business ethics unit III case study and DQ Question

The Genesis of Employment Ethics

Harry J. Van Buren III • Michelle Greenwood

Received: 24 May 2012 / Accepted: 5 April 2013 / Published online: 27 April 2013

� Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2013

Abstract Given the growing interest in religion and spiri-

tuality in the community and workplace, we consider what

light one of the oldest sources of human ethics, the Torah, can

throw on the vexing issues of contemporary employment

ethics and social sustainability. We specifically consider the

Torah because it is the primary document of Judaism, the

source of all the basic Biblical commandments, and a

framework of ethics. A distinctive feature of Jewish ethics is

its interpretive approach to moral philosophy: that is,

immersion and sense making in a dense, lived-in, compli-

cated moral world, which is particularly useful with regard to

ethical analyses of the workplace. Rather than discover or

create a new ethic for the employer–employee relationship,

we seek to harness general principles and norms from the

Torah to contemporary business conditions. In the spirit of

sustainability, rather than plunder the new, we recreate from

existing resources. Interpretations from the Torah provide a

rich source of moral and practical guidance for contemporary

business ethics while also responding to academic and pop-

ular interest in spirituality and business. These tenets, how-

ever, have not to date been specifically directed at current

predicaments in employment. We redress this by deriving

principles from the Torah and applying them to ethical issues

in contemporary employment practices. Practical guidance

for both research in and practice of employment ethics is also

provided.

Keywords Employment ethics � Employees � Ethical principles � Torah � Workplace practices � Social sustainability

Introduction

Given the growing interest in religion and spirituality in the

community and workplace, we consider what light one of

the oldest sources of human ethics can throw on the vexed

issues of contemporary employment ethics and social

sustainability. In the words of Walzer (1987, p. 20): ‘We do

not have to discover the moral world because we have

always lived there.’ Rather than discover or create a new

ethic for the employer–employee relationship, we seek to

interpret and advance the established. In the spirit of sus-

tainability, rather than plunder the new, we recreate from

existing resources. Religion, rather than declining in

importance, is actually becoming more significant as a

social and cultural force in many countries, including the

industrialized world (Micklethwait and Wooldridge 2009).

In the view of MacIntyre, however, the diverse social

groupings of contemporary societies lack sufficient shared

understandings to uphold civil virtues against the domi-

nance of market forces (Herbert 2003). Tradition—partic-

ularly religious tradition—provides an antidote to the

fragmentation and lack of coherence of post-modernity

(MacIntyre 1988). The Torah (the Hebrew word for the

first five books of the Bible) and Jewish ethics have pro-

vided a rich source of moral and practical guidance for

business ethics (Pava 1997a; Tamari 1997). Rather than

suggest that current employment ethics originate in the

H. J. Van Buren III (&) Anderson School of Management, University of New Mexico,

Albuquerque, NM 87131, USA

e-mail: [email protected]

M. Greenwood

Department of Management, Faculty of Business and

Economics, Monash University, Building 11, Clayton,

VIC 3800, Australia

e-mail: [email protected]

123

J Bus Ethics (2013) 117:707–719

DOI 10.1007/s10551-013-1722-2

Torah, we posit that Torah principles hold significant value

for ethical debates in the contemporary workplace. How-

ever, these principles have not been specifically brought

together to inform current debates about ethical predica-

ments in employment. We redress this by considering

interpretations from the books of the Torah as they might

cast light on ethical issues in contemporary employment

practices.

Our focus here is not on how religious beliefs affect

individuals’ decision making and behavior. This topic has

had significant interest (Agle and Van Buren 1999; Albaum

and Peterson 2006) and thorough exploration (Brief and

Aldag 1977; Randall and Cote 1991; Nash 1994; Nash and

McLennan 2001; Angelidis and Ibrahim 2004). Further-

more, our focus is not on spirituality in the workplace

generally, although this topic similarly has been the focus

of considerable attention (Mitroff and Denton 1999; Jur-

kiewicz and Giacalone 2004). Rather, our interest is on the

implications of the Torah on institutions and organizations,

and the sustainability of social life within these forms.

Following McKenzie’s (2004) deeply considered devel-

opment of the concept, 1

we understand social sustainability

as formal processes and institutional structures, systems

and relationships (in addition to informal process and

relationships); based on principles of equity, diversity,

interconnectedness, quality of life and democratic pro-

cesses, and accountable governance that create healthy and

livable communities. In order to achieve this, ‘we need not

only moral people, even more importantly, we need moral

structures and organizations’ (De George 1981, p. 12).

We also seek to take religion seriously within manage-

ment and business ethics scholarship (following King

2008), both as a source of ethical guidance and as one of

the ways in which humans construct personal meaning in

organizations. Indeed, creating and sustaining human

communities (households, cities and nations) are under-

stood as common practice in the ancient world (MacIntyre

1985). However, as noted by Pava (1997a), while the Torah

provides critiques of individual responsibilities, commu-

nities, the economy, and economic systems, it has little to

say directly about organizations and organizational-level

activities. Yet, a multitude of organizations and organiza-

tional activities dominates our lives on so many different

levels, not least of which include our working lives. Hence,

there is an imperative for scholarship to form the bridge

between the fundamental wisdom underpinning the basic

relationship between employer and worker. The

contemporary workplace posses complex contemporary

threats to social sustainability, such as increasing expec-

tations for employees to work longer hours, reduced

employee privacy, increasing income inequality, loss of

employee voice, and employees’ lack of access to the

information needed to adequately defend their interests.

To achieve this end, this paper commences with this

introduction that identifies the growing importance of

religion and spirituality in sectors of the community and

the workplace, an overview of the role of the Torah and

Jewish ethics in business, and a summary of extant litera-

ture on the topic of the Torah and employment. Next, an

analysis of principles of the Torah in relation to contem-

porary business organizations is presented. This is followed

by an application of these principles to five current moral

dilemmas in employment. Finally, practical guidance for

both research in and practice of employment ethics is

provided.

The Rise of Spirituality and Religion

The interaction of management, spirituality, and religion

has become a significant topic among popular writers and

scholars (Jones 1996; Brackman and Jaffe 2008). Whether

or not one belongs to an institutionalized religious orga-

nization, or engages in one or more of myriad spiritual

practices, it is clear that spirituality and religion are rele-

vant to the study of a wide variety of topics, including

management. Steingard (2005) proposes that spirituality

should propel new lines of inquiry for management

research; a similar argument can be made for the myriad

religious systems throughout the world that people claim

allegiance to. We provide justification for the inclusion of

spirituality and religion within management studies

henceforth.

Religion is an important influence on peoples’ actions.

For many people, a religious practice is the ‘master motive’

that helps them cope with the ups and downs of life

(McIntosh et al. 1993; Wuthnow 1998). While not insti-

tutionalized to the same extent as religious traditions, it is

clear that spiritual practices have an effect on the will-

ingness of individuals to engage in political behavior,

volunteer in their communities, and interact with like-

minded others. Related to the impact of religion and spir-

ituality on communities and politics are their effects in

the workplace. We will argue that insights from the Torah

are responsive to concerns that practices of spirituality

and religion in the workplace are merely being used

to reinforce existing business strategies and pecuniary

motivations.

