I wish we, as a society, would label companies which cause more harm than good as such.
Lots of especially younger people see unbridled ambition and rule-breaking as a virtue. Everything is about making money and if you're not the one getting it, or worse, you're the person being victimized, you're dumb and weak.
Young people are more open in expressing it (like with Tate), but underlying ideas are not new.
I'd argue it's different today. Social media in particular has convinced a whole generation of people that if you don't have a garage full of supercars by the age of 23, you're a loser, and that there's almost no activity too shameful to engage in publicly in pursuit of wealth.
Like, "losers and suckers"?
How about "Producer Reports" where companies are evaluated on whether they actually produce anything of value first and foremost as a benchmark.
Completely separate from the financial data which is already well-covered elsewhere. Investors are already supposed to get the most out of the money angle.
But for any one product most people are neither consumers of the product nor investors in the company.
These are the vast majority who would benefit from better information on whether a company is worth having around, for everyone in general who is not an avid consumer nor investor.
That would probably be more helpful for "innocent bystanders" who want to better avoid being assimilated by forces they have no interest in but could end up quite costly anyway.