any external support. 🌍 And you don't have to be a sustainability pro for it! ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Now that I've shared the framework and steps, excuses like 'We lack the expertise' or 'It will cost more' just don’t cut it. What’s your excuse now? Comment with the lamest excuse you’ve heard for not organizing sustainable events? #SustainableEvents #NetZero #GreenMeetings

NEW RESEARCH: Our article in IJRM - International Journal of Research in Marketing casts a new light on the ubiquitous effort by people to look more attractive. We show how improving one’s physical appearance—both in real life and digitally—can drive more prosocial behavior. Across 7 experimental studies with over 3000 participants (see summary table in comment), we found that when people engage in beauty-enhancing activities, they become more publicly self-aware, which leads them to donate more, make ethical purchases, and behave in ways that benefit society. In a world where filters are commonplace and selfies dominate social media feeds, the article has implications for how we understand the role of social media in promoting prosocial behavior and how nonprofits and marketers can harness these insights to drive positive change As individuals curate their digital identities, they also become more conscious of how they are perceived by others—prompting them to act in more socially responsible ways. The article can be downloaded for free until November 6 using the unique link included in comment. With Natalia Kononov and Danit Ein-Gar With thanks to our editor and associate editor, David Schweidel and Rosellina Ferraro The Wharton School University of Pennsylvania Tel Aviv University #SocialMediaImpact #ProsocialBehavior #ConsumerPsychology #CauseMarketing

Time to re-evaluate ethical storytelling? The Gates Foundation’s recent video on Instagram has brought this question to the forefront — and the comment section made it clear: audiences are paying attention. While the intent may have been inclusion or unity, the execution leaned into an outdated and unhelpful saviour narrative. Following an enlightening session on ethical storytelling with Akosua Kwafo Ogyiri, APR at the just ended Women in PR Summit, here are a few reflections from a communications and storytelling perspective: • Visual framing shapes perception. When a white man is inserted into an African-led creative piece without any meaningful shift in message, tone, or outcome, it doesn’t add value; it sends a message that that outside presence is necessary for completeness. That could be seen as performative. The line “missing us” especially felt out of place, because nothing about his addition changed the emotional or narrative arc. • Narrative control is a form of power. Ethical storytelling requires that we ask: Who is being centered? In this case, local voices were visually and symbolically overshadowed. Even in subtle ways, such framing shifts the story away from the communities at its core — the very people it should uplift. • Symbolism isn’t enough. Representation isn’t simply about showing up; it’s about how people show up and who gets to lead the story. Development storytelling should go beyond symbolic participation and actively invest in co-creation — inviting communities to define, direct, and deliver their own narratives. • The audience is evolving. Today’s viewers are not passive consumers. They are informed, discerning, and vocal. They’re asking critical questions about authenticity, equity, and respect. Especially in global philanthropy and development, storytelling must rise to meet this moment — or risk eroding trust. The bar is higher now, and that’s a good thing. Ethical storytelling is not a nice-to-have — it’s a standard. One that prioritizes dignity, truth, and shared ownership. Let’s take this reaction as an invitation to re-evaluate the stories we tell and the power structures behind them. #EthicalStorytelling #NarrativePower #StrategicCommunications #DecolonizeAid #RepresentationMatters #BuildWithCommunities #AuthenticBranding #ReframeTheNarrative