A common theme of recent literature is the degree to

which religiosity affects ethical decision making in the

workforce (Kennedy and Lawton 1998; Angelidis and

1 McKenzie (2004, p. 18) provides the following definition: ‘‘Social

sustainability occurs when the formal and informal processes,

systems, structures and relationships actively support the capacity

of current and future generations to create healthy and liveable

communities. Socially sustainable communities are equitable, diverse,

connected and democratic and provide a good quality of life.’’

708 H. J. Van Buren III, M. Greenwood

123

Ibrahim 2004; Conroy and Emerson 2004; Mazereeuw

et al. 2008). Religious belief, according to most of this

research, seems to make a small but statistically significant

difference to the ethical beliefs and inclinations of

respondents (Albaum and Peterson 2006). Part of the rea-

son why differences between religious and non-religious

respondents may be small is that organizational demands

for conformity may overwhelm individuals’ ethical beliefs

(Agle and Van Buren 1999). However, empirical work in

the broad area of religion, spirituality, and organization is

in its infancy, with much yet to be discovered.

Furthermore, the Torah may be seen as the first text

critical of social institutions. We argue that the Torah and

Jewish interpretations thereof are the original ‘critical

management studies.’ The Torah is not condemnatory of

economic activity, but rather seeks to place it within an

ethical framework within which ethical obligations and the

needs of the wider community must be taken into account

(see Pava 1998 on this last point). Hence, our reading of

Torah is as ‘critical’: critical of excessive employer pre-

rogative and critical of rampant unchecked economic

growth. This view of Torah as placing boundaries or con-

taining human activity is in keeping with a Jewish reading

and can be contrasted with other readings such as Wagner-

Tsukamoto’s (2009) integrative economic approach that

suggests that theology and economics are not opposed, but

work together for the resolution of social conflict and

cooperation problems.

The Torah, while quite obviously a set of religious texts,

is also concerned with very practical issues facing the

Israelites for whom they were sacred texts (Kaiser 1983).

Within the Jewish tradition, the essential goal of religious

observance is not to achieve some promise of a life after

death (as it is with much of Christian tradition), but rather

living a life that is good and faithful as it is expressed in the

commandments of the Torah. As Pava (1998) notes, Jewish

ethics is understood as the interpretation of the written and

oral Torah to determine not only what we should be but

what we should do.

Why Torah and Business Ethics?

The notion that religion informs economic behavior is as

old as the market economy itself. Adam Smith’s classic

model of a free market libertarian economy demanded that

business activities be constrained by ‘morals, religious

custom and education’ (cited in Pava 1997a, p. 3). Indeed,

according to Smith ‘religion, even in its rudest form gave a

sanction to the rules of morality, long before the age of

artificial reasoning and philosophy’ (Conroy and Emerson

2004). Historically, renowned business practitioners

(Cadbury 2002) and scholars (Weber 2001/1930) have

expounded religious views of work. What is new are the

imperatives to address moral obligations of multinational

corporations with respect to global labor practices (Arnold

and Hartman 2006) and the common goal to establish

ethical standards across the globe (Ali and Gibbs 1998).

The three major monotheistic religions based on the

Hebrew Scriptures are professed by over half the world

population (Beed and Beed 2002). According to Friedman

(2003, p. not available), ‘the Bible has had a profound

effect on billions of people, both believers and non-

believers.’ As such, the Torah, particularly the Ten Com-

mandments, provides a unique and viable possibility for the

achievement of global moral business values (Ali and

Gibbs 1998). In their study of the Ten Commandments

across all three religions, Ali and Gibbs note that ‘[i]n the

age of globalization, highlighting the implications of the

TCs [Ten Commandments] in the business world is

essential not only to the enhancement of the soul but also

for building a foundation for moral conduct that is relevant

globally’ (1998, p. 156).

The values and principles arising from the Bible imbue

many societies and are held by a broad range of individuals

within the workplace, whether they are cognisant of the

origin of these beliefs or not. Indeed, according Wagner-

Tsukamoto (2009), ‘the Old Testament analyses the reso-

lution of economic conflict in social interactions, specifi-

cally social interactions that concern nation-building and

international relations in a multicultural, pluralistic con-

text.’ Hence, we argue that reference to Torah is both

inclusive and pluralist. The contractual nature that is

implied in the Ten Commandments, along with an

emphasis on acceptable behavior, honesty, faithfulness,

and respect for authority figures, are important business

and management mechanisms (Ali and Gibbs 1998).

We focus on the Jewish interpretation of the first five

books of the Bible (referred to by the Hebrew ‘Torah’ or

Greek ‘Pentateuch’) for two distinct reasons. One is that the

Jewish religion takes stronger direction from the command-

ments of the Bible than its counterparts. The other is that the

Jewish religion is focused on living a good life in this world,

that is, ‘the role of man on earth’ (Ali and Gibbs 1998,

p. 153). The Pentateuch provides the foundation for the

Jewish religion. Importantly, as will be expounded later, the

Torah is not anti-business but supportive of economic

activity and material acquisition within set boundaries

(Tamari 1997).

The Torah has a long history of being interpreted by

scholars within the context of contemporaneous society.

Over 1,500 years ago rabbinical scholars compiled the oral

law in the Talmud: voluminous texts which have been

highly influential in religious and ethical scholarship and

practice (Friedman 1985; Carver 2004). We acknowledge

that any current interpretation of Torah cannot be under-

taken without reference to these great religious and

The Genesis of Employment Ethics 709

123

scholarly works. 2

However, these works are heavily

embedded into particular religious and historic contexts,

contain writing which ‘is terse and its meaning is fre-

quently elusive,’ and are not readily accessible to the

general reader (Carver 2004, p. 138). Hence, the focus of

our analysis is the original source, the Torah, albeit nec-

essarily informed by rabbinic literature.

How Torah and Business Ethics?

There is some disagreement as to the extent to which the

Torah is, or should be taken as, prescriptive of business

behavior (Beed and Beed 2004). According to Pava (1997a),

the value of biblical text is as aspiration rather than pre-

scriptive with regard to outcomes. Tamari (1997, p. 46)

concurs that what is offered is ‘not a specific economic sys-

tem but a spiritual and moral framework for business.’ Dorff

(1997), however, notes that in addition to general principles,

the Torah offers specific rules, indeed, that the meaning of the

word the Torah is ‘instruction.’ We accept the value of both

normative elements: legalistic norms which specify behavior

in given situations and are binding; and models of aspiration

which ‘demand, not simply obedience to a set of fixed texts,

but an imaginative and all encompassing attempt to transform

ourselves’ (Pava 1997a, p. 57).

Following a growing interest in the use of narrative to

explore business ethics (Greenwood 2000; Rhodes and

Brown 2005), we note that the Bible provides a moral

outlook on life in literary form (Adeney 2004). As a ‘non-

fictional novel’ the Bible provides symbolic structure of

meaning with expression of emotion, moral laws and rules,

and moral principles and themes (Adeney 2004, p. 96).

Campbell (2008) claims that there are many illustrations

and examples in the Torah which are applicable to man-

agement and leadership strategies. In the words of Fried-

man (2000, p. 43), ‘the Pentateuch (i.e., the Torah), is

replete with precepts that deal with business ethics and can,

therefore, be used as a starting point for those interested in

developing higher moral standards for business.’

