RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

The Role of CGAs as a Strategic Partner in SDG Delivery and Policy

An initial finding pertinent to the role of CGAs in contributing to SDG delivery was the perceived extent to which CGAs engaged with, or were engaged by, relevant Government departments and agencies in their country for the betterment of sport, physical education, and physical activity. With the exception of one CGA from the Oceania region, all CGAs responded positively (either “strongly agree” or “agree”) that they enjoyed a collaborative and positive relationship with their respective national Government.

Findings from the qualitative responses underlined the complementary nature of relationships that were evident between CGAs and national Government departments, to reinforce the centrality of CGAs as key stakeholders within the structure of sport in their respective countries. For example, a large proportion of CGAs in Oceania, the Caribbean, and in Asia indicated that they enacted a central role as consultants with a range of national Government Departments in areas as diverse as sport, health, education, and environmental matters.

Our CGA has been engaged with government to cooperate in all aspects of sport [and] we aim to consolidate a memorandum of understanding with our government in regards to sport development (Oceania CGA).

The CGA coordinates with the Ministry of Education and Ministry of Youth and Sport to coordinate physical education in our schools both at primary and secondary level (Caribbean CGA).

Our CGA works closely with the National Sports Council, the Ministry of Education, Ministry of Health, Department of Environment initiating programs as well as giving support to them in relation to SDGs in sports (Africa CGA).

As Lindsey and Bitugu (2018) observe, such relationships between sport organizations and government departments is not uncommon, especially in the diffusion of policies related to sport or in circumstances where sport could be used instrumentally towards broader policy objectives. To reinforce this point, CGAs in these same regions outlined how they frequently adopted an advisory role in the creation of national sport policy. Similar sentiments were expressed by several CGAs in Europe, most pertinently in respect of their active involvement as a strategic partner on sport policy development. Responses ranged from European CGAs adopting roles as “part of the Government Sports Council” to being “a member of a functioning All Party Group on sport” in their specific country.

CGAs also reported on their familiarity with the SDGs and the importance of their contribution to achieving relevant SDG targets. Overall, 81% of CGAs responded positively (“strongly agree” [18%] and “agree” [63%] responses combined) that the leadership of their CGA was familiar with the SDGs and their relevance to sport, physical education and physical activity. However, this broadly positive message masked some interesting inter-regional variations and it was evident that the Americas region, where 44% of CGAs responded positively, did not have as positive a perspective on the familiarity of leadership with the SDGs (“strongly agree” [20%] and “agree” [20%]) as all the other regions (Range 67% [Europe] to 95% [Africa]).

Finally, CGAs were asked to reflect upon their perceived level of responsibility for the attainment of relevant SDG targets within their respective countries. Overall, 89% of CGAs responded positively (“strongly agree” [25%] and “agree” [64%] responses combined) to this item, to indicate a broad, general agreement with this statement. However, this broadly positive message again masked some important inter-regional differences, with “strongly agree” responses ranging from a lower level of 0% for the Americas and Asia regions to 44% for Africa. Furthermore, it was evident that Europe did not have as positive a perspective on the engagement and contribution of CGAs to achieving relevant SDGs (55%) as the other regions (Range 80% [Americas] to 100% [Asia, Oceania, and Africa]).

These findings reveal that the extent to which individual CGAs regarded their strategic value as a partner in SDG-related projects and programs was based on their perceived position within the often over-crowded sport policy landscape (Hayhurst, 2009; Morgan, 2013). Indeed, as Lindsey and Chapman (2017) have observed, there is significant diversity across Commonwealth countries with regard to the location of sport within national government structures, and Lindsey and Bitugu (2018) have warned of the challenges inherent within differentiated policy landscapes. Accordingly, in low- and middle-income countries or less economically developed countries, where CGAs often doubled as the country’s national Olympic committee, the influence of the CGA as a strategic partner was much more significant than that of CGAs in more developed countries, where competition from a broader assortment of competing sport policy actors was apparent (Hayhurst, 2009). Indeed, qualitative responses offered further insight into this variance. For instance, in some cases, the intent and involvement of CGAs in contributing to SDG delivery and targets was highly tangible. As an example, one CGA from the Oceania region noted:

[Our] CGA has been charged by the Government to create a National Sports Policy that will detail how the country will address its contribution to sustainable development goals.

