defining "evil" would be a good start, though we seem to have failed to do it for the last ten thousand years :)
More seriously: there are plenty of "ethical certification" thingies, and lots of finance entities who only work with "ethical" products.
This things just don't seem to have trickled down from (arguably) major evils businesses (child exploitation, war profits, environmental disruption etc) to lesser ones (predatory pricing, patent trolling, exclusive dealing etc).
I think the best way to tackle this would be defining specific tenets the way that the FSF does with freedoms 0-4. They don't just say "You have to be free!" ... there is the legally-binding license itself, containing some light legalese, as well as the 4 freedoms specifying the idea to the common man, despite clearly.
So, a license that comprises "We won't be evil. We promise!" wouldn't be good enough, but the some clear rules could be set. The non-evil most people would care about would probably be related to privacy.
I agree that specifying all of the business practices which many people believe are evil would be a non-trivial task dependent on the nature of the company.
More seriously: there are plenty of "ethical certification" thingies, and lots of finance entities who only work with "ethical" products.
This things just don't seem to have trickled down from (arguably) major evils businesses (child exploitation, war profits, environmental disruption etc) to lesser ones (predatory pricing, patent trolling, exclusive dealing etc).
Possibly a matter of time, but a long one IMVHO.