The vast number of studies that have focused on legacies have tended to come to the general conclusion that the difficulty that has been experienced in defining the term ‘legacy’ has also complicated the measurement of mega-event legacies (Agha et al., 2012; Horne and Manzenreiter, 2006). The monitoring of legacy effects entails considering both the intangible and the tangible effects of the event (Dickson et al., 2011; Gratton and Preuss, 2008; Preuss, 2013; Ritchie et al., 2009). According to Cornelissen et al. (2011: 309), “intangible effects – which often relate to the subjective experiences – can generally only be felt, such as the change in resident and visitor perceptions of the host city or region”. Preuss (2013) argues that the legacy effects of such mega-events could be either direct or indirect. Preuss (2007) and Harris (2011) assert that the direct effects represent those tangible sport facilities and related infrastructure that are built for the main purpose of hosting the mega-event. According to Bob and Kassens-Noor (2012) and Swart and Bob (2010; 2012a), the indirect effects of mega-events legacies for host destinations could include the intangible effects of image enhancement, and of the feel-good factor (Allmers and Maennig, 2008; Maennig and du Plessis, 2011; Maennig and Zimbalist, 2012a) that is experienced by the host population and by visitors during the event. However, as Cornelissen et al. (2011: 309) infer, “indirect effects are facilities and infrastructure that would have been built even if the event had not taken place, but the mega-event served to speed up these developments”.
The legacy framework discussed above illustrates the key impacts that are linked to the 2010 FIFA World Cup that have been examined in relation to non-host African countries. As the discussion above illustrates, the focus on legacy impacts tends to be on the host(s) involved.
This study focuses on the non-host impacts concerned, which has, up until now, been a neglected focus area in terms of mega-event research.
them”. According to Elms et al. (2011), Freeman (2011) and Mitchell et al. (1997) stakeholder theory, therefore, attempts to articulate the following fundamental question in a systematic way: Which groups are stakeholders deserving or requiring management attention?
Byrd (2007), Harrison (2011) and Jones (2011) refer to a stakeholder as any person, group or organisation that is affected by the causes or consequences of an issue. Phillips et al. (2011) and Freeman (2011) provide a more expansive definition of the term when they refer to stakeholders as persons or groups that have or that claim ownership, rights or interests in a corporation and its activities; past, present or future. However, the most widely vaunted definition of a stakeholder in the context of business management is that of Freeman (1984:
25) who asserts that a stakeholder is “any group or individual who can affect or is affected by the achievement of the firm’s objectives”. Most of the literature on stakeholder theory, in general, accepts that employees, customers, persons, groups, neighbourhoods, organisations, institutions, societies, and even the natural environment are generally thought to qualify as actual or potential stakeholders (Cassidy and Guilding, 2010; Elms et al., 2011; Franch et al., 2010; Lewis, 2006; Mitchell et al., 1997). However, Donaldson and Preston (1995) Hasnas (2013) and Phillips et al. (2011) suggest that a group, therefore, tends to qualify as a stakeholder only if it has legitimate interest in aspects of the organisation’s activities.
Stakeholder theory is concerned with exploring the linkages between the focal organisation and its stakeholders.
Freeman (2011), Lewis (2006) and Beritelli and Laesser (2011) assert that stakeholders can possess voting power, economic power, political power, and positional power. According to Parent and Deephouse (2007), most studies take the power, legitimacy and urgency attributes as being given, and describes stakeholders in terms of these attributes. Co and Barro (2009:
594) note that, “in the stakeholder theory, three distinct attributes identify the dynamics of the interaction between the stakeholders which includes power, legitimacy and urgency”. Co and Barro (2009) further assert that power relates to the ability of an advocate to influence, to produce or to effect behaviour, outcomes, processes, objectives or direction. Legitimacy is in keeping with expected behaviour, structures, values, beliefs, norms and roles. Urgency implies that the stake is critical to the stakeholder and that it is time-sensitive. Conversely, Donaldson and Preston (1995) identify three main aspects of the stakeholder theory as being descriptive/ empirical, instrumental, and normative. The descriptive aspect of the theory is commonly used to describe certain characteristics and/ or behaviour of an organisation. The
of the corporation, including the identification of moral or philosophical guidelines for operation or organisations. Furthermore, according to Phillips at al. (2011), the normative aspect assumes that all stakeholders have the right to be treated as an end in themselves, and not as a means to an end. As Phillips et al. (2003: 481) note, while there are still some stakeholder groups whose relationships with the organisation remains instrumental (due to the power that they wield), there are other normatively legitimate stakeholders than merely the equity shareholders alone.
Lewis (2006) recommends that to implement stakeholder theory, organisations must have a full appreciation of all persons or groups who have interests in planning, processes, delivery and/ or outcomes of the product or service. Stakeholder theory posits that, whatever the aim of a corporation might be, the managers involved must consider the legitimate interest of groups or individuals who might be affected by their activities (Donaldson and Preston, 1995).