Although none of the CGAs noted explicitly that SDG targets were too difficult to address or were beyond their current capacity, some reported that their contribution to the SDGs was more incidental than founded on considered, intentional program design. For example, a different CGA from the Oceania region revealed:

Our CGA does not currently engage in activities with the SDGs in mind. [However], our promotion of sports and physical activity does so indirectly and includes the objectives of the SDGs.

Other CGAs, in particular those located in the Caribbean, highlighted the necessity for alignment with the SDGs to be an emerging feature of future programming and strategic intent. For instance, one CGA from the Caribbean observed how they “will redefine the SDGs with Government agencies and work to strengthen the [related programs] which exist”, while another acknowledged that:

The CGA tends to play a supportive rather than an advocacy role in the [SDG] areas under consideration. There is, however, an increased awareness and urgency to become more vocal, strategic and active among the Directorate of the CGA who must now seek the buy-in from its constituents (Caribbean CGA).

The overall picture in relation to the importance of CGA involvement in contributing to the SGDs was best exemplified by one, further, Caribbean CGA who reported that their intentions were to:

Broaden the reach and tentacles of the organization and show the impact of sport beyond just “playing the game”. The SDGs are centrefold for our organization and we have secured training to enable us to begin the transformation process.

Clearly, both the quantitative and qualitative findings highlight that CGAs recognize their centrality in contributing to the achievement of SDG targets. As such, it would appear that CGAs acknowledge their potential to align with the intentions of SDG 17 (Strengthen the means of implementation and revitalize the global partnership for sustainable development) and act as pivotal actors to enhance policy coherence for sustainable development (Lindsey & Darby, 2018).

Areas of Significant Contribution to the SDGs

Analysis revealed that there were several areas related to the SDGs where CGAs were utilising sport to make a significant or tangible contribution to identified targets. Perhaps unsurprisingly, the areas most evident in this respect were those that had been identified as the focus for the Commonwealth Secretariat’s contribution of sport to the SDGs (Dudfield & Dingwall-Smith, 2017; Lindsey & Chapman, 2017). As such, CGAs reported significant contribution and involvement in relation to (a) advancing gender equality; (b) raising levels of physical activity (and (and thus improving physical and mental health); and (c) developing the provision of physical education within the primary and secondary curriculum.

Advancing gender equality was the area which all CGAs perceived there to be the most regular involvement. In keeping with SDG 5 (Gender equality), CGAs were able to outline how they considered themselves accountable for commitments made to women’s rights (United Nations, 2019). Specifically, 86% of CGAs reported that they were currently involved in programs or projects that intended to advance gender equality (44% regularly; 42% irregularly). Qualitative findings further supported this view, with a host of CGAs highlighting specific initiatives that were designed to promote gender equality and demonstrate how sport can be utilized to challenge gender ideology (Collins & Kay, 2014). Furthermore, the findings illustrated the importance attached to enhancing the experiences of women as a key component of many SDP programs (Collison et al., 2017).

Many responses emphasized the implementation of delivery-level initiatives to inspire female participation in sport or support specific programs designed to enable women to be more centrally involved in sports leadership. These findings illustrate a general awareness of gender-based empowerment as a key component of many SDP programs (Collison et al., 2017), and may serve as tentative evidence of the effectiveness of coordinated efforts, across national and international policy agendas, to promote gender equality. As one example, a CGA from the Oceania region remarked:

[Our] CGA advocates equality and inclusion. At the recent Pacific Games, [our] women athletes won gold medals for the first time. These athletes have been giving inspirational speeches at schools [and] at sports promotions for all.

Similarly, in the Caribbean, one CGA noted that it “has forwarded opportunities for women in coaching, women in education (scholarships) and women leadership programs”, while another reported how they had “focussed on [the delivery] a specific project called Future is Female over the last quadrennial”.

Other responses identified more structural imperatives such as the development of “a Women in Sport Commission” (Oceania CGA) or measures to ensure that “the rights of gender equality are enshrined in the [National Olympic Committee/CGA] Constitution” (Caribbean CGA). Similar good governance in relation to gender equality was reported by an African CGA, who listed a variety of initiatives including:

… constitutional minimum representation [on the CGA Board]; equal opportunities in education (trained 600 female sports administrators out of 1074 administrators in 6 years); key appointments for women in medical and technical commissions; all Chef de Mission at Olympics, All Africa Games, [and] Commonwealth Games are women.