A further distinctiveness of Jewish ethics lies not in its

content, but in its method of interpretive inquiry (Pava

1997b). Pava (1997b, p. 14) identifies Judaism as taking an

interpretive approach to moral philosophy: that is, immersion

and sense making of a dense, ‘lived-in,’ complicated moral

world akin to a thick description (see Denzin 2001). Inter-

pretation is distinct from discovery (e.g., new revelation of

existing objective moral truths); distinct from invention (e.g.,

creation of a new moral world); and consistent with the

customary, text-centered, Jewish approach to ethics (Pava

1997b).

Interpretation and application of Torah is almost as old

of the Torah itself, both in the specific sense of formal

rabbinical reinterpretation of Jewish law (Halakha), and in

the broader sense of general learning and debate. We

should not try to apply biblical texts mechanically or in

their detailed minutiae in order to support the point of view

we already had: rather, we should seek to harness general

principles and norms which emerge from traditional sour-

ces to contemporary business conditions (Dorff 1997; Beed

and Beed 2004). This method of interpretation within the

Jewish context balances the objectivity of moral truth and

the capacity and dignity of humans as moral agents.

The extent to which it is acceptable for modern rabbis

and scholars to reinterpret Jewish law to reflect contempo-

rary contexts is highly disputed within Judaism, and is one

of the defining features of the various denominations within

the religion. Interpretation in this paper is not undertaken in

the specific formal manner and, therefore, not referent to

ancient scholarly writings. Rather, we use Torah principles,

and interpretations of these principles, as identified in aca-

demic business ethics literature for our analysis. This is

complemented by the use of original biblical texts for fur-

ther analysis and illustration of these principles.

Extant Applications of Torah to Employment

While there is considerable debate on biblical principles

applicable to business ethics, there is a dearth of such

analysis specifically on employment and social sustain-

ability. As such, our review of the extant literature will be

by necessity broadened to include related topics that could

inform the employment ethics debate.

In a spirited application of a range of Torah-derived

ideas to strategic management, Campbell (2008) notes that

while the land of suffering (i.e., Egypt) was a top-down

totalitarian regime, the ideal and promised community (i.e.,

Israel) was based on democracy and dialogue in combi-

nation with directive leadership. On a different note, the

ritualistic demand for distinctive dress, language, calendar,

holidays, diet, philosophy and belief system, and even

hygiene distinguishes an identifiable and strong culture that

guides and binds people together in a multifaceted manner.

In a similar way, companies strive to establish strong

value-based corporate cultures, and preserve such cultures

in the minds of their employees, with the belief that this

will enhance their capacity to navigate the future and

embrace change (Campbell 2008).

Using an evangelical Christian interpretation of biblical

principles, Beed and Beed (2002) consider forms of own-

ership and employment within organizations. They gener-

ate ten principles by which work and organization should

be guided. The most radical contests the sanctity of not just

ownership and private property, but the distribution of such

2 We thank Rabbi Ehud Bandel for drawing our attention to this

important point and his interest in our endeavors.

710 H. J. Van Buren III, M. Greenwood

123

property. They arrive at the significant conclusion that

separation of labor and ownership was not the preferred

organizational form:

A separation between ownership and control of

financial capital was foreign to the practice of work.

Wage labour was a fall back position for Israelite

family members who had lost their land, but was not

intended to be a permanent state (Beed and Beed

2002, p. 462).

Importantly, political mechanisms were prescribed to

ensure these principles were upheld. Organizational forms,

currently of secondary importance, which explicitly rec-

ognize co-production between owners and non-owner

stakeholders (Van Buren and Greenwood 2009) are thus

favoured.

In their analysis of the application of Jewish Ten

Commandments to business ethics, Ali and Gibbs (1998)

identify a number of principles which relate to work: loy-

alty to authority, respect for contractual agreements, spe-

cific and limited work time, prohibition of coercion of

employees, and the treatment of employees with respect

and dignity. These principles are similar to those previ-

ously discussed. Employer power over employees, in Ali

and Gibb’s (1998) analysis, must be limited. Employees—

as illustrated by the ethical principle of loyalty to author-

ity—also have ethical obligations such as loyalty to their

employers.

In one of the few instances of Jewish ethics being

applied to the domain of human resource management, the

written law of Judaism has been applied to employee lay-

offs and by implication to low-wage employees (Van

Buren 1999; Carver 2004). Van Buren (1999) argues that

‘the danger that there may be an asymmetrical and unfair

relationship between employees and employers is therefore

a proper subject for religious and moral exploration.’ The

obligation of an employer to keep open a non-profitable

plant is not clear cut: while there is no obligation within

law for the employer to do so, Jewish principles of charity

(tsedakah), discussed earlier, suggest a moral obligation to

act more generously than the law requires. If the employees

were to be recipients of such charity without their knowl-

edge (that is the employer were to forgo short-term profits

by keeping the plant open and not making this publicly

known), the employer would be undertaking an act of

charity at the highest level (Van Buren 1999). Application

of Torah to employment ethics in current literature is

negligible. Rare examples such as those discussed (Van

Buren 1999; Koys 2001) support the contention that more

extensive analysis and discussion is warranted.

Principles from Torah for Business Ethics

The application of Jewish ethics to business has been

undertaken across the spectrum of Jewish religious diver-

sity from Orthodox (Tamari 1997), to Conservative (Dorff

1997) to Reform (Elon et al. 1994). There is much agree-

ment among these scholars as to general principles from

the Torah that are applicable to business ethics. The most

important of these is analyzed with regard to their origins

and their modern application within contemporary organi-

zations, as summarized in Table 1. Overall the principles

imply that, while accumulation of wealth and economic

activities is viewed positively, they are bounded by norms

that provide distinct limitations on commercial conduct.

Table 1 Principles from Torah applied to modern organizations

Principle Application to modern organizations

Principles supporting employer rights and responsibility

Materialism and economic activity as

legitimate endeavors

Owners (and their agents) as stewards of property have rights but also responsibilities toward

society

Acting beyond the letter of the law Mere compliance will not acquit moral responsibility nor allow for creativity and innovation

Principles protecting individual well-being and privacy

Sanctity of human life Human life and well-being takes precedence over economic imperatives

Separation of public and private life Employees’ private life and privacy should be respected

Principles protecting stakeholder interests and voice

Centrality of community Mutual obligation and positive duty owed to those with legitimate and urgent claims

Protection of the vulnerable Vulnerable employees and other stakeholders should be protected

Charity as social justice Enabling of participation and responsibility taking by employees and other stakeholders in

pursuit of their own interests

Servitude and demeaning work Work should be meaningful

Principle promoting honesty/disallowing theft

Avoidance of dishonesty, deception, and

manipulation

Intellectual ‘theft’ and psychological manipulation are not acceptable

The Genesis of Employment Ethics 711

123

Principles Supporting Employer Rights

and Responsibility

Materialism and Economic Activity as Legitimate

Endeavors

Based on the Torah, Judaism considers material success

and economic activity as legitimate and desirable activities

(Friedman 2001). While the Protestant perspective views

work as a calling and lauds the disciplined work ethic,

financial success and materialism are not always viewed in

a positive light within this tradition (Weber 2001/1930) as

they may ‘crowd out religious belief’ (Mazereeuw et al.

2008, p. 13). There is no tradition in Judaism of asceticism

or mistrust of material goods and commercial life: rather,

economic activity is seen an indispensable aspect of

worldly existence, and the importance and legitimacy of

the profit motive is recognized (Green 1997). Wealth is

seen as a reward for an active and virtuous life (Friedman

2001). Also based on the Torah (Genesis 49:25–26;

Leviticus 26:3–13; Deuteronomy 28:1–13), Tamari (1997,

p. 48) claims that ‘observance of God’s Commandments in

Judaism leads not to some ethereal other world, but to an

abundance of material goods.’

