Fair enough, but to survive a company needs to aim to grow - existing customers will always leave (die or go out of business). Making products that make their customers lives better, providing a living for its employees, and a service to its community, are by-products of survival and of the process of growing.
A well run 'evil' company that just cares about growing may do more good because of the people it gives a good living to than a poorly run social enterprise.
You probably noticed that I didn’t really object to any content in the article or your comment. It was all about the way you created an incorrect analogy to make fun of the article.
Could you say that the only purpose of the universe is to grow? Not at all - so the analogy wouldn't apply. As someone else said above, this actually is more relevant to publicly traded companies, which by law have an obligation to maximize shareholder value - or even more precisely, to the ethos that greed should be welcomed because it will lead to wealth and well-being for all. Sure, there's more nuance to it, so it's not a perfect analogy (no analogy is) but there's definitely some relevance to the comparison.
