Integrity Ideas are specific actions a leader can consider during the Re-Align step of Integriosity^®—actions that will begin to Re-Align the organization with Biblical beliefs, principles, and priorities.  You can find more Integrity Ideas at Integrous | Integrity Ideas (integriosity.com)

INTEGRITY IDEA: Forbid a “Forgiveness Strategy”

“Forbid a Forgiveness Strategy” is about faithful leaders establishing an integrity boundary that the organization will not knowingly violate or risk violating the letter or the spirit of laws, contracts, and commitments, even if the expected economic benefit of noncompliance might outweigh the potential economic cost—the metaphorical price of “forgiveness.”

It recognizes that Righteousness is a “first thing” to be prioritized in the pursuit of faithful integrity. It also recognizes that faithful leaders pursuing faithful integrity through business a better way toward Biblical flourishing are called to a higher standard than “Can We?”

Integrity Ideas are practical actions toward implementing a bigger WHY for the organization.  Some are helpful ideas to consider as a faithful leader prayerfully discerns the best stewardship of the organization. Others may be important steps in the RENEW/RE-ALIGN/RE-IMAGINE/RESTORE process.

Like “Pay Caesar” in our most recent Integrity Idea post, “Forbid a Forgiveness Strategy” is in the “necessary” category, because the pursuit of a business a better way “Should We?” culture rather than a business as usual “Can We?” culture is an important step in the pursuit of faithful integrity toward Biblical flourishing.

Forgiveness Strategy

You may be wondering how the pursuit of faithful integrity through alignment with Biblical beliefs, principles, and priorities could call for forbidding forgiveness when forgiveness is such a central Biblical principle. Forgiveness as a strategy is very different from forgiveness as a policy.

Forgiveness as a policy is about forgiving others and giving second chances, and it does align with business a better way. This was the topic of post #191 (Integrity Idea 032: Adopt a “77” Policy). In that post, we encouraged the adoption of a policy of forgiveness and second chances in dealing with employee performance and problems. It recognizes not only that the God of the Bible is a God of forgiveness and second chances but also the Biblical command to forgive not 7 times but 77 times.

Forgiveness as a strategy is reflected in the business as usual maxim, “Ask forgiveness, not permission” when deciding whether to take organizational actions that might conflict with laws, contracts, or commitments. It reduces the decision about whether to violate or risk violating a law, contract, or commitment to an economic cost-benefit calculation and aligns with a culture shaped by a WHY of Profit as Purpose.

To be clear, forgiveness as a strategy does not include acting upon a reasonable, good-faith belief as to the meaning or application of a law or contract, or exercising rights expressly granted by a contract, such as termination rights or force majeure provisions.  It is also not meant to capture efforts to change laws or protest unjust laws.

It is about exploiting ambiguities or acting contrary to the letter or spirit of a law, regulation, contract, or commitment because discovery or enforcement is considered unlikely, the expected benefit exceeds the expected economic consequences, or calculated noncompliance is expected to force regulatory change.

Real World Inspiration

“Can We?” Examples. It is not difficult to find examples of organizations that have deployed forgiveness as a strategy. Decades before Silicon Valley embraced “regulatory disruption,” Ford’s handling of the risk that Pinto fuel tanks could rupture and ignite in rear-end collisions became one of the most frequently cited examples of an economic calculation displacing moral judgment.

It illustrates how compliance with existing law or regulation can be used to justify conduct that violates an implicit commitment to customers to sell reasonably safe vehicles. An article in Fraud Magazine titled “Twisted rationalization” presents the familiar account and connects Ford’s reasoning to the BPL analysis from Judge Learned Hand’s decision in United States v. Carroll Towing Co.:

Ford discovered that during crash tests Pintos’ gas tanks could ignite and engulf crash dummies in flames. The precedent from the 1947 2nd Court of Appeals decision, United States vs. Carroll Towing, excused a defendant from penalization if the cost of the change was larger than the societal benefit. The law became Ford’s guide. The company conducted a cost-benefit analysis using figures the U.S. federal government provided. The calculations indicated that the societal benefit was $49.5 million, and the cost to fix the problem was $137 million. Ford executives analyzed the calculated costs, and they decided the solution was apparent.

More recently, companies such as Uber and Airbnb have used forgiveness as a strategy to confront regulatory impediments. An article in the Georgetown Law Technology Review observed:

Following the lean-startup method and the agile-development process, entrepreneurs have embraced a culture of disruption, often based on the philosophy of “ask forgiveness, not permission.” Although this principle was not designed to foster rule breaking, entrepreneurs have applied this attitude toward existing rules and laws.

