You're not distinguishing between remote and proximate cooperation with evil, or material and formal cooperation. No one is claiming that buying a pair of sneakers from a company that uses part of its funds for an evil end makes you guilty of the crime. If that was the standard, then forget 3 hops. Everyone would be saddled with an unbelievable amount of guilt, and trying to avoid it would make life unlivable. But more to the point, you aren't actually guilty according to the principle of double effect. We do not have in life the luxury of avoiding all evil, so we can only do what is best, and that often means allowing evil side effects, within bounds.
I do have problems with the author's views, of course, and I think Ed Feser's article "Justice or Revenge?" can explain at least one of them [0]. But I am not opposed to retributive justice. It is part and parcel of justice. Mercy presupposes the legitimacy of retribution as well as just deserts; it would be a meaningless idea otherwise.
[0] https://edwardfeser.blogspot.com/2012/09/justice-or-revenge....