https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benefit_corporation
Unfortunately, just like with non-profits, these designations just end up being gamed.
You can't rule out evil because evil thwarts rules. Sometimes evil even makes rules to rule out good. It's a nice thought though.
Nice turn of phrase! I'm stealing it.
It could be changed through legislation that companies need to put the needs of all *stake*holders first.
This would mean chemical companies would have to take into account pollution past what is allowed by regulation, this would mean that Google would have to at least consider the well-being of web users as a whole when making decisions.
And, I believe, this would give people the basis on which to sue a company if they didn't take all stakeholders' interests into account, like creating a program like Jedi Blue.
The problem is that it's the shareholders who sign off on the CEO, upper management, and their salaries and bonuses. I don't see how you can incentivize people to not put the needs of those who control their paychecks above all else under this model.
Establish a category theory based foundation of human needs, which will necessarily include the environment and its needs, and all legislation must show how it meets the fundamental needs and all of their compositions, (eg. every need composes with the need for learning to result in the need to learn how to identify and meet any given need).
It's not anywhere as easy or free of potential villainy as you think.
A certain debit card company needs people to overdraft and pay back their accounts to take profit. The overdrafter's need the card issuer to not lock them out or overpenalize so they can try to get out of dire financial straits.
The U.S. wants a fair, just legal system. Prosecutors and law enforcement need the slack to focus on only pursuing "the worst cases".
Balancing acts are a fact of life.
Here's some clarification:
Of course the corporations will reverse engineer the legal code to get away with as much as they can. Of course they will evade taxes. Of course there will be a slow creep, where previously borderline illegal behavior is now the best practice adopted by everyone, and therefore unenforceable
If there's a sovereign on top of the hierarchy that doesn't have to answer to anyone, the corporations are way more docile, as seen in China or FDR-era USA, and proactively align their goals with the goals of the society
Again, I appreciate your statement of the problem. But I'm scared of your hypothetical solution.
It is convenient to be thought of as having attained your position by merit, and also to be able to define the criteria by which others must seek to displace or succeed you.
All those priveleges which every of theese corporations enjoy, some simple, like not publishing schematic for 1000$+ device, some complex, like making backroom deals harming millions of people in a some insignificant and obscure way daily, like showing certain ads to certain people. Some other evade taxes using laws in ways laws were never intended to be used.
To enumerate and prevent every abuse possible is not optimal spending of time.
What if there were no hard rules, but instead the whole playing filed was in favour of little men. What would be the the main idea behind such system? Maybe some kind of radical transparency?
This idea, principle should apply to every company and reward those who play not only by the rules, but to the common end: sustainable, transparent, non-abusive, respecting sosiety.
If only existed some simple rule that reward this behaviour.