MARY-FRANCES WINTERS

Founder and CEO

The Winters Group, Inc.

(she/her/hers)

With liberty and justice for all . . .

—UNITED STATES PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE

Most of us in the United States are very familiar with this phrase. You, like me, probably recited the Pledge of Allegiance daily during your K–12 school years. The founding fathers did not mean justice for all. They intended justice for white men, and even though we have fought (literally) for justice in this country and others like South Africa for centuries, the promise has still not been realized.

Justice in Corporate Contexts Is New

Justice is a new term in the diversity lexicon, especially in the corporate world. The movement started with the term diversity. Some years later, inclusion was added, and more recently, equity and for some more progressive organizations, the term justice has been added, and we now have—DEIJ (diversity, equity, inclusion, and justice) or JEDI (justice, equity, diversity, and inclusion).

In recent years there have been more attempts to align popular corporate approaches to diversity, equity, inclusion, and justice (DEIJ) and the social justice framework used more often in the nonprofit sector. Even though the corporate and nonprofit organizations espouse the same desired outcomes, the path to achieving equity often looks very different. As a matter of fact, until recently (after the Black Lives Matter protests of 2020), “justice” was rarely included in organizations’ definitions or goals (especially in the corporate world). I daresay that even those organizations now using “justice” as a part of their nomenclature have different interpretations of what it means or how to execute it. This chapter focuses on defining justice and how the concept is manifesting in corporate settings.

Fairness Is Not Necessarily Justice

If asked to define justice in one word, many might say it is fairness. However, the idea of fairness is complex and nuanced. Psychologists have a phrase called the fallacy of fairness and define it as an individual’s attempt to apply similar rules to everyone in their lives. Fairness is subjective and is almost always interpreted from an interpersonal lens . . . you in relation to others. Our sense of fairness is based on our perceptions, which we form from our experiences. We can begin to overcome the fallacy of fairness by adjusting our thinking.

First, fairness is not absolute. It is not binary—meaning it is not either fair or unfair. It is relative and can be very complex.

Second, our sense of fairness is often based on what we have experienced—others may have had different experiences to inform their sense of fairness.

Third, we must look beyond our own sense of fairness and think more broadly about fair and equitable systems. I am not suggesting that we should discount our sense of whether something is fair or not. I am pointing out that it may come from a limited perspective, and we need to learn to recognize the limitations of our lens.

What Is Justice If Not Fairness?

Justice can be categorized in one of several ways: distributive (deter-mining who gets what), procedural (determining how fairly people are treated), retributive (determining how people are punished for wrongdoing), contributive (everyone has the right to contribute to how society operates), and restorative (repairing what is broken and compensating victims for past harm).¹ The restorative aspect of justice is probably the most controversial and has gotten little traction in the workplace. This book incorporates elements of all of the different types of justice.

Corporate reasons for attending to social injustice have morphed over the years from compliance (legal mandates) in the ’70s to assimilation (helping newcomers to the hallowed corporate halls “fit in”) and morality rhetoric of the ’80s to a capitalistic driven “business case for diversity” started in the ’90s. This business case rationale, still popular today, advances the notion that as US demographics shift from majority white to majority Black and brown populations, a focus on hiring people from these groups will enhance the organization’s profits. Diversity practitioners set out to “prove” that targeting consumer marketing efforts to the growing “minority” populations leads to positive financial returns. The mantra “diversity is not only the right thing to do but also the right thing to do for business” is a popular cliché touted by many corporate leaders attempting to merge the moral with the capitalistic.

It is certainly not a binary. Organizations can do good and be good at the same time. Intentionally applying a justice framework enhances overall organizational performance. For example, consider the emergence and growing popularity of B corporations—those that certify they will balance purpose with profits. B corporations are legally required to assess the impact of their decisions on workers, customers, suppliers, the community, and the environment. Nearly four thousand companies globally are certified B corporations, using business as a force for good.²

The compliance, assimilation, and “attracting new markets” arguments for advancing equity have generally prioritized profit over purpose or people. “The right thing to do” motivation for DEI in corporate spaces has been most often thought of in moral terms. While morality is important, it is different from justice. Morality is about a personal sense of right and wrong, whereas justice is about taking the necessary action to uphold one’s moral code. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. in his Letter from Birmingham Jail, argued that “a just law is a man-made code that squares with the moral law or the law of God. . . . I would be the first to advocate obeying just laws. One has not only a legal but a moral responsibility to obey just laws. Conversely, one has a moral responsibility to disobey unjust laws. I would agree with St. Augustine that ‘an unjust law is no law at all.’”³ In organizations, obeying unjust policies is akin to what Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. and St. Augustine called obeying unjust laws.

Mapping the intersection between past corporate diversity and inclusion approaches and what is required to integrate sound social justice actions requires understanding this nuanced difference between morality and justice. One can abhor racism from a moral perspective (“It is wrong!”) but do little to bring justice. Organizations were quick to issue statements after the George Floyd murder that by and large acknowledged the immorality of the rampant examples of blatant racism but perhaps did little to recognize complicity and take actions toward justice.

We are witnessing more calls for justice from workers today.⁴ No longer are they willing to let the leaders define effective DEIJ actions passively. BIPOC employees and aspiring allies educate themselves on inequitable internal and external policies. And many more are leaving corporate spaces that do not provide equitable experiences, as evidenced by the Great Resignation movement outlined in Chapter 3.

Organizations serious about justice must interrogate their policies with an equity and justice lens. At its core, it means asking: Who is harmed by our systems? Who benefits from them? How can we redistribute power so that everyone benefits? Chapter 15, by Thamara Subramanian, provides a step-by-step approach for interrogating policies and practices with a justice-focused lens. Even before we conduct such interrogations and add the “J” to our work, we must have a clear definition of justice and the actions the organization will commit to actualizing it.

SUMMARY

Justice is a newer concept in the corporate diversity, equity, and inclusion space, and there is a lack of understanding about what it means and how to actualize it.

Justice is often defined as “fairness” from an interpersonal perspective. Psychologists describe the fallacy of fairness because of the nuances and subjectivity applied to the definition.

We have to look beyond our personal sense of fairness and think more broadly about fair and equitable systems.

Fairness is not necessarily justice.

Justice can be defined as distributive, procedural, retributive, contributive, and restorative.

Corporate reasons for attending to social injustice have morphed over the years from compliance to assimilation to morality to the capitalistic-driven “business case for diversity.”

The compliance, assimilation, and “attracting new markets” arguments for advancing equity have generally prioritized profit over people.

Intentionally applying a justice framework to achieving DEI goals enhances overall organizational performance.

Morality is about a personal sense of right and wrong, whereas justice is about taking the necessary action to uphold one’s moral code.