I had a conversation last week with an arts organization ED about surveys that I don’t think is unique to her or to her organization. So now that observation + learning is coming to you in this post... This organization has offered free programming to its community for many years. These are programs that are free, community-centered, built with care… and also financially dependent on grants, cycles, and decisions they can’t always control. This week, in the middle of building their next community survey, she asked if we could include two questions (though the team and the board have never tried asking the second one): ●  “Is our free programming a reason you joined?” ●  “Would you still join if it were paid?” Now surveys are not only a tool for listening. They are also a tool for teaching. ●  They teach people what you think matters. ●  They teach people what you value. ●  They teach people what kind of relationship you’re building. So when we ask, “Is it free?” as the primary reason someone engages… we might accidentally be teaching this: free is the value, free is a motivator, free is the “why.” But free is not the why. Free is often the removal of a barrier. It is access. Motivation/why is something else. Motivation can be: ●  I felt safe here. ●  I felt seen here. ●  I felt curious here. ●  I felt connected here. ●  I felt like I belonged here. Free might help someone walk through the door. But it’s rarely the reason they stay. And the second question, hesitant about paid programming, deserves more honesty than the fear it’s wrapped in. I want this amazing arts organization and my nonprofits in the community to understand: charging money is not the same thing as caring less about inclusion. It doesn’t mean you have become greedy. Nor it means you have abandoned your values. It, however, does mean: ●  we respect boundaries. ●  we respect staff energy. ●  we want sustainability. ●  we want consistency instead of crisis. Choosing inclusion should not require risking staff exhaustion. It should not require existential financial panic. So yes—ask the question – with joy for your mission and trust in your community. Not: “Would you still come if it wasn’t free?” (which sounds like a threat) But: ●  “What pricing model would feel fair and still accessible to you?” ●  “What supports would you need to participate if there was a cost?” ●  “What makes you return—what keeps you in this ecosystem?” Because we are not just collecting data. We are building a relationship with our community. And the goal is to understand what brings people joy, what builds trust, what creates belonging—and what kind of generosity people want to be part of when they believe in the mission. Being intentional about building (all forms of) sustainability is not a betrayal of values; it's how our values will survive. #nonprofits #community

One photo can move the world - but it can also harm the very people it’s meant to help. Yesterday we had a rich discussion on ethical storytelling: a role of consent, dignity, and the responsability of an image. We heard from Médecins Sans Frontières (MSF) experts who face these choices daily: Which photo from Gaza should be published? What represents dignity in the midst of suffering? Where is the red line? Who decides? Like many mission-driven NGOs, MSF has gone through a difficult process of self-reflection. In 2021 a team of internal volunteers reviewed their entire multimedia archive - thousands of images and videos (!!) - to ensure it reflects MSF's core values. This led to new internal policies and deeper conversations internally on how MSF wants to portray people they serve. Some key takeaways: - Consent is not a signature, it’s a process. For example, MSF doesn’t consider consent valid after five years, and anyone can withdraw it at any time. - Communities are digitaly savy. They understand digital landscapes and consume social media just like us. We should engage them like equals, and consider impact of an image on them as if it was taken in our own backyard. - Dignified and human-centered storytelling is not a burden, but an opportunity. Slower stories built on trust and dialogue can reframe how we communicate impact in a click-bait-driven world. Judging which images are ethical and dignified is never easy. But that’s precisely why this work matters so much today. Thank you so much Juliette Garms, Bruno DeCock and Julie David de Lossy for leading this important work. Always in awe of MSF's visual integrity and incredible archives you have build over the last decades.

It's official. Social media and video networks have overtaken traditional TV channels and websites as the main source of news in the US (Source: BBC). So what does this mean for all of us in the social impact sector? Social media is no longer just a comms tool - it's the frontline for how people understand human rights, climate, healthcare, and so much more. People might be scrolling for entertainment, but they are getting their worldview in the process. Three things I've observed (and some actions): 👉 Greater right-wing presence on X: In the UK, the number of right-wing audiences on X has almost doubled. They've tripled in the US following Musk's takeover. More charities are reporting increasing toxicity in their comments, with some deciding to leave X altogether to join platforms more aligned with their ethical responsibilities. So: If you're still using X, rethink your content pillars. Be intentional about why you're there, who you're trying to reach, and how you manage harm. 👉Social media is your newsroom Social media is no longer a nice-to-have, or an add-on. It's shaping real-time public opinion. When news breaks, wider audiences aren't hunting down your press release. They're going to your Instagram feed. So: Build or strengthen existing systems that allow you to be reactive. Keeping your finger on the pulse will enable you to understand what audiences biggest concerns are, and respond where appropriate. 👉 Misinformation is more sophisticated We're in a time where we're battling deliberate disinformation campaigns designed to mislead, divide, and undermine trust. False claims about your charities work can spread faster than the truth. Your messaging can be distorted within minutes. Audiences may struggle to separate fact from fiction if your voice isn't present in the mix. So: Invest in digital literacy. Not just for your team, but for your audiences too. Transparency is so key in this sector that if we educate followers on how to spot misinformation, we're also building trust for our brand. Also, have a misinformation response plan that involves everyone. Social colleagues, how do you feel about this shift? How are you adapting your digital strategy to meet this moment?