Doing good for the world and getting rich are by no means mutually exclusive. People pay money for products and services that make their lives better and history has shown that economic growth is not a zero-sum game.
Where companies get into ethical trouble is when they try to maintain exponential growth long after it is possible to do so in a way that is moral. You can make a lot of money doing good for the world, but you can't sustain exponential growth indefinitely without crossing a few lines.
economic growth is an abstraction. i'm not talking about abstract notions of good and evil.
some people believe that there are systems where entropy decreases too. their mistake is the same as yours: the system you're looking at isn't big enough. someone, somewhere, pays for your growth. either it's the employees that you underpay or it's the commons that you trash or it's the competitors whose coattails you're riding on or etc and etc and etc.
you can't point to a single product that doesn't incur this kind of entropy increase somewhere along its supply chain.
edit: i'm getting downvoted. would love to know where i'm mistaken (other than that i'm assailing capitalism).
I didn't downvote, but I agree with GP that growth isn't a zero sum game. If you create the right product, then you and the people who pay for your growth all end up better off than you were before.
Where companies get into ethical trouble is when they try to maintain exponential growth long after it is possible to do so in a way that is moral. You can make a lot of money doing good for the world, but you can't sustain exponential growth indefinitely without crossing a few lines.