For example:

• Under Travis Kalanick, Uber commonly entered cities without regulatory authorization, developed a customer base, and then used customer support to resist efforts to shut it down. Its approach has been described as “principled confrontation”: disregard regulations until challenged and then mobilize a political and legal response.

• Airbnb allowed short-term rentals to proliferate in cities where many listings conflicted with existing housing or hotel rules, leaving the legality to be contested after a large host-and-customer constituency existed.

But it is the clothing retailer Culture Kings that most clearly exemplifies what we are describing as a forgiveness strategy.  In fact, its founder, Simon Beard, has declared that one of Culture Kings’ core values was “Most of the time, it’s better to ask forgiveness than permission.”  In a post on Substack, Beard describes a situation in which local regulators denied approval of a planned storefront design, but he put it up anyway:

Here’s the thing nobody calculated. Even if we copped the maximum fine, we would have made more in a single day of trading than the fine cost. One day. Not one week. Not one month. One day. So the black panels went up. We opened for Christmas. And by the time the council got around to enforcing it (two years later) we’d turned over more than $20 million out of that store.

And I turned it into a hiring filter. Because the kind of person who waits around for approval before they act is the kind of person who kills momentum in a fast-moving business.

Most people (founders included) get their risk perception totally backwards. They overestimate the risk and underestimate the opportunity. Think about the Melbourne store decision. The “risk” was a council fine. Maybe a few thousand dollars. Maybe a strongly worded letter. The opportunity was two-thirds of the year’s profit from a location that would go on to turn over $20 million. That little gap between the perceived risk and the actual opportunity? That’s where all the money is made.

It is important to note that the remedies provided by the United States legal system can tempt organizations to take actions based on a forgiveness strategy. One of the first things a law student learns in a first-year contracts course is that breaching a contract is generally not illegal. A party does not go to jail merely for breaching its contractual commitments, even intentionally.

Contract breaches typically result in money damages or, in limited situations, an order by a court to perform the obligation where money damages are incapable of adequately compensating the aggrieved party. A party employing a forgiveness strategy can therefore mischaracterize the remedy as the price of an option to perform or breach.

Likewise, a forgiveness strategy can view civil fines as prices rather than sanctions. Parking a car illegally is often treated as a cost-benefit economic decision—is the convenience worth the potential fine?  That forgiveness strategy takes into account the likelihood of being caught as well as the amount of the fine. It brings to mind the Andrew Fastow quote we have pointed to in several posts:

You need to understand the difference between the right thing to do and the thing you have a right to do. 

“Should We?” Examples. This post was initially inspired by coming across the organizational values of Costco. Costco says that its guiding principle is “Do the right thing.” Its Code of Ethics starts with “Obey the law:”

The law is irrefutable! Absent a moral imperative to challenge a law, we must conduct our business in total compliance with the laws of every community where we do business.

That principle is followed by “Take care of our members,” “Take care of our employees,” and then “Respect our suppliers,” which includes “Honor all commitments.”  Following those four principles, Costco urges a “Should We?” approach to close calls:

If you are ever in doubt as to what course of action to take on a business matter that is open to varying ethical interpretations, TAKE THE HIGH ROAD AND DO WHAT IS RIGHT.

In response to the 2008 financial crisis, a group of Harvard Business School students developed the MBA Oath in an effort to address the crisis they saw in business leadership. The MBA Oath was published in a book by Max Anderson and Peter Escher titled The MBA Oath: Setting a Higher Standard for Business Leaders.  The fourth pledge of the Oath reads:

I will understand and uphold, both in letter and in spirit, the laws and contracts governing my own conduct and that of my enterprise.  If I find laws that are unjust, antiquated, or unhelpful I will not brazenly break, ignore, or avoid them; I will seek civil and acceptable means of reforming them.

A Higher Standard

When a business as usual organization applies only a “Can We?” standard when evaluating compliance with laws, contracts, and other commitments, it allows its WHY of Profit as Purpose to govern the decision. The strategy is defended, in effect, on the ground that noncompliance can increase its profit. As the Culture Kings example illustrates, the financial benefit to the organization and its owners can be real.

