Business Ethics and Equality

Author(s):  
Abraham A. Singer

This chapter shows why concerns for equality must affect business ethics. In the last chapter, we saw that the market failures approach takes the theory of second best seriously when it comes to the first fundamental theorem; however, it does not seem to apply it to its own reliance on the second fundamental theorem. Just as we ask corporate executives to constrain and restrain themselves according to the spirit of efficiency-promoting laws in order to achieve second-best efficiency, market actors ought to shoulder some of the burden of justice in order to achieve second-best social justice. To this end this chapter introduces the concept of “justice failure” as a concept parallel to “market failure” and sketches out what a justice failures approach to business ethics would look like. The chapter concludes by responding to potential objections.

Author(s):  
Charlie Blunden

AbstractThe 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.


2020 ◽  
Vol 31 (1) ◽  
pp. 138-161
Author(s):  
Jeff Frooman

The market failures approach (MFA) to business ethics argues that economic theory regarding the efficient workings of a market can generate normative prescriptions for managerial behaviour. It argues that actions that inhibit Pareto optimal solutions are immoral. However, the approach fails to identify goods that should be regulated or prohibited from the market, something common to the moral limits to markets (MLM) approach to business ethics. There are, however, numerous assumptions underlying Paretian efficiency, including some about the preferences of market participants. Trade in some goods violates some of these assumptions, and so these goods are morally suspect and can be understood to indicate that the market for these goods is not moral. This creates grounds sufficient for regulating, and possibly prohibiting, these goods. To help determine whether it is then necessary to regulate the goods, I propose a supplementary economic analysis to ascertain why an assumption regarding a particular preference is being violated.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document