The maxim of modern capitalism of serving both

yourself and others can be readily identified in the Tal-

mudic interpretation of Torah. Private property rights do

not suggest that owners are the sole masters of property or

that such rights are unbounded: rather, ‘society has right by

a stake or share in the property of the ‘haves,’ since it was

given to them [owners] partially for the purpose of assist-

ing others’ (Tamari 1997, p. 51). Human ownership is

considered temporary and, as such, ‘holders of wealth are

not possessors but stewards’ (Tamari 1997, p. 28) predating

later notions of servant leadership (Greenleaf 1996). In this

sense, the Torah is consistent with the stakeholder concept

(see Freeman 1984).

Acting Beyond the Letter of the Law

According to Friedman (2001), the expectation that people

practice ‘loving kindness, justice, and righteousness’ (Jer-

emiah 9:23) should be extended to organizations. It is

important to note that whatever the strict requirements of

the law, Jewish teaching requires that one conduct oneself

morally beyond the strict letter of the law (Green 1997).

The ancient doctrine of acting beyond the law is an inno-

vative concept which serves as a model for modern legal

and social thought (Pava 1996) and has been applied to

workplace concerns such as downsizing (Carver 2004) and

plant closures (Van Buren 1999). The actions of Aaron

Feuerstein, owner of Malden Mills, whereby he paid his

employees’ wages and health-care benefits as he rebuilt his

factory destroyed by fire, are cited as inspired by this

principle (Friedman 2003). It is reported (Carver 2004,

p. 137) that as the fire took hold of the buildings, he quoted

the Talmud: ‘In a place where there is no humanity, try to

be a human being’ (Mishnah Avot 2:5).

Principles Protecting Individual Well-Being

and Privacy

Sanctity of Human Life

There is no principle more fundamental in the Torah than

the protection and preservation of human life. Not only are

activities that unnecessarily endanger humans prohibited,

but persons are obliged to undertake a substantial affir-

mative effort to prevent harm to themselves and also to

others. The positive injunction to ‘not stand idly by while

your brother’s blood is shed’ (Leviticus 19:16) is linked to

commercial activity with the teaching ‘and you shall make

a fence on your roof [in order to prevent somebody from

falling]’ (Deuteronomy 22:8; see also Green 1997). In

contemporary terms, workplace safety, product safety, and

environmental responsibilities of business follow from this

set of guiding principles: workers in a sense occupy the

‘house’ of their employers.

Separation of Public and Private Life

The Sabbath stands as frequent, inviolable, manifest evi-

dence of the expectation that we should separate our pri-

vate spiritual, emotional, and social time from our work

time and that development of all facets of the human and

human experience are crucial. The commandment to ‘not

do any manner of work’ and ‘keep it holy’ (Exodus

20:9–11) only hints at the profound role that the Sabbath as

‘an island of time’ can provide for personal and community

enrichment (Donin 1991, p. 61). By promoting freedom of

the mind and soul through the Sabbath, the Torah shows

that slavery or forced labor goes beyond the physical but

includes psychological servitude and may even be self-

inflicted.

Principles Protecting Stakeholder Interests and Voice

Centrality of Community

Teachings from the Torah suggest that we are born into a

community for life, whether we like it or not: ‘Do not stand

idly by the blood of your brother’ (Leviticus 19:16). Dorff

(1997) suggests that one’s view of the nature of communal

ties has direct impact on our expectations of ourselves and

others. Enlightened individualism would assume that

obligation arises only where there is an agreed contract,

712 H. J. Van Buren III, M. Greenwood

123

otherwise individuals have the right to freedom and pri-

vacy. In contrast, the Torah view of the group as recipients

of God’s law implies that the default status is one of mutual

obligation and positive duty.

The construct of community is not simplistic, but rather

dynamic and multifaceted. Interpretation of the biblical

obligation to loan funds to the needy (Exodus 22:24)

suggests a primary obligation to one’s own family, then to

one’s own city, and only then to other cities, implying

special responsibilities to those close at hand (Pava 1998).

This hierarchy of obligation as interpreted in the Talmud

(Babia Mezia, 71a) is in keeping with current thinking in

stakeholder theory that legitimate and urgent claims on the

organization (Mitchell et al. 1997) carry obligations of

specific incontrovertible duties (Kaler 2002).

The theological idea of Tikkun Olam, meaning perfect-

ing or repairing the world, has a contemporary interpreta-

tion that evokes communally held ethical responsibilities.

One interpretation of Tikkun Olam is that the fulfillment of

ethical commandments will create a model society which

will in turn influence the rest of the world, creating indi-

vidual and communal transformation (Pava 1998). Another

is that we are responsible for the welfare of society and, as

such, compelled to achieve social rectification of the

material world (Danziger 1996).

Protection of the Vulnerable

The Torah recognizes that weak and powerless members of

society have to be protected from exploitation in their

economic activities (Tamari 1997). According to Tamari

(1997, p. 50), ‘one is not permitted to oppress them, to

defraud them either in words or deeds, or permitted to deal

harshly with them in a way that exploits their vulnerable

status’ based in part on the Israelites’ own experience of

exploitation and ‘thou shalt love him [the stranger] as

thyself; for ye were strangers in the land of Egypt’

(Leviticus 19:9–10). Corporations that wish to follow the

spirit of these laws may recognize that there is a moral

obligation to low-power stakeholders by using company

resources to protect such stakeholders’ interests (Friedman

2003) even when law or economic necessity would not

require the company to do so.

Treating employees well is integral to Jewish law

(Tamari 1997). The central biblical text on the obligation

of employers emphasizes the vulnerability and need of

workers:

You shall not oppress a hired servant who is poor and

needy, whether he is one of your countrymen or one

of your aliens who is in your land in your towns. You

shall give him his wages on his day before the sun

sets, for he is poor and sets his heart on it; so that he

will not cry against you to the Lord and it become sin

in you (Deuteronomy 24:14–15).

Based on these verses and their interpretations, Jacobs

(2008) infers following general principles: workers are

understood to be poor and deserving of our protection; both

community members and outsiders are considered to be

included in the category of protected workers; and specific

legislation to prevent the oppression of workers is needed.

Charity as Social Justice

Corresponding to the need to protect the weak in our

society is the expectation that those with ability provide

resources for that purpose. Charity is related to stewardship

notions of property rights discussed previously: that owners

do not have sole rights to property but that society holds a

‘share’ thus implying a duty for social contribution. Tamari

(1997) notes that ‘[s]ince the community has an obligation

to provide food, shelter and basic economic goods for the

needy, it has a moral right and duty to tax its members for

this purpose. In line with this duty, it may have to regulate

markets, prices and competition, to protect the interest of

its weakest members.’

The Hebrew word for charity, Tsedakah, is more accu-

rately translated as justice the root of the Hebrew word is

‘justice’ or ‘fairness’ (Tamari 1997). This semantic dis-

tinction raises the important point that charity is not seen as

a voluntary, generous, magnanimous act; rather, it is sim-

ply an act of justice and righteousness, the performance of

a duty, giving the poor their due. Charity is something

which is not given, but done to fulfill one’s obligations

(Tamari 1997). Giving charity in the form of pity or under

duress does not fulfill the spirit of the commandment of

Tsedakah. Maimonides, the twelfth century leading scholar

of Torah distinguished eight levels of charity (Friedman

2001). The highest level of charity is that which gives the

recipient independence so that s/he will not have to depend

on future charity. This notion resonates with contemporary

notions of corporate social responsibility that favor stake-

holder participation and employee empowerment over

corporate philanthropy.

