No Meta Status Orgs
In health and medicine, we have many government agencies, and private philanthropies, devoted to many specific medical conditions, and also to studying and reforming medicine in general, at a meta level.
In education and research, we also have many government agencies, and also private philanthropies, devoted to many specific topic areas, and also to studying and reforming education and research as a whole.
Regarding commerce and markets, we also have many government agencies, and private philanthropies, devoted to both many specific industries and product areas, and also to studying and reforming business and the economy as a whole.
Similarly, for energy and the environment, we have both charities and agencies devoted to specific energy sources and enviromental problems, and also meta orgs devoted to those categories as a whole.
But I see one big exception to this pattern. Regarding status and prestige, we have many organizations devoted to assigning prestige in particular areas of life. Such as universities, academic journals, US NWR college ratings, the Academy awards, and many other award-granting orgs. However, no large orgs devote themselves to studying or reforming status and prestige in general, at the meta level.
That is, no big orgs, public or private, try to measure our status markers, to see and track which features and virtues most contribute to status. Or try to create ways to quickly and easily measure individual status. And no org explore possible reforms, by which we might switch to better status markers.
Boyd and Richardsen, top analysis of cultural evolution, plausibly suggest that what is most going wrong with out culture today is putting to much weight on education as a status marker. That’s exactly the sort of thing that a big status org, analogous to the ones we have in health, education, and commerce, would be all over.
The obvious explanation to me: we are unwilling to admit that status is a thing, or that it is important. Do-gooders just can’t admit to seeing it.
The challenge with status is that, unlike the other areas you discuss (commerce, medicine, education) there is no useful general criterion for is A > B. Human status is relative to a specific community of observers. Yes, you could ask a random selection of people is A > B, and get an answer, but the answer wouldn't be useful because it would diverge so much from how specialists would rank status.
This problem, I think, is why in our culture as a whole wealth is often taken as a proxy for status. It's a common denominator that more-or-less correlates with status/power/influence.
https://xkcd.com/927/