Despite the apparent wave of initiatives aligned to gender equality and female empowerment across many CGAs, literature has highlighted how initiatives with this focus often lack substantive weight (Sen, 2014) or provide solutions that offer limited permanence (Eden & Wagstaff, 2021). Indeed, there was no evidence from this study to indicate how or if these various initiatives were impacting positively towards the attainment of targets within SDG 5. However, a commitment to gender equality appeared to be a central consideration for all CGAs, and of the remaining 14% of CGAs who reported that they were not currently undertaking projects to advance gender equality, all reported that they were at least considering the necessity to engage in such projects. This was exemplified by a concession from an African CGA, who responded:

Gender equality has not been too good in our CGA activities because we have very few women involved in sports but from 2019 there is now a sustainable effort to get more women into sport.

Although the measurement of sustainability remains a topic of debate among researchers, policy makers, and other stakeholders (Miola & Schiltz, 2019), it is evident that robust monitoring and evaluation of ongoing efforts to address gender inequality will be vital to a deeper understanding of how the aforementioned commitments reported by CGAs translate into tangible action and impact.

CGAs also reported on the gender identity of their CGA Board Members. Gender identity was indicated as either Male, Female or Other (see Table 2). Aggregate data from the 62 CGAs indicated that there was a total of 586 Board Members, of which 391 were identified as male, 192 as female, and 3 as other. As an overly simplistic measure of female representation (Nhamo et al., 2018), these data highlight a disparity between male and female CGA Board Members, resulting in a gender ratio of 2.04:1 (Male: Female). Although qualitative responses noted how some CGAs were making a concerted attempt to balance representation on their Boards, the data also revealed some pertinent regional differences, with female representation most prevalent in Oceania (39%) and least prevalent in Asia (23%). Of the 62 individual CGAs surveyed, only three constituted more female Board Members than male, while a further three reported an equal distribution of male and female Board Members.

Despite the proportion of female Board Members being comparatively low, overall the findings highlight that CGAs recognize their responsibility to contribute to gender equality strategies in their country (SDG 5), and specifically SDG Target 5.C (Adopt and strengthen sound policies and enforceable legislation for the promotion of gender equality and the empowerment of all women and girls at all levels). In addition, it is clear that CGAs acknowledge a commitment to meeting SDG Target 5.5.2 (increasing the proportion of women in managerial positions) and SDG Target 16.7.2 (increasing the proportion of population who believe decision-making is inclusive and responsive by sex, age, disability and population group).

A second area related to the SDGs where CGAs perceived that they were making a difference through sport-based approaches was in promoting and supporting participation in physical activity and healthy lifestyles (SDG 3). Although the targets related to SDG 3 are broad and far-reaching in scope, Target 3.4 is specifically concerned with the growing burden of non-communicable diseases (United Nations, 2019), a feature that aligned specifically with several of the responses from CGAs. Evidence from our data highlighted how CGAs recognized their obligations in contributing to the prevention of non-communicable diseases, including the promotion of mental health. Indeed, 76% of CGAs reported that they were currently involved in programs to promote and support participation in physical activity or projects designed to improve physical and mental health (32% regularly; 44% irregularly). Furthermore, only 2% of CGAs indicated that they were not involved and not considering involvement in such programs.

Although explicit examples of these specific programs were limited in the qualitative data, several CGAs across all regions reported that they were often advocates or advisors on physical activity programs. For example, one CGA from the Americas region noted that they “enjoy a very high profile in the community and contribute substantially to health and well-being [programs]”, while a CGA from Oceania explained that they were:

… very active in advocating sport and physical activity to address the high incidence of non-communicable diseases in [their country] due largely to inactivity.

Data indicated that the majority of projects reported were concerned with enhancing physical health. However, 43% of CGAs expressed that they were currently involved in programs or projects that were aligned to improving mental health and wellbeing, either for athletes and/or the general population (7% regularly; 36% irregularly). Importantly, where tangible provision for this aspect of health was not yet evident, 48% of CGAs indicated that they were considering programs with a specific accent on mental health, with only 9% of CGAs reporting that they are not involved and not considering involvement in such programs. This represents a notable point of diversification from traditional development-centred agendas that have tended to prioritise action on epidemics of AIDS and malaria to a broader concern with the prevention of non-communicable diseases and the holistic promotion of health and wellbeing (Buse & Hawkes, 2015).

