10 ms·
Ask HN: Any companies that are objectively trying to make the world better?
- fsflover 2y agoYes: https://puri.sm/why-purism https://puri.sm/why-purism. Sent from my Purism Librem 5 (GNU/Linux phone).
- kome 2y agono, that's not the role of companies. companies just exist to make profits, if they make something useful along the way, it's incidental.
- Doctor_Fegg 2y agoThat’s not true for all types of companies. https://www.gov.uk/set-up-a-social-enterprise https://www.gov.uk/set-up-a-social-enterprise
- cen4 2y agoThe 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.
- viltran 2y agoI 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.
- aristofun 2y agoEvery 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?
- Hnaomyiph 2y agoA 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.
- aristofun 2y agoSorry, 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.
- basementcat 2y agoI 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"?
- aristofun 2y agoIncreasing 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).
- b20000 2y agoThey can’t even fix their hiring process so never mind about fixing the world.
- basementcat 2y agoDon’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.nature.com/articles/d41586-024-02306-8 https://www.cartercenter.org/health/guinea_worm/index.html https://www.cartercenter.org/health/guinea_worm/index.html https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dracunculiasis https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dracunculiasis
- aristofun 2y agoWhat is “better”? What is your “objective” authority or reference point to judge?
- jbotwell 2y agoYes, 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.
- aristofun 2y agoI 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.
- DANmode 2y agoTell us what you think is wrong with the world and we'll give you your list.
- eimrine 2y agoClimate, wars, statism and not enough fast progress in Mathematics.
- JSDevOps 2y agoCompanies that make chocolate
- jsgih 2y agoChocolate 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)
- speedgoose 2y agoYes, my company is a not for profit multi-disciplinary research organisation. We are trying.
- hulitu 2y ago> Ask HN: Any companies that are objectively trying to make the world better? No.
- mikhael28 2y agoOf 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.
- hiAndrewQuinn 2y agoFree 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.
- ailef 2y ago*in a perfect world with no monopolies, no information asymmetry and probably a dozen other caveats.
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]
- chris-orgmenta 2y agoBy '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 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.
- solardev 2y agoMany 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?
- mkpp 2y ago[flagged]