It is reasonable to argue that, because
This has ugly consequences. For example, this principle says that it is proper (even obligatory!) to sell food with toxic additives, provided that this is legal and (taking everything into account) profitable. Likewise, if working conditions in an Indonesian factory can be greatly improved at little net cost, this principle says that doing so would be wrong, no matter how great the improvement or how small the net cost.
This widely held principle impose on corporate leaders what can amount to a fiduciary obligation to do evil, but if corporations act on behalf of their shareholders, how can it be right for them to do what informed shareholders would judge to be wrong?
If corporations exist to maximise value to their owners, then they must not do what their shareholders would reject, and should do what their shareholders would applaud. That is, they must act in a way consistent with the values of actual human beings, and must not act as mere profit-maximisers: Greed is wrong.
This is a radical idea, yet it follows directly from basic principles of the reigning free-market ideology. Words and ideas I offer here may be used freely and without attribution.
Homo oeconomicus, as almost universally misunderstood, is indeed a monster, and similarly debased economic thinking advocates that corporations be monstrous in the same way. That misunderstanding of rationality and of the proper purpose of corporations is poisonous and worth fighting. Words and ideas I offer here may be used freely and without attribution.