Ask HN: Any companies that are objectively trying to make the world better?
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.
Are you interested in any issue in particular?
By 'objectively' do you mean something like:
"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.
Don’t know if this fits your criteria but the Carter Center is working to eradicate Guinea Worm.
https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-024-02306-8
What is “better”?
What is your “objective” authority or reference point to judge?
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 don't agree that there can't be objective value judgements at all.
But choosing the authority is not a trivial task in each particular case and can give 180 degrees opposite answers on the same question.
Companies that make chocolate
Chocolate contains significant quantities of heavy metals so they’re making the world better but also making it worse.
(Just proving the point that in almost every case there’s a judgement call to be made about how net good something is)
What sort of chocolate are you eating?
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.
Of course. If there weren’t, companies like Facebook wouldn’t be able to get away with saying that THEY are making the world a better place.
If there was no truth to the story, there couldn’t be half-truths because no one would have any intuitive or reasonable basis to believe them.
Free trade benefits both parties by definition - otherwise the 2 parties would say "Salud" and part ways.
"The world" is usually defined so as to include those 2 parties, whoever they are. So I'd say all companies are at least trying to do this.
*in a perfect world with no monopolies, no information asymmetry and probably a dozen other caveats.
Yes, my company is a not for profit multi-disciplinary research organisation. We are trying.
Tell us what you think is wrong with the world and we'll give you your list.
Climate, wars, statism and not enough fast progress in Mathematics.
Yes: https://puri.sm/why-purism.
Sent from my Purism Librem 5 (GNU/Linux phone).
Unless you need a refund. Then you'll be waiting for literal years!
You're not entitled to a refund with the new terms. So it's irrelevant for new buyers.
no, that's not the role of companies. companies just exist to make profits, if they make something useful along the way, it's incidental.
That’s not true for all types of companies.
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.
What’s the point of the question?
Here's a list of the Top 20 Global Polluters:
https://www.thecorporategovernanceinstitute.com/insights/new...
I don't know how much they're making the world better (cranks up the AC).
And here's an article about (slurps coca-cola) the biggest plastic polluters, who in 2021 were named as such four years running.
https://www.breakfreefromplastic.org/2021/10/25/the-coca-col...
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).
Not every company increases wealth though. Selling addictive poison (cigarettes) for example does not increase wealth.
I agree this is a good example.
Another one is weapons selling companies.
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.
It does increase wealth for shareholders. This is why there is so much capital allocated for opioids as well as other extralegal pharmaceuticals.
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.
Wealth creation is not a zero sum game.
Except directly stealing - wealth is created.
For example — even if all the profits from oil on earth goes to few pockets it is still benefitial for the world.
Because those pockets still gonna spend those money one way or another and contribute to economy growth eventually.
This is how Russia was flourishing on 2000s - oil profits mostly wen to putin's gang, but ordinary people quality of life still grew substantially.
Sorry, nope.
Something so vague as “making world better/worse” can be “self evident“ only for ignorant and arrogant, or brainwashed people.
Anyway, give us please couple examples of detremential companies and also a source of authority to judge “objectively”, to have a meaningful debate.
> Ask HN: Any companies that are objectively trying to make the world better?
No.
They can’t even fix their hiring process so never mind about fixing the world.