I think it is maybe best reframed as "good founders from the perspective of those who control capital". Whether these people ultimately improve society, or cre

I think it is maybe best reframed as "good founders from the perspective of those who control capital". Whether these people ultimately improve society, or create a better sense of purpose for their employees, or provide visionary direction for the company at a higher rate than other founders is kind of orthogonal (or perhaps anticorrelated) to being good stewards of invested capital. Founders can, to some extent, get help with (or succeed financially despite the lack of) the other things, but I think it can be reasonably argued that if they're not personally regarded as good stewards of capital, then the whole enterprise is in doubt.