Making companies, or individual contributors even, responsible for society's continued failing seems to distract from the real task: democratically ensuring that no profit can be made from worsening the world. Otherwise it's rational to do so, and somebody will.

Btw, my team's objective was to strengthen a specific law, beneficial for the general public. Which we did. Just to provide some perspective on your view, which seems to be that executing fast with limited impediment by diverging opinions necessarily causes bad outcomes for society. Sometimes those diverging opinions are themselves harmful, and need to be ignored.