The Market Failures Approach (MFA) is one of the leading theories in contemporary business ethics. It generates a list of ethical obligations for the managers of private firms that states that they should not create or exploit market failures because doing so reduces the efficiency of the economy. Recently the MFA has been criticised by Abraham Singer on the basis that it unjustifiably does not assign private managers obligations based on egalitarian values. Singer proposes an extension to the MFA, the Justice Failures Approach (JFA), in which managers have duties to alleviate political, social, and distributive inequalities in addition to having obligations to not exploit market failures. In this paper I describe the MFA and JFA and situate them relative to each other. I then highlight a threefold distinction between different types of obligations that can be given to private managers in order to argue that a hybrid theory of business ethics, which I call the MFA + , can be generated by arguing that managers have obligations based on efficiency and duties based on equality to the extent that these latter obligations do not lead to efficiency losses. This argument suggests a novel theoretical option in business ethics, elucidates the issues that are at stake between the MFA and the JFA, and clarifies the costs and benefits of each theory.

市场失灵方法（MFA）是当代商业道德的主要理论之一。它为私人公司的管理人员提供了一系列道德义务，指出他们不应制造或利用市场失灵，因为这样做会降低经济效率。最近，外交部遭到亚伯拉罕·辛格（Abraham Singer）的批评，理由是该部没有合理地分配私人经理人基于平等主义价值观的义务。Singer提出了对MFA的扩展，即“司法失败法”（JFA），在该法中，管理人员除了承担不利用市场失灵的义务外，还有责任减轻政治，社会和分配上的不平等。在本文中，我描述了MFA和JFA，并将它们相对放置。在某种程度上，这些后继义务不会导致效率损失。该论点提出了商业道德中一种新颖的理论选择，阐明了MFA和JFA之间存在的问题，并阐明了每种理论的成本和收益。