A law of relative responsiblity?

Someone asked me the other day whether the companies that are "bad" in one sense tend to make up for it in other ways. I'm not sure, but it's interesting to think about. There may well be companies that fail on multiple counts but somehow stay below the radar of public criticism, and one hopes that at least a few companies can become all-around contributors... but there may be something to this... I read an article that same day about all the donation that Altria (a tobacco company) gives - it's one of the top givers in the US. The biggest giver is Wal-Mart, which has significant labor and community issues. Oil companies tend to give heavily to charity as well. So maybe some negative can be balanced with other positives, and it's not so uncommon to see this balancing act? Naturally, the next question is whether this is OK. Do we as a society allow companies to sell their soul and buy it back? Is the market for good a sort of tradable-permits market, where you can tally up your virtues from different sources, as long as they add up to your vices? Or do we expect a minimum level of performance from companies on all fronts, or at least on the most important ones? Have you noticed that I tend to ask too many questions and provide too few answers? OK, I'll work on that.