For a faithful leader, the Bible provides higher standards.  For commitments, Psalm 15:4 is particularly instructive.  Although we usually use the ESV translation, in this case the NIV is clearer: the person who may dwell in God’s sacred tent and live on his holy mountain is the person who “keeps an oath even when it hurts.”  It is a call to honor commitments even when it would be economically advantageous to violate them. Here are other passages that can be read to address commercial conduct:

Do not withhold good from those to whom it is due, when it is in your power to do it. (Proverbs 3:27)

If a man . . . swears an oath to bind himself by a pledge, he shall not break his word. He shall do according to all that proceeds out of his mouth. (Numbers 30:2)

Pay to all what is owed to them. (Romans 13:7)

You shall not deal falsely. (Leviticus 19:11)

Scripture even more clearly calls faithful leaders to a higher standard in complying with laws and regulations:

Let every person be subject to the governing authorities. (Romans 13:1)

Be subject for the Lord’s sake to every human institution. (1 Peter 2:13)

More fundamentally, Righteousness is one of the four “first things” we identified in the pursuit of faithful integrity through business a better way. As we emphasized in post #189 (First Things – Righteousness), Righteousness as part of faithful integrity is much more than “doing good,” being ethical, or even “doing the right thing.” Righteousness in business a better way is about creating an organizational culture in which people do the right thing, in the right way, for the right reasons, without even thinking. It is “doing right” by God.

For a faithful leader, Righteousness in the pursuit of faithful integrity through business a better way toward Biblical flourishing requires asking whether an action contributes to or undermines the organization’s bigger WHYs of Humanizing People, Beautifying the World, and Glorifying God.  We believe Glorifying God requires cultivating a “Should We?” culture with integrity boundaries the organization will not cross in how it operates, no matter the cost.

As we explained in post #210 (Integrity Idea 040: Set Integrity Boundaries), integrity boundaries go beyond legal lines and even the ethical lines often recognized by business as usual cultures. Rather than relying on standards set by the kingdom of the world, they are grounded in the Re-Imagined Purpose and Re-Imagined Values of the organization.

• God is not glorified when a business that purports to have a Re-Imagined Purpose and Re-Imagined Values aligned with Biblical beliefs, principles, and priorities engages in a forgiveness strategy that leads to violating laws, contracts, or commitments.

• The world is not Beautified when an organization shifts risks and costs to its neighbors in the community through noncompliance with laws or to its contractual counterparty “neighbors” through the violation of contracts or commitments.

• The employees of an organization are not Humanized—not drawn closer to a bigger vision—when they are called to violate laws, contracts, or commitments in the name of Profit as Purpose.

CONTINUUM: Policies

The Integriosity model organizes “heart change” along six Covert-Overt Continuums.  There is nothing inherently magic about these categories, but we believe they are helpful in thinking about practical execution of a Re-Imagined Purpose, Re-Imagined Values, and a Re-Imagined Culture.  The Continuums are Prayer, Proclamation, Policies, Practices, Products, People.

Each Continuum represents an area in which leaders can begin to think about, plan, and institute Re-Alignment changes to the heart of the organization.

“Forbid a Forgiveness Strategy” is on the Policies Continuum. It establishes an organization-wide rule as to acceptable behavior when dealing with legal requirements, contractual obligations, and other commitments. It establishes an integrity boundary for the organization’s culture. 

COVERT-OVERT RATING: Highly Covert

The Integriosity model breaks the Covert-Overt Continuums into six gradations—from Highly Covert to Highly Overt—that we believe are helpful in beginning to pray and think about what is most appropriate for an organization at a particular moment in time.

Most Integrity Ideas have one place on the scale.  Some can vary depending on how they are implemented.  We identify “Forbid a Forgiveness Strategy” as Highly Covert (an action that would be taken by a secular company), because choosing to obey the law and honor commitments does not itself reveal a Biblical motivation. Secular organizations have made the same choice because they have determined that integrity and trust are good for business.

It can be moved toward the Overt end of the Continuum by, for example, explaining the Biblical basis for obeying the law and honoring commitments, even if doing so could be economically disadvantageous.

STAKEHOLDERS SERVED: Employees, Customers/Clients, Owners, Suppliers/Vendors, Community, Kingdom

When we categorize faith-based actions, we also consider the stakeholders principally impacted by the action: Employees, Customers/Clients, Owners, Suppliers/Vendors, Community, and Kingdom.

“Forbid a Forgiveness Strategy” serves many stakeholders.  Integrity boundaries help employees make decisions. Honoring contracts and commitments builds trust with Customers/Clients and Suppliers/Vendors who are the counterparties. Obeying laws benefits the Community that those laws are intended to protect. The Kingdom benefits when an organization acts counterculturally out of a bigger WHY rooted in Biblical principles.