Paying close attention to the interests and well-being of those who can assist or hinder the achievement of the organisation’s objectives is the central directive of the theory (Phillips et al., 2003). As a result, Lewis (2006) accentuates that the stakeholder concept implies that management’s task is to pursue an optimum balance between the diverse needs that are demanded to be satisfied by the interest groups and other constituents. According to Reynolds et al. (2006: 286), “balancing stakeholder interests is a process of assessing, weighing and addressing the competing claims of those who have a stake in the actions of the organisation”.
Reynolds et al. (2006) further suggest that balancing stakeholder interests is possibly the most significant principle of the theory, as doing so epitomises the action of the prime instrument that is used by managers to elicit and to sustain the support of various stakeholders, with their contrasting desires and wants. As Freeman et al. (2004: 365) state:
The best deal for all is if managers try to create as much value for stakeholders as possible. There are, of course, conflicts among stakeholder interests but these conflicts must be resolved so that stakeholders do not exit the deal – or worse – use the political process to appropriate value for themselves or regulate the value created for others.
Reynolds et al. (2006) suggest that if managers do not intermittently meet the claims of certain stakeholder groups, they may lose support from such groups. Consequently, it is in the interest of managers to ensure that stakeholder benefits are, to a certain extent, well-adjusted.
Jones (2011) Leopkey and Parent (2007) contend that the stakeholder theory is not only useful for understanding stakeholders’ issues, but that it also determines strategies for responding to their needs and actions. According to Crane and Ruebottem (2012) and Morsing and Schultz
(2006), through participation, dialogue and involvement with unblemished motivation and goals that are in line with democratic ideals, attaining stakeholder support through satisfying their needs is possible. This is because, while dialogue is the tool, agreement and consensus are often regarded as the solution on which further decisions and actions are based, thus facilitating continuing collaboration.
Hardy and Beaton (2001) and Kimbu and Ngoasong (2013) suggest that, in recent times, the concept of stakeholder theory has also been applied in the tourism sector for the purpose of planning and managing destinations. According to Currie et al. (2009: 43), “strategic planning in the tourism industry is crucial in so far as it integrates multiple stakeholders, and remains adaptable to changing environmental, social and economic conditions”. Byrd et al. (2009) and Verbeke and Tung (2013) state that obtaining a clear understanding of the attitudes and interests of stakeholders is a necessary precursor to the planning and the management of sustainable tourism. Byrd (2007) and Freeman et al. (2012) demonstrate that problems can arise when stakeholders are excluded from the planning process, and that, for sustainable tourism to be successful, the stakeholders must be involved throughout the entire process.
Currie et al. (2009: 46) strongly support the claim that “stakeholder involvement plays a vital role in sustainable tourism development; hence the consideration for social and environmental issues requires the identification of numerous stakeholders and the incorporation of their opinions”. Hardy and Beaton (2001) and Crane and Ruebottem (2012) argue that having an understanding of stakeholder perceptions should be viewed as a prerequisite for sustainable tourism. For example, in the context of such mega-events as the 2010 FIFA World Cup, widespread stakeholder participation helps to ensure that all major issues are addressed, thus leading to the adoption of long-term, tenable decisions.
According to Gursoy et al. (2002) and Hinch and Higham (2011), one key to conducting sustainable tourism development within a community is the involvement of stakeholders.
Without stakeholder support, it is difficult to develop tourism in a sustainable manner.
McGehee and Andereck (2004) and Currie et al. (2009) underscore the importance of using a common framework to plan, to set goals and objectives, and to evaluate proposed tourism development collectively, with the view of empowering stakeholders from the outset.
Therefore, the stakeholder approach intimates that the adopting of plans and the taking of decisions should be done in a way that is cognisant of the stakeholders’ best interests.
Moreover, the understanding of stakeholders is of paramount importance to the minimisation of any potential conflict.
Lee and Taylor (2005) suggest that mega-events might appeal to many stakeholder groups in the host destination or region. According to Heere and Parent (2009), mega sporting event organising committees require the involvement of a range of stakeholders to be able to accomplish their preparations to host events, however, they must meet the needs and the expectations of such stakeholders in order for the latter to be willing to become involved.
Such stakeholders include the local populace, the government, business (Ritchie, 1984), international and national local bodies, organising committees, the media and sponsors (Emery, 2002; Stokes, 2008), teams, tourists, football fans, government agencies as well as public interest groups that consider the holistic impact of mega-events (Burton et al., 2012).
Leveraging the 2010 FIFA World Cup as an ‘African World Cup’ and developing legacy impact projects for African countries in terms of peace and nation-building, football support and development, environment and tourism, culture and heritage, communication and information technology, image enhancement and continental security represented the undergoing of major change for such stakeholder groups as football fans in Cameroon and Nigeria. The stakeholder theory is, therefore, relevant to this study as using the approach made it possible to delineate what could have been achieved, and how. Its use also enabled the identification of who should have participated in leveraging benefits from the hosting of the mega-event and who should have been consulted about it. In addition, through adopting such an approach, it was possible to determine whether the expectations of such stakeholder groups as soccer fans were met in terms of the legacy benefits pertaining to the event.
