The emergence of Companies in society wasn't to make the world better but to conduct business more efficiently. Sometimes there is alignment between those 2 things. Sometimes there is not. Since they aren't designed for it, don't look to them to solve social problems.
Making your neighborhood better is much less complex than making the world better. So look in your own neighborhood for groups, cooperatives, associations, societies that are working on specific issues. They might not capture as much Attention as large companies, but that's where you will see cool stuff happening.
Many 501c3 nonprofits are technically companies in the sense that they are formally incorporated, and often run like companies by people with prior experience in the for-profit sector. They also hire staff, do marketing, manage accounts, etc like a regular company. The difference is that their excess revenue doesn't become "profit" for owners (since there are no owners or shareholders) but rather get used in other ways, like (hopefully) expanding their impact and services, or paying employee wages, or saving for the future, or (cynically but realistically) executive compensation.
Separately, there are also companies that try to do good alongside making a profit, usually through a mixture of both corporate values (eg sustainability); legal ownership differences (co-ops, ESOPs, Benefit Corporations, etc.) that try to distribute ownership with the people who work there or enshrine other priorities into their charter; and also third party certifications (Fair Trade, B Corp, organic, Rainforest Alliance, etc.) Casually, they're sometimes called triple bottom line or "three P" companies (people, planet, profit).
There's lots of organizations in both categories working every day to try to advance some cause or work on some issue. Whether that's making the world "better" depends on your values and the organization's effectiveness, but they are certainly trying.
"A subjective but widely/generally agreed Average Utilitarianism with high distribution of utility (e.g. low Gini Coefficient)"?
Water Aid immediately springs to my mind, but it is no longer recommended by GiveWell. https://www.givewell.org/international/health/water. Which highlights some of the problems with this objectivity and effort.
Perhaps malaria charities are the current 'best bang for buck' / best targeting 'a better world' with the fewest competing interests.
Yes, I would echo this. Stated more baldly, the term "better" and the term "objective" are antithetical to each other in this context. Since OP is explicitly asking for a value judgment (I don't know any other way to interpret "better"), lack of objectivity is part of the question. Not that there is anything wrong with asking for value judgments based on the opinions of a technically-minded group. But use of the word objective does not make it so.
I think we need to understand the term 'world better' from different perspectives. In my opinion, enabling an ordinary person to have a job and earn a salary, to support themselves and their family, and to have the material conditions to pursue their interests and hobbies, also makes the world better to some extent.
Every real and legally existing company makes the world better than without it.
Even if only by providing income for employees and paying taxes.
But most companies also take part in producing or redistributing something valuable.
And yes, to make an omelet you need to break some eggs.
Show me a living person (let alone a company) who doesn't produce any waste and who never does any evil - and yet here we are, still evolving, still growing economy, still improving the quality of life all over the world.
Despite all the problems, crisises, setbacks etc.
That is as objective as you can possibly get in such a generic discussion.
I guess they're “distributing” something, but I don't think it's really that valuable. I guess it means some folks can pay their rent, so that makes it morally and ethically okay!
If you make generic judgement about better/worse — you can't take only one of many sides of the story.
Every human being produces a lot of waste - natural and synthetic.
Does it make every human being morally and ethically bad?
I follow the same logic that you implied in your comment.
If you're going to solve for example plastic problem — would you need money and other resources for it? Where those money gonna come from if not from the biggest taxpayers?
Shutting down plastic producing companies is not a solution because — you solve plastic (and maybe few more) problem, but you A. reduce the quality of life B. yes, increase unemployment C. reduce wealth and money that could be invested in solving more problems than originally created.
Therefore it is extremely stupid to call a company generally "bad" just based on some environment related variable and ignoring thousands of others.
Don't you see how complex and fragile this good/evil balance is?
A wild and mostly poor take. I understand the guidelines requiring more substantive posts, but I believe the overwhelming examples of detrimental companies are self evident.
I think part of the complication is that perhaps different people have different definitions for "better". For example, I posted about an organization that is working to eradicate a hideous disease that harms poor people in developing parts of the world and it was downvoted. (It’s ok, I take no offense) Perhaps it is easier to agree that any company that helps make you wealthier is helping to make the world "better"?
Increasing wealth in general (!) is always better for the world even if only because it makes more humanitarian missions possible (you need money to help others).
But even then a strong case can be made that without those companies people would still satisfy the demand via black market causing same harm bit without money benefits to society.
So still it is better with companies than without.
Making your neighborhood better is much less complex than making the world better. So look in your own neighborhood for groups, cooperatives, associations, societies that are working on specific issues. They might not capture as much Attention as large companies, but that's where you will see cool stuff happening.