The only way you can "force" these companies to change is with a big money verdict. It's the only thing they understand.
Let's make this argument fun and add the take out company and put in lawyers:
The only way you can "force" these lawyers to change is with a big money verdict. It's the only thing they understand.
I think the statement is logically true. Lawyers respond to big money and act accrodinglu.
However I think your conclusion is flawed because I would argue that companies hate bad press even more than lawsuits. Lawsuits can be amortized over a number of years and simply another cost of doing business.
If lawyers were able to exact settlements where the majority of the settlement went into the company advertising its list of evils and faults I think even more good would be done.
You also have to ask yourself is the world better now than it was 10 or 20 years ago? Legal liability and insurance costs have become a huge issue now for playgrounds and activities involving children. Teachers can literally lose their jobs if they touch a child? Is this the ideal world that lawyers have been working towards? Perhaps the world is better now than it was then but we had to make some trade offs which have reduced our quality of life.
I think the world is now a much more fearful place now than the past people are much more afraid of being sued than they were in the past.
Is it worth it? I don't think so; companies still do evil (they just amortize it over a longer period now) and people live in fear of lawsuits.
An implicit assumption that the founders of this country had was the existence of "goodness" and "civic duty". Without goodness and civic duty even the finest legal system will operate in perverse and unpredictable ways. Corporations need goodness and civic duty as much as lawyers to do their job properly. If those two virutes die then both lawyers and corporations will not be able to serve the public good.