Background. Grassroots football clubs operate as volunteer-driven, democratic non-profit organizations with an inherent social mission that goes beyond football. Social responsibility in Swedish grassroots football clubs is implemented by their members. This makes the clubs highly dependent on the everyday interactions of individual actors such as coaches and administrators. These individuals work as the bridge between the clubs’ social mission and its realization in practice, but they operate within a complex environment shaped by constrained resources, informal governances structures, and conflictual interactions. Therefore, stakeholder dialogue is investigated as the mechanism through which social responsibility is negotiated and enacted, depending on perceptions and roles of the people who carry it out. 

Purpose. The purpose of this thesis is to analyze how individual actors, such as coaches and administrators, influence, shape, and enact CSR-related stakeholder dialogue within the context of Swedish Grassroots football clubs. Attention shifts from organizational-level outcomes to micro-level processes since the study examines how both coaches and administrators act as a bridge between the club’s policy related to social responsibility and the club’s reality in practice. This study aims to uncover how social responsibility is negotiated through individual perceptions and interactions, with the ambition to contribute to the literature in Sports Management.

Method. This study consists of eleven semi-structured interviews conducted online with seven coaches and four administrators of Swedish grassroots football clubs. Participants were selected through purposive and convenience sampling, making sure of their experience within their club. Data was further analyzed using Braun and Clarke (2006) thematic analysis with an inductive approach. 

Conclusion. Based on the empirical data, CSR-stakeholder dialogue in Swedish grassroots football clubs is shaped mainly by who coaches and administrators are as people rather than by what their clubs formally require of them. Social responsibility in this context does not follow a formal agenda, it happens through daily interactions, personal values, and democratic decisions made by individuals who genuinely care about the clubs’ mission. Conflict was found to play a constructive role, strengthening the social mission. Although human qualities make these practices real and meaningful, they are also fragile, and when a key person leaves, what they built within the club is in risk.