IMPLEMENTATION

Like “Pay Caesar,” implementing “Forbid a Forgiveness Strategy” is both straightforward and complicated.  It is as straightforward as Costco’s “Obey the law” and “Honor all commitments.” But it is complicated by the legitimate need to steward well by exercising contractual rights and navigating laws and regulations wisely and in good faith. Discernment can be difficult when commitments are ambiguous or regulations are outdated, vague, or generally unenforced. It is in the gray areas that trouble can occur.

As with “Pay Caesar,” we believe the most effective approach is to ensure that the organization has set a values “plumb line,” established integrity boundaries, and is cultivating a “Should We?” rather than a “Can We?” culture. These steps have been the subject of dedicated posts.

Post #145 – Integrity Idea 013: Set a Values “Plumb-Line”

Post #210 – Integrity Idea 040: Set Integrity Boundaries

Post #281 – Stay Off the Slippery “Can We” Slope

Setting a values “plumb line” is Re-Imagining and communicating values that reflect and support the organization’s bigger WHY.  Values in an organization are critical because they serve to translate the bigger WHY into an aligned culture—they are the plumb line that keeps the organization’s culture in line with its purpose.  Values proclaim to the world (including employees) “this is who we are” and proclaim to employees “this is how we do things around here.”  Values proclaim the organization’s HEART in ways that help people make decisions about actions and behavior.

Setting integrity boundaries the organization will not cross in how it operates, no matter the cost, recognizes that people are more likely to stay behind a line if they know it is there before they are asked to cross it. It requires intentionality and trust in God.

“Should We?” can call people to a standard higher than merely man-made laws or current societal ethics—it can call them to the Biblical standards that they were created to emulate, and it can call them to the organization’s values. In a “Should We?” culture, people evaluating laws, contracts, and commitments ask things like:

Is our interpretation of the law or contract honest?

Are we respecting the legitimate role of government or the spirit of our contractual arrangement?

Would we proceed openly?

Who bears the risk if we are wrong?

Are we treating the penalty as a price for doing what is legally or contractually prohibited?

Does this decision love our neighbors and Glorify God?

Would we still proceed if the financial advantage disappeared?

Is it consistent with how we want to serve our stakeholders?

Is it consistent with our values?

Is it consistent with our intentional culture?

Is it doing the right thing, in the right way, for the right reasons?

Is it consistent with what we say we stand for and who we say we are?

By contrast, in a “Can We?” culture, people evaluating laws, contracts, and commitments ask things like:

Can we exploit an ambiguity in the law or contract?

Can we avoid detection?

How likely is it that the law will be enforced or we will be sued?

Can we establish the business before regulators respond?

Can we mobilize customers against enforcement?

Can we absorb the fine?

Can we comply later, absorb the consequences, and preserve the gains?

Regardless of what faithful goal or faithful guardrails are posted or otherwise reflected on an organization’s website or in its stated purpose or stated values, employees will experience and respond to what they perceive to be the real purpose and real values.

For an organization to exemplify faithful integrity, the organizational purpose, priorities and values that define its WHY and shape its integrity boundaries must reflect the “wholeness” character of integrity. They must be “authentic”. In other words, they must be more than a pretty sign on the wall.  Authenticity can be thought of as having four components:

• Identity: The organization is clear about its WHY and its integrity boundaries. That means they are written down for people to see.

And the Lord answered me: Write the vision; make it plain on tablets, so he may run who reads it.” (Habakkuk 2:2 ESV)

• Sincerity: The WHY and integrity boundaries of the organization that are written down are actually the WHY and integrity boundaries to which its leaders are committed. An organization that has an eloquent mission statement declaring its WHY as “to glorify God” lacks sincerity (which means it lacks integrity) if it is actually operated on the basis of Profit as Purpose.

• Consistency: The organization operates consistently in accordance with its WHY and integrity boundaries. Purpose, priorities, values, and boundaries are not just for when they are convenient—they are most important exactly when they are most inconvenient. This is easier when things are going well and much more difficult when times are tough. Seth Godin has astutely noted: “When we make a ‘just this once’ exception, we’ve already made a decision about what’s truly important. . . . What makes it a principle is that we do it now, even though (especially though) it’s hard.”

• Transparency: The organization is clear and open about its WHY and its integrity boundaries. They should be understood by its owners, employees, customers, vendors and community. Stakeholders should understand them not only because they can read them, but also because they can see them. They are reflected in the heart of the organization.

