On Ethics in Business

Yom Kippur, 5758

Rabbi Melanie Aron

Last year I mentioned my experiences rock climbing with the American Leadership Forum. Scaling the face of a cliff, supported by my fellow ALF'ers belaying from below, was quite a stretch for me, in many ways. The program, however, didn't end with the outdoor adventures, but continued throughout the year, with day long meetings and occasional retreats. 24 of us, including high ranking corporate executives, political leaders and representatives from the non-profit sector like myself got together regularly to discuss issues relating to Silicon Valley and its various communities. One of the goals of the program was to put a human face on some of the social issues of our times. A second goal was for us to get to know one another as individuals rather than as titles.

For me the program worked fairly well. Having breakfast or lunch together and then studying for a few hours is a very pleasant way to interact. The business people were intelligent and open, and seemed to be kind and caring human beings. In fact, it was sometimes hard to remind myself that the same CEO of 3Com or Chairman of Cisco who was so graciously asking me questions about the challenges of my daily life, could also be quite ruthless in seeking to increase his company's market share or otherwise compete in the global market.

Seeing these extraordinarily successful individuals, personally kind, but clearly professionally very aggressive and competitive, operating in these two totally different modes made me think about the dichotomy that sometimes exists between personal ethics and business ethics. This year a variety of circumstances are causing others within the Jewish community to wonder about the same thing.

For starters and on both coasts of the country, there is controversy about whether an individual's business practices are relevant to their appointment as a Jewish communal leader.

In New York, there was a major challenge in the usually genteel and automatic election of the president of the New York Federation of Jewish Philanthropies. James S. Tisch, who was nominated and did eventually get elected, was challenged because of his involvement in Lorillard, a major tobacco company. After all some orthodox halachic authorities have banned the use of tobacco as a threat to life, and tobacco advertising has long been recognized as an example of placing a stumbling block before the blind.

Then a similar situation arose in Houston, Texas, when Charles Hurwitz was called to task as a Jew, and Federation macher, because of his involvement in Maxaam, a company in which he is a majority stock holder. Maxaam is the parent company of Pacific Lumber which fairly recently took over some of the last privately owned old growth Redwoods here in California. Along with the many environmental groups involved in the "Save the Redwoods" campaign are many Jewish groups, foremost among them, the very established and staid, Temple Emanu-El of San Fransciso.

James Tisch's rise to prominence, the position of president of the NY Federation being one of the highest positions of lay leadership in the American Jewish community, raised questions about whether there was a limit to the wall of separation that has traditionally existed between an individual's business practices and philanthropic life. "What if the Tisch's had been arms dealers?" those urging a breaking down of the traditional wall argued: "could a person who made their millions selling arms to Iraq become president of the United Jewish Appeal?" Can we honor someone for their generosity in distributing their wealth, if the way they amassed their wealth stands in conflict with Jewish ethical teachings?

A related issue that has come up, concerns individuals who are recognized in their communities as philanthropic leaders but are found to have poor labor practices. Consider the case of Bernie Marcus, corporate chair of Home Depot. He was recognized in the October issue of Moment magazine as the donor of the month, after having given $15 million to the Atlanta Jewish Federation's Community Capital Campaign. ( I know Jon Friedenberg is wishing, it should only happen to us.) Yet an article in the Northern California Jewish Bulletin of September 26th, notes that in July a federal court jury in Oakland returned a verdict of $1.6 million in punitive damages against the company in a case involving sexual discrimination and retaliation. They have also recently agreed to pay $65 million to settle a class action sex discrimination claim made by 25,000 female employees in the company's Western division. These are not isolated incidents; similar suits have been filed in other parts of the country.

Traditionally Judaism has not recognized a separate category called business ethics. The same standards which were to apply to our personal lives were to be present in our business dealings. This afternoon we will read Leviticus 19, the Holiness Code, a section discussing among other things, the weights and measures that the ancient merchant used in his business The religious importance of these being just and true weights comes through in the Bible's choice of words- to use false weights and measures is a toevah, a word used infrequently in the bible- usually in connection with the sins of child sacrifice and bestiality. American public opinion is strongly aroused on issues of child sacrifice and satanic worship, and with regard to those convicted of sexual crimes- but what kind of outcry results from run of the mill business abuses?

Rabbi Jeff Salkin, author of Putting God on the Guest List, wrote recently in his new book about work and spirituality, Being God's Partner, that Leviticus 19 should be considered The Ultimate Business School Final Examination. It presents Judaism's basic stance, that business ethics is not an oxymoron. Often we think of Jewish law as dealing with ritual and observance, but is interesting to note that keeping kosher, the symbol of Judaism for many people, is mentioned in only 24 of the commandments of the Torah, while economic issues, are found in over 100.

In post-Biblical times, the leaders of the community, were not paid salaries for their religious roles, and typically earned a living in some other way. The great Rabbis of the Mishnah and Talmud, had quite a variety of occupations. Rabbi Joshua was a blacksmith, Rabbi Hanina a shoemaker, and Rabbi Yosef, a builder. Some of the rabbis were poor while others were successful merchants or large landowners. While Jewish law deals with the obligations of workers as well as the obligations of employers, it was particularly important that those of the more comfortable classes model adherence to the halachah, the principals of Jewish law, in all their business dealings. It is unimaginable, for example, that Rabbi Gamliel could be elected head of the rabbinic leadership, without a sense that his religious values permeated all that he did. If he had not left the corners of his large estate for the landless to harvest, or paid his workers daily as was the requirement of rabbinic law, it is clear that he could not continue to guide the academy.

The rabbis viewed business ethics as one of the essentials upon which we are judged by God. In a very famous passage in the Talmud, we are told that we will be judged by God with regard to four matters- our study, our family life, our involvement in tikkun olam, and the ethics of our business dealings.

Perhaps the best proof of the centrality of business ethics, is the rabbis' understanding of why God chose Moses to lead the Israelites. We are told that God chose Moses, because of the way God saw Moses operating his sheep herding business. The midrash explains that God watched Moses chasing over the mountains on a stormy night to find one little lost sheep and bring it to safety. At that moment God chose Moses to be the shepherd of his people Israel. I'm sure Moses could have done a cost benefit analysis that would have showed that it was not cost effective for him to wear himself out looking for one lost lamb, but had he done so, God never would have revealed to him the burning bush.

Most people in social situations can be quite charming- sometimes its different when they become your landlord or your boss. Efficiency is a basic business principal- but when does it need to be moderated by other concerns? Milton Friedman wrote, that the only social responsibility of business is to increase profits within the limits of the law, but our Torah disagrees.

The book of Deuteronomy calls for the king to have a Torah scroll written out expressly for him. I believe that this was a reminder that even in statecraft the laws of the Torah are to be binding. Certainly the same was true of business.

Think of the contrast between the King in the book of Deuteronomy, ever mindful of his subservience to the law of God, and Sherman McCoy, remember him from the protagonist of Tom Wolfe's wickedly funny book Bonfire of the Vanities. He who called himself Master of the Universe.

You must have heard the story about the young rabbinical students sent down to a small town in the south where the workers were on a strike at a textile plant owned by the Temple's largest contributor. Before he left the college, he was warned that he should only preach the Bible- so he gets up on the first Friday night he is there and reads from the prophets this morning's Haftarah: "They ask of me the right way as though delighting in the nearness of God. When we fast you say, why do You pay no heed? Why, when we afflict ourselves do You take no notice? Because on your fast day, you pursue your own affairs, while you oppress all your workers." The Haftarah we read this morning- my guess is his tenure was short.

Businesses are in business to make money. Yet, Jewish law would place limitations on what any business may do to achieve that goal.

A Christian commentator recently noted that in medieval society, where religion was at the center of the life of the individual and the community, the most imposing buildings were the cathedrals. Today in most communities, the newest and grandest buildings were built or sponsored by business. Business is the most powerful force in the world right now and business sets the tone for our society. How very important it is then that business remember its ethical obligations.

There are issues for non-profit organizations, too. As they are called upon to do more, they have become more dependent on corporate rather than individual giving. The issues parallel those raised in campaign reform. I wonder whether some of the very fashionable contemporary marriages between many non-profits and their major corporate donors, may be a bit too cozy. For example, if you are a non-profit involved in the retraining of downsized workers, receiving the bulk of your funds from the companies that are downsizing, might lead you to be less than critical of their ways and means in achieving their economic goals. Can charitable organizations speak out for their constituents - if they are beholder is their funding sources?

Our tradition tells us that you can't say the berachah, the blessing, on an etrog you haven't acquired in an honest way, and I wonder about the points in heaven for corporate donations taken from profit margins created from the sufferings of other human beings. A charitable donation doesn't make up for labor or environmental abuses. In fact, if the abuses are ongoing, it is a little bit like the Talmudic story of the man who goes to purify himself in a ritual bath, while still holding the lizard, which is the source of his impurities, in his hand. Being an ethical business person is a lot more than being philanthropic. Ben Cohen of Ben and Jerry's commented on the question of charity versus good practice. He said: Giving away a portion of our profits is nice, but it is a minor thing compared to the positive social impact we can have by (making) the way we run our business."

I am not really in business, yet in a sense I am. A synagogue has to function at least fairly efficiently in order to accomplish its goals and meet the needs of its members. A Temple faces many of the same issues as any employer and I know that we continuously struggle to be both a competent and humane work place. In addition, as a rabbi, I would feel that I am shirking my responsibilities if I did not set a religious tone for the financial dealings of the congregation. While the finances of the Temple are a lay responsibility, what kind of rabbi would I be if I preached honesty and integrity and allowed the Temple to be an accomplice to tax evasion? We have never been approached with the opportunity to balance our Temple budget or pay off our mortgage by laundering drug money, (I guess I just don't hang out with the right people) , but I know other Jewish religious institutions that have convinced themselves that money laundering or other equally illegal ways of making money were acceptable because of the importance of their cause. I see my role as helping to integrate religious values into every aspect of our Temple's functioning including the financial. It is not my role to set dues or negotiate with any Temple member, but how could I lift up my head if I did not believe that our dues structure was equitable and fairly applied?

Many of you are probably in positions like mine, where you may not officially be business people. Yet upon reflection, there may be areas in which you function where issues of business ethics apply. Perhaps you have some managerial responsibilities, or otherwise influence the setting of policy. Maybe you oversee benefit packages, or speak for your company with regard to relations with your local community. Whatever your position the reflections of a Jewish architect, not particularly religious, may have some meaning to you : He wrote as part of his ethical will:

"I do an honest day's work. I charge reasonable fees. I give tzedakah both in money and in pro bono services. I refuse to accept illegal work. I give all my support staff benefits. I sleep well at night."

Last Sunday morning at our new member coffee, Andy Altman reminded me of an old commercial, I had almost completely forgotten about, but which I feel sums up my message. It was the commercial for Hebrew National frankfurters. A voice over announced, something to the effect that, the USDA allows 10% non meat filler- and then after a crash of thunder and a bolt of lightening, the words- "But we answer to a higher authority." The question is not common practice or what the market will bear: the question is whether under circumstances where others are behaving badly, we will insist on being a mensch.