And with all the money they make, they still don’t care about the environment.

Again, it’s wrong way of thinking. In 1:1 case when A company have extra spendings for “ethical” things (however we define them) then always B company wins as they have more savings for expanding their business. Company board could have legal problems if they would spend money in a way that’s helping their business opponents and in such case it’s terribly hard to prove that you did not intend to make loses for company you work for. It’s not ethical to require from someone ethical things without requiring it from everyone else.

To change that you would need to hold above 50% of every company shares and agree that you would drastically decrease company savings. What then? Would other investors be satisfied from that? Of course they would try to create new companies and even in such edge case everything starts all over again. You would need to be the only investor in the world to force ideas over business or change the overall market instead. This could only be done by changes in law and not because you protest against some company.

Even if you would organize 1 protest against 1 company and the investors would see that they would lose more money if they do not change their business model then they would still look for savings in other places to compensate loses. Market and economy are not an applications where you can simply change it’s configuration to change behaviour of one thing without causing changes in other places.

As said much more simple is doing this by law like:

Every company is supposed to collect at least as same amount of … (for example plastic) as is produced by it. Every company is obligated to pay utilization costs of said material in amount calculated as produced - collected.

Market would adapt to changes in law much more easily since every company would work on same rule and therefore to have more savings they would optimize the process of collecting said plastic. It’s not all as the economy would benefit from it since there would be more jobs related to it:

1. Someone needs to collect trash
2. Someone needs to utilize it
3. Someone needs to find a way how to do it faster
4. Someone needs to find out how to reduce cost of utilization

Imagine that every company would have such jobs or they would use some other company which is created to do that for other companies on fair costs. Anyway this means a lot of new job places, more money in circulation, better ecology and increase of economy.

What’s the only problem here? If one country would do that then many companies would move their factories as it already happened before. However if China would do that alone then companies there would calculate if it’s worth to move their companies to other countries. Therefore this needs to be applied to most or all countries - ideally if it would be processed by United Nations. From there it should be considered illegal to move company to country which does not respects such law or there should be at least some moving penalty. It’s not perfect, but easiest and best case which does not ruin entire market.

100% agree