This overtly binary and deterministic model is what the article argues against. I agree with them. There's a tautological interpretation of what you're saying

This overtly binary and deterministic model is what the article argues against. I agree with them. There's a tautological interpretation of what you're saying which, since it's tautology, is always true. It relies on "corporate benefit" being whatever the responsible parties in the corporation decide it is. But in the more usual "fiduciary duty" sense where "benefit" means direct impact on the bottom line, then no, this isn't true. Corporations are run by people, and not only can those people decide to forgo some profit in order to do the right thing, this actually happens from time to time. A ratchet prevents movement except in the designated direction, or it isn't a ratchet: so a ratchet is a bad metaphor here. But, as the article also argues, there's a decided asymmetry to the flow here. Proposals which benefit the bottom line are easy to make, and easy to achieve buy-in on. Ones which have the opposite effect cost reputational capital, they're risky. So even a well-meaning corporation which is entirely owned and operated by people with a firm commitment to a vision of corporate benefit which isn't blindly determined by the bottom line, will miss opportunities to fulfill that vision which would negatively affect that bottom line, for structural reasons.