The third area where the data inferred that there was regular sport-based involvement from CGAs was in relation to the development of quality physical education and sport in schools. Drawing parallels with Paragraph 7 of the UN 2030 Agenda and the necessity to provide universal access to quality education as an example of how sport can be an “important enabler of sustainable development and peace” (United Nations General Assembly, 2015, p. 10), 63% of CGAs reported that they were currently involved in programs or projects to enhance the quality of physical education and sport in schools (24% regularly; 39% irregularly). Furthermore, only 10% of CGAs indicated that they were not involved and not considering involvement in such programs.

Although there were some minor inter-regional differences, the qualitative responses indicated that initiatives related to quality education revolved around three main areas. First were initiatives designed to utilize physical education and sport to educate young people about the SDGs and sustainable development more generally. Aligning with SDG Target 4.7 (ensure that all learners acquire the knowledge and skills needed to promote sustainable development), several CGAs expressed that they had initiated a “values through sport” project in schools. For example, one CGA outlined how their project consisted of “curriculum related resources and an Olympic Ambassador program” (Oceania CGA), while another had instigated “collaboration with the Ministry of Education and UNESCO for a value based education in [their country’s] primary schools” (Africa CGA). The second area involved advocating for physical education to become a more visible or statutory element of both the primary and secondary school curriculum. CGAs across the Caribbean, Africa, and Oceania indicated that their most important role in relation to quality education was to advocate for the inclusion of physical education in the curriculum. For example, one CGA (Oceania) reported:

We are trying to put PE back into primary schools and promote sports in schools. We are also trying to insert PE in the curriculums to make sure students [can] pursue careers in sports.

Although such findings may demonstrate the value of physical education in fostering a healthy and active lifestyle (Dyson, 2014) and a commitment to providing a quality education, the lack of basic sport development infrastructure within many Commonwealth nations may signify a challenge to ensure the sustainability of such advocacy in schools Keim & Coning (2014). As such, some CGAs saw their role as one of promoting and supporting educational opportunities through sport. Often this involved the CGA working in collaboration with Government agencies and departments. For instance, in one Caribbean CGA, it was reported that:

We are actively working with the Ministry of Sport and [Ministry of] Health to implement a physical literacy and long-term athlete development program in pre-school and primary schools.

Embracing the spirit of SDG Target 4.33³, CGA involvement in supporting quality education concerned the provision of access to further and higher education, or vocational training for sport-related careers. As example, a Caribbean CGA mentioned that they supported “several teachers colleges that prepare physical education teachers that all are engaged/employed in the school system”, while an African CGA reported that they:

… were and are part of the sport administration courses at local Higher Learning Institutions. We also facilitate and offer post-graduate courses in sport administration.

Clearly, the data highlights and reinforces the potential for sport-based interventions to contribute to educational outcomes (Bailey et al., 2009) and supports the findings of previous sport-for-development research, which is replete with examples which illustrate the educational worth of SDP projects (Coalter, 2010; Dudfield & Dingwall-Smith, 2015; Lemke, 2016). Moreover, as the United Nations (2019) observes, quality education is critical to enabling upward socioeconomic mobility and a pivotal factor to escaping poverty. Furthermore, given that disparities in educational opportunities and outcomes are reported in sub-Saharan Africa, parts of Central and Southern Asia, and the Caribbean (United Nations, 2019), it is clear that CGAs can make a significant contribution to SDG 4 and ensure inclusive quality education for all and promote lifelong learning opportunities.

