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.
I thought we were discussing total wealth and not wealth for some portion of the population, at the cost of somebody else's wealth (computed holistically, not just money but also health and overall wellbeing). By this logic, stealing increases wealth of the thief.