That didn't use to be the case. In the US many laws were approved in the 1930s that forced businesses to keep stakeholders in mind, not just shareholders. That led the US to become the global powerhouse it became, and its middle class to boom. Then in the late 1970s came deregulation, and those laws were all reversed, resulting in the new two-class system Americans are learning to hate, a new robber barons era very reminiscent of the previous one.
Too bad most everyone is lost in the artificially engineered "culture war" to notice they have a common enemy, one who benefits from the proles fighting each other rather than uniting against them.
The lesson is that the general definition of success is warped. Say instead, for example, “the most profitable businesses are the most harmful to society”. One word change. Decouple “success” from being rich.
And yet... if survival isn't part of success, how meaningful is it?
It can be a bigger picture survival: successfully fighting Nazi Germany still got a lot of key people on successful missions killed.
But if you freely redefine "success" to be independent of the most basic parameters of longevity and ability, is it even meaningful? Without money, most ventures immediately fail. With more money, they have more options to react.
We may not like it, but money is a very handy, correlated metric with most useful definitions of "success".