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

https://www.cartercenter.org/health/guinea_worm/index.html

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dracunculiasis

What is “better”?

What is your “objective” authority or reference point to judge?

Companies that make chocolate

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.

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.

Yes: https://puri.sm/why-purism.

Sent from my Purism Librem 5 (GNU/Linux phone).

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.

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?

> 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.

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!

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.