The article makes the argument that it is the anthropocentricity of human centered design that allows these companies to completely ignore the impacts on the environment and, in the long run, ironically, on the humans the design is supposed to focus on. I think it is probably an unnecessary part of the argument, as capitalism itself is quite good at incentivizing companies to ignore pesky negative externalities as long as they can get away with it.
Sorry, I don't understand your example. Actually, toilet paper does not improve things for humans, other than the act of using it for its purpose (which if you have a bidet, you don't need toilet paper). Toilet paper causes a great deal of environmental damage, from destroying Canadian forests [1] to, of course, climate change. [2]
1. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/mar/01/canada-boreal-...
2. https://www.globalcitizen.org/en/content/toilet-paper-enviro...
The anthrocentrism arguement is downright painfully inane. The issue isn't that it improves things for humans but that it causes environmental damage!
To provide a biting but illustrative example toliet paper improves things for humans. Using live endangered sea birds as toliet paper wouldn't make things better for the environment but worse for both humans and the environment.