Servitude and Demeaning Work

While slavery existed in ancient times, the Torah holds that,

even within such an institution, workers had rights and

owners obligations. The injunction to owners that ‘you shall

not rule over him through rigorous labor’ (Leviticus 25:43)

is interpreted as meaning that they are not permitted to make

servants engage in degrading or meaningless work (Fried-

man 2001). Labor without purpose, degrading work, and

tasks without time limit have the effect of demoralizing a

The Genesis of Employment Ethics 713

123

human being and are therefore prohibited. Interpretations of

the biblical account of the Israelites’ slavery in Egypt

emphasize the damaging nature of spiritual rather than

physical oppression through forced labor, in particular the

treatment of the oppressed as less than human and without

dignity (Jacobs 2008). Friedman (Friedman 2000, p. 46)

claims that employers should not only ensure that employees

are not overworked but also are treated with respect, and are

given work that is ‘as meaningful and creative as possible.’

Principle Promoting Honesty/Disallowing Theft

Avoidance of Dishonesty, Deception, and Manipulation

The fundamental imperative ‘thou shalt not steal’ (Exodus

20:13), the eighth of the Ten Commandments, has innu-

merable applications in contemporary life including the

workplace. Deception and falsehood are explicitly forbid-

den by the command ‘distance yourself from a false matter’

(Exodus 23:7). Many sanctions are specifically directed at

business activities: ‘You shall not commit an unrigh-

teousness in justice, in measures of length, weight, or

volume. Just scales, just weights, just dry measures, and

just liquid measures you shall have’ (Leviticus 19:35–36)

and ‘You shall not cheat your fellow’ (Leviticus 19:13).

Specific injunctions for employers against dishonesty and

unfair treatment go further to protect workers’ physical and

economic well-being. These include prohibitions on the

employer not to withhold wages (Leviticus 19:13), not to

demand unnecessary or onerous work (Leviticus 25:43),

and to provide severance payments upon conclusion of the

employment relationship (Deuteronomy 15:13–14).

More noteworthy is the construct derived from these

injunctions, geneivat da’at, that identifies psychological

deception and manipulation. The literal meaning of geneivat

da’at in Hebrew is theft of another’s mind, thoughts, wisdom,

or knowledge, which is understood as deceiving someone and

thereby causing him or her to have a mistaken assumption,

belief, and/or impression (Donin 1991; Friedman 2002).

Debate on deception and manipulation in the marketplace has

a long tradition (see Crane 2000) which may be applied to the

employment relationship into the realms of knowledge

appropriation (Kamoche 2006) and indoctrination.

Interpreting Torah for Ethical Issues

in the Contemporary Employment Relationship

We propose that insights from the Torah, and interpreta-

tions thereof, have relevance to ethical analyses of con-

temporary employment practices and social sustainability

in the workplace. The issue of justice in employment

relationships is a topic that has been extensively analyzed

from a secular perspective (Pollin and Luce 1998; Budd

2004; Kochan 2005; Van Buren 2005). We consider how

ethical principles derived from the Torah might cast light

on these ethical conundrums arising from five broad trends

discernible in current employment relationships and

intensely debated in HRM research: (1) increasing expec-

tations of employees in terms of hours worked; (2)

increasing employer encroachment on employee privacy;

(3) increasing income inequality; (4) fewer employees with

meaningful voice at work; and (5) employees lacking

information from their employers.

Within the Torah, the purposes of economic activity

represent dual outcomes that ought to be achieved: both

economic gain and benefit to the community; and both

protection of the vulnerable and avoiding servitude. The

strategic economic intention of many contemporary

employment practices, irrespective of negative effects on

employees, does not find sanction in the Torah. Rather,

expectations of mutual benefit and fair treatment abound.

Trend 1: Increasing Expectations of Employees

in Terms of Hours Worked

Mishel et al. (2007), in their analyses of U.S. employment

data, found that for all employees, the number of hours

worked increased in the time period from 1979 to 2004; for

example, married couples with children working outside

the home in the third quintile of household income (typical

of the ‘middle class’) worked 545 h more per year (2,983

vs. 3,522). Similar trends can be observed for every income

quintile in this period. Hochschild (1997) found that while

many organizations offered ‘family friendly’ programs like

job sharing and parental leave, few employees felt secure

enough in their jobs to take advantage of such policies.

Indeed, West and Hewett (1999) have written of a ‘war

against parents,’ with corporations and their expectations

of employees one of the leading combatants.

Within the Torah, work at the expense of other obliga-

tions—particularly those toward one’s family and commu-

nity—is an ethical problem challenged by insights from the

Torah. Thus, the trends of increasing work hours and

employer encroachment on employee privacy counter the

separation of public and private life that is implicit in the

Torah. The Sabbath bounds both the demands that

employers can place on employees and the involvement of

employees in their workplace. The Sabbath is not just about

employee obligations to family, but also positive obligations

to community. There is a clear marking off of an area of an

individual’s life that does not involve work and employ-

ment. The employer has no right to trespass on this private

space of its employees. While employees have obligations to

their employers (Schnall 1993), individuals have obligations

to their families with which employers may not interfere.

714 H. J. Van Buren III, M. Greenwood

123

Trend 2: Increasing Employer Encroachment

on Employee Privacy, Including Monitoring

of Workplace Behavior and Even Out of Work

Behavior

Issues related to employee privacy create particular ethical

problems for employers at work (Adler et al. 1985;

Greenwood et al. 2006). Employers want to protect assets

and safeguard proprietary information (Friedman and Reed

2007). Still other privacy-related issues include policies

against office romances (Williams et al. 1999).

Employers have legitimate concerns about employee

behavior, particularly with regard to working a full day.

However, excessive monitoring of employees can reduce

commitment, morale, and harm trust between employers and

employees (Friedman and Reed 2007; Brown and Korczyn-

ski 2010). Further, while employers may want to monitor and

then modify employee behavior for a variety of reasons

(maximizing productivity, reducing health-care costs),

employees ought to have some parts of their lives that are off-

limits to the purview of employers. A Torah-oriented analysis

of employee privacy would find that employees have a per-

sonal zone of privacy that employers cannot violate.

Trend 3: Increasing Income Inequality, Particularly

with Regard to Low-Wage Work

There is considerable evidence that inequality of income is

increasing in many countries (Mishel et al. 2007), leading

to a decline of good jobs with good wages (Leicht 2010).

There is some evidence that globalization has led to an

increase in income inequality, particularly in developed

countries (Dreher and Gaston 2008). There is increasing

public and academic concern about individuals who for

whatever reason have a low level of income, many of

whom will find it difficult to rise out of poverty or help

their children to do so (Shipler 2004; Sachs 2005).

