The danger of confusing corporatism with integrity.

The debate that took place this week in the plenary of the STF brought to light a statement that shocked the country: "Even the mafia has ethics". The declaration was made by Minister Gilmar Mendes while criticizing the conduct of investigations by his colleague André Mendonça, arguing that publicly exposing fellow court members and their families would constitute inappropriate behavior.

Beyond the political and legal landscape, this discussion raises a fundamental warning for the corporate and institutional world: what does it truly mean to have ethics when those involved are our colleagues or family members?

The distortion of the "code of silence" in the workplace

The term "Italian mafia ethics" refers historically to omertà — the code of silence and blind loyalty that protects group members regardless of the severity of their actions. In the workplace and in public institutions, this logic often manifests subtly through corporatism and family favoritism.

When affection for a family member or the convenience of a professional relationship overrides the duty of justice, a dangerous inversion of values occurs:

• Institutional shielding: Protecting a colleague or family member from necessary investigations or feedback in the name of a false "loyalty."
• Privatization of the public interest: Treating the professional environment and collective assets as an extension of one's own backyard.
• Confusion of roles: Believing that covering up the mistakes of those close to us is a virtue, when in fact it is complicity in misconduct.

True ethics does not exist to selectively protect people; it exists to safeguard principles. If an "ethics" requires concealing the truth to shield an ally, it ceases to be morality and becomes a pact of convenience.

Within my responsibilities as CFO, I often had to investigate complaints made by employees, clients, and suppliers about peers and even supervisors. It is a situation no one would choose to be in, but it is necessary to maintain the integrity of the company's processes. What matters is acting with impartiality, genuinely pursuing the truth, and having an independent committee capable of making decisions. What has unfortunately become clear to us Brazilians is that this is not the case at our STF, since it makes no sense for the reporting justice to become a defendant, or for the very person under investigation to cast a vote on a case in which they are implicated. Everything about our Supreme Federal Court rings deeply troubling — and what a sorry state for a country that depends on its highest court to set examples of conduct and behavior, when what prevails, broadcast nationally for all to see, are personal interests placed above institutional and national interests.

The concept of ethics according to the Bible: Truth above blood ties

Individuals often attempt to justify protecting wrongdoing under the pretext of "defending the family" or "keeping the peace." However, biblical ethics establishes a rigorous standard that does not bend to nepotism or cronyism.

The Word of God shows us that integrity and divine justice must be applied equally to all, regardless of one's surname:

1. Justice shows no partiality: In Deuteronomy 16:19, the guidance is clear: "Do not pervert justice or show partiality." The moral standard used to measure a stranger must be the same one used to measure your brother or your coworker.
2. Individual responsibility: The prophet Ezekiel (Ezekiel 18:20) reminds us that each person is accountable for their own actions. Attempting to hide the mistakes of a child or a professional partner to spare them the "embarrassment" contradicts the biblical principle of repentance and accountability.
3. The example of High Priest Eli: In the Bible, the priest Eli was severely judged by God (1 Samuel 2) not because he himself committed crimes, but because, upon learning of the misconduct and corruption of his own sons, he chose leniency and silence over righteous correction. He honored his sons above God.

Conclusion: The challenge of ethical leadership

Leading on the basis of biblical and moral principles requires courage. It means understanding that loving our family or respecting our colleagues does not give us the right to become complicit in their wrongdoing or to suppress the truth.

In a marketplace that frequently flirts with moral relativism, the professional of true worth stands out by choosing righteousness, even when it means going against the interests of those closest to them. After all, an institution that tolerates complicit silence ceases to deliberate freely and loses its very reason for existing.

How do you manage the balance between loyalty to people and fidelity to your non-negotiable values in your daily professional life?