2.4.1 Stakeholder analysis
Currie et al (2009: 46) suggest that “an early assessment of stakeholder orientation and all other pertinent issues is an important strategic step for sustainable tourism development.
Systematic stakeholder analysis therefore can and should fit within the domain of feasibility analysis”. According to Allen and Kilvington (2001), stakeholder analysis is often referred to as identifying and assessing of the interests of stakeholders in a project, and how such influence may affect the implementation of such a project. Therefore, in the context of a mega-event, stakeholder analysis is useful, since it identifies groups and their main areas of interest and influence relating to the type of values that are fostered by the mega-event being hosted within the community in which they belong.
According to Golder and Gawler (2005: 4), there are a number of ways of undertaking a stakeholder analysis. Workshops, focus groups and interviews are three common approaches.
Whatever approach is used, “there are three essential steps in stakeholder analysis: 1) identifying the key stakeholders and their interests (positive or negative) in the project; 2) assessing the influence of, importance of, and level of impact upon each stakeholder; and 3) identifying how best to engage stakeholders”. Burton et al. (2012) suggest that identifying the primary stakeholders of mega-events makes it possible to determine their interest in the mega- event and to detect any potential conflict of interest existing between such stakeholders.
According to Gursoy and Kendall (2006: 605), “once a bid for a mega-event has been won, the involvement and support of all stakeholders is critical, irrespective of their previous attitudes”. Stakeholders’ interest in mega-events might vary. Ayuso et al. (2012) and Barney et al. (2002) point out that both corporate involvement in, and public support of, the hosting of mega-events is motivated by such factors as the advertising of products to a global audience, the leveraging of business opportunities in terms of exports and new investments, and the existing level of event management knowledge, which serve to enhance the tourist industry of the host country. In this sense, Gursoy and Kendall (2006: 606) opine that “for a mega-event to be successful, the understanding and participation of all stakeholders in the process is critical”. They further emphasise the need for relevant levels of government, the event organisers, and lawmakers to determine the level of support that is likely to be received from the community, and to understand the basis for such support or for any opposition concerned. Currie et al. (2009) advocate for the use of a strategic tool that incorporates stakeholder analysis prior to the implementation of the plan, if the principles of sustainability are to be integrated.
Allen and Kilvington (2001) and Agha et al. (2012), outline the usefulness of stakeholder analysis. They posit that adopting such an approach assists in identifying the relationships between stakeholders that may enable the development of a ‘coalition’ of project sponsorship, ownership and cooperation. Furthermore, said analysis identifies conflicts of interest and defines the key features of such stakeholder groups. According to Weed (2007: 150),
“stakeholders in sport and tourism may fall into different stakeholder groups at different points in time and, consequently, the relationships between them may change both over time, and as a result of changes in purpose or indication”. As Burton (2003) observes, in the case of such mega-events as the Olympic Games and the FIFA World Cup, there exist various
stakeholders, together with their public, private and political agendas. O’Brien (2005: 241) states that “the formation of inter-organisational relationships among mega-event stakeholders (public and private sector agencies involved in economics, sport and tourism policy development) is essential for cultivating long-term economic outcome from leveraging”.
The identification of stakeholders and of their relationships, values, concerns, goals and responsibilities is of utmost importance, as doing so provides understanding and a departure point from which to design and to implement a project (Ayuso et al., 2012). With a view to ensuring that stakeholders are involved appropriately, and that their participation is maximised, the importance of adopting the stakeholder diagnostic approach cannot be overemphasised, as it can help in assessing different stakeholder groups.
According to Golder and Gawler (2005: 1), undertaking a stakeholder analysis can help a project or programme identify:
The interests of all stakeholders who might affect, or be affected by, the programme/
project concerned;
Potential conflicts or risks that could jeopardise the initiative;
Opportunities and relationships that can be built on during implementation;
Groups that should be encouraged to participate in different stages of the project;
Appropriate strategies and approaches for stakeholder engagement; and
Ways to reduce negative impacts on vulnerable and disadvantaged groups.
The full participation of stakeholders in both project design and implementation is a key to but not a guarantee of success. Golder and Gawler (2005: 1) argue that stakeholder participation:
Gives people some say over how projects or policies might affect their lives;
Is essential for sustainability;
Generates a sense of ownership if initiated early in the development process;
Provides opportunities for learning for both the project team and for the stakeholders themselves; and
Builds capacity and enhances responsibility.
As proposed by Allen and Kilvington (2001) and Hautbois et al. (2012), stakeholder analysis was used in this study to help identify the key stakeholders involved. Such identification included assessing their interests and the way in which such interests affected the way in which African legacy impacts were perceived as well as what they perceived African legacy objectives linked to the 2010 FIFA World Cup to be (in terms of differing expectations) and future challenges. Using such an analysis was also important, because it helped to identify and to define stakeholder interests, characteristics, relationships and participation. This study considered the relevant mega-event stakeholders such as soccer fans and officials, government departments, football organisations, event managers and NGOs in both Cameroon and Nigeria.