The article seems to focus on the claim of caring, versus actually caring.
The success-implications of caring is a lot more complicated. Obviously something inconsiderate can be very financially successful, but then the customers invent the guillotine, cutting short a winning streak. The lassez faire capitalists like to say that's letting the market decide. But I like to think that it is the brilliant but illiterate & poverty stricken ethicists who do the deciding at that point, although with heavy potential for a reign of terror. And it can get pretty messy.
The success-implications of caring is a lot more complicated. Obviously something inconsiderate can be very financially successful, but then the customers invent the guillotine, cutting short a winning streak. The lassez faire capitalists like to say that's letting the market decide. But I like to think that it is the brilliant but illiterate & poverty stricken ethicists who do the deciding at that point, although with heavy potential for a reign of terror. And it can get pretty messy.