As much as it pains me to use a reductionist metaphor, I'm going to. Suppose my community has a finite amount of resource X available to us that we need to live and and we only require 75% of that resource. A company comes along and offers individuals a whole pile a money to sell of their claims to the resource, so much so that the company now controls 90% of that resource. The company begins boxing up that resource and shipping it off to people who will pay more money for that resource. My community now has meet their need another way, and probably in a more expensive way.

Regardless of how the resource should have been managed, and what the authorities in my community should have done to ensure we had the necessary access to our resource I think I can still point a finger at the company say "If that company didn't exist they wouldn't control our resource."

Obviously the metaphor is riddled with unconsidered complexities but I use it as a way of raising the question of at least an ounce of culpability of the company.