Consistent with protection of private life, the Torah’s

emphasis on the centrality of community and protection of

the vulnerable would not sanction low levels of remuner-

ation insufficient to allow employees to participate in

community life or to care for their families: indeed, Jewish

law supports the obligation of employers to provide a

‘living wage,’ that is, a wage that ‘allows workers to afford

basic necessities’ (Jacobs 2003, p. 50). Dorff (1997) claims

that the Torah addresses mutual obligation and positive

duty between parties: in this instance, between employers

and employees. Here, conceptualizing organizations as

moral communities supports the claim that without

employee voice and participation, unfair treatment is likely

to result. In the organizational context, creating ‘contracts

of adhesion’—contracts under which the party receiving

the contract is free to take or leave, but not to change (Van

Buren 2001, p. 481)—for employees violates the command

to include them within the life of the community and

violates employers’ positive duties owed to employees.

Torah interpretations note a differentiation between low-

skilled daily-paid workers (referred to in the Hebrew poel)

and skilled workers who are paid by the task (kablan) and

imply support for a controlled free market. The manner in

which this plays out for workers ‘across the mountain’

(Song of Songs 2:18) is significant. Concerns regarding

low-wage workers have been particularly prominent with

regard to multinational corporations’ direct or indirect

employment of workers in developing countries. Despite

some support for differential treatment of those distant

from the community, Jacobs (2008) argues that the over-

riding principle of protection of the vulnerable workers,

whether of the community or outsiders, implies that as a

minimum a living wage should be paid to all workers.

Trend 4: Fewer Employees with Meaningful Voice

at Work, Leading to Contracts of Adhesion

One of the main drivers of income growth and fair treat-

ment of workers, especially in the period from roughly

1935 to 1975, was unionization. Although unionized

workers in many countries may not be in the majority, the

credible threat of unionization created positive spillover

effects for all workers with regard to wages (Kochan 2005)

and working conditions (Linder and Nygaard 1998). Van

Buren and Greenwood (2008) argue that employee voice—

here defined as the ability of employees to negotiate the

terms of exchange with employers—has declined precipi-

tously in the last two decades. As a result, many employees

experience contracts of adhesion (Van Buren 2001) that

they can take or leave, but not change.

We note here that analyses of power have been consis-

tent themes of employment relations scholarship (Van

Buren 2005). The Torah similarly is interested in how the

powerful treat the less-than-powerful members of the

community. Denial of voice makes it likely that employees

will be exploited, a clear violation of principles from the

Torah. While Torah itself has little to say directly about

employee voice and collective bargaining, analogical rea-

soning by Talmudic scholars have located employee rights

to voice within the Jewish tradition (Wolkinson 1978).

Trend 5: Employees Lack Information from Their

Employers That Would Allow the Former to Define

and Defend Their Interests

Finally, we note that many employees lack sufficient

information from their employers to protect their inter-

ests. Relevant information might include financial

information, which might help the employee assess

The Genesis of Employment Ethics 715

123

whether to continue to work for that employer and

whether to rely on that employer’s promises regarding

pensions and benefits (Brown and Holtz-Eakin 2006). It

might also include information about workplace condi-

tions, like exposure to hazardous chemicals and whether

the workplace is safe or not (Mayhew and Quinlan 1999;

Lipscomb et al. 2007). Here we note a more general

analysis that employers have systematically sought to

shift the risks of employment to employees (Hacker

2006). This trend reinforces the previous trend; if

employees lack information necessary to defend their

interests, then contracts of adhesion in which deception

and manipulation occurs are more likely.

Conclusion and Implications for Research and Practice

In light of the oft-cited criticism of business scholarship

generally, and business ethics scholarship specifically,

being too removed from practice and lacking real impact

(Bennis and O’Toole 2005; Khurana 2007), it is important

that the management academy become involved in these

debates. This paper encourages involvement of business

ethics scholarship in debates about important ethical issues

in employment practices through an interpretation of the

classic source of human ethics to enhance our under-

standing of contemporary issues of ethics and social sus-

tainability in employment. Taking Abrahamic religions

seriously in management research (King Jr. 2008) means

taking them seriously as a source of normative guidance, as

many people within organizations do.

Importantly, the employment trends that we have iden-

tified are indicative of an extreme market orientation with

regard to the employment relationship and pose significant

threats to social sustainability. In contrast to norms from

the Torah, one’s ‘worth’ in the labor market is largely a

function of market forces. The Torah principles identified

herewith—principles supporting employer rights and

responsibility, protecting individual’s well-being and pri-

vacy, protecting stakeholder interests and voice and pro-

moting honesty/disallowing theft—are based on shared

understandings that are rooted in ancient practices of

human sustainability and intersect many diverse groups in

society. These are principles that are often mouthed as

platitudes in service of market objectives, but they can be

imbued with real meaning via reconnection with their

original sources. Torah-compliant workplace conditions

must be therefore dignified, safe and just, lest they be

demeaning to employees. Van Buren (1999) proposed that

paying employees a higher-than-market-clearing wage is

consistent with the commandment to act beyond the letter

of the law and to engage in charity. Work that is poorly

compensated relative to both its true worth and the human

worth of employees would thus be akin to servitude,

demeaning employees and violating the Torah.

Employees are the stakeholders who are closest to the

organization (Greenwood and Anderson 2009); indeed,

there is no organization in their absence. A corporation that

seeks to be a moral community must therefore go beyond

simply thinking about employees as costs to be minimized

and rather think more expansively about negative duties to

avoid harm to employees and positive duties for the good

of employees. This paper opens avenues for inclusion of

Torah ethics in debate in many areas. We have resisted the

development of specific research propositions, as we

believe this would overly specify particular research

agenda, however, we do suggest that linking contemporary

trends to fundamental Torah principles could lead to many

valuable research directions. Further exploration into

employment dilemmas particular to types of workers and

ways in which workers’ needs and rights may be protected

is highly indicated.

We recognize that there is much that this paper by its

nature, intention, and scope could not achieve. Firstly,

while there is strong rationale provided for the choice of

the Jewish interpretation of Torah, such an endeavor nat-

urally precludes other valuable interpretations of traditional

sources from, for example, the Abrahamic faith traditions

of Islam (Beekun 1996; Rice 1999; Williams and Zinkin

2009) and Christianity (Agle and Van Buren 1999; Nash

1994; Nash and McLennan 2001). The provocation by

MacIntyre (1985) that early societies had a deep under-

standing of human sustainability provides much incentive

for future investigation of ancient communities and texts

with regard to workplace ethics. Secondly, addressing

current ethical concerns in the workplace with moral

principles may provide normative responses that lay

ground work for practical action, but such an endeavor falls

well short of fleshing out the detailed nature of organiza-

tions, their leadership, their culture, and their values all of

which deserve much greater consideration than available

here.

Finally, if there is a single conclusion that can be drawn

about what the Torah has to say regarding ethically

responsible employment practices, it is simply declaring

that the market demands that employees be treated in a

particular way is sorely lacking as an ethical rationale.

Indeed, as Adam Smith himself contended, markets do not

work well with regard to bringing about socially beneficial

outcomes in the absence of institutions that promote vir-

tuous behavior among market participants (Muller 1995).

In this vein, Bassiry and Jones (1993, p. 621) note that the

contemporary capitalist system looks very different from

the model of capitalism that Smith believed would serve

the interests of the ‘common man.’ Despite being thou-

sands of years old, insights from the Torah are relevant to a

716 H. J. Van Buren III, M. Greenwood

123

wide variety of ethical issues in business, especially with

regard to employment policies and practices. It should

continue to be part of our understanding about the proper

place and social responsibilities of business.

Acknowledgments We thank Rabbi Ehud Bandel for drawing our attention to this important point and his interest in our endeavors.

