>>56
Not at all, look at the present world how companies exploit workers (the overwhelming amount of major clothes retailers and brands) and the companies which directly interfere with their local political climate to further exploit them (the pre-1970's business practices of the United Fruit Company) or to further line their own pockets (the oil industry) or pollute the environment (any petrochemical company) or engage in unethical business practices (most).
Yet the companies who commit these acts are the richest in the world in spite of their crimes, you also have an assumption that people will be informed of these things (through a fair, unbiased media which isn't owned by parent corporations which also own the company or businesses in question) or through their own investigation, you also assume there is no monopoly (for example Microsoft is one of the most unethical corporations in terms of business practice yet still control 90% of the desktop market), you further assume the other company is not committing these crimes, what if they both commit such acts or what if the whole industry is corrupt?
You phrase your comment in a quite unspecific manner; the public is already quite apathetic in general to the unscrupulous behaviour, but saying that people will change to someone who does things 'the best way for the people' begs the question who? The consumers who aren't affected by sweatshops or deforestation and probably don't care or the workers who cannot buy the products and thus cannot 'use another company'.