At first I thought justice would be easy. It's doing and knowing what is right. But that's not really it. That's being just. But justice implies balance (that's why its image is the scales). Justice implies equality (as in equal shares or opportunity) for all. And justice also implies a reckoning (once again a balancing or weighing). This could lead to redistribution (which tips us towards charity). It could also mean punishment (as in “you did something bad now something equally bad must happen to you in order for the scales to balance”). A phrase often associated with justice (at least in movie Westerns) is “you're going to pay for what you've done” (again implies that an act was committed which threw things out of balance resulting in an unequal situation). In order to restore balance (which means bring justice) a price (or act deemed to be equal in magnitude) must be paid (or performed--such as “a life for a life,” “a hand for a hand” Etc).
A quick side digression: Could some of this type of thinking have motivated animal or human sacrifices? Sure they always said sacrifices were to please or appease the gods but what if the thinking ran like this: “I have killed this person (or animal) as a gift to the gods. Now the eternal scales are out of balance. In order to restore balance the gods must return the gift” (hopefully in the form of better crops, or rain, or protection from an enemy, or whatever). If the gods are just they won't let the imbalance stand.
But I digress. Viewed this way, charity is a form of social justice. One segment of society is in need. Another has too much. There is an imbalance. In order to restore justice (i.e. balance the scales) a redistribution must take place.
Justice and charity are therefore both dependent on the idea that balance (or equity) is natural and desirable. But are these just idealistic constructs? What if there is no natural law which demands balance and fairness. In physics they say the universe always tends towards disorder (entropy). So maybe scientifically, imbalance is the natural order of things.
But this goes against the natural human desire for order and predictability. We want the universe to be just, and we want to be treated fairly, and we want to have our needs met. As discussed in previous meditations, a leader exists to meet the needs of an organization. If an organization is composed of people (and most are) and if those people want fairness and to have their needs met (and most do) then a leader should be an advocate for justice and thereby an advocate for redistribution when an imbalance exists and therefore a proponent of charity.
All of this however, is simply an exercise in logic and rhetoric. There are numerous exceptions to each generality I've made. But as an individual I believe in logic and the use of thought to generate and then execute a rational mode of behavior. So even though physics and entropy may not agree with the need for orderly balance, I feel it is a noble goal to pursue in the leadership of an enterprise...