SDG Target Areas of Less Significant Contribution

As noted, CGAs were asked to reflect on several other aspects related to SDG priority areas. Despite some notable outliers, many areas appeared to be more difficult for the CGAs to provide regular and sustained engagement through sport-based approaches. In relation to several of the SDG priority areas, CGAs reported how they had previously been involved in projects but were no longer able to sustain this involvement. Although the available data did not enable our analysis to make assertions as to why this was the case, more stark was the concession that many CGAs were not even considering how sport and physical activity could contribute to some of the SDGs. Of these, initiatives designed to facilitate migrant inclusion (SDG Target 10.7)⁴ were the least considered by CGAs, with 43% reporting that they were not contemplating involvement in programs related to this aspect of the SDGs. That said, qualitative data highlighted how individual CGAs were delivering initiatives that focused on inclusion, to align with the principles of SDG 10 (Reduced Inequalities) or SDG 16 (Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions). In some cases, the focus of sport-based projects was on reducing inequality in a broad sense. In others, the focus was more specific and sought to assist with the assimilation of migrant populations or the active promotion and integration of indigenous culture within their country (Stewart-Withers et al., 2017). For instance, a CGA from Oceania reported that they hosted an annual Refugee Sports Day, while another from the same region indicated that they had been central in “supporting the implementation of a Reconciliation Action Plan” in their country. A third CGA from Oceania outlined how they utilized sport to assist in the promotion of a peaceful and inclusive society though indigenous and traditional games (Dudfield & Dingwall-Smith 2015):

Every two years, [our country] has its national games … This activity is instrumental to promoting island and national pride, and respect and sportsmanship is promoted throughout the games (Oceania CGA).

Other SDGs where some contribution of sport-based projects in relation to relevant targets was reported were sustainable consumption and production (various Targets related to SDG 12), where 22% of CGAs reported involvement; and job creation, innovation and entrepreneurship (SDG 8—Target 8.35⁵), where 23% of CGAs reported a contribution. Interestingly, where CGAs expressed that they were involved in projects or had considered the contribution of sport to meeting one of these SDG targets, there was often a pertinence of the SDG area with a notable concern within their region or country. For example, to align with targets noted within SDG 16 (Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions) several CGAs indicated that they were engaged in sport and physical activity projects that focussed on reducing violence and diverting young people away from anti-social behaviour. As one Caribbean CGA noted:

Our CGA has conducted workshops and engaged a number of stakeholders and community groups across the island to enhance their knowledge base in the delivery of programs geared towards trouble youths.

An aspect of the SDGs that was notable for its varied response by CGAs was SDG 13 (Climate Action). With growing concerns surrounding the urgent need to combat climate change and its impacts (United Nations, 2019), a third of CGAs (33%) indicated that they had been involved in a project to mitigate climate change. However, 23% of CGAs reported that they had not considered nor had such projects in place, with the Americas, Asian, and European CGAs reporting the least consideration of sports-based programs to facilitate climate action. Although the reasons for this limited engagement in environmental projects are unclear, it would appear that this finding corresponds with research that has observed that the physical environment has been somewhat neglected by SDP stakeholders and that environmental issues are often afforded marginal status in comparison to issues related more directly with social and economic imperatives (Guilianotti et al., 2018; Millington & Darnell, 2020).

Where some consideration of climate action was evident, often this was restricted to ensuring that CGAs complied with their international obligations in respect to climate change, akin to what Miller (2017) has described as green-washing. For example, a CGA in Africa outlined how they are conscious to “use environmentally friendly initiatives in our operating environment” to underline how CGAs often gave the appearance of environmental responsibility but, in reality, did little to advance environmental sustainability (Guilianotti et al., 2018).

That said, there was some limited evidence of a deeper engagement with climate issues. For example, a small number of CGAs reported how climate action involvement consisted of working in concert with Government to provide support, advocacy, or act as identified partners on environmental projects in their country (SDG Target 13.2⁶). For example, one CGA in Asia outlined how they had collaborated with Government and non-governmental organizations on projects to mitigate animal extinction in their country. In another example, a CGA from Africa explained:

[The] Ministry of Tourism and Environment works with our CGA on environmental issues such as protecting the environment, air, water and other related sustainable initiatives.

In other cases, CGAs were centrally involved in specific projects to educate or raise awareness of climate change issues (SDG Target 13.3⁷). For example, a CGA from Oceania highlighted a specific project (Go Green Values) which utilized athletes to promote and support activities to alleviate climate change and reduce carbon footprint, while several other CGAs indicated involvement in tree planting initiatives. As an African CGA noted, involvement in such initiatives often helped to raise the profile of their organization:

Our tree planting exercise with our sponsors all over the country has been hailed as the way forward for a sustainable climate growth.

