Playing to Win. The right way.

There is an article in the Financial Post today in the Comment Section entitled 'Playing to Win'. It was written by George Stalk a senior business consultant in Toronto. It's an interesting read; basically, Georgie is arguing that companies best serve their shareholders, the environment, indigenous peoples, and their employees when they are fighting tooth and nail to produce products while disregarding all of the externalities they cause. He argues that the best companies are the ones who focus on dominating the market instead of being a good corporate citizen and growing slowly. Unfortunately, his examples don't really make much sense. Ie. Wal mart not paying employees much, and... actually that's his only example, he then says something about Wal Mart being dominant. Yay, one example. To quote Georgie:
"Assume two companies both play by the rules. One company is highly focused on dominating the market; the other company is focused on increasing its market share by some marginal percentage, while being the kind of "good corporate citizen" that will win favour with the popular business press and consumer and political activists. You can be certain of this: First, the company focused on creating, and exploiting its competitive advantage will grow, prosper and crate more profits and jobs than the company worried about it's image."
Assume one company is focused on dominating the market (General Motors) and the other company is focused on increasing market share by some marginal percentage (Toyota). Wait Georgie, your argument just fell apart. Nice timing with the Article: The day after GM announced that it had to cut it's profit projection in half and today Toyota announced the opening of it's New F1 facility that it built with it's cash. In fact, Toyota makes so much money being a "good corporate citizen" which it then lends out to other companies that, in Japan, it is viewed as almost a central bank.
Way to go Georgie, dumbass.