At the end of the day, “Forbid a Forgiveness Strategy” is about ensuring that an organization pursuing faithful integrity through business a better way toward Biblical flourishing has in place a Re-Imagined Vision, Re-Imagined Values, and a Re-Imagined Culture that lead people to do the right thing, in the right way, for the right reasons.

PERSONAL NOTE (from PM): I am the Costco shopper in the family. I always liked Costco because of the prices and the free samples (maybe not in that order).  I came to a new appreciation for Costco after listening to the Acquired podcast about the company.  If you are a Costco shopper, I highly recommend listening to it.

I should mention that I also have a personal connection to the MBA Oath. One of the authors, Max Anderson, is a friend.  He is living out the principles of the MBA Oath through a private equity fund called Saturn Five. Its website proclaims:

We don’t define success simply by the value we generate. We think we can’t really measure what we’ve accomplished unless we also count the ways we’ve made life better for the people we serve, the people who work for us, and the world. And we hope that keeping our eye on those kinds of returns makes us a truly value-added alternative to private equity.

The following are drawn from Anderson’s annual letters:

One of the core elements to our strategy is to build and sustain company cultures where employees flourish. (2024)

Every person is made in the image of God and deserves to be in a job where they are challenged, respected, compensated fairly, and cared for by their manager and team. People should feel like their work is valuable and that they have a real opportunity to contribute meaningfully through their work. Every business can create this kind of environment (though not every business does). . . . I don’t think just some businesses can be “social” enterprises. I think all can be. And should be. Every business can serve its customers well. Every business can create meaningful work and good jobs for people. Every business can treat vendors fairly. Every business can be a good neighbor in its community. If every business did these things, our society would work a lot better, and our social challenges would be fewer. . . . All work can be sacred work. And that is the kind of work I want us to do. (2025)

So we work hard to live out our core values. We have five of them:

Adventure (Have a bias to action, be curious not judgmental)
Joy (Laugh everyday, remember that life is too short)‍
Trust (Play the long game and trust in the truth)‍
Excellence (Be built to last and built with quality, do things with high ROI)
Love (Do win-win deals, forgive and ask for forgiveness) (2026)

That final value brings us back to the distinction at the heart of this Integrity Idea. Forgiving people and asking forgiveness when we fail are essential to a culture of faithful integrity. Pursuing forgiveness as a strategy—treating anticipated legal or contractual consequences as the advance price of deliberate noncompliance—is something altogether different.

ESSENCE:  Integrity Ideas are specific practical actions a faithful leader can consider in leading faithfully through business a better way.

INTEGRITY IDEA: Forbid a “Forgiveness Strategy”

You may be wondering how the pursuit of faithful integrity through alignment with Biblical beliefs, principles, and priorities could call for forbidding forgiveness when forgiveness is such a central Biblical principle. Forgiveness as a strategy is very different from forgiveness as a policy. Forgiveness as a policy is about forgiving others and giving second chances, and it does align with business a better way. Forgiveness as a strategy is reflected in the business as usual maxim, “Ask forgiveness, not permission” when deciding whether to take organizational actions that might conflict with laws, contracts, or commitments. It reduces the decision whether to violate or risk violating a law, contract, or commitment to an economic cost-benefit calculation and aligns with a culture shaped by a WHY of Profit as Purpose. “Forbid a Forgiveness Strategy” is about faithful leaders establishing an integrity boundary that the organization will not knowingly violate or risk violating the letter or the spirit of laws, contracts, and commitments, even if the expected economic benefit of noncompliance might outweigh the potential economic cost—the metaphorical price of “forgiveness.”  “Forbid a Forgiveness Strategy” recognizes that Righteousness is a “first thing” to be prioritized in the pursuit of faithful integrity. It also recognizes that faithful leaders pursuing faithful integrity through business a better way toward Biblical flourishing are called to a higher standard than “Can We?”  That higher standard requires asking whether an action contributes to or undermines the organization’s bigger WHYs. It requires cultivating a “Should We?” culture with values “plumb lines” and integrity boundaries.  Rather than relying on standards set by the kingdom of the world, those plumb lines and boundaries are grounded in the Re-Imagined Purpose and Re-Imagined Values of the organization. 

COVERT-OVERT CONTINUUM (six Continuums for action): Policies

COVERT-OVERT RATING (several levels from Highly Covert to Highly Overt): Highly Covert

STAKEHOLDERS SERVED: Employees, Customers/Clients, Suppliers/Vendors, Community, Kingdom

Copyright © 2026 Integrous LLC.  Integriosity is a registered Service Mark of Integrous LLC.

Photo credit: Original image by Alex Shute on Unsplash
(photo cropped)