However, despite these isolated examples, data indicated that there were a number of SDG areas that CGAs needed to consider more closely, or work to investigate the barriers to continuing activity. In addition, a more co-ordinated and strategic approach to integrating SDGs as the basis for project design and policy outcomes will be required if CGAs are to assume a leadership role in the sector. As a point of departure, individual CGAs could be encouraged to identify which elements of the SDGs are most relevant to the needs of either their country or CGF region, before moving towards the creation of focussed sport-based programs that align with the shared priorities of other national or regional stakeholders.

Conclusion

The inauguration of the SDGs provided a blueprint to enable concerted action towards addressing a range of critical challenges related to social, economic and environmental development (Spangenberg, 2017). There is extensive acceptance that sport may act as a cultural vehicle through which the SDGs may be tackled (Lemke, 2016). However, aside from small-scale evaluations of local projects that have championed the role of sport to contribute to the SDGs, there are limited empirical studies to evidence the commitment of national or global sporting organizations towards the SDGs (Svensson & Loat, 2019). To address this shortfall, this paper has sought to provide insights into the policy and practice contributions of 62 CGAs to present a baseline for current policy action towards the SDGs and provide a foundation for future strategizing.

The findings infer that there is widespread acknowledgement among CGAs that they have a pivotal role to adopt in contributing to local, national and international commitments related to the SDGs. Furthermore, there is evidence to indicate that there are considerable and noteworthy projects in place to address some SDGs, in particular concerning the advancement of gender equality, improving physical and mental health, and developing education provision. Given the constraint of space, we have applied a ‘broad brush’ approach to presenting these data and depicted an outline of current endeavours within the Commonwealth to connect sport with the SDGs. As such, although this article has purposefully avoided a detailed comparison of CGF regions and is limited by its width of focus in charting the current landscape, the prominent role of CGAs in many Commonwealth countries would suggest that they are well-positioned to design policy and co-ordinate strategic action in relation to sport’s contribution to the SDGs at a local or national level. However, more critically, it would appear that this contribution is only focussed on a limited number of SDG areas, and that the contributions are often piecemeal or incidental rather than the result of co-ordinated, sustained involvement.

Although the use of sport to contribute to all of the SDGs would appear impractical or divert resources away from the existing work that has demonstrated considerable positive impact, there is clear potential for CGAs, and (inter)national sports organizations more broadly, to re-think previous strategic responses and establish coherent and better co-ordinated policy approaches to delivering on SDG obligations. Existing research has noted the urgent need to identify novel and evidence-based solutions to mobilize stakeholders and resources in sport for development projects (Lindsey et al., 2019; Svensson & Loat, 2019), and Lindsey and Darby (2018) have outlined the specific challenges associated with instigating mutually and coherently agreed policy objectives. However, the identification and focus upon six of the SDGs by the Commonwealth Secretariat (Dudfield & Dingwall-Smith, 2015) provides a strategic platform for CGAs to direct attention and demonstrate their contribution to global imperatives beyond the narrow confines of sport.

Although progress towards the attainment of these six SDGs will meet with inevitable contestation from stakeholders, as they project their own interests and respond to the differing power relations of local, national and international partners (Lindsey & Darby, 2018), the findings presented in this paper provide a vital embarkation point for basing future collaborative efforts for sport to demonstrate its contribution to the SDGs. As noted, the lack of a granular level analysis of these data, to highlight noteworthy trends or differences between CGF regions or variance between high-income or low-to-middle-income nations, is a limitation of the current study, and would appear to be a logical direction for future research. Furthermore, if we assume the critical importance of partnership as the ‘enabling driver’ for the attainment of the SDGs, an essential next step in terms of research will be to continue to address the dearth of empirical knowledge on the perceptions of key stakeholders, and identify the extent to which partnerships are integrated as part of a wider strategic action plan on sport and sustainability.

Acknowledgements, Funding, and Conflict of Interest Statement

The authors would like to thank the CGF for collecting the data and inviting the authors to analyse their data. The authors did not receive any funding for this project and the CGF had no involvement in the preparation and parameters of this paper and did not have any role during the analyses or interpretation of data. The authors declare there is no conflict of interest.