References

Adeney, B. T. (2004). The bible and culture in ethics from strange

virtues: Ethics in a multicultural world. In S. B. Rae & K.

L. Wong (Eds.), Beyond integrity: A Judeo-Christian approach

to business ethics. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan.

Adler, P., Parsons, C. K., & Zolke, S. B. (1985). Employee privacy:

Legal and research developments and implications for personnel

administration. Sloan Management Review, 26(2), 13–22.

Agle, B. R., & Van Buren, III, H. J. (1999). God and Mammon: The

modern relationship. Business Ethics Quarterly, 9(4), 563–582.

Albaum, G., & Peterson, R. A. (2006). Ethical attitudes of future

business leaders: Do they vary by gender and religiosity?

Business & Society, 45(3), 300–321.

Ali, A. J., & Gibbs, M. (1998). Foundation of business ethics in

contemporary religious thought: The Ten Commandment perspec-

tive. International Journal of Social Economics, 25(10), 1552–1564.

Angelidis, J., & Ibrahim, N. (2004). An exploratory study of the

impact of degree of religiousness upon an individual’s corporate

social responsiveness orientation. Journal of Business Ethics,

51(2), 119.

Arnold, D. G., & Hartman, L. P. (2006). Worker rights and low wage

industrialization: How to avoid sweatshops. Human Rights

Quarterly, 28(3), 676–700.

Bassiry, G. R., & Jones, M. (1993). Adam Smith and the ethics of

contemporary capitalism. Journal of Business Ethics, 12(8),

621–627.

Beed, C., & Beed, C. (2002). Judeo-Christian principles for employ-

ment organisation. Journal of Socio Economics, 31(5), 457–468.

Beed, C., & Beed, C. (2004). Distributional implications of contem-

porary Judeo-Christian economics. International Journal of

Social Economics, 31(9/10), 903.

Beekun, R. I. (1996). Islamic business ethics. Herndon, VA:

International Institute of Islamic Thought.

Bennis, W. G., & O’Toole, J. (2005). How business schools lost their

way. Harvard Business Review, 83(5), 96–104.

Brackman, L., & Jaffe, S. (2008). Jewish wisdom for business

success: Lessons from the Torah and other ancient texts. New

York: AMACOM.

Brief, A. P., & Aldag, R. J. (1977). Work values as moderators of

perceived leader behavior–satisfaction relationships. Work and

Occupations, 4(1), 99–112.

Brown, J. R., & Holtz-Eakin, D. (2006). Comments and discussion on

reforming the defined-benefit pension system. Brookings Papers

on Economic Activity, 2006(1), 286–304.

Brown, K., & Korczynski, M. (2010). When caring and surveillance

technology meet. Work and Occupations, 37(3), 404–432.

Budd, J. W. (2004). Employment with a human face: Balancing

efficiency, equity, and voice. Ithaca: ILR Press an imprint of

Cornell University Press.

Cadbury, A. (2002). Corporate governance and chairmanship: A

personal view. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Campbell, J. (2008). The exodus and strategic quality management of

temples and skyscrapers. Paper presented at academy of

management annual meeting, 8–13 August 2008.

Carver, R. H. (2004). If the river stopped: A Talmudic perspective on

downsizing. Journal of Business Ethics, 50(2), 137–147.

Conroy, S. J., & Emerson, T. L. N. (2004). Business ethics and

religion: Religiosity as a predictor of ethical awareness among

students. Journal of Business Ethics, 50(4), 383–396.

Crane, A. (2000). Marketing, morality and the natural environment.

London: Routledge.

Danziger, S. (1996). ‘Rediscovering the Hirschian legacy. Jewish Action, 56(4), Online. http://www.stevens.edu/golem/llevine/

rsrh/Danziger.pdf%5D.

De George, R. (1981). Ethical responsibilities of engineers in large

organizations: The Pinto case. Business and Professional Ethics

Journal, 1(1), 1–14.

Denzin, N. K. (2001). Interpretive interactionism. Thousand Oaks,

CA: Sage.

Donin, H. H. (1991). To be a Jew: Guide to Jewish observance in

contemporary life. New York: Basic Books.

Dorff, E. N. (1997). Judaism, business and privacy. Business Ethics

Quarterly, 7(2), 31–44.

Dreher, A., & Gaston, N. (2008). Has globalization increased

inequality? Review of International Economics, 16(3), 516–536.

Elon, M., Auerbach, B., & Sykes, M. (1994). Jewish law: History,

sources, principles. Philadelphia, PA: Jewish Publication

Society.

Freeman, R. E. (1984). Strategic management: A stakeholder

approach. Boston: Pitman.

Friedman, H. H. (1985). Ethical behavior in business: A hierarchical

approach from the Talmud. Journal of Business Ethics, 4(2),

117–129.

Friedman, H. H. (2000). Biblical foundations of business ethics.

Journal of Markets & Morality, 3(1), 43–57.

Friedman, H. H. (2001). The impact of Jewish values on marketing

and business practices. Journal of Macromarketing, 21(1),

74–80.

Friedman, H. H. (2002). Geneivat da’at: The prohibition against

deception in today’s world. Retrieved from http://www.jlaw.

com/Articles/placingstumbling.html.

Friedman, H. H. (2003). Creating a company code of ethics: Using the

bible as a guide. Electronic Journal of Business Ethics and

Organization Studies, 8(1).

Friedman, B. A., & Reed, L. J. (2007). Workplace privacy: Employee

relations and legal implications of monitoring employee e-mail

use. Employee Responsibilities and Rights Journal, 19(2),

75–83.

Green, R. M. (1997). Guiding principles of Jewish business ethics.

Business Ethics Quarterly, 7(2), 21–30.

Greenleaf, R. K. (1996). On becoming a servant–leader. San

Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Greenwood, M. R. (2000). The study of business ethics: A case for

Dr. Seuss. Business Ethics: A European Review, 9(3), 155–162.

Greenwood, M., & Anderson, E. (2009). ‘I used to be an employee

but now I am a stakeholder’: Implications of labelling employees

as stakeholders. Asia Pacific Human Resource Journal, 47(2),

186–200.

Greenwood, M. R., Holland, P., & Choong, K. (2006). Re-evaluating

drug testing: Questions of moral and symbolic control. In J.

Deckop, R. Giacalone, & C. L. Jurkiewicz (Eds.), Human

resource management ethics (pp. 161–180). Greenwich CT:

Information Age Publishing.

Hacker, J. S. (2006). The great risk shift: The assault on American

jobs, families, health care, and retirement and how you can fight

back. New York: Oxford University Press.

Herbert, D. (2003). Religion and civil society: Rethinking public

religion in the contemporary world. Aldershot: Ashgate.

Hochschild, A. (1997). The time bind: When work becomes home and

home becomes work. New York: Henry Holt and Company.

The Genesis of Employment Ethics 717

123

Jacobs, J. (2003). The living wage: A Jewish approach. Conservative

Judaism, 56(3), 38–51.

Jacobs, J. (2008). Work, workers and the Jewish owner. New York:

Rabbinical Assembly of Conservative Rabbis.

Jones, L. B. (1996). Jesus CEO: Using ancient wisdom for visionary

leadership. New York: Hyperion.

Jurkiewicz, C. L., & Giacalone, R. A. (2004). A values framework for

measuring the impact of workplace spirituality on organizational

performance. Journal of Business Ethics, 45(2), 129–142.

Kaiser, W. C. (1983). Toward Old Testament ethics. Grand Rapids,

MI: Zondervan.

Kaler, J. (2002). Morality and strategy in stakeholder identification.

Journal of Business Ethics, 39(1), 91–99.

Kamoche, K. (2006). Managing people in turbulent economic times:

A knowledge-creation and appropriation perspective. Asia

Pacific Journal of Human Resources, 44(1), 25–45.

Kennedy, E. J., & Lawton, L. (1998). Religiousness and business

ethics. Journal of Business Ethics, 17(2), 163–175.

Khurana, R. (2007). From higher aims to hired hands: The social

transformation of American business schools and the unfulfilled

promise of management as a profession. Princeton, NJ: Prince-

ton University Press.

King, J. E., Jr. (2008). (Dis)missing the obvious: Will mainstream

management research ever take religion seriously? Journal of

Management Inquiry, 17(3), 214–224.

Kochan, T. A. (2005). Restoring the American dream: A working

families’ agenda for America. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Koys, D. J. (2001). Integrating religious principles and human

resource management activities. Teaching Business Ethics, 5(2),

121–139.

Leicht, K. T. (2010). Nickels and dimes won’t fix this. Work and

Occupations, 37(2), 225–233.

Linder, M., & Nygaard, I. (1998). Void where prohibited: Rest

breaks and the right to urinate on company time. Ithaca, NY:

ILR Press.

Lipscomb, H. J., McDonald, M. A., Dement, J. M., Schoenfisch, A.

L., & Epling, C. A. (2007). Are we failing vulnerable workers?

The case of black women in poultry processing in rural North

Carolina. New Solutions: A Journal of Environmental and

Occupational Health Policy, 17(1–2), 17–40.

MacIntyre, A. (1985). After virtue: A study in moral theory. London:

Duckworth.

MacIntyre, A. (1988). Whose justice? Which rationality? Notre

Dame, IN: University of Notre Dame Press.

Mayhew, C., & Quinlan, M. (1999). The effects of outsourcing on

occupational health and safety: A comparative study of factory-

based workers and outworkers in the Australian clothing industry.

International Journal of Health Services, 29(1), 83–107.

Mazereeuw, C., Graafland, J., & Kaptein, M. (2008). Unfolding the

relationship between religion and socially responsible conduct.

Paper presented at Academy of Management Annual Meeting,

8–13 August 2008.

McIntosh, D. N., Silver, R. C., & Wortman, C. B. (1993). Religion’s

role in adjustment to a negative life event: Coping with the loss

of a child. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 65,

812–821.

McKenzie, S. (2004). Social sustainability: Towards some definitions.

Hawke Research Institute Working Paper Series No. 27.

Adelaide: Hawke Research Institute, University of South

Australia.

Micklethwait, J., & Wooldridge, A. (2009). God is back: How the

global revival of faith is changing the world. New York: Penguin

Press.

Mishel, L., Bernstein, J., & Allegretto, S. (2007). The state of working

America 2006/2007. Ithaca, NY: ILR Press.

Mitchell, R. K., Agle, B. R., & Wood, D. J. (1997). Towards a theory

of stakeholder identification and salience: Defining the principle

of who and what really counts. Academy of Management Review,

22(4), 853–886.

Mitroff, I. I., & Denton, E. A. (1999). A spiritual audit of corporate

America: A hard look at spirituality, religion, and ethics in the

workplace. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Muller, J. Z. (1995). Adam Smith in his time and ours. Princeton, NJ:

Princeton University Press.

Nash, L. L. (1994). Believers in business. Nashville, TN: Thomas

Nelson.

Nash, L., & McLennan, S. (2001). Church on Sunday, work on

Monday: The challenge of fusing Christian values with business

life. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Pava, M. L. (1996). ‘The Talmudic concept of ‘beyond the letter of

the law’: Relevance to business social responsibilities. Journal of

Business Ethics, 15(9), 941–950.

Pava, M. L. (1997a). Business ethics: A Jewish perspective. Hoboken,

NJ: KTAV Publishing House.

Pava, M. L. (1997b). Religious business ethics as interpretation: A

Jewish perspective. International Journal of Value-Based Man-

agement, 10, 9–29.

Pava, M. L. (1998). The substance of Jewish business ethics. Journal

of Business Ethics, 17(6), 603–617.

Pollin, R., & Luce, S. (1998). Living wage: Building a fair economy.

New York: New Press.

Randall, D. M., & Cote, J. A. (1991). Interrelationships of work

commitment constructs. Work and Occupations, 18(2),

194–211.

Rhodes, C., & Brown, A. D. (2005). Writing responsibly: Narrative

fiction and organization studies. Organization, 12(4), 467–491.

Rice, G. (1999). Islamic ethics and the implications for business.

Journal of Business Ethics, 18, 345–358.

Sachs, J. D. (2005). The end of poverty: Economic possibilities for our

time. New York: Penguin Press.

Schnall, D. J. (1993). Exploratory notes on employee productivity and

accountability in classic Jewish sources. Journal of Business

Ethics, 12(6), 485.

Shipler, D. (2004). The working poor: Invisible in America. New

York: Knopf.

Steingard, D. S. (2005). Spiritually-informed management theory

toward profound possibilities for inquiry and transformation.

Journal of Management Inquiry, 14(3), 227–241.

Tamari, M. (1997). The challenge of wealth: Jewish business ethics.

Business Ethics Quarterly, 7(2), 45–56.

Van Buren, III, H. J. (1999). Acting more generously than the law

requires: The Issue of employee layoffs in Halakhah. Journal of

Business Ethics, 19, 335–343.

Van Buren, III, H. J. (2001). If fairness is the problem, is consent the

solution? Integrating ISCT and stakeholder theory. Business

Ethics Quarterly, 11(3), 481–499.

Van Buren, III, H. J. (2005). An employee-centered model of

corporate social performance. Business Ethics Quarterly, 15,

687–709.

Van Buren, III, H. J., & Greenwood, M. (2008). Enhancing employee

voice: Are voluntary employer–employee partnerships enough?

Journal of Business Ethics, 81(1), 209–221.

Van Buren, III, H. J., & Greenwood, M. (2009). Stakeholder voice: A

problem, a solution, and a challenge for managers and academ-

ics. Philosophy of Management, 8(3), 15–23.

Wagner-Tsukamoto, S. (2009). Is God an economist? An institutional

economic reconstruction of the Old Testament. New York:

Palgrave Macmillan.

Walzer, M. (1987). Interpretation and social criticism. Cambridge:

Harvard University Press.

718 H. J. Van Buren III, M. Greenwood

123

Weber, M. (2001/1930). The Protestant ethic and the spirit of

capitalism. London: Routledge.

West, C., & Hewett, S. A. (1999). The war against parents. New

York: Mariner Books.

Williams, C. L., Giuffre, P. A., & Dellinger, K. (1999). Sexuality in

the workplace: Organizational control, sexual harassment, and

the pursuit of pleasure. Annual Review of Sociology, 25, 73–93.

Williams, G., & Zinkin, J. (2009). Islam and CSR: A study of the

compatibility between the tenets of Islam and the UN Global

Compact. Journal of Business Ethics, 91(5), 519–533.

Wuthnow, R. (1998). After heaven: Spirituality in America since the

1950s. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.

The Genesis of Employment Ethics 719

123

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.