Reflection on article Cheating and NASCAR

The size of the organization presents a challenging ethical dilemma because of the vast reach the organization has within society, commercial/retail industries, and the media. The case states that NASCAR’s “television ratings are second only to football, has 75 million fans, and over $2 billion in licensed products” (Baucus, Norton, Davis-Sramek, Meek; 2008, p.379). An organization that large should exercise due diligence regarding ethical practices, but NASCAR is quite the contrary.

The two arguments within the article pose critical questions that are the crux of the industry’s success. If NASCAR opted to align its behavior with more ethical standards their biggest stakeholders, fans and sponsors, would be negatively impacted. The sponsors would not sustain their investment if the return diminished because the number of fans attending the races and purchasing licensed retail items declined. Likewise, if the number and amount of sponsorships declined, the races would become less exciting and much less glamorous. This catch-22 would then deter the attention of the broadcasting media who would refocus on other sporting events.

With all that said, we have yet to consider the impact on the many geographical racing communities that a decline in the industry would cause. Across the country, the many towns hosting businesses that make their living off the NASCAR industry would be forced to close or redirect their business focus in order to stay afloat. The bottom line is that the number of stakeholders within the NASCAR industry is too large and the impact of changing ethical practices would be too detrimental and never be instated.

This conclusion logically implies that the NASCAR industry doesn’t have any interest in eliminating unethical practices because of the implications it would have on its primary stakeholders. Individuals that are born into and raised in racing communities are brought up believing that unethical practices are acceptable. Racing “communities developed shared norms that relax the interpretation of the rules” (Baucus, et al., 2008, 382).

The case also brings forth an important point that instituting stricter rules may not, in fact, deter unethical behavior at all. The point was made that the NASCAR rulebook was only used by racers/personnel as a guideline of what not to do, and there was always loopholes for inventive thought. “If the rule book didn’t say you couldn’t do it, then you did it and kept on doing it…it’s a game of cat and mouse with no clearly defined boundaries because the rulebooks is notorious for its vagueness” (Baucus, et al., 2008, p. 382). From this we can infer that ‘inventive thought’ and ‘loopholes’ aren’t defined as unethical within the racing industry, and no matter how many changes to the rulebook or guidelines for best practices, new ways will be found to maintain the popularity of the industry.

Dismaying as it may be, unethical practices will continue within NASCAR as they have since its inception. The only way of instituting change within the industry is if the primary stakeholders exercised a boycott until better practices were demonstrated, but given NASCAR’s immense popularity despite unethical behavior, I don’t believe a